Out with the Neo-Con We Say!

[mordenkainen]

oh man....
religion alienates people. religious fanatism oppresses people. right.
women do not always - and obviously not freely and objectively - subscribe to islamic law. right. do men?

you live in a country that's ruled by bigoted capitalist integrists. their ideas alienate and oppress. do you subscribe to bigot capitalism yourself? not if you're an adlerian.
would it be right if someone bombed the shit out of you because ultra capitalism and bigotry are bad? would it even be right if those who believe in these values were killed, like they were responsible for their culture, or lack thereof?

hundreds of thousands have been starved and bombed. even those who believed in islam hardly ever had a choice, or a chance to think better, as you said yourself of women.

[mordenkainen]

religion, values and culture are just forced onto most people. they hardly choose their leaders, too (did you choose YOURS :twisted: ). then some guy comes and says it's alright to slaughter you because you're wrong -that's a pretext anyway but you seem to believe it.
people pay for their leading classes and the values through which they are dominated.
bombs do not free women. bombs mash women.
war is always a bad solution, only justified by a direct threat. something has to be done about human right violations in islamist countries? sure. and in non-islamic ones too, for that matter.
there are many ways for a powerful state to influence the evolution of a less powerful one. unfortunately, the USA systematically uses - or used - that sort of influence to support criminal fascist regimes. or have starving countries open their doors to importation of US products at prices lower than production costs. or ....
well, nothing that was ever any good for anyone but your own leading class. and its international friends. (i don't mean other countries do much better, btw. just they have less power to do good or evil.)
trying to find a moral justification to the massacre of a people that was already a victim of its leaders is ridiculous. what's this crap about the stockholm syndrome? has america ever been at the mercy of islamism? I do know some psychology, but i don't need it to know when someone tries hard not to face responsibility - may it be collective responsibility.[/code]

[Omaru]

The plight of women (I'm not so convinced of their complicity as PWV) in areas subjected to state imposed Islamic rule is horrible.

My, what a civilized way to state you disagree with me. Refreshingly different. Thanks, Omaru, for showing us how to politely and intelligently disagree with someone. I wish I had read your post first.

Hey, no problem. :) No need to be a jerk to get your point across, right? Speaking of which, in re-reading my post I get the idea that I may have missed a few points and misrepresented my position just a bit. I didn't mean to make an argument for any sort of invasion or 'liberation' of other nations, although I realize certain statements I made may have given that impression, notably:

...it is a crime against humanity that these circumstances are allowed to continue.

Sometimes I get carried away with the words and forget the point of what I'm saying. :roll:

...we must be careful we don't help those who do not feel they are in need of help. If a woman feels oppressed by her government, she deserves freedom from that oppression. If she feels she is serving her God, the freedom you give her might not be seen that way by her, especially if it is forced upon her.

This is a very important point that I neglected to make, although you've probably stated it better than I could have anyway. You can't just go in and tell everybody 'Hey, trust me, this is for your own good,' even if it is. It's not going to work. That shit doesn't even work on little kids. The best we can do for people suffering under such conditions is to acknowledge them and offer them the example of an alternative until such time as they choose to make the change for themselves by fleeing or fighting against their opressors. That, in my opinion, is our only moral option.

Edit: Alternatively, we can just wait for the bastards to attack us first, in which case we've got full justification for wiping the floor with their asses. People can be so impatient sometimes....

[Omaru]

I understand the ideal about letting people fight their own fight. However, as I reflect on my own life I don’t think that I would be much help in a revolution. I have never shot a gun and I don’t know how to drive a stick shift. I bet 10’s of millions of people fit the same bill. If a sinister government ever took over here we would definitely need outside help to make things better. There is no way that the average person here could fight against our military.

Yeah, we would be pretty well screwed for quite some time. But sooner or later we would learn to fight. And it would be our responsibility and our burden to do so. It is our country, after all.

