156 replies to this topic

[Lazarus Long]

..... from that bastion of left wing liberalism.....

Hmmm, it seems that it's very easy to revert to these kind of semantics. But isn't it evident that tribalism is the main cause of the issues that we are discussing in this thread? So what is to be gained by it?

I know it's very easy for me to express me in this manner to, but to dissect the issue into its bare elementary components does mean that we would be able to make a tiny step towards a possible solution. A solution of enormous proportion and complexity.

I shouldn't have to spell this out and if I had done a good job I probably wouldn't have to but you are not from the US so I will chalk it up to that.

The example is sardonic. Try reading the line and substituting the name of the magazines the Economist or Forbes.

I am actually saying much of the same thing as you. The US News & World report is actually a relatively right of center mainstream source that is calling very deliberately for moderation. The *tongue-in-cheek* comment was intended to highlight precisely what you are lamenting.

[Brainbox]

..... from that bastion of left wing liberalism.....

Hmmm, it seems that it's very easy to revert to these kind of semantics. But isn't it evident that tribalism is the main cause of the issues that we are discussing in this thread? So what is to be gained by it?

I know it's very easy for me to express me in this manner to, but to dissect the issue into its bare elementary components does mean that we would be able to make a tiny step towards a possible solution. A solution of enormous proportion and complexity.

I shouldn't have to spell this out and if I had done a good job I probably wouldn't have to but you are not from the US so I will chalk it up to that.

The example is sardonic. Try reading the line and substituting the name of the magazines the Economist or Forbes.

I am actually saying much of the same thing as you. The US News & World report is actually a relatively right of center mainstream source that is calling very deliberately for moderation. The *tongue-in-cheek* comment was intended to highlight precisely what you are lamenting.

Haha, ok, sorry, my serious apologies!.... I could defend myself by saying that it wasn't meant to be personal, but, honestly, it was at least a tiny bit.
It's indeed difficult to detect even sarcastic flavours, let alone more subtle "subjective" inclinations.

I guess I'm also getting a bit tired of these kind of discussions. But that's entirely my own problem of coarse. Imminst, being a very progressive and open minded platform, still gets stuck in discussing aspects of religion that are detrimental towards the realisation of real progress. The kind of "look how difficult it is to make progress in our current state our civilisation is in, just because of these religious types that are only generalising, causing more and more polarisation". A form of self pity, or what else could it be? I think we could also examine our own stance towards the issue. What are we doing to build bridges?

This was exactly the reason to post the "de Winter" very progressive Jewish angle of view. A very fresh point of view, although also a bit unilateral and theoretical in the sense of wishful thinking. But nevertheless a good sound from the religious realms in the good direction.

This definitely is not meant to be taken personal.

[nefastor]

Karl Marx said religions are the opium of the people. He recommended cocaine (communism) instead. Billions of people are addicted and it's foolish to think they could quit cold turkey. That's why it makes much more sense to look for ways to get rid of the toxic parts of religions. Let the addicts have methadone instead of heroin.

You're making the same mistake the communists did : you're not taking human nature into account. Even you replaced the Bible with, say, comic books (which are full of idealized superhuman beings too) you'd still have people waging war and saying it's in the name of Superman, or Batman, or the Silver Surfer.

The problem isn't a religious book, it's how much bearing we give it on our lives. You can't change that by changing the book.

Besides, who gets to decide about the formula of your "methadone" ? Is there any human on Earth with a heart so pure (impartial) and a mind so rational and wise that he could know for sure which parts of a holy book would lead to violence ? I think that kind of person doesn't exist, because he'd have to be more than human.

Polygamy was a very important part of the Mormon church. Actually Joseph Smith created that religion because he desired other wives besides the one he already had.

That's exactly what I mean when I say religions are only tools we use to justify getting our way. "Look wife, I had sex with these women because God wanted me too. Says so in this book I've just written." Come on !

Here is an excellent article on the core subject of this thread and debate from that bastion of left wing liberalism: the US News & World Report.

It is not so much about the movie as it is about the course this thread has taken at times.

The effect of such smear tactics is cumulative and insidious. Particularly in the day of the Internet, where every opinion appears equally authoritative,...

Excuse me, that's just ridiculous. The man writes a big article about unfair characterization and generalization and ends it with some of his own.

If anything, THIS thread has proven him wrong : clearly at least some of us feel Gas's opinion were not authoritative enough he'd deserve to voice them.

Now I'm thinking reading this whole article was a waste of time : clearly his author sees the little dust mote in someone else's eye, but fails so see the huge brick in his own (that's a french saying, translates poorly but you get the point).

Case in point : in the second article, which is basically a huge love-letter to Sheik Ali Gomaa, the author writes :

Unless read as it was intended, Gomaa's ruling on the sinfulness of statuary could be seen as giving encouragement to the destruction of some of Egypt's greatest archaeological relics—something he explicitly did not mean but which was suggested in several misreadings of the fatwa that appeared in Egyptian newspapers.

Hello ? Do you think it's only the anti-Islamists who are going to misinterpret this fatwa ? What do you call the destruction of the Buddha statues in Afghanistan by the Taliban, then ?

I'll say it again, unless you haven't experienced for yourself living with Muslims on a daily basis, you can't understand this : lie and misrepresentation are OK in the eyes of Allah as long as they are used to further the spread of Islam. In that light, it's entirely possible, even likely, that Gomaa's fatwa was actually in implicit support of the destruction of non-Islamic culture.

