History doomed to repeat itself...

by Reborn2002 67 Replies latest jw friends

outoftheorg

I enjoyed your reply Focus. It was well thought and delivered. I agree with much of it.
However I think two more things must be taken into account.
It is true that the US has acted rashly and not considered the best interest of other countries in their dealings on the world scene. However It should be pointed out that the extremist groups in mostly Arab and or Muslim comunities in the middle east are attacking not only the US. There has been a loss of lives and disruption of governments in the Philipines, Africa, Australia-Bali, Europe etc. So their wrath is not reserved for the US only.
Also a lot of the misery and miserable lives these same attackers blame on the actions of the US are caused by their own disreputable governments and so called leaders. Their own leaders strive for immense wealth and power at the cost of their citizens.
The second thing I believe should be considered is this.
Regardless how or who did what to cause this situation to arise, we are now faced with an Immediate threat. Not something down the road. The actions and changes in the conduct you wish to see the US undertake, must also be followed by all the other countries in the world. This change in behaviour will take a long time to have any affect on the present situation.
Unfortunatly I do not see a way to protect ourselves from the immediate threat, than to use some of the very strict legal and military actions neither of us want.
The world has been around a long time and this very hatred we see today occurs over and over again. Although I think your solution is a good one, I fear that we humans are too selfish to put it into effect.
Outoftheorg- of the whats wrong with us class.
NeonMadman

Then HOW can I ask, does it seem acceptable to you to paint ALL Arabs (which some have confused with ALL Muslims) with the same brush?!?!?

That is misrepresenting what is being said in this thread, Lisa. I, at least, was very specific in saying that I thought the Bush administration was justified in detaining foreign nationals who were in violation of the law, and especially so if they originated from countries known to support or sponsor terrorism. Arabs only? Not necessarily. As I said before, if it were Norwegians carrying out the many terrorist attacks against America and her allies, then I think we should be placing them under special scrutiny. But it isn't; almost exclusively, it has been persons of Arabic descent. Frankly, under current conditions, I don't think it would be a bad idea to keep an eye on North Koreans, either. And they certainly aren't Arabs.
I specifically indicated, however, that I did not advocate action against law-abiding American citizens who simply happen to be of Arabic descent. That's part of why I considered Jason's complaint to be less than reasonable. He kept comparing the situation in the article he posted to the plight of law-abiding Japanese-American citizens who were interned during WWII. There is no reasonable comparison. Back then, law-abiding citizens were imprisoned solely on the basis of their ancestry. In the article we are discussing, illegal aliens engaging in criminal activity were rounded up and detained. That, in my opinion, is completely legitimate.
Several have argued that, if we do this to Arabs, we need to do it to Irish, Cuban, Chinese, etc. But there is a pattern here. The vast majority of terrorist attacks have been carried out by Arab Muslims, some of whom were able to perpetrate their evil by 'slipping through the cracks' in our immigration system. It's time those cracks were sealed. And, in the absence of unlimited resources to seal every crack at the same time, you seal the cracks that are doing the most damage. In this case, that is with regard to immigrants from a certain group of Arab countries, which have been identified as the source of terror. Is that racist? I don't think so; I think it's the only sensible thing to do.
You are correct when you say that Arabs and Muslims are not identical groups. But the fact is that the vast majority of Arabs are Muslims, and the vast majority of Muslims are Arabs. There will, therefore, tend to be some natural identification between the two. And it should be borne in mind that Muslims belong to a religion whose holy book advocates the killing of unbelievers who cannot be converted. Clearly, some Muslim groups take these words literally, and we see the results all over the world, and specifically in New York on 9/11/01.
Focus argues that, in targeting these groups, we are fueling the fire that will bring them more recruits. I think it's far too late for that. The 9/11 attacks were carried out by about 20 people, and over 3000 died. There are millions of people in these terror-supporting nations that hate the USA, and they have all the recruits they could possibly need. Only a few need be technically adept; the majority need nothing more than a willingness to die for the cause. You can bet that the guy who walks into Times Square with a backpack nuke won't be a nuclear scientist. He'll be some 20 year old fanatic kid who doesn't need to do anything more than push a button to get to his 72 virgins. Everything will have been set up for him in advance.
And racism? That's a word that gets tossed about far too much these days. I remember reading recently about a local liberal group (I forget where) protesting that a gas station instituted a policy of paying before pumping. They objected to the policy on the grounds that it was "racist". How could such a policy be racist, if it applied to all customers equally? Obviously, the liberals think that only minority group members would drive away without paying, so they are being targeted by the policy. So who are the real racists in this case?
Imagine that a bank is robbed. The perpetrator is a Chinese man, and he drives away in a BMW. Should the police therefore stop and search all BMW's, regardless of the race or gender of the driver, just to be fair? What if there are not enough police to do that? Would they be justified in stopping only BMW's driven by Chinese men, or would that make them racists? In the same way, I think it is right and proper that we recognize that persons from certain countries have been the ones perpetrating the majority of terrorist attacks, and targeting them for special scrutiny. If they are found to be breaking the law as a result of that scrutiny, then the punishment specified under the law should be carried out, as it would be for anyone else.
Edited by - NeonMadman on 20 December 2002 9:34:57
roybatty

