First Jim, I'd like to commend you on managing to keep this conversation civil.
That's one thing I've been wondering about a lot. Look at things like the war on terrorism, pollution or health care. Why does it seem to me that people are using huge amounts of effort cleaning up the symptoms and almost nobody is thinking about the cause and if that could be affected. Terrorists are not monsters. They are just people who do what they do for a reason.
Symphatizing with terrorists. That's actually something I've been thinking about quite a bit. I admire the courage and devotion necessary to give your life for any cause.
Probably my views would be different if someone close to me had died in a terrorist attack. You don't go to war because of rationale, but because of emotion. I just hope we don't end up on a large scale in the same kind of gridlocked situation that exists currently in Israel after some 50 years of hostilities between two groups. Unlikely, but possible.
You know, I can distinctly remember president George W. Bush calling 9/11 an act of war in a public speech. Up until the recent semantics of 'pre-emptive strikes' and 'enforcing peace' the commonly (at least in public) accepted idea was that the only justified war was that of defense and retaliation. Arbitrarily calling the WTC strike an 'act of war' gave a handy justification for invading Afghanistan.Jim the old guy wrote:Terrorism is not war; war is war.
...
Terrorism is outright murder and mayhem. Was it war that caused 911?
What do they hope to accomplish? To put it simply: Escalation. They hope that the big western powers will pump more and more resources into fighting terrorism and either overextend themselves or pull back. Being the covert guerrilla types that terrorists tend to be, you can't really stamp it out completely by force by nothing short of genocide. The big paradox in terrorism is that the more enemies you have the more allies you have.Jim the old guy wrote:Tell me this, just what does Al-Quida ( and any other terrorist group) expect to accomplish by blowing up subways, busses, trade centers, etc.? Have your views regarding these well planned, murderous events caused you to sympathize with those responsible?
That's one thing I've been wondering about a lot. Look at things like the war on terrorism, pollution or health care. Why does it seem to me that people are using huge amounts of effort cleaning up the symptoms and almost nobody is thinking about the cause and if that could be affected. Terrorists are not monsters. They are just people who do what they do for a reason.
Symphatizing with terrorists. That's actually something I've been thinking about quite a bit. I admire the courage and devotion necessary to give your life for any cause.
Probably my views would be different if someone close to me had died in a terrorist attack. You don't go to war because of rationale, but because of emotion. I just hope we don't end up on a large scale in the same kind of gridlocked situation that exists currently in Israel after some 50 years of hostilities between two groups. Unlikely, but possible.
People are crazy and times are strange
I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range
I used to care, but things have changed
-Bob Dylan
I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range
I used to care, but things have changed
-Bob Dylan
This may enflame some of you, & for that I apologize, but I just couldn't sit back & read anymore without saying something. This, by the way, is based on some of my hopefully skewed observations because, well, if they're not skewed, then in a way we could be rooting for the wrong side, provided there is a right one (I personally don't think there is).
Anyway, enjoy if you can:
Personally, I think this whole war on terror is a capitalistic war firmly rooted in traditional beliefs of freedom. The Middle East, where all these terrorists are said to be from or have strong ties to, is quite probably the most traditional area on the planet. Many of its citizens live the same way that their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, & many generations before that, going back millennia. To them, freedom is the ability to continue their traditional lifestyle.
Enter capitalism, & with it, commerce. Factories & other businesses moving overseas to regions such as the Middle East for cheap labor & the lower cost of manufacturing goods to be sold on a global market. To these people of tradition, this in itself is an invasion because it threatens their traditions. Sure, they could probably make a better living (as we would describe a living) by working in one of these businesses, making money, but there are those that are afraid of this apparently rapid change. To them, it's like (in our terms) going from being a caveman to using computers & microwave ovens. To us, we see this as a great benefit, but they see it as a threat.
That being said, it is ironic that those that are choosing to fight for their freedom to keep their age-old traditions alive are in turn giving up their traditions, embracing what they have sworn to oppose. But also keep in mind the question of whether or not we'd take notice of this if they used their traditional ways of "persuading" an invading force to stop their invasion. To answer to that question, by the way, is no, we have not noticed. Remember those beheadings of captured workers? That was a traditional method of deterrance, right along side removing the hands of thieves, testicles from rapists, etc., essentially an-eye-for-an-eye but also providing warnings if ignored.