As long as you keep judging Islam from the standpoint of your own moral values (which is a natural reflex) you won't get it. It is a culture that is more different from yours than you can guess or assume : you really need to study it to understand. It's easier for me because it's not a reflex for me to see everyone and everything in the light of a Christian culture (I grew up in a country with Christianity has no power whatsoever, and, unlike the US, not one politician ever says God bless France)

Mr. Hammer...Mr. Charles Hammer...please pick up the nearest courtesy phone...Europe's on the line.

LOL I hadn't realized his name had been translated. Martel is old-French for Hammer.

Anyway... like Brainbox, I'm getting a little tired of this discussion. It would go easier if people didn't always forget about history, specifically European and Middle-Eastern history, but if what I hear about the state of the US education system is accurate, it's not even a case of forgetting, it's just that Americans never learned history in the first place.

I've been to America, and I'm not talking New York or the big cities only. I'm talking places like West Virginia. I've met "Joe Average" : very brave, very patriotic, very welcoming, but will stop listening to you the moment you suggest there is something America doesn't do better than any other country. Most of the Americans I know would never give any consideration to these words :

Nefastor

[Lazarus Long]

Case in point : in the second article, which is basically a huge love-letter to Sheik Ali Gomaa, the author writes :

QUOTE
Unless read as it was intended, Gomaa's ruling on the sinfulness of statuary could be seen as giving encouragement to the destruction of some of Egypt's greatest archaeological relics—something he explicitly did not mean but which was suggested in several misreadings of the fatwa that appeared in Egyptian newspapers.

Hello ? Do you think it's only the anti-Islamists who are going to misinterpret this fatwa ? What do you call the destruction of the Buddha statues in Afghanistan by the Taliban, then ?

Nefastor the author did address that point and that was the issue to begin with, Gomaa was condemning the acts of the Taliban.

Other bloggers charged that I did not look into his fatwa allegedly calling for the destruction of statues (including, one might infer, many of the great Egyptian antiquities). The fact is that I did look into this. And while Gomaa did say that it was un-Islamic for Muslims to own statues or to display them in their homes, he made it very clear that the destruction of antiquities and other statues in the public sphere was unacceptable and indeed criminal. He is also on record deploring the Taliban's destruction of the great Buddhist statuary in Afghanistan. But the watchdogs tend to read selectively and to rely on those sources that support their judgments.

The Taliban did not misinterpret the fatwa in this case they ignored it. That is the point the author is making. It is time to try and develop constructive dialog without cultural prejudice and contribute to developing a true middle, moderate class in Islam or we risk being far more a part of the problem contributing to extremists setting the terms of the debate through the polemic of polarization instead of the solution which works consistently for constructive change that results in a social win-win instead of relying on untenible zero/sum solutions.

Continuous vilification of your opposition will only result in the radicalization of both sides and an all or nothing conclusion. Such outcomes never look like they are intended to and invariably reflect the worst examples of the law of unintended consequences.

I was tired of this discussion from the beginning but feel obligated to contribute support of rational moderation and constructive engagement.

[Lazarus Long]

To go further in reply to your central point:

I'll say it again, unless you haven't experienced for yourself living with Muslims on a daily basis, you can't understand this : lie and misrepresentation are OK in the eyes of Allah as long as they are used to further the spread of Islam. In that light, it's entirely possible, even likely, that Gomaa's fatwa was actually in implicit support of the destruction of non-Islamic culture.

As long as you keep judging Islam from the standpoint of your own moral values (which is a natural reflex) you won't get it. It is a culture that is more different from yours than you can guess or assume : you really need to study it to understand.

The author replies:

Look hard enough, and an American reader will doubtless be able to find things in the grand mufti's rulings that don't conform to current standards of enlightened moderation. For example, he issued a long and complicated fatwa on the issue of wife-beating--a fatwa that acknowledges certain pre-modern cultural and historical contexts in which sharia was used to justify the odious practice. But he also said that since those cultural and historical conditions are not the conditions of modern societies, Muslims today cannot invoke sharia to justify any form of spousal violence. If the reasoning sounds tortured, well, it is. And it would be much more appealing to American ears to hear him simply say that Islamic law has never sanctioned such practices. But we must recall that Christianity and Judaism have been used--in ways that seemed legitimate at the time--to justify practices and institutions that we now find morally repugnant, including slavery. The mufti was guilty of being honest about the historically determined interactions between customary practices and religious principles. So how does the watchdog Spencer characterize the man? As the "wife-beatin,' statue-hatin' Mufti Ali Gomaa." Is that accuracy in labeling?


The effect of such smear tactics is cumulative and insidious. Particularly in the day of the Internet, where every opinion appears equally authoritative, careless swipes at figures like Egypt's grand mufti create the impression that there are no moderate Muslims with standing in the predominantly Muslim world. Writer Hitchens is no friend of Islam, but what he once wrote about Pipes's dour interpretation of a promising development in Iran accurately describes the default position of many reflexive watchdogs: "To put it bluntly," Hitchens wrote, "I suspect that Pipes is so consumed by dislike that he will not recognize good news from the Islamic world even when it arrives. And this makes him dangerous and unreliable."