Many Americans voted in the last presidential election. The US supreme court interfered with state's rights and basically said that many of those votes don't count. Why vote if your vote will be disregarded?
I never thought that I would live long enough to see the sort of shenanigans that I have seen the past couple of years in my beloved country.

Robdar,
Everyone's vote did count. Unfortunately, we have an electorial college. I would gladly give it up, even at the expense of having Gore in office. Regarding shenanigans, it's been going on a LONG time. For example, who really won the 1960 Kennedy vs. Nixon election? It was extremely close and it's commonly known that Kennedy stole the election by having the mayor of Chicago (Daley) fabricate thousands of fake votes (thus Kennedy won Illinois and the presidential election). Like they say in Chicago "vote early, vote often."
Speaking of votes not counting, here in Chicago voting for anyone besides "the machine" (Democratic) canidate is a "wasted" vote. So it goes both ways, both parties do it. At least with the Bush vs. Gore election in FL. it was investigated. Heck, look at what just happened AGAIN in the same counties in FL. Again, they messed up with their voting process and this time it was a primary election!
roybatty

Now, my suggestions lead to a world where our children's children have more of a chance.
The other fantasizing will as sure as eggs is eggs lead to a world where recruiting new terrorists gets easier and easier. With consequences that are obvious. Nukes in major cities.
It is the ones who spout "These people are not our friends." who - without realizing it, I know - enable and make easier the task of recruiting suicide bombers and the like.
T H I N K .
Put your violent fantasies aside. They don't impress. They simply RECRUIT.
Focus you bring up some valid points. I have to wonder if more resources were spent building up these countries and we had policies that encouraged them to prosper, would we be in a differnt situation. However, we have to keep in mind that many of these people aren't poor, desolate, individuals who have no hope for a better future. If the 9/11 terrorists were Palestinians, I'd think to myself "hmm....maybe" but these were Saudis. A country that the US has supported and defended. With this in mind, is there any hope to reason with these individuals? I don't think so. I truly believe that, like the Nazis in Germany, there is only one thing these people (terrorists not Muslims, just like Nazis, not Germans) understand and that is supeerior forces. Until they believe Allah is not with them, these attacks will continue. If we get sucked into this "oh, look, we have achieved peace with them" (ala Neville Chamberlain) we'll we viewed as weak and will continue to be attacked.
Robdar

For example, who really won the 1960 Kennedy vs. Nixon election? It was extremely close and it's commonly known that Kennedy stole the election by having the mayor of Chicago (Daley) fabricate thousands of fake votes (thus Kennedy won Illinois and the presidential election). Like they say in Chicago "vote early, vote often."