So why do they choose civilian targets, when the military government officials are seemingly better targets? It's because of the corporate invasion. They see the businesses that are trying to move in on them & crowd out their traditions as a threat, & by doing so, they deem anyone supporting such businesses, whether they be consumer or employee, as an enemy, an accomplice if you will, a supporter of the corporate invasion. Look at the attacks that occurred in the US back on 9/11/2001. Their first target was the World Trade Center, not the Pentagon. If the terrorists were against just a military interference, then why attack the civilian target? Because most (if not all) of the businesses whose offices were in the WTC were global in nature, the kinds of businesses trying to move into the Middle East. In that sense, the attack on the Pentagon was a warning to say "don't come after us for this, just stop trying to destroy our traditions". This was in a way repeated with what happened in London. The bombs were exploded during the morning rush hour, thereby disrupting commercial endeavors for the day, & possibly continuing to do so. Meanwhile, there's an extremist faction website saying that the attack was in response to the UK's presence in Iraq (if I remember correctly from CNN). Maybe it's a coincidence, but then again, maybe not.
Now, let's look at the response to these acts of terrorism. All the world leaders against these acts that are willing to offer military action as a response represent the wealthiest nations of the world. The G8 Summit, which was to meet on the day of the London bombings, is made up of representatives of the wealthiest nations in the world. For the US at least, corporations provide HUGE sums of money in support of candidates in the hope that the one they're supporting will be elected & then will give them favors once in office. These are businesses that are trying to get into the Middle East because they can make a fortune simply by getting the people there to work for extremely little pay, which if they got their businesses there would happen if for no other reason than money has never served a role in the lives of the majority of the people there because they'd been using a traditional bartering system to get whatever they needed for basic everyday living, as by tradition they have no desire for anything more. So, what response should we expect from leaders who were supported in their campaigns by these corporations that are having difficulty setting up in this tradition-rich region? Should we just expect them to tell those that helped them fund their campaigns to quit trying to set up shop there, especially when those businesses could make a killing in the money they'd save by employing these people as workers, people who by tradition have no use for money & would thereby most likely use a dollar bill as toilet paper than as legal tender simply because the function of wiping better suits their traditions? The answer again is no. Why? Because if these people who were supported by these businesses in their campaigns could get those businesses into that area, that'd be the greatest payback for helping fund an election that they can foresee. As businessmen themselves (at least in America), they understand how important that goal is from the corporate perspective, so their response is swiftly & decisively to wage war with those that attack those that supported their campaigns in the hopes of winning commercial freedom for the Arab people which then opens the door for all these businesses to move in because the local warlords won't be the ones in control anymore, it'll be the corporations behind the politicians.
In conclusion, if I'm right about the above, them I feel I understand why those we call terrorists are doing what they're doing. I don't feel it's right what they're doing, & I don't support or condone it in any way, but if this I've said is right, then I can at least understand why. Going back to the talk on traditions, about how there's go back millennia, some would say to the beginning on man. Think about your traditions. How far back do they go? Can you trace them back more than one century? Two? Can you trace them back even one millennium, or two, or perhaps even before the birth of Christ? These people can. Their traditions are sacred to them, not having changed in so much time. If something is sacred to you, wouldn't you be willing to die to protect it? Wouldn't you be willing to do whatever it took to protect that which you held most dear? Again, I don't agree with their methods, but I can at least understand why.
Hammerhead
Anyway, enjoy if you can:
Personally, I think this whole war on terror is a capitalistic war firmly rooted in traditional beliefs of freedom. The Middle East, where all these terrorists are said to be from or have strong ties to, is quite probably the most traditional area on the planet. Many of its citizens live the same way that their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, & many generations before that, going back millennia. To them, freedom is the ability to continue their traditional lifestyle.