[nefastor]

Nefastor the author did address that point and that was the issue to begin with, Gomaa was condemning the acts of the Taliban.
The Taliban did not misinterpret the fatwa in this case they ignored it.

Of course they did : Gomaa may be the most moderate of Muslims, Muslim extremists won't listen to him just because he's Muslim too. And seriously, did you notice the choice of words ? He deplores the destruction of statues by the Taliban, he does not condemn it. This is the same thing as Torquemada telling the victims of his torturers "this hurts me more than it hurts you." Similar thing with his stance on wife-beating : he only says you can't use religion as an excuse. Like that's ever stopped any wife-beater in OUR "civilized" countries.

Even the article's author says Gomaa's reasoning is tortured and yet he seems OK with it. I'm sorry, but there's no reason why you should have to torture your way into thinking it's bad to beat your wife and it's bad to destroy art. Not unless you really deep down disagree with the words coming out of your own mouth.

If we had politicians on this forum, they'd now exactly what I mean. Oratory precautions and extremely convoluted arguments designed to make your true stance unclear are not the tools of honesty. They are tools to get elected by making sure your electorate doesn't see you for who you really are.

And really that's what it all boils down to : religion is about power, and it's easier to get people to give you power if you can mislead them as to what you want and why you want it for. Let's say for a minute Christianity suddenly returned to the same level of power it had in the 1500's, would you bet there wouldn't be witch-hunts and torture again ?

That is the point the author is making. It is time to try and develop constructive dialog without cultural prejudice and contribute to developing a true middle, moderate class in Islam.

Though first-hand experience scream to me that "moderate Islam" is a contradiction in terms and, at best, the lesser of two evils (as opposed to extremist Islam) I will admit it would be a good thing for Islam to grow moderate.

The thing is, you can't do that by editing the Quran or promoting an alternative version. Like I said, you have to take into account base human nature. It's the growth in self-indulgence that killed the power of the Church in Europe, not any kind of modification or re-interpretation of the Bible. Base human needs and desires is also why the USSR social experiment failed.

If you want Islam to mellow down, you need to take ammo out of the extremists' guns. That means :

- Stop plundering Middle-Eastern natural resources like it's a God-given right.

- Stop attacking Muslim countries solely for financial gain (Iraq) and start treating them fairly when doing business

- Start spreading your own culture, your own morality in the Muslim regions of the world. The good and especially the bad : I can assure you pornography, soap operas and reality shows would do more to bring the majority of Muslims to appreciate us than all the rhetoric and philosophy and high ideals we could ever feed them. TRUST THE HUMAN ANIMAL IN EACH OF US.

I was tired of this discussion from the beginning but feel obligated to contribute support of rational moderation and constructive engagement.

For which you have my gratitude and respect.

Nefastor

[Lazarus Long]

There is enough ignorance to go around, not just my countrymen suffer from it. There is also a lot of history to overcome as you are personally aware of. Nevertheless realistic solutions imply a need to do exactly that and engage those that seek our destruction and at the very least dispel the mythology of demonization as much as possible on that side.

Dealing with primitive cultures is always difficult and I do have some experience with that.

http://video.on.nyti...1c83c242a8b2944


When you have a larger culture of surplus male population such that even marriage is difficult then recruitment into more extremist alternatives become more possible.

http://video.on.nyti...6021d893aef75ad

I couldn't agree with you more when you say:

If you want Islam to mellow down, you need to take ammo out of the extremists' guns. That means :

- Stop plundering Middle-Eastern natural resources like it's a God-given right.

- Stop attacking Muslim countries solely for financial gain (Iraq) and start treating them fairly when doing business

- Start spreading your own culture, your own morality in the Muslim regions of the world. The good and especially the bad : I can assure you pornography, soap operas and reality shows would do more to bring the majority of Muslims to appreciate us than all the rhetoric and philosophy and high ideals we could ever feed them. TRUST THE HUMAN ANIMAL IN EACH OF US.

We need to offer constructive alternatives not just reality TV as a focus for life but instead we are setting the terms of social life by turning the world into a battlefield. We are unwittingly fulfilling the objectives of the terrorists and doing EXACTLY what they want us to do because it helps them recruit into their causes. They would threaten us no matter what good we attempt but do we have to make it so easy?

http://video.on.nyti...2760ef20ec4cec9

Ironically one way to do that is to support moderation and institutions that promote rational discourse and popular economic opportunity. In Pakistan we see an opportunity to promote social change and also confront the most recalcitrant social elements. We see reason to hope and good reason to fear but we should be consistent and constructive in our form of engagement not cathartic, inconsistent, destructive and disrespectful. We should have stayed the course in Afghanistan instead of invading Iraq a w did. At the same time we could have socioeconomically, politically and militarily deconstructed Iraq in less time than we have invested so far while providing a realistic support structure to our allies in the region.

Those opportunities are lost in in time now but the need to shift course strategically is still present.

Since this entire thread is about political speech in art I think it should be remembered that there is room to go around about expressing such opinions. We need to remember that just as the Triumph of the Will was a cinematic milestone for its time, it was also a well crafted propaganda message that was effective. Nevertheless bombing German cinema would not have been a cogent response while Hollywood was up for the challenge. There are many fields of combat and not all of the most important ones require bloodshed.

We need to remember there are also voices of moderation and not just encourage them to take the stage and speak out but protect them from extremists while they do.