Roy,
I have recently read about the 1960 election. Yep, it appears that that election was rigged too. How many dead voters did they discover voted in that election? I am not saying that the Democrats are good and the Republicans bad. Both are scoundrels in my opinion. But I couldn't vote in the 1960 campaign, I did vote in the last presidential campaign and I am outraged. I am at this time laying bets with my friends that something nasty will happen at the next presidential election. I put nothing past the current administration. Or their opponents, for that matter.
Robyn
Focus

It is truly hard to debate when the other side is, relatively speaking, SO ignorant of geography, history, politics and so on..
Now, I really do not have time to provide an education to all and sundry. If they have the means to post on the net, they have the intelligence and the resources with which to educate themselves.
On this page of the thread alone, I could blast enormous holes in the ludicrous material presented by so many. I'll illustrate this by choosing some reasoning from someone whom, I think, will be able to take it. I take no pleasure in proving others to be very ignorant - if I did, my life would comprise an unending orgasm.
NeonMadman unwisely offered:
But the fact is that the vast majority of Arabs are Muslims, and the vast majority of Muslims are Arabs.
I did not need to do any digging to know this was utter nonsense. I already stated in this thread that this was not the case. One has but to think of the huge non-Arab Muslim populations in five of the world's dozen most populous countries (Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Nigeria) to know it is utterly false. Islam is a religion of conversion!
Talk about garbage spewing..
But now I am to be contradicted by some ignoramus who then constructs a giant skyscraper based on his wholly defective world view (and then is surprised when his skyscraper is a target?) and "facts".
Let us check the emboldened "fact". I'll use mid-2002 data from the CIA World Factbook, over the following three webpages:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2122.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2119.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2075.html
The format of the table below is country, its population, % who are Arab (and I properly include Bedouin, Berbers and many other groups as Arab) and then the number who are Arab:
Algeria 32,277,942 99% 31,955,000
Bahrain 656,397 73% 479,000
Chad 8,997,237 10% 900,000
Djibouti 472,810 2% 9,000
Egypt 70,712,345 99% 70,005,000
Gaza_Strip 1,225,911 99% 1,214,000
Iran 66,622,704 3% 1,999,000
Iraq 24,001,816 80% 19,201,000
Israel 6,029,529 20% 1,206,000
Jordan 5,307,470 98% 5,201,000
Kuwait 2,111,561 80% 1,689,000
Lebanon 3,677,780 95% 3,494,000
Libya 5,368,585 97% 5,208,000
Madagascar 16,473,477 10% 1,647,000
Maldives 320,165 10% 32,000
Morocco 31,167,783 99% 30,856,000
Niger 10,639,744 1% 106,000
Oman 2,713,462 85% 2,306,000
Qatar 793,341 40% 317,000
Saudi_Arabia 23,513,330 90% 21,162,000
Seychelles 80,098 10% 8,000
Somalia 7,753,310 1% 78,000
Sudan 37,090,298 39% 14,465,000
Syria 17,195,814 90% 15,476,000
Tanzania 37,187,939 3% 1,116,000
Tunisia 9,815,644 98% 9,619,000
UAE 2,445,989 40% 978,000
Venezuela 24,287,670 1% 243,000
West_Bank 2,520,667 83% 2,092,000
Western_Sahara 256,177 99% 254,000
Yemen 18,701,257 90% 16,831,000
Rest_of_the_World 5,763,403,693 0.69% 40,000,000
TOTAL_World 6,233,821,945 4.81% 300,146,000
So there are about 300 million ARABS in the world at present, despite my addition for "Rest of the World" to cover dispersed Arabs and for countries like Ethiopia, where ethnicity is arguably part-Arab.
But the webpages also list the world Muslim population. It is 19.54% of the world total: hence, there are about 1,220 million MUSLIMS in the world at present.
So, a quarter - or fewer - of Muslims are Arabs. FACT.
Now let us remind ourselves of Neon's """fact""":
But the fact is that .. the vast majority of Muslims are Arabs.
Some "fact". Under 25% is a "vast majority".
There will, therefore, tend to be some natural identification between the two.
Only on the part of the monumentally ignorant, such as yourself (and many, many others, alas).
Hence proving my case.
For as I said before, IGNORANCE is the principal ally of the terrorist recruiters. IGNORANCE both on "their" side, and on "our" side.
Just so NeonMadman does not feel unfairly discriminated against, let's look at someone else's ejaculations: Analogies between fighting Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s and fighting terrorism today simply reveal a breathtaking level of historical ignorance, naivete and plumb downright foolishness.
How taking steps guaranteed to recruit more terrorists can be justified is mind-boggling. The majority of Arabs, probably, and the majority of Muslims, certainly, do not "hate" the U.S. and its closest allies. Do not judge peoples by noisy minorities who stage protests for the benefits of TV.
But, what is being proposed by the hotheads is going to change that.
T H I N K .
I am no pacifist. I am an activist. And I think before acting. Compounding the conduct that hugely contributed to the problem in the first place is unlikely to solve the problem.
--
Focus
(Sheeesh! Class)
Edited by - Focus on 21 December 2002 10:15:41
NeonMadman