Also, what do you think about countries that harbor or give money to terrorist organizations? Did they not lend themselves to the direct attack that occurred on the US? Part of me can forgive the donation thing because maybe the donators did not expect money to go toward a physical attack, so that is in the past. However, I do believe that Iraq was harboring and training some of the most prominent terrorists out there. Even if none of this is true what do you think about countries that fund or assist terrorists?

That's a tough question, considering the fact that I would count the U.S. among those countries. And I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of Iraq in regard to terrorism. I would probably not rank them among the leaders in such activity. In any case, I think it's a weak justification for an attack unless the evidence is undeniable and overwhelming that they are directly responsible. 'Innocent until proven guilty' is the law in our courts, and self defense the only justification for violence. These are supposedly core tenets of our society and should be upheld not only in our dealings here at home, but should be part of what we represent to the international community. What sort of example do we set when we throw aside our own basic values in the face of a threat? What kind of people do we show ourselves as?

[Omaru]

Wow. I'm not sure I know how to respond to that one. Tossing away your morals for the sake of presenting an image? I'm afraid I can't understand what makes this a valuable or even interesting idea. But for the sake of argument, even if our image were the only thing at stake here, the only real message that sort of behavior sends is that we are unpredictable, untrustworthy, and violent. And it's true that has worked for leaders in other countries- generally the violent, chaotic dictatorships that you have been railing against throughout this thread. I'm not sure I understand what you're really suggesting, because I can't make much sense of it.

[PsychicWarVeteran]

I hope you're just a little upset, though, when you said you were done with political talk. I would miss your insights a great deal... I hope you reconsider.

Thanks, Doc. I'm not too big to eat my words. And I guess I do have more to say...

This statement is ignorant. People have been getting killed because they are infidels all over the world.

You are SO missing the point. My point is they have a right to believe what they want to believe. *sound of dead horse being kicked*

No one has the right to hurt other people. I never said that. Quit trying to twist me and shove me into your fascist mold; I won't fit.

Stockholm Syndrome my ass.

This is insulting and ignorant because it denies the possibility.

It denies the possibility because it's a weak suggestion. Even you think so yourself:

The Stockholm syndrome idea might be a bit shaky...

:? So, you agree.

Well my guess is that you have never even picked up a copy of the text that millions of people are taught as their only form of education.

You didn't even read my previous post. I'll say it again, "Being completely honest, I have not read every word of the Qur'an, but I have studied world religions very extensively."

How many of you out there have read more than a paragraph of your government’s constitution? I bet not many.

What a pompous thing to say. You think you're the only educated person here, don't you? The rest of us sit around drooling and trying to comprehend Dr. Seuss, is that it?

I'm not even going to touch your "Liberal Bigot" mess. I'd need a longer pole for that.

I don’t think that any of this stuff is right in a moral sense but...

8O Not really a sentence that should have a "but" in it. It betrays a willingness to forsake your own moral beliefs. Tell me what is more important than one's morals?

...it might be a good way to deal with some leaders that are on narcissistic power trips...

Oh. Gotcha. That's worth tossing our your morals. Okay.

Tossing away your morals for the sake of presenting an image? I'm afraid I can't understand what makes this a valuable or even interesting idea.

Second that.

Frankly, I think that some of you would have defended pre-WWII Nazis if we could role back the clock. In my opinion this is because some people lack the ability to think logically about an issue.

OH! I get it now! Duh. You're a troll. An intelligent troll, but a troll nonetheless. I feel so dumb for not noticing sooner. Man, this benefit-of-the-doubt thing gets me every time! Sorry. Won't make the mistake again.

[PsychicWarVeteran]

However, I can go over to his place and hit him in the head with a baseball bat and toss him out the window.

But wouldn't you then be wronging him, since he didn't actually ever do anything to wrong you? Wouldn't hitting him be immoral since it was unjustified?

There is an old Zen saying that instructs a person to take care of laundry first and Zen second.