The answer to Wilder is not rage among us here on whether he is right or wrong as much as this new movie out of Pakistan in which the bright light of reason is brought to bear on the divide in that culture between the majority that is already moderate and the minority of extremists that have effectively been manipulating the polemic.

Khuda Ke Liye: A tough balancing act

Once in a ‘rare’ while comes a film that makes you want to sit and up and say “Bravo!” Made on a budget of 60 million Pakistani rupees, KHUDA KAY LIYE is a departure from the usually tepid Lollywood dramas. Also, the first Pakistani film to release in India after 40 years, it is truly deserving of this accolade.

Set in the year 2000, the story spans three countries: the United Kingdom, Pakistan and the United States. Two musician brothers Mansoor (Shaan) and Sarmad (Fawad Khan) are doing what they do best – making music, when the younger one is unexpectedly drawn towards Moulana Tahiri’s vitriolic against music, singing and the like, all of which he deems as un-Islamic.

Movies like this will help us understand their culture better while even more importantly it will help them understand themselves.

[nefastor]

Lazarus, the guy in the first video seems to have barely discovered the "psy-ops" aspect of warfare. Before he went to teach people at Westpoint (not the best military academy anyway, IMHO) he should have read Sun Tzu, who wrote this 2500 years ago about logistics and morale (I'm quoting from memory) :

"A bowl of rice taken from the enemy's supplies is worth ten bowls of your own rice. Not only do you deprive and demoralize the enemy soldiers, you improve the morale of your own troop, in addition to the direct advantage inherent to disrupting enemy logistics and saving your own resources."

To Sun Tzu, stealing supplies from the enemy is worth doing even if you don't need those supplies, and even if they aren't vital to the enemy, simply because of the impact on morale on all sides. Psy-ops have always been crucial to warfare. Last time I went in the woods with friends to re-enact the Battle of Dien Bien Phu we had a couple of propaganda officers on the Viet side with loudspeakers who would shout at the French camp demoralizing messages ("this is not your war", "return to your families", "you are doomed", that sort of thing). I was on the Viet side but afterwards the French team told us after two hours of battle the non-stop messages really started to get to them. The battle lasted 8 hours, under rain. By the end, the French players were glad it was over and this was ONLY A GAME (with BB automatic weapons and training grenades). The French lost by the way, just as it happened in reality, even though we had tweaked the parameters in their favor compared to historical fact. Much of their defeat was attributed to psy-ops and the weather.

The second video kinda scared me. Because so much of it could soon become a reality in the USA : I've seen people who could be my grandparents working at Wallmart, and I've heard many times of people needed to have two or three jobs to make ends meet. If you're a strong "believer" in determinism as I am, you can't help but think : won't Americans someday find solace and purpose in the words of priests who would ban stem-cell research and deny the theory of evolution any merit ? Where would we go from there ? Back to burning witches and "alchemists" (scientists) ?

The USA is undeniably starting to look more and more like a backwards, medieval place : a disconnected ruling elite rich beyond belief, and masses of poor, ignorant people turning to religion for comfort and purpose.

we should be consistent and constructive in our form of engagement not cathartic, inconsistent, destructive and disrespectful. We should have stayed the course in Afghanistan instead of invading Iraq a w did.

Indeed. After 9/11 and with what everyone knew about Bin Laden, no one could have faulted the US for fully committing its military into Afghanistan. I'm even convinced my country would have joined yours, for we have many new weapons we could have field-tested like the US is doing right now in Iraq.

What we saw instead was repulsive in so many ways : the Bin Laden family getting flown out of the US on 9/12 instead of being detained, the way oil executives (Bush and Cheney) used the grief of a nation to further their own interests, the countless lies, starting with Saddam's WMD's, the outsourcing of the war to mercenaries...

For the record, Jacques Chirac, French president at the time and responsible for France not going to Iraq, is by far the most corrupt president we've ever had. You have no idea the depth and amount of shit he's committed, we're still finding out new stuff all the time.

Even HE couldn't stomach what Bush and Cheney did. I don't think you'll ever realize what this means unless I draw a comparison : it's as if Star Wars' Emperor learned Darth Vader destroyed a whole planet with the Death Star just to get Princess Leia to talk... and was so revolted that he fired Darth Vader then publicly apologized to the Rebellion.

It's likely the war in Iraq will never be forgotten in the Muslim world. Like any old civilization, as I have myself demonstrated, they keep in mind wars that have taken place hundreds or even thousands of years ago. What that means is that, whenever the US will want to start dealing reasonably with the Middle East, Americans will not have the higher ground. And to refer to Sun Tzu again, while that's not necessarily a bad thing it can never be a good thing.

So, yes, Lazarus, combat does not always require bloodshed. Though it's important to remember that bloodshed creates the best weapons and shields for psychological warfare.

Nefastor

[nefastor]

Muslims arn't all bad, they don't piss and moan about abortion and stem cell research. So they can be quite rational and sane.

Heh, that's because it is largely non-Muslims that are having the abortions - islamacists probably view it as a blessing as it makes things easier for them; they don't even have to kill us, just keep breeding and immigrating while we kill our babies.

You have no idea how right you are on the breeding part. As you know, France has "social security" : part of it is socialized medicine, and another part of it is a financial aid to families for every children they have (in France you actually get paid to have kids : a family with four kids can get by without either parents working).