So, a quarter - or fewer - of Muslims are Arabs. FACT.
Now let us remind ourselves of Neon's """fact""":
But the fact is that .. the vast majority of Muslims are Arabs.

Ok, you got me. I was factually in error on that point. I apologize to any and all who may have been harmed by my lack of diligence in confirming my facts on that subject. Enjoy your opportunity to call me names while you have it; it isn't very often that I commit such a faux pas.
But now I am to be contradicted by some ignoramus who then constructs a giant skyscraper based on his wholly defective world view

Actually, none of my "skyscraper" of reasoning was predicated upon the concept that most Muslims are Arabs. Every argument I made in that post stands as written without regard to whether or not the majority of Muslims are Arabs. Therefore, your elegant disproof of my misstatement does not in any way disprove what I said in the rest of that post. The presence of one error of fact in the body of a larger argument does not negate the entire argument.
I recently finished a college course in Sociology. The textbook stated that Affirmative Action was first introduced as a concept in an Executive Order issued by President Kennedy in 1961. In fact, as I found out in researching the subject, it was introduced in an E.O. issued by President Johnson in 1965. Should I demand my money back from the college for the entire course? One would think so, using your sort of reasoning.
Of course, nit-picking and ad hominem attacks are much easier than trying to offer intelligent arguments for one's highly questionable point of view, aren't they? Since you're such a history buff, you should know how well your system of dealing with enemies worked for Neville Chamberlain back in the first half of the 20th century, right? Yes, I know you said - without offering any basis for your statement - that there is no comparison between fighting Nazi Germany and fighting terrorists today, but I think there is a great similarity in many respects. In both cases, we are pitted against enemies bent on world conquest, and who harbor great animosity toward our way of life. If anything, appeasement is less likely to work with terrorists, since they are even more fanatical in their beliefs than Hitler was. As I said earlier in the thread, perhaps you'll feel differently when the mushroom cloud appears over your town. These people aren't going to settle down and leave us alone because we make nice to them.
The problem is that your whole argument is based upon the premise that the terrorists need more recruits in order to do us harm. That is absolutely false. They have done an enormous amount of harm with a relatively tiny number of operatives, and will continue to do so, unless we stop them. It isn't necessary that all Arabs, or all Muslims hate us, or even a majority. There are enough who do to accomplish great destruction in this country, unless we take positive action to stop them, and that by force, not by appeasement.
back2dafront