Enter capitalism, & with it, commerce. Factories & other businesses moving overseas to regions such as the Middle East for cheap labor & the lower cost of manufacturing goods to be sold on a global market. To these people of tradition, this in itself is an invasion because it threatens their traditions. Sure, they could probably make a better living (as we would describe a living) by working in one of these businesses, making money, but there are those that are afraid of this apparently rapid change. To them, it's like (in our terms) going from being a caveman to using computers & microwave ovens. To us, we see this as a great benefit, but they see it as a threat.
That being said, it is ironic that those that are choosing to fight for their freedom to keep their age-old traditions alive are in turn giving up their traditions, embracing what they have sworn to oppose. But also keep in mind the question of whether or not we'd take notice of this if they used their traditional ways of "persuading" an invading force to stop their invasion. To answer to that question, by the way, is no, we have not noticed. Remember those beheadings of captured workers? That was a traditional method of deterrance, right along side removing the hands of thieves, testicles from rapists, etc., essentially an-eye-for-an-eye but also providing warnings if ignored.
So why do they choose civilian targets, when the military government officials are seemingly better targets? It's because of the corporate invasion. They see the businesses that are trying to move in on them & crowd out their traditions as a threat, & by doing so, they deem anyone supporting such businesses, whether they be consumer or employee, as an enemy, an accomplice if you will, a supporter of the corporate invasion. Look at the attacks that occurred in the US back on 9/11/2001. Their first target was the World Trade Center, not the Pentagon. If the terrorists were against just a military interference, then why attack the civilian target? Because most (if not all) of the businesses whose offices were in the WTC were global in nature, the kinds of businesses trying to move into the Middle East. In that sense, the attack on the Pentagon was a warning to say "don't come after us for this, just stop trying to destroy our traditions". This was in a way repeated with what happened in London. The bombs were exploded during the morning rush hour, thereby disrupting commercial endeavors for the day, & possibly continuing to do so. Meanwhile, there's an extremist faction website saying that the attack was in response to the UK's presence in Iraq (if I remember correctly from CNN). Maybe it's a coincidence, but then again, maybe not.
Now, let's look at the response to these acts of terrorism. All the world leaders against these acts that are willing to offer military action as a response represent the wealthiest nations of the world. The G8 Summit, which was to meet on the day of the London bombings, is made up of representatives of the wealthiest nations in the world. For the US at least, corporations provide HUGE sums of money in support of candidates in the hope that the one they're supporting will be elected & then will give them favors once in office. These are businesses that are trying to get into the Middle East because they can make a fortune simply by getting the people there to work for extremely little pay, which if they got their businesses there would happen if for no other reason than money has never served a role in the lives of the majority of the people there because they'd been using a traditional bartering system to get whatever they needed for basic everyday living, as by tradition they have no desire for anything more. So, what response should we expect from leaders who were supported in their campaigns by these corporations that are having difficulty setting up in this tradition-rich region? Should we just expect them to tell those that helped them fund their campaigns to quit trying to set up shop there, especially when those businesses could make a killing in the money they'd save by employing these people as workers, people who by tradition have no use for money & would thereby most likely use a dollar bill as toilet paper than as legal tender simply because the function of wiping better suits their traditions? The answer again is no. Why? Because if these people who were supported by these businesses in their campaigns could get those businesses into that area, that'd be the greatest payback for helping fund an election that they can foresee. As businessmen themselves (at least in America), they understand how important that goal is from the corporate perspective, so their response is swiftly & decisively to wage war with those that attack those that supported their campaigns in the hopes of winning commercial freedom for the Arab people which then opens the door for all these businesses to move in because the local warlords won't be the ones in control anymore, it'll be the corporations behind the politicians.
In conclusion, if I'm right about the above, them I feel I understand why those we call terrorists are doing what they're doing. I don't feel it's right what they're doing, & I don't support or condone it in any way, but if this I've said is right, then I can at least understand why. Going back to the talk on traditions, about how there's go back millennia, some would say to the beginning on man. Think about your traditions. How far back do they go? Can you trace them back more than one century? Two? Can you trace them back even one millennium, or two, or perhaps even before the birth of Christ? These people can. Their traditions are sacred to them, not having changed in so much time. If something is sacred to you, wouldn't you be willing to die to protect it? Wouldn't you be willing to do whatever it took to protect that which you held most dear? Again, I don't agree with their methods, but I can at least understand why.