Statistics have shown that immigrant Muslim families in France average about 4 children, whereas native French families average slightly less than two kids. It's often pointed out as one of the reason our social security system is going bankrupt. You will find a similar situation in the UK (it's probably worse there)

Nefastor

I couldn't care less if abortion was legal or illegal actually, the only thing I see affecting me and thus the only thing I care about is stem cell research. I can't say that I know what muslims do in their own countries when it comes to abortion but I would assume they wouldn't care seeing as how killing things is almost the national pastime.
France is just asking for it with laws like that, I'd leech off the system too if I lived there. Maybe things have gotten to the point where it's considered racist for white people to have children at all, at least white ones that are biologically theirs. cough* angelina jolie cough*.

Okay... I'll try to keep this brief, you don't seem like the smart type. Nor the informed type.

If the only thing you care about is stem cell research, that makes you the kind of moron who confronted the PLA on Tien An Men square and got shot to death. Whether you like it or not, you're not immortal (yet) and you live on a planet where very real people very much want you dead. If you don't learn who they are and what they are, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage... towards people who are already smart enough to shove an airliner up your rosy little @$$ from 12,000 kilometers away AND get away with it.

But hey, that's your funeral.

Killing is not a national pastime of the Muslim anymore than it is a national pastime of, say, the USA, the one "civilized" country with has far more deaths by firearm each year than all the modern countries combined. Even the US Vice President is not above shooting someone in the face with a shotgun, if you'll recall. Perhaps he wanted to know what it's like to be Saddam Hussein.

Of course people leech from France's socialized medicine system, and of course people come in illegally to do just that. Don't you think we're all painfully aware of that ? Still, I'm glad to know your moral standards aren't so high you wouldn't yourself leech from the system. Remind me to punch you in the face the day you decide to come live in my country.

And your brains must have turned to jelly if you think French people would ever regard having children as an act of racism. The truth is, as always, much simpler : as in all modern countries, the liberation of women means they now tend to prefer having a job and a career than taking care of half a dozen kids. However Muslims in France don't know much about the liberation of women... do you follow ?

Oh and please don't compare your brain-dead movie actresses to our tepid ones : while French actresses aren't fond of overacting, silicone lips, mega-boobs and tattoos, they don't go plunder third-world countries for enough kids to setup an army.

This was Nefastor, signing out for the night.

[nefastor]

I'm just out from watching a very interesting movie : Charlie Wilson's War

It gets most interesting in the last few minutes. I won't quote because I don't want to spoil it for those who haven't seen it yet, but I feel mentioning it has its place in this thread.

Nefastor

[abolitionist]

I think branding Islam as evil is a mistake unless you equally declare all religious doctrine as evil.

I think the best way to deal with any threat from Islamic nations is to stop supporting their oil economies and force them to evolve.

If we simply leave them alone and stop buying their oil they will have to change.

Problem solved.

[Ghostrider]

I think the best way to deal with any threat from Islamic nations is to stop supporting their oil economies and force them to evolve.

If we simply leave them alone and stop buying their oil they will have to change.

Problem solved.

That's a very good point.

[mentatpsi]

I think branding Islam as evil is a mistake unless you equally declare all religious doctrine as evil.

I think the best way to deal with any threat from Islamic nations is to stop supporting their oil economies and force them to evolve.

If we simply leave them alone and stop buying their oil they will have to change.

Problem solved.

lol i had asked people to wonder the same thing posts ago... but i have a habit of making posts too large...

this issue is going to happen regardless... it's just a matter of when... now the issue is why these countries will evolve if their primary export is no longer required... does anyone know what the 2nd highest export is of these nations? just a question...

the main issue is that these countries don't have a great economy (nor prospect) to fuel an incentive to evolve... their main cohesive is this export... in addition... probably nefastor would know this... how distant is the middle class and lower class from the tyrants that rule these countries? I have a feeling that if the Oil went away from necessity they (tyrants) would be able to situate themselves where they can still live quite comfortably for the rest of their lives and a couple generations... the bloodshed would go down since there would be no one funding these acts... the issue is what happens to the citizens?

Edited by mysticpsi, 07 April 2008 - 01:34 AM.

[Shannon Vyff]

Angelina Jolie is a great woman, doing and giving much... to end inequality to help combat poverty. I wish her and her children health and happiness. I reserve hate, for very few and deserving things-such as ignorance.

[niner]

I think branding Islam as evil is a mistake unless you equally declare all religious doctrine as evil.

I think the best way to deal with any threat from Islamic nations is to stop supporting their oil economies and force them to evolve.

If we simply leave them alone and stop buying their oil they will have to change.

Problem solved.

I don't like memetic religions, but I'm still opposed to slagging off 1.3 billion people because of the actions of a relative handful of extremists. I also think that we might want to consider that most of them don't even live in oil economies. Nonetheless, we should still stop importing and burning oil, as it wrecks our economy as well as the biosphere.

[mentatpsi]

I think branding Islam as evil is a mistake unless you equally declare all religious doctrine as evil.

I think the best way to deal with any threat from Islamic nations is to stop supporting their oil economies and force them to evolve.

If we simply leave them alone and stop buying their oil they will have to change.

Problem solved.