The problem is that your whole argument is based upon the premise that the terrorists need more recruits in order to do us harm. That is absolutely false. They have done an enormous amount of harm with a relatively tiny number of operatives, and will continue to do so, unless we stop them
Would have to agree with Focus actually.
Since the "War on Terrorism" has started, it's far more difficult for these guys to carry out their attacks. USA pounded Afghanistan and killed tons of terrorists and captured tons more. Others were so frightened they surrendered. So although they are still in operation, no doubt they are looking for as many contributors as possible to help them carry out their plan. Unfortunately this is not a war of simple manpower, for we have them far outnumbered. For them to be successful, it will take well-thought out plans operated by highly trained individuals who are willing to give their lives for the cause. I'd bet you bottom dollar they are trying as hard as possible to recruit as many of these individuals as possible, especially seeing how a lot of the top officials have been arrested or killed recently.
Reading this thread has stirred up many emotions. Part of me feels sorry for any and every Arab-American right now for the reality of the world conditions must be constantly in their face every time they step out into the public scene. I'm sure they hear harsh remarks or get angry looks at times, and that must be very difficult to deal with. The other part of me is deeply saddened for it realizes that America is really only trying to protect itself from Islamic militants - idealistically it's not a racial thing at all. I want to believe that the government would live up to their word and only arrest those that have committed crimes or over-stayed their VISA, but due to the track record of this country, I cannot place 100% trust in that statement. Surely the same racist "turban-head" attitude that has infiltrated so many citizens of this country is also present amongst the leaders of this country, therefore the possibilities of these arrests taking place exactly like we've been told is quite unlikely. Racism is still a big problem in this country, and although we've made huge progress in the right direction, a very strong, powerful influence still exists today, and frankly..... it scares the hell out of me.
Have you seen the movie Whitewash: The Clarence Brandley Story?
I find it extremely disturbing that the law in this certain part of Texas could be so corrupt and racist.
I also find it disturbing that the current president and his family is from this state.
Not to mention that to this day the state of Texas has not apologized for wrongfully sending this innoncent black man to death row - imprisoned for 10 years. Thank GOODNESS he was re-tried and found not-guilty and released days before his death.
Surely you'd think the President of the United States would condemn such a blatant example of racism within his own home state and apologize to this man and his family.
(Note that the movie stated that nobody has apologized - whether or not that is true or still remains to be true is a different story. Take it for what it's worth......)
SO...yeah...I know the government is really concerned about protecting the country, and believe me, their efforts are greatly appreciated, but I hate to see innoncent people affected by their plight to find terrorists. It would be wise for them to make this known to American Arabs - let them know that they respect their rights and are truly trying to weed out the terrorists that unfornately are predominantly of their religion and race. Try to get them to HELP - don't give them any reason to hate. However, due to the strong racists attitudes amongst prominent officials in this country, I doubt that will happen.
Time will tell.
Focus