Hammerhead
If you want to start a war, declare war, declare why, declare what you want, and fight soldiers, not innocent civillians.
Terrorists don't do that. When you don't play by any rules, who do you expect to listen to what you want? Who will care what you want?
As for admiring courage and giving your life for something you believe in. I don't agree with that either. I admire people who dedicate their time and efforts to CREATE something they're proud of (Apart from train spotters, I'll never understand them). I admire those who have courage to go and do something which makes the world think those people really achieved something amazing. I don't think many people will think that killing people is achieving something amazing, nor do I think it is creating something.
At least when the IRA used to bomb us they would give coded warnings so people could get out the way and the police had a chance to defuse bombs. Even if bombs went off then, the damage was done, the IRA got their message across and people didn't always have to die. I have no sympathy for them either, but I do believe the way they got their message across was better put.
Terrorists don't do that. When you don't play by any rules, who do you expect to listen to what you want? Who will care what you want?
As for admiring courage and giving your life for something you believe in. I don't agree with that either. I admire people who dedicate their time and efforts to CREATE something they're proud of (Apart from train spotters, I'll never understand them). I admire those who have courage to go and do something which makes the world think those people really achieved something amazing. I don't think many people will think that killing people is achieving something amazing, nor do I think it is creating something.
At least when the IRA used to bomb us they would give coded warnings so people could get out the way and the police had a chance to defuse bombs. Even if bombs went off then, the damage was done, the IRA got their message across and people didn't always have to die. I have no sympathy for them either, but I do believe the way they got their message across was better put.
I have never seen why so much blood should be lost just because one certain group of human beings (walks on 2 legs, has 2 arms, 2 eyes and is the most intelligent beings on this planet), should happen to not share the same fabricated beliefs (religion) as another group of human beings (that walks on 2 legs, has 2 arms, 2 eyes and is the most intelligent beings on this planet).
I understand how this may come across as a somewhat immature perspective on things, but what I am trying to say is: the gift intelligence to us as a species has been our worst enemy... odds are if we were not smart enough to fabricate religion and other scenarios that place one group of humans indifferent to another we would not have much to fight about. We would all see what brings us together, rather than what sets us apart.
I apologise if my views on religion come across as fairly couth... it was not my intention to insult anyone’s beliefs. I just wished to share my perspective on things.... this is a scientific view on the demise of a peaceful co-existence amongst mankind:
It always struck me as odd why we were the only species on this planet to have certain individuals with a purpose to destroy our own kind. The answer is clear as day: Intelligence. It's funny how the 'bimbos' and the 'un-educated' are always the first to say "can't we all just get along"... and it is the smart folks that say "There is a political/religious justification behind acts of war and the death of men/women/children". We traded our primal instincts away and replaced them with this so called "way of life", at the expense of unquestionable co-existence.... and these indifferences have been fabricated on the basis that one group took their new-found intelligence and struck Revelation A, and the other struck upon Revelation B. At this point we have become so sure of ourselves and our own different "way of life" we look to this indifference as a form of new identity, one that would place us above the rest (religion comes into play here). We no longer like the idea of just being dumb and peaceful... would rather be patriotic and destructive... progress reigns.
And the rest is bloody history.
Our species sucks! We are so damn intelligent we make the most calculated acts of murder known to man!
-Cub. =o)
I understand how this may come across as a somewhat immature perspective on things, but what I am trying to say is: the gift intelligence to us as a species has been our worst enemy... odds are if we were not smart enough to fabricate religion and other scenarios that place one group of humans indifferent to another we would not have much to fight about. We would all see what brings us together, rather than what sets us apart.