Ugh. That in no way condones violent pre-emptive strikes. This is a matter of deciding what is practical and what is not. IMHO, it isn't practical nor moral to go around hitting people just to keep from being hit. That's actually a good definition of 'evil.'

[mordenkainen]

I’m curious about something to you there in Spain. How did the population and government react to the train bombing and what were your personal feelings?

My personal feelings are not really relevant as i'm not spanish, but i can tell you what i observed here.
The context here was radically different. First, the spanish have lived with their own terrorists - the ETA, basque separatist group- for decades. It was not all brand new to them.
The former government (j.m. aznar's) messed things up by trying to blame it on the ETA. They had engaged spain in the war in iraq against a vey large majority of the spanish opinion, and the bombing took place just a few weeks before an election they thought they would lose if they could be blamed for what had happened. which was the case.
So the first "emotive" reaction went against the ETA, and then when it became obvious that aznar had lied, his people turned onto him. The bombing was considered a direct consequence of spain's participation in the war. There's a bit of what you called "making friends with the bully so you won't get bullied" here, but then, the spanish were against the war from the very start.
The war is still very impopular now, and the general feeling is, i think, that the US are responsible for exacerbating islamism and anti-occidental feelings in the arab world. You have to remember the spanish - and most of the european - opinion is traditionally in favour of the arabs against israel. Our relation to the arab world is not as abstract as yours, for obvious historical and geographical reasons.
Besides, anti-americanism is a tradition of ours, too. Our leaders used US imperialism a lot as a cheap excuse for their own subscription to the capitalist ideology. And, ironically enough, the spanish have a strong connection to south america and the history of US interventions there does not plead in your favour.

anyway.....I'm afraid you're into realpolitik there, pard. I don't know if Adler would like that.

[PsychicWarVeteran]

I'm afraid you're into realpolitik there, pard. I don't know if Adler would like that.

Careful! I tried to say that yesterday (in different words) and got a bunch of condescension back for my trouble...

[Jerico]

It’s my thought that if we here were oppressed that we would never get out from under it. Where would we get weapons from? You can’t really make machine guns or rockets in you basement. I still say that someone would have to help.

I think that preemptive strikes are good publicity for the US. It’s not good for our moral image, but it does send the message that if anyone tries anything we will totally ruin your good time. I think this message works well for rulers of other countries. Do you want to live it up and leave us alone or would you care to challenge us and end up in some prison with on money. Even if we loose some of these conflicts the people in charge of rival regimes loose even more.

I don’t think that any of this stuff is right in a moral sense but it might be a good way to deal with some leaders that are on narcissistic power trips or involved in a fantasy world. It’s interesting and worth talking about.

Woah boy! And how do you describe Bush and cronies?

[PsychicWarVeteran]

About the baseball bat thing: conspiracies are illegal. You can’t plan to sell drugs or murder someone. I knew plenty of guys that were in prison just because they were caught planning something. It’s much the same isn’t it?

If the person actually told you he was going to rape your girlfriend when you weren't around, then he has threatened you; that is an attack upon you. If you're simply assuming he's going to rape your girlfriend, then you are in the wrong to attack him first.

I see your analogy as it applies to terrorists, but not all Muslims are terrorists. It is possible for a Muslim to never kill another person, whether they see them as an infidel or not.

You want to punish a whole group of people based on the actions of a few. Should the entire nation of America be condemned for the deplorable actions of Bush and his administration? How would it be any different than what you suggest regarding Islam?

[Doc]

I have said before that I don't want to see all Muslims punished. I want to see it watered down like the other western religions. I do not know how to do that unless direct action is taken. I don't want people (especially me) to have to wait another thousand years before their fantastic nonsense wears out.

You can't "water down" systems of ideas and ideals through direct action. Ideals don't have a physical location--action always does. You could try to overtake every Muslim leaning nation on the globe and you'd still have millions of followers in other nations.