I don't like memetic religions, but I'm still opposed to slagging off 1.3 billion people because of the actions of a relative handful of extremists. I also think that we might want to consider that most of them don't even live in oil economies. Nonetheless, we should still stop importing and burning oil, as it wrecks our economy as well as the biosphere.

I think that very few people on this topic are in support of committing genocide... and many know the stances of gash...

You're probably right about the oil economies... but i did find this as some evidence:


Saudi Arabia
"Saudi Arabia's economy is Petroleum-based; roughly 75% of budget revenues and 90% of export earnings come from the oil industry. The oil industry comprises about 45% of Saudi Arabia's gross domestic product, compared with 40% from the private sector (see below). Saudi Arabia officially has about 260,000,000,000 barrels (41,000,000,000 m³) of oil reserves, comprising about 24% of the world's proven total petroleum reserves.[23]" http://en.wikipedia...._Arabia#Economy

[23] - http://www.eia.doe.g...l/reserves.html

"The oil industry is the most important sector of the Saudi economy. Saudi Arabia’s proven petroleum reserves amount to one-fourth of the world total. The major oil fields are in the eastern part of the country and offshore in the Persian Gulf. Because the country has relatively small internal demand for oil, it exports most of its production. It is the largest exporter of petroleum in the world—in 2002 Saudi Arabia exported about 6 million barrels per day—and has the power to influence world oil prices."
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2008. © 1993-2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The fact that they still have a monarchy and it still adheres to religious laws should say something

Iran:
"About 45 percent of the government's budget came from oil and natural gas revenues, and 31 percent came from taxes and fees."
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2008. © 1993-2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

"Petroleum dominates Iran’s exports, making up 85 percent of export earnings. In 2002 Iran exported 765 million barrels of crude oil per day. Major nonoil exports include carpets, chemicals, steel, fresh and dried fruits, nuts, and animal hides. The country’s leading purchasers are Japan, South Korea, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Italy, and China."
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2008. © 1993-2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

gotta love Encarta

Lebanon:
"Lebanon's lack of raw materials for industry and its complete dependency on Arab countries for oil have made it difficult for the Lebanese to engage in significant industrial activity. As such, industry in Lebanon is mainly limited to small businesses concerned with reassembling and packaging imported parts. In 2004, industry ranked second in workforce, with 26% of the Lebanese working population,[48] agriculture is the least popular economic sector in Lebanon. " http://en.wikipedia....Lebanon#Economy

[48] - Jean Hayek et al, 1999. The Structure, Properties, and Main Foundations of the Lebanese Economy. In The Scientific Series in Geography, Grade 11, 110-114. Beirut: Dar Habib.

"Traditionally, Lebanon’s balance of trade has been overwhelmingly unfavorable; in 2003 exports totaled $1,524 million, while imports totaled $7.2 billion. Nonetheless, in the 1990s Lebanon maintained a total balance-of-payments surplus because it received large inflows of money in the form of remittances from family members who lived abroad, investments in postwar reconstruction, and deposits in savings accounts that took advantage of high interest rates. However, after 1999 the trade deficit grew faster than these various cash inflows, and Lebanon reported a balance-of-payments deficit of $1.15 billion in 2001."
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2008. © 1993-2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


I suppose even though technically you can't call them all oil economies, you have to admit oil plays a crucial part in their economic development and stability.
The fact of the matter is that these powers are very likely to deteriorate if their major cash crop got destroyed... what will happen then? Life is extremely interconnected...

Edited by mysticpsi, 06 April 2008 - 05:06 AM.

[Ghostrider]

Angelina Jolie is a great woman, doing and giving much... to end inequality to help combat poverty. I wish her and her children health and happiness. I reserve hate, for very few and deserving things-such as ignorance.

Angelina Jolie is a psycho on par with bono. In fact, she probably is bono in disguise in an attempt to get people to actually pay attention to him. I think it's ignorant to assume that actress is as much of an over the top selfless, empethatic person as she portrays herself to be. All of those kids are going to grow up and write books about how she's a total bitch. But that's just my oppinion...
Good job on the whole barbara walter's thing by the way.

I don't blame bad celebrities, I blame the people who pay attention to them. Same reason spam and junk mail exist, there are enough people to support it...

Honestly, I view the people who support spam as worse than the actual spammer. At least the spammer demonstrated creativity, the supporter only demonstrated convenience in favor of selfishness.

[nefastor]

I think branding Islam as evil is a mistake unless you equally declare all religious doctrine as evil.

I've been doing that all along, you'll notice if you can spare the time to read my previous posts.

I think the best way to deal with any threat from Islamic nations is to stop supporting their oil economies and force them to evolve.

Tell that to oil companies and those of their executives who run the US government, namely the POTUS and his VP.

Also keep in mind "evolution" means "change", NOT necessarily "improvement". People getting poor have a marked tendency to turn to crime.

If we simply leave them alone and stop buying their oil they will have to change.

Just like a cold might leave you alone if your immune system is strong enough. Except we tolerate way too much islmamisation in Europe.

And it'd probably be a good idea to keep a short leash on the Christians in the US : the Iraq war can be attributed to neo-cons and the Bush administration, which are definitely religious freaks.

Problem solved.

You sound like Bush : "Mission Accomplished !"

Angelina Jolie is a great woman, doing and giving much... to end inequality to help combat poverty. I wish her and her children health and happiness. I reserve hate, for very few and deserving things-such as ignorance.

