by Perry 47 Replies latest jw friends
Cellomould,
You can view the complete Howard Zinn Collection at :
Islam-Online Web Site - Your Source To The World Of Islam! ...
And, you can view even more of Eric Margolis scholarly left-wing propaganda at:
TorontoMuslims.com ---- where Toronto Muslims go first
Thanks for pointing out the Islamic perspective.
Edited by - Perry on 9 November 2002 9:58:51
Edited by - Perry on 9 November 2002 10:1:55
Edited by - Perry on 9 November 2002 10:5:23
Too bad Khadafi's infant daughter died, one columnist wrote. Too bad, he said, but that's the game of war. Well, if that's the game, then let's get the hell out of it, because it is poisoning us morally, and not solving any problem. It is only continuing and escalating the endless cycle of retaliation which will one day, if we don't kick our habits, kill us all...
It is very sad that Khadafi's infant daughter was killed but we haven't heard anything from Libya since that bombing. I actually supported Reagan with that action. There is never one way to look at something you just have to use a scale of common sense. The article on North Korea is a prime example of what I'm talking about. There are far larger threats to the security of the U.S. than Iraq. I would support Bush if he decided to go into North Korea for two reasons: 1. North Korea is much more dangerous and unstable. 2. China will no longer back NK so we have a real chance of winning unlike the first go around.
edited to add: Farkel, I deleted my junk mail without really looking at it so if you've sent me an email please send it again. Doh!
Edited by - gsx1138 on 9 November 2002 11:33:30
Perry,
You are an unfortunate victim of ideological warfare. The man (Zinn) whom you attempted to malign is not such a victim. He presented his perspective, which is certainly not limited by his ethnic or religious background.
Tell me, what would be your perspective if you had been born a Muslim?
cellmould
Random Task made a good point (well, at least it was a statement of the obvious):
there are evil people out there who want us dead, we have to be aware of that fact and act accordingly.
That there are people who want to kill U.S. citizens is a sombering fact that should influence our behavior. Indeed! But it does not follow that any action that comes out of George W's disturbed psyche qualifies as appropriate action. This is the area where people need to learn to think for themselves.
Again, follow this argument: 'There are evil people out there who want us dead'
That 'there are evil people out there' is actually a conclusion based upon the real fact 'there are people who want us dead'.
Action taken should address the facts, in order to change them... correct? So the action should address this question 'why are there people who want us dead?'
If you assume there is no reason, and blindly kill all the people you suspect 'want us dead', have you addressed the facts?
No.
As stated in L.A. Confidential, "Just the facts, Jack, just the facts"
Your action might (very likely, to be honest) result in the multiplication of 'people out there who want us dead'.
I will concede that 'the people who want us dead' are very ignorant people. And yes, this allows for what we call 'evil' to manifest itself in their behavior. Knowing that these people are ignorant, though, actually benefits us. Why? If the U.S. took action to ensure that it interfered not at all with the rights of citizens of Islamic countries, for example, how would these people know the U.S. from Abraham?
Pre-emptive war, however, will ensure that for many generations to come there will be 'people who hate us'.
cellmould
You are an unfortunate victim of ideological warfare.
Would you care to elaborate how this is so?
The man (Zinn) whom you attempted to malign is not such a victim.
Can you please explain how I attempted to malign this man. Whether he is a victim or not is irrelevant.
He presented his perspective, which is certainly not limited by his ethnic or religious background.
His leftist pacifist perspective and critisms of the U.S. mesh well with the propaganda spewn from Islamic sources. Why is it that he appears to be a poster boy for Islam? I wonder what motive they could possibly have in fostering pacifism in the US?
Tell me, what would be your perspective if you had been born a Muslim?
Tell me, what was your perspective when you were a JW? Very limited wasn't it. Muslims are dominated by similar religious propaganda and have a similar narrow perspective in my opinion. My post was simply designed to illustrate how people with that perspective viewed these writers.