Thank you for your gracious apology, Neon. Demanding a refund of your tuition fee may be premature, but that must, of course, be a matter for you. I cannot possibly comment on it except to add that I guess that sociologists per se do not believe that oppressing oppressed people and discriminating against already-discriminated-against people even more will, on the balance of likelihood, increase their goodwill to you, but I have the advantage of not having ~~sullied~~graced my academic chargesheet with a qualification in Sociology... I only mention this as you chose to wave your Qualification. I'll waive mine.
In the nicest possible way, it is the nature and scale and context of your said blunder that is so breathtaking. You are showing, in a subject of your choice, in a thread of your choice, over posts of your choice, in an argument of your choice, and after clear warning on the Arab v. Moslem matter from myself earlier in the thread, profound ignorance of the ethnicity/religion of a fifth or sixth of the world's inhabitants... How embarrassing! What consideration and maturity should be attached to your judgment, then (for in subjective matters, like influencing future conduct, judgment is always key), if your world view has been demonstrated to be so profoundly inaccurate?
As to your justification:
If your bold "But the fact is ..", shown by me to be such a total, ludicrous and mind-bogglingly untrue statement of fiction, is wholly irrelevant to the contentions you make immediately thereafter (you claim nothing to be predicated upon it in your wrigglings), then why did you insert the offensive assertion, immediately followed by a "therefore", in the first place?
I appreciate you wrote in good faith. But views such as yours, based on similar fallacies, misunderstandings and errors, but from millions of pens/keyboards/mouths, create a climate and culture where the powers-that-be feel enabled, or required, to take the very steps that will ensure that the flow of terrorists is never-ending. And that history repeats itself.
My point (I keep to one point per thread, for obvious reasons) is that IGNORANCE (even more than Intolerance and Injustice!) is what keeps terrorist-recruiters in business.
That your comments, as written, irrespective of your considered final thoughts now, would be read, in the context in which it appears in this thread, as a general smear by even a half-competent terrorist-recruiter may be taken as a "given", right? Your INTENTIONS do not count. The other side won't give you the benefit of the doubt.
Therefore, you have ably assisted me in demonstrating how ignorance helps recruit terrorists. For which I thank you again.
I'll deal with your bottom-line from the previous post. I ignored it out of politeness to you:
Imagine that a bank is robbed. The perpetrator is a Chinese man, and he drives away in a BMW. Should the police therefore stop and search all BMW's, regardless of the race or gender of the driver, just to be fair? What if there are not enough police to do that? Would they be justified in stopping only BMW's driven by Chinese men, or would that make them racists?
Of course they would be justified, and of course it would not constitute racism!
But when the police, having stopped suchly-driven BMWs, and upon finding that the driver is definitely not the perp, then go on to go through everything with a fine toothcomb, and charge the driver for other minor violations to which they would normally turn a blind eye, and/or possibly mistreat him or his companions while so doing, then it becomes blatant and reprehensible (and very common) discrimination[/b].
And I suggest that this is the real analogy (REMEMBER it is the other side's perception that counts - in this case, the potential recruits). You stopped conveniently early.
Next case?
ad hominem
An inapplicable description, if the epithet objected to has been justified and shown to be applicable. See the second paragraph of this post, please.
nit-picking
NIT-PICKING??? We are talking about a fifth of mankind, THE fifth of mankind to whom this is most applicable, being hugely misunderstood and misclassified in vast majority. If that is nit-picking, then my first name is Neville.