I don't think anyone hates Angelina. Truth be told, I fantasized about her when she was young (Hackers and before). And she was definitely sexy in a naughty way as a bunch of rendered polygons in "Beowulf". Those who say they "hate" her are likely hypocrites : that woman's body has something to give a man a hard-on no matter what fetishes he may have. That doesn't mean her fight against poverty is more than a way for her to feel good about herself : she has to be fully aware it takes way more than a movie star to change the world. Otherwise the world would be a paradise, if you look back at all the just causes that were ever championed by famous people.

Oh wait... didn't famous people get behind eugenics back when it was fashionable ?

I don't like memetic religions, but I'm still opposed to slagging off 1.3 billion people because of the actions of a relative handful of extremists.

I fully agree 1.3 billion lives is something worth the effort of finding a solution that doesn't involve mass murder, however we must keep in mind that Islam is a dynamic problem : the longer we take to find that solution, the closer we get to the day where Muslim extremists take over the world. And when that appears inevitable, there will be blood on the streets, just as it happened in Spain in the 8th century.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. If you only take ONE thing out of all I've posted in this thread, it's this : learn about Islam, learn about its successful history of conquest. Otherwise, and forgive the profanity (it's not targeted at anyone in particular) you'll be talking out of your asses until someone buries you alive like they did to my great-grandpa.

Nefastor

[nefastor]

I've met other Europeans who had heard this as well. I went to public school and was required to take world history classes up until high school graduation - I believe this is pretty standard. Of course who remembers anything (besides reading and basic math) from high school and before? In any case, I doubt ignorance of history is purely an American phenomenon. For example, see: http://www.telegraph...nhistory104.xml.

True enough, unfortunately. But - though you'd be justified to chalk it up to familial prejudice - I tend to think a 750-year occupation of a Christian country by the Muslim is something that's hard to forget.

Yet I'm always amazed not one US journalist brings that up, even after 9/11 and 5 years of war in a Muslim country by order of a Christian US president.

I don't really know what to chalk that up to : are US journalists and public intellectuals total incompetents, in addition to being traditionally useless ? I won't even ask about US politicians : the last 7-8 years have been a real crapfest which has largely extended beyond US borders.

Just once I'd like to see on a prime-time TV show an objective review of the military history of religions. Let's talk Crusades, Inquisition, Reconquista, Galileo Galilei... and let's leave aside the crap about "Gods of love and forgiveness", "omniscience and omnipotence". Let's treat the believers like they are grown-ups doing grown-up things for which they should bear grown-up consequences instead of the freaking usual "it's faith, let's respect it."

Why Does Faith Deserve Respect

Nefastor

[mentatpsi]

I've met other Europeans who had heard this as well. I went to public school and was required to take world history classes up until high school graduation - I believe this is pretty standard. Of course who remembers anything (besides reading and basic math) from high school and before? In any case, I doubt ignorance of history is purely an American phenomenon. For example, see: http://www.telegraph...nhistory104.xml.

True enough, unfortunately. But - though you'd be justified to chalk it up to familial prejudice - I tend to think a 750-year occupation of a Christian country by the Muslim is something that's hard to forget.

You're kidding right? I'm not questioning its historical accuracy... but what makes something a Christian country... at one point in history there were always conquering of lands using the foundations of another religion. What of America... did it not gain its power by conquering Native American's soil... the comfort that humans of this day (and past days) enjoy was built on the suffering of many conquests, you of all people should know that, considering how educated and well read you are. In order to use this argument as an argument depicting the evils (a relative term) of a people, you yourself should be clean of comfort built on suffering. You know your country isn't either.

Just once I'd like to see on a prime-time TV show an objective review of the military history of religions. Let's talk Crusades, Inquisition, Reconquista, Galileo Galilei... and let's leave aside the crap about "Gods of love and forgiveness", "omniscience and omnipotence". Let's treat the believers like they are grown-ups doing grown-up things for which they should bear grown-up consequences instead of the freaking usual "it's faith, let's respect it."

Why Does Faith Deserve Respect

Nefastor

I'm pretty sure that religion has been heavily affected by secularization... when you critic religion you are criticizing organized religion, rather than personal religion that is becoming more popular. Most people know organized religion has induced bloodshed for hundreds of generations. Even humanitarian beliefs can be used to fuel war. The beauty of being an atheist is you can safely say that you are your own island, that your morality and rational follow your own doctrines rather than the doctrines of a mass of people. The only common grounds is the belief in no god, what you choose to do with that is your own choice. What this means is that you can judge from the safety of your own actions, knowing that the actions of any other cannot be rationally represented within you. Why are the people that claim to be of a certain religion automatically branched into a subset of interpretations when there are many manners for them to interpret information. The branches of Christianity is a clear indication of this. I'm sure you're already aware that due to your religious knowledge by studying some of the books, you have been able to demonstrate more knowledge than the person you're trying to argue against... could this possibly be because people have made religion a personal thing and no longer rely so heavily on primitive books to guide them?

I hope you don't see me as insulting you, i just get bothered when people make so many generalizations, especially when it fuels hatred rather than understanding. This demonstrates a pervasive need within individuals to simplify their worlds rather than accept the complexities inherent in any system.