Cellomould,
You seem to be a person trying to make sense out of madness. Does the WT make sense? Only when you are in it. You assume that the US has violated the rights of citizens in Islamic countries. How has the US done so?
Every sane person wants to avoid war. Insane people cannot be reasoned with. History bears this out over and over again. Civilized people will sooner or later have to fight against the agression of evil. Trying to understand that evil is fruitless. Crushing it is hard enough.
Edited by - Perry on 9 November 2002 23:32:44
Edited by - Perry on 9 November 2002 23:33:2
Perry,
You asked me to elaborate on how you maligned Zinn, but then you elaborated instead:
His leftist pacifist perspective and critisms of the U.S. mesh well with the propaganda spewn from Islamic sources. Why is it that he appears to be a poster boy for Islam? I wonder what motive they could possibly have in fostering pacifism in the US?
To be honest, most of your conclusions you have drawn without justification. That is why I said you have fallen victim to ideology. The broad generalizations about Muslims and Islamic culture reflect that you, too, are attempting to understand something that troubles you.
But you draw an entirely arbitrary line here. You imply that any attempts at reconciliation are based upon justification of what 'evils' have been committed. No advocates for peace whose writing I have read attempts to justify the commission of evil.
Most of your concluding comments (in both of your recent comments) I more or less agree with, or at least I have sympathy for what you try to say.
Civilized people will sooner or later have to fight against the agression of evil. Trying to understand that evil is fruitless. Crushing it is hard enough.
But I disagree that 'trying to understand that evil is fruitless'. We have to start with examining our own faults. This is neither anti-American nor misanthropic.
I'll speak from personal experience for a moment.
I have met several people who used to be gang members or otherwise shady characters. The conversations that ensued have been some of the most honest and enlightening moments in my recent memory. Mind you, these are people you would tend to avoid if you saw them in the street. They would admit readily that their former lifestyle was atrocious.
But they also were able to see that their own former attitudes were reflections of the attitudes of the more 'politically correct' members of society. The obvious is our devotion to money, which we hypocritically try to ascribe to the 'lower classes' of people.
But my overall point is that the evil that is hardest to 'crush' is that within ourselves and our own insititutions. It's certainly harder than just sending missiles at enemies; prehaps you would agree.
cellmould
That there are people who want to kill U.S. citizens is a sombering fact that should influence our behavior. Indeed! But it does not follow that any action that comes out of George W's disturbed psyche qualifies as appropriate action. This is the area where people need to learn to think for themselves.
Why poison the well when considering what our nations' president is reccommending we do about this situation? Shouldn't men of scholar such as yourself concern themselves with facts? Certainly if it was proven that George Bush had a disturbed psyche, that would cast doubt on his ability to think clearly. Is that the idea you are trying to sell through childish argument and inuendo?
Do you have one single fact concerning concerning Mr. Bush's psyche? If not, you should be ashamed to write such unsubstatiated tabloid trash.
Again, follow this argument: 'There are evil people out there who want us dead'That 'there are evil people out there' is actually a conclusion based upon the real fact 'there are people who want us dead'.
That is complete and utter non-sense. The only way your logic can make sense is to assume that some people who want to murder us are not evil. When you can prove that murder is not evil, then I will accept that one does not follow the other. Otherwise, your logic is extremely faulty and borne out of ignorance.
Action taken should address the facts, in order to change them... correct? So the action should address this question 'why are there people who want us dead?'
Wrong. The above is nothing more than meaningless drivel. How can addressing a "fact" change a "fact"? A fact is an unchanageble piece of evidence.
When detectives investigate a crime scene, they don't address the facts in order to change the facts. They don't necessarily address the facts to determine why a person engages in a particular behavior. Primarily the facts are gathered to determine if a crime has been committed. Do the facts show that laws have been broken? If so, does it justify punishment as a protection for law abiding people? Your question is really one asking why there is evil in the world. That is a philosophical question better left to the social scientists.
If you assume there is no reason, ...