Chamberlain
And I shall continue to ignore the ludicrous analogy with the scenario facing Chamberlain, though you seem to want to press it yet again. As you are not stupid (merely ignorant), please think hard as to why I am ignoring it. If you reach the conclusion that it is because I think there is the remotest chance of my "losing" the argument destroying the said analogy, then you have not thought enough, IMHO. Think for yourself! Spoon-feeding ain't my forte. If you or others need hints: look to material differences in the world environment, in the identifiability of the enemy, in the nature of the enemy, in the mind and method and organization of the enemy, in the type/deliverability of the threat, in the role of public opinion.. where do I stop?
I don't want to appease terrorists. I want to stop terrorists before they commit terrorism, and preferably want to stop terrorists being CREATED in the first place, anywhere as easily as before. Right now, a "rational" case can be made, which will stand up to scrutiny, for hating America because of the intolerance, injustice and ignorance that is so widespread within it. Even most of its allies are a bit better. Think: world ecology and environment. The enemy recruiters won't be listing all the mitigation, and all the wonderful things the U.S. has done (for it has) and often stands for. They'll tell the truth, but not all of the truth.
An administration mentality that would rule out profoundly apologizing for its predecessor's deplorable Vietnam fiasco is bolstered by jingoistic views expressed by so many of the public (and based on a horrendous misconception of the reality of the rest of the world).
perhaps you'll feel differently when the mushroom cloud
They are going to nuke Baghdad??? Where did you read this?
The problem is that your whole argument is based upon the premise that the terrorists need more recruits in order to do us harm. That is absolutely false. They have done an enormous amount of harm with a relatively tiny number of operatives
Please, this is absurd argumentation by you.
How many millions produced the few volunteers who then were combed to find this tiny number of intelligent people willing to, and capable of, carrying out this sort of appalling mission well beyond the "abilities" of almost everyone? Staying on course till the very last seconds? THAT is the issue. You are confusing yourself, alas.
And they have to be smart. They'll have to overcome all the measures put into place to detect and stop them.
I believe (do sociologists / psychologists have a study to quote on this) that the number of qualifying people is very small. They need to be smart but brainwashed (yep, possible, many clever dubs), have had an experience sufficient to make them REALLY hate, and the determination to carry out such an act, and courage (yes, it takes that to kill yourself), and a sufficient degree of callousness to the lives of others (brainwashing isn't enough by itself, IMO). AND be found.
Note that, unlike at least one of my "supporters" on this issue in this thread, I am not making a moral argument, and nor shall I (K.I.S.S.). My argument is purely practical and pragmatic. Make recruiting terrorists much harder.
My bottom-line:
When you understand how your writing, and what actions plenty of people reasoning in the same way succeed in prompting, delivers - having been interpreted to the other side by their media and recruiters - offensive AD HOMINEM TO A BILLION PEOPLE, then you will understand how unmoved I am about my alleged ad hominem to but one. Good intentions ain't enough, friend, and we know where they may lead.
Don't take this personally, Neon: I don't want that champignon shape over your home town either. I never, ever, ever, post when angry.
--
Focus
(Prefers his Sociologists young, petite and over Buttered Toast Class)
/Edited because a forum code bug, clearly agreeing with my sentiments, seems to want to make almost everything bold/
Edited by - Focus on 22 December 2002 0:25:29
NeonMadman