I apologise if my views on religion come across as fairly couth... it was not my intention to insult anyone’s beliefs. I just wished to share my perspective on things.... this is a scientific view on the demise of a peaceful co-existence amongst mankind:
It always struck me as odd why we were the only species on this planet to have certain individuals with a purpose to destroy our own kind. The answer is clear as day: Intelligence. It's funny how the 'bimbos' and the 'un-educated' are always the first to say "can't we all just get along"... and it is the smart folks that say "There is a political/religious justification behind acts of war and the death of men/women/children". We traded our primal instincts away and replaced them with this so called "way of life", at the expense of unquestionable co-existence.... and these indifferences have been fabricated on the basis that one group took their new-found intelligence and struck Revelation A, and the other struck upon Revelation B. At this point we have become so sure of ourselves and our own different "way of life" we look to this indifference as a form of new identity, one that would place us above the rest (religion comes into play here). We no longer like the idea of just being dumb and peaceful... would rather be patriotic and destructive... progress reigns.
And the rest is bloody history.
Our species sucks! We are so damn intelligent we make the most calculated acts of murder known to man!
-Cub. =o)
I guess we humans can believe in something so strongly that people are prepared to die rather than to consider they may be wrong. Religion has started a lot of wars and animals don't believe in things like that (that we know of).
But animals do fight over territory, and a lot of wars are about that. I think that will never end.
Like Mel Brooks said (impersonating Hitler):
"I only want a little peace...Peace! A little peace of Poland, a little peace of France, a little peace of Italy..."
(I forget the rest)
But animals do fight over territory, and a lot of wars are about that. I think that will never end.
Like Mel Brooks said (impersonating Hitler):
"I only want a little peace...Peace! A little peace of Poland, a little peace of France, a little peace of Italy..."
(I forget the rest)
Very true David.
Relating back to some of Jim's points it can be said that War can be a result of territorialism... but terrorism; it's a bad mix of religion, hatred and an unparalleled act of murder that will only go on and on as long as both parties follow their own faith unquestionably.
What does not kill a way of life only makes it stronger... unfortuunately, this strength is echoed a thousand times to the equally patriotic of opposing cultures.
As out of this world as it sounds, the only thing that would bring the human race together is a 3rd party target (as in, globally external threat) for which all parties throughout mankind have a common aim of destroying. 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' so to speak. Sad... but true.
-Cub. =o)
Relating back to some of Jim's points it can be said that War can be a result of territorialism... but terrorism; it's a bad mix of religion, hatred and an unparalleled act of murder that will only go on and on as long as both parties follow their own faith unquestionably.
What does not kill a way of life only makes it stronger... unfortuunately, this strength is echoed a thousand times to the equally patriotic of opposing cultures.
As out of this world as it sounds, the only thing that would bring the human race together is a 3rd party target (as in, globally external threat) for which all parties throughout mankind have a common aim of destroying. 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' so to speak. Sad... but true.
-Cub. =o)
Okay Jim, now you got me confused.
In war attacks do happen which are targeted primarily towards civilians. The bombing of Dresden in WW2 and Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for example. When fighting against guerrillas which are virtually indistinguishable from civilians things get even nastier.
Well, I think that I'm for my own part starting to scrape the bottom on the main subject. Just to make my personal stance clear, I'm trying to understand these things, not accept them.
However, I would like to address a couple of side issues mentioned.
And could you elaborate on what this 'world's collective conscience' is?
Can you see the conflict here?Jim the old guy wrote:Terrorism is not war; war is war.
...
Bush said 911 was an act of war. Yes, I agree.
...
When a car bomb explodes in Iraq and kills soldiers or police or political figures, that is war! And in war, civilians always get hurt. But when it's done in a trade center, or on busses, or in the subway, that is terrorism, not war.
In war attacks do happen which are targeted primarily towards civilians. The bombing of Dresden in WW2 and Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for example. When fighting against guerrillas which are virtually indistinguishable from civilians things get even nastier.
That is your opinion and you certainly are entitled to it.Jim the Old Guy wrote:Terrorism is wrong! It is pure evil.
Well, I think that I'm for my own part starting to scrape the bottom on the main subject. Just to make my personal stance clear, I'm trying to understand these things, not accept them.
However, I would like to address a couple of side issues mentioned.