More inane ramblings. Show me where I assumed people who murder do not have a reason? Of course they have "reasons". Every screwball murderer on death row had a "reason" for commiting their heinous crimes.
and blindly kill all the people you suspect 'want us dead', have you addressed the fact.
Who is "blindly killing all suspects? Addressed what fact? Are you calling their justifications for commiting murder facts? If so, you are simply showing a degree of ignorance on the subject you are addressing that is truly embarrassing. Their justifications are what is known as motive.
Jesus! Would someone get a frickin' education around here!
Here is your solution:
If the U.S. took action to ensure that it interfered not at all with the rights of citizens of Islamic countries, for example, how would these people know the U.S. from Abraham?
I ask you a second time; how has the US violated the rights of Islamic citizens? Please explain how the US can "take action" to "not interfere"? That is a non-sequitur. Please present some proof or at least some examples for your argument, if you hope to not appear supremely foolish and illadvised.
To be honest, most of your conclusions you have drawn without justification. That is why I said you have fallen victim to ideology.
Like the conclusion of murder being evil? Oh please! Just look at your above staement. How can anyone with half an educated neuron fail to see that your above conclusion is based on nothing more than a combination of words that happen to serendipitously fall out out your head? You have not demonstrated that any of my conclusions are without justification. Then, you have the tamarity to assume that justifies you labeling me a victim of ideology?
I laugh at the very thought of such non-sense.
Most of your concluding comments (in both of your recent comments) I more or less agree with, or at least I have sympathy for what you try to say.
I have no sympathy whatsoever for idiocy that sacrifices our national security.
But I disagree that 'trying to understand that evil is fruitless'. We have to start with examining our own faults. This is neither anti-American nor misanthropic.
Examining our own faults is good and fine. However, understanding evil, if that can be done at all does not always stop it.
But they also were able to see that their own former attitudes were reflections of the attitudes of the more 'politically correct' members of society. The obvious is our devotion to money, which we hypocritically try to ascribe to the 'lower classes' of people.
So in other words, these ex-gang members were able through education, to see that their deviance was born out of a disparity between wealth perception and their actual resources. That's a good thing. What changed though? Did their chances of gaining wealth change? Did their available resources change? No. Their attitude changed regarding the liklihood of gaining wealth as easy as a very few in our society do. The disparity became smaller as their thinking came closer to reality..... as a result, they became less deviant.
Educated people know that the main problem with capitalism is that the system demands that there be winners and losers. It is played with limited funds much like a monopoly game. Everyone cannot "win". We try to implement financial safety nets for people but the reality is the same. Everyone simply cannot win.
That might be not have such a negative impact if it wasn't for the fact that no matter where we start out in life, be it near the top or near the bottom all citizens have virtually the same concept of success regardless of their ability to get there.
Let me explain to you why the same success you experienced with ex-gang members will not work with Islamic despots and their supporters.
Did it ever even occur to you that deviance is culturally bound? That is, it is relative to the cultural and ideological context in which it is found. Mistakes in judgment are often made when one culture tries to understand another culture's practices and rituals by their own standard of deviance.
You are assuming that if we try hard enough to understand, and try hard enough to stay out of their business, that these despots and their supporters will eventually see their murderous rampages as deviant. They will come love America or at least be willing to share the planet in peace.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Their aggression toward western culture is simply the norm. It is not viewed as deviant at all. It is viewed as their duty. They don't know that they are ignorant! Furthermore, much of their culture will need to change for many of them to see certain common behaviors, like suicide bombing as deviant. This is the very thing that the leaders of rougue nations seek to prevent. Granted, it is a sad situation. But no amount of "understanding" will change that reality as long as they are in a repressed societal context.
The fundamental mistake in your reasoning is transference. You assume that deviance here, is deviance there. It most certainly is not. We must guage our appropriate responses, not from some ficticous universal paradigm, but from the cultural context in which the agression is born.
Edited by - Perry on 10 November 2002 16:9:13