Prefers his Sociologists young, petite and over Buttered Toast Class)

Well, I'm none of the above, dude. Including not a sociologist. I cited the course as an example in argumentation, not as a credential. It was merely an introductory course to fulfill a social science requirement. I mentioned it only to make the case that a single factual error in the text does not negate the remainder of what is found there (or in the course as a whole). Just as, in my previous argument, the rash misstatement of a fact does not negate the whole of my argument, when in fact the misstated fact was tangential to what I was saying anyway. Actually, had I thought about it for another minute or so, I would have realized that the fact was in error and would have revised it, but I was more focused on the issue at hand at the time. Again, I should have been more careful. My bad.
I guess that sociologists per se do not believe that oppressing oppressed people and discriminating against already-discriminated-against people even more will, on the balance of likelihood, increase their goodwill to you
Well, see, that's the problem. I agree with your statement as I have quoted it above; I just don't believe that our goal at this point should be to increase the goodwill of the terrorists toward us. They have shown themselves to be our enemy; what remains at this point is for them to be defeated by us. Frankly, I couldn't care less about their goodwill, any more than the Allies cared about Hitler's goodwill (sorry about yet another WWII analogy). Nothing we do is going to get these people to like us. They are going to keep attacking us until either we or they are destroyed. I vote that it be them. And by "them", I mean the terrorists and their organizations. Not all Arabs, not all Muslims. Just the ones who are attacking us and the ones who are giving them support.
Therefore, you have ably assisted me in demonstrating how ignorance helps recruit terrorists. For which I thank you again.
Well, perhaps you're right. I may be ignorant, since I don't see at all how you got to this end of the argument. Are you suggesting that there are terrorists (or potential terrorists) reading j-w.com who may become so incensed by my factual error (exposed as being erroneous by you within hours of its posting) that they will immediately go out and sign up for Al-Queda training camps? People state errors of fact every day, and in much more significant arenas than this one. The idea that these potential terrorists, who otherwise would go on their merry way bothering no one, will suddenly be driven to hatred of America and terrorist acts by statistically erroneous statements seems absurd to me. I submit that, if such is the case, these people were mentally disturbed anyway, and, if not set off by that error, would soon have found something else to drive them over the deep end.
But when the police, having stopped suchly-driven BMWs, and upon finding that the driver is definitely not the perp, then go on to go through everything with a fine toothcomb, and charge the driver for other minor violations to which they would normally turn a blind eye, and/or possibly mistreat him or his companions while so doing, then it becomes blatant and reprehensible (and very common) discrimination[/b].
All right, then. Applying this to the situation cited in the article that started this thread, it sounds as if you are asserting that the authorities would normally 'turn a blind eye' to people who are wanted for crimes, as the article states that some of the individuals arrested were. While I admit that the immigration authorities may not devote a lot of time seeking out those who have overstayed their visas (though I think they should do more than they do), it is my understanding that when such a case does come to their attention through other means, they do ordinarily act upon it.
So, really, your insertion of the concept of "minor violations to which they would normally turn a blind eye" changes the analogy from a valid one to an invalid one. More to the point would be a situation wherein the driver of the BMW was found definitely not to be the perpetrator, but in searching the car, a quantity of heroin was found; or, conversely, in running the driver's license, it was found that there was an outstanding arrest warrant against him. In either case, he would certainly be taken into custody, and such action would certainly not constitute discrimination.
NIT-PICKING??? We are talking about a fifth of mankind, THE fifth of mankind to whom this is most applicable, being hugely misunderstood and misclassified in vast majority. If that is nit-picking, then my first name is Neville.
Nice to meet you, Neville; I'm Tom. Your criticism was nit-picking, not in the number of people about whom I misstated a fact, but in the negligible amount of impact that the misstated fact had on my overall argument. You held up my one misstated fact (significant though it may have been in terms of the number of people it misrepresented) and attempted to make it appear as though, by disproving that one fact, you had utterly devastated everything I had argued. In fact, that was not the case at all; as I have pointed out previously, no part of my overall argument stood or fell on the basis of that one statement. I (rather politely, I thought) referred to that misrepresentation on your part as "nit-picking". If you have a better term for it, I'm open to suggestion.
They are going to nuke Baghdad??? Where did you read this?
Errr...now you've confused me. I mentioned a mushroom cloud over your town. Do you live in Baghdad? If so, it explains a lot.
this is absurd argumentation by you.
How many millions produced the few volunteers who then were combed to find this tiny number of intelligent people willing to, and capable of, carrying out this sort of appalling mission well beyond the "abilities" of almost everyone? Staying on course till the very last seconds? THAT is the issue.
I think the absurd argumentation is yours. Do you really think it is that difficult for a reasonably intelligent person who attended (at least part of) flight school to learn how to take the controls of an airplane already in flight and guide it into a target? I think that's something the average person, properly motivated, could learn to do. They didn't even have to deal with the hard parts, like taking off or landing. All they needed to do was steer.
And they have to be smart. They'll have to overcome all the measures put into place to detect and stop them.
Criminals do this sort of thing all the time. Besides, if you get your way in this issue, the measures won't be very effective anyway, because you think it's discriminatory to give special attention to persons of the nationalities from which the vast majority of the terrorists came. Even if some more stringent measures are developed, there are ways to get around them, and you don't have to be Einstein to do it. If they want to develop nukes, all they need is a small handful of scientists to build the things, and a large cadre of volunteers willing to die for the cause to deliver them. What special qualifications do you need to walk into the middle of a large city and press a button? With nukes, you don't have to be that precise; anywhere within a 20-block radius of your target will do, even with the smallest of bombs.
They need to be smart but brainwashed (yep, possible, many clever dubs), have had an experience sufficient to make them REALLY hate, and the determination to carry out such an act, and courage (yes, it takes that to kill yourself), and a sufficient degree of callousness to the lives of others (brainwashing isn't enough by itself, IMO). AND be found.
Sounds like a typical cult member to me. And that's just what these people are. I disagree that they need to have had a personal experience to make them hate; it's just part of the brainwashing. Look at how most JW's view "apostates", even though most of them have never even talked to an apostate, or if they did, the apostate certainly hasn't done anything bad to the JW. But they are taught to hate by their leaders. Same with the callousness. After all we know about the JW's shunning their family members, or letting their children die for lack of a transfusion, is it that big a stretch to believe that similarly brainwashed terrorists could kill without compunction?
Don't take this personally, Neon
I rarely do. Unless, of course, someone calls me an ignoramus...
Edited by - NeonMadman on 22 December 2002 15:9:30

History doomed to repeat itself...

Share this