[inawe]

I've met other Europeans who had heard this as well. I went to public school and was required to take world history classes up until high school graduation - I believe this is pretty standard. Of course who remembers anything (besides reading and basic math) from high school and before? In any case, I doubt ignorance of history is purely an American phenomenon. For example, see: http://www.telegraph...nhistory104.xml.

True enough, unfortunately. But - though you'd be justified to chalk it up to familial prejudice - I tend to think a 750-year occupation of a Christian country by the Muslim is something that's hard to forget.

Yet I'm always amazed not one US journalist brings that up, even after 9/11 and 5 years of war in a Muslim country by order of a Christian US president.

I don't really know what to chalk that up to : are US journalists and public intellectuals total incompetents, in addition to being traditionally useless ? I won't even ask about US politicians : the last 7-8 years have been a real crapfest which has largely extended beyond US borders.

Just once I'd like to see on a prime-time TV show an objective review of the military history of religions. Let's talk Crusades, Inquisition, Reconquista, Galileo Galilei... and let's leave aside the crap about "Gods of love and forgiveness", "omniscience and omnipotence". Let's treat the believers like they are grown-ups doing grown-up things for which they should bear grown-up consequences instead of the freaking usual "it's faith, let's respect it."

Why Does Faith Deserve Respect

Nefastor

I'm an American. Most Americans I know criticized a lot of things that are happening in our country (so do I). But don't be mistaken. Given I choice they (and I) will rather stay in the US than anywhere else in the world.
I saw you refer many times to the Americans lack of education. In the US we do it to try to improve the education standards. I don't know why you do it, does it make you feel superior?
For instance, you cited Sun Tzu several times, was that to impress us ignorant Americans? The Art of War was even recommended years ago by companies in the US to their employees. We know that Napoleon read that book while planning the Russian campaign. The one he started with 470 thousand men and came back with 4 thousand.

About the "750-year occupation of a Christian country by the Muslim", the place became Christian only 400 years before, when the Romans used the most persuasive form of proselytism: the point of a sword. We also know that during most of the Moors period there was much more freedom than during Isabella and Ferdinand. So what's your point?

I would have thought that in this forum we are too mature to engage in the childish "my country is better than your country and my countrymen are smarter than yours ...".

[senseix]

I've met other Europeans who had heard this as well. I went to public school and was required to take world history classes up until high school graduation - I believe this is pretty standard. Of course who remembers anything (besides reading and basic math) from high school and before? In any case, I doubt ignorance of history is purely an American phenomenon. For example, see: http://www.telegraph...nhistory104.xml.

True enough, unfortunately. But - though you'd be justified to chalk it up to familial prejudice - I tend to think a 750-year occupation of a Christian country by the Muslim is something that's hard to forget.

Yet I'm always amazed not one US journalist brings that up, even after 9/11 and 5 years of war in a Muslim country by order of a Christian US president.

I don't really know what to chalk that up to : are US journalists and public intellectuals total incompetents, in addition to being traditionally useless ? I won't even ask about US politicians : the last 7-8 years have been a real crapfest which has largely extended beyond US borders.

Just once I'd like to see on a prime-time TV show an objective review of the military history of religions. Let's talk Crusades, Inquisition, Reconquista, Galileo Galilei... and let's leave aside the crap about "Gods of love and forgiveness", "omniscience and omnipotence". Let's treat the believers like they are grown-ups doing grown-up things for which they should bear grown-up consequences instead of the freaking usual "it's faith, let's respect it."

Why Does Faith Deserve Respect

Nefastor

I'm an American. Most Americans I know criticized a lot of things that are happening in our country (so do I). But don't be mistaken. Given I choice they (and I) will rather stay in the US than anywhere else in the world.
I saw you refer many times to the Americans lack of education. In the US we do it to try to improve the education standards. I don't know why you do it, does it make you feel superior?
For instance, you cited Sun Tzu several times, was that to impress us ignorant Americans? The Art of War was even recommended years ago by companies in the US to their employees. We know that Napoleon read that book while planning the Russian campaign. The one he started with 470 thousand men and came back with 4 thousand.

About the "750-year occupation of a Christian country by the Muslim", the place became Christian only 400 years before, when the Romans used the most persuasive form of proselytism: the point of a sword. We also know that during most of the Moors period there was much more freedom than during Isabella and Ferdinand. So what's your point?

I would have thought that in this forum we are too mature to engage in the childish "my country is better than your country and my countrymen are smarter than yours ...".

You make good points against Nefastor, i would like to join in and say i agree with every point you made. But be warned Nefastor will write paragraph after paragraph to out word you, and put your views down, oh and i hope he doesn't find what he feels is a mistake in your writing's or view's, then he gets the mentality that everyone should gang up on you and attack ya, cuz you weren't perfect. I wonder how he likes it?

Edited by senseix, 07 April 2008 - 10:37 PM.

[niner]

Yet I'm always amazed not one US journalist brings that up, even after 9/11 and 5 years of war in a Muslim country by order of a Christian US president.

I don't really know what to chalk that up to : are US journalists and public intellectuals total incompetents, in addition to being traditionally useless ? I won't even ask about US politicians : the last 7-8 years have been a real crapfest which has largely extended beyond US borders.

By and large, journalism in the US is dead. It is simply a shadow of its former self. Those few journalists and public intellectuals that dare to bring up such facts are derided as "Liberals" or "America Haters". It's an ugly situation.