The Crusades proved how fruitless a war on Islam could be, but a more apt parallel lies with our present War on Terrorism (whatever that means) which is promising to be as futile as our War on Drugs. The common link being, of course, that national boundaries mean nothing to religion, terrorism, or drugs.

[PsychicWarVeteran]

I don't know about that Doc. I'm 38 and have seem a significant decline in religious belief here in the US.

Gotta disagree with you there. The National Survey of Religious Identification and the American Religious Identity Survey report that from 1990 - 2001 in the United States, there was a +109% shift in Islam, +170% shift in Buddhism and a +237% shift in Hinduism. Agnosticism went the other direction: -16%. A +110% change in secularism during that same period seems insignificant by comparison. Further, Christianity made up over 75% of the total US population in 2000.

Sadly, there's not a lot of more recent data to be found.

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions

What I do see is a continuing trend anti-intellectualism in the US which, in my opinion, goes hand-in-hand with a rise in organized religions.

Also, if you can get democratic government in that will start to take away the false power of religious authority.

That would be nice, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, the majority of the people wanted Mr. Divine Mandate in office another four years, so there goes that idea, huh?

...it must happen because of the one world gov that almost has to happen.

Perhaps, but that will likely take the thousand years you said you didn't want to have to wait out. :lol:

[PsychicWarVeteran]

I’m not sure if people voted for Bush because he is or they are religious. I think that they voted for him because he “sounds� religious... I don’t think people really care that much about if he is...

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I think Bush believes God put him in office and I think many of his constituents back him solely because they themselves are fundamentalist Christians and see him as the bitch of the Religious Right.

I bet almost no one reads the bible...

How many of you out there have read more than a paragraph of your government’s constitution? I bet not many.

...it is clear to me that you have never picked up a source book on Islam...

...my guess is that you have never even picked up a copy of the text that millions of people are taught...

I am on a crusade against ignorance.

I'm spotting a trend. You make a lot of assumptions about how well-read (or not so well-read) people are. Ironic, considering the site you've selected to post your views.

Know what I think? I think you want to believe you're more well-read than everyone else. I think you believe everyone around you to be a bunch of ignorant boobs, including those of us here who occasionally disagree with you. Please stop assuming everyone is a lazy illiterate. Please? It's distracting and makes me say mean things back.

[PsychicWarVeteran]

Hey if it’s true it’s true!

But you have no proof it is. Only unfounded speculation.

I doubt that many people have ever read the whole bible in most of the Christian or Jewish world... Be honest, how many people can you say that you know that study the bible and can relate it’s mandates to daily living?

Many. Myself included. I know the Bible very well (especially the New Testament). I try to live my life off the teachings of Christ, as well as the moral teachings of other great spiritual leaders such as Gautama Buddha. Am I a rare individual in this aspect? I don't think so. I think a great deal of people in this world actually are attempting to find enlightement, salvation. You have a much more cynical view about that than I do, I guess.

Accusing me about being well read on the subject is hardly an insult.

Never accused you of that. Quite the contrary, actually.

Accusing others of not being well read on a subject that they are commenting on is a fair thing to do.

Not if it's just speculation on your part. You use "I bet" and "it's my guess" a lot. Knowwhatimean?

Psychology moment: do you have anger problems PWV?

Har! You really are into psych, aren't you? Nice try.

No, I haven't had a problem with anger management since I stopped drinking a year and a half ago. But, see, I am currently on this "love thy neighbor" kick and it's troubling to me when I backslide and say hurtful things to people. It's tough, the spiritual path, and I have a long way to go. So, you know, every now and then when someone says something (or several things, in your case) that I perceive as obtuse, close-minded, or outright racist, I lose a bit of control. I hate that. That's why I want you to start arguing with facts and leave your specualtions out of the debate. It'll greatly help my spiritual growth. :D

<Bill Bixby voice>
Believe me, Adlerian, you've never seen me actually get angry.
</Bill Bixby voice>