Yes, it is implied by a society where cannibalism is condemned and that idea is 'ingrained' into the members of society as they grow up. Vast majority of cannibalism encountered in cultures is ritual, unnecessary for the physical survival. As a side note, cannibalism in general and actively hunting people for food are separate things. I think there are maybe two or three known tribal groups which practice cannibalism for nutrition. Ritual cannibalism occurs after someone has died by other means. What is so bad about, say, consuming some of the ashes left from the incinerated body of a deceased relative in order to pass on some of their legacy?Jim the old guy wrote:Certain tribes of Africa and Indonesia and some other remote areas practiced cannabalism. Do we merely accept that practice saying: "Well, if that is what they believe in, so be it?" No! Cannabalism goes against an ingrained conscience. Did you know that among the 600 plus laws found in the Penteteuch there is NOT one law forbidding cannabalism? Why not? It's implied! Every human has a conscience and in the majority of all humans, their own conscience tells them it is wrong! In fact, we might go so far as to say the world's collective conscience becomes indignant when it heres of reports of people practicing cannabalism.
And could you elaborate on what this 'world's collective conscience' is?
Gavrilo Princip shot Franz Ferdinand, the crown prince of Austria-Hungary while he was visiting Serbia. Princip was a member of the Black Hand secret society which sought to make Serbia independent, especially from the influence of Austria-Hungary. It was not affiliated with the official government. Even after that happened it was not exactly an automatic process which led to the first World War. Austria-Hungary made explicit demands for being involved in the murder investigations in a way which would breach Serbia's sovereignity. Austria-Hungary wanted an excuse for war by which they could gain control of Serbia. Serbia's refusal was planned, expected and received, whereupon Austria-Hungary mobilized it's forces, which in turn due to a whole mess of alliance pacts led to mobilization in many other European countries, which led to protests and war.Jim the Old Guy wrote:What started WWI? An assassination of a key political figure. True, the stage was set for open war, but nobody declared it. Well, guess what? Some idiot decides to take it upon himself, with or without the consent of his government, and shoots the poor fool and voila! WWI.
People are crazy and times are strange
I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range
I used to care, but things have changed
-Bob Dylan
I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range
I used to care, but things have changed
-Bob Dylan
I don't think this is a true statement. It may apply for China, but not the Middle-East. Meanwhile, one of the reasons for trying to establish trade with other countries is because trading partners tend to become mutually dependent on each other's well-being and reduces the probability of war.These are businesses that are trying to get into the Middle East because they can make a fortune simply by getting the people there to work for extremely little pay,
Christianity is about a thousand years older than Islam. Judism is much older than that. Many of our traditions go back thousands of years. Islam is actually the new kid on the block.How far back do they go? Can you trace them back more than one century? Two? Can you trace them back even one millennium, or two, or perhaps even before the birth of Christ? These people can.
I agree. But I also believe that it is only the people we are calling Terrorists who are justifying their attacks based on relegious principles.I have never seen why so much blood should be lost just because one certain group of human beings (walks on 2 legs, has 2 arms, 2 eyes and is the most intelligent beings on this planet), should happen to not share the same fabricated beliefs (religion) as another group of human beings (that walks on 2 legs, has 2 arms, 2 eyes and is the most intelligent beings on this planet).
Actually it's about 600 years.DrPaul wrote:Christianity is about a thousand years older than Islam.
But concerning freedom that quote from Benjamin Franklin popped into my head: "Those who are willing to give up freedom to gain security deserve neither." Seems like pure poppycock to me. That's precisely what every legislation in the world is based on!
People are crazy and times are strange
I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range
I used to care, but things have changed
-Bob Dylan
I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range
I used to care, but things have changed
-Bob Dylan
Ok, I rounded up. 632 years actually. But the point remains the same: Christian traditions are several centuries older than Muslim traditions. It might also be pointed out that the Middle East (including Iran, Iraq, and Syria) were heavily Christian before the Muslims spread their religion into those territories by force.Actually it's about 600 years.
The only point I'm trying to make here is that it is wrong to think that Islamic traditions are more ancient than Christian, and also that it is a radical Islam that is waging a war in the name of religion.