Here is a start: If we are to figure out how to reduce terrorism wouldn't it require some introspection towards America's foreign policy now and in the past or should we just keep on dropping bombs? Is it so crazy or wrong to ask this question? Does America's foreign policy have anything to do with the creation of Islamic militants wanting to kill and bomb America?
--
What do you think of Obama condeming Jeremiah Wright's comment about "chickens coming home to roost" after 9/11? Either he's afraid to take the heat he would undoubtedly get or he sees no connection between our foreign policy and 9/11. Ron Paul is the only candidate I've heard that is introspective about our foreign policy. The others either see nothing wrong with our foreign poicy or are too chicken shit to say anything about it.
they don't want to hear the stories of the afghans rapping the little boys and the amount of porn being found in the homes of these extremists..... makes them guilty of what they are against.
3 of 5 houses have porn
i wonder why they don't put this on the news
the real story won't surface ever just talk to enough people who have been there and you will find the truth.
If this comment is your answer to my last question...well...then... that is one of the dumbest hillbilly answers I have ever heard. I doubt that extremists are seeking to attack America because they like to rape little boys and enjoy their stack of porn movies. BTW- When a person asks the question I asked doesn't mean that they are siding with the terrorist. It means that the person is willing to take an honest look at both sides of the problem.
It works the same on a personal level. If somebody hates you it is most likely because of something you did (whether what you did was intentionally done or unintentionally done) A person doesn't wake up, watch some porn, rape a little boy, and then decide to hate you and plan an attack against you just because he hates "your freedoms" and has a pedaphilia problem.
Blutzski,
I think Obama knows it would be political suicide to try to defend Wright's comment... at least I hope that is the case. I love Ron Paul, but he is a perfect example of what happens when you speak out against the political status quo - which is you get no mainstream support and have next to no chance at the presidency.
Marko, I too got hooked on Rock of Love 2 too. Dude, the skanks in that show were HAWT! I gave my GF a lot of crap because her Alma Mater is where Ambre went to school. Did you see the reunion show where that Heather chick put the bitchsmack down on Daisy! Man, what an odd show that made me feel sorry for Daisy... Great TV!
Sorry to thread hijack. Back on subject.
One of the things Chomsky is absolutely right about is the media soundbite format. Whatever biases exist at Fox or MSNBC or CNN (they all have various slants, IMO), the idea that you can be substantive in 90 or 120 seconds is insane, and the T-head moderators who allow overspeak of one guest on another are simply engaging in Jerry Springer sensationalism.
I don't know whether it's our society, or whether it's the function of the imperfect human psychological outlook that we have a propensity, perhaps even a NEED, to distract ourselves from unpleasant reality in 'mindless entertainment' (of a variety of sources).
As a slight digression, imagine that the reality of death is that it's simply non-existence anymore. No pain. No heavenly reward. No hellish punishment. Just nothing. If that's the case, then all religions are a psychological tool for human beings to deal with the reality that consciousness ends at a predictable event... Maybe that's our human weakness - to have a need to deny reality's ultimate unpleasantness...
In any event:
The fundamentalist mindset is not created by America's foreign policy. I really believe that.
Islam started around 700 AD. It's current level of sophistication is right about parallel with where Christianity was in the 12th and 13th century. A desire to purify all civilizations to an ideology, with the belief in that ideology's inherent and incontrevertible, absolute truth. The ideology justifies the destruction of heresy and heretics through violence as "saving them from themselves". Al Qaida and the Inquisition share a philosophical rationale. Bin Laden and Pisarro and Cortez share a theological position of moral superiority that can't be removed from them.
While Islam as a whole may not have the same percentage of supporters of violence that Christianity did in that period in the 13th century (when can never really know what's in the hearts of the average Muslim across the middle east), it's not necessary for Islam to have that high a percentage of zealots, because between the 13th century and now, technology has made it easier for a small group of people to do as much damage as the conquest of the new world achieved (I'm not discounting disease as the major killer in the European conquest).
That seems to be what the zealots want. A new calliphate. To destroy Western civilization's paganism. To kill us in order to save our souls, if necessary. It's got nothing to do with US foreign policy over the last 50 years. Where the foriegn policy justifies an ideology, it will be used. Where the slaughter of innocents in the US, Europe, or among other Muslims calls into serious question the pursuit of that violent ideology, they will simply reply, as Cortez must've when he put Coatemoc's feet to the fire, "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs."
It took 400 years for Christianity to quit justifying violence as a tool to save the heretics. How long will it take for Islam...?
I'm not justifying the "war on terror" with saying this. I'm saying they're going to keep attacking us no matter what we do. I think the war in Iraq is counterproductive certainly, and works more to justify the zealots than it does to solve problems. But the problems would be there regardless of what the US did between 1950 and now.
__________________
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. - R.W. Emerson
The fundamentalist mindset is not created by America's foreign policy. I really believe that.
Islam started around 700 AD. It's current level of sophistication is right about parallel with where Christianity was in the 12th and 13th century. A desire to purify all civilizations to an ideology, with the belief in that ideology's inherent and incontrevertible, absolute truth. The ideology justifies the destruction of heresy and heretics through violence as "saving them from themselves".
It took 400 years for Christianity to quit justifying violence as a tool to save the heretics. How long will it take for Islam...?
Do you really think that Christianity has come so far? The people who bomb abortion clinics and shoot the doctors are fundamentalist Christians. The people who marry off 13 year old girls to 60 year old men as breeders are fundamentalist Christians. The people who authorized torture at Gauntanamo are conservative Christians. Christians of all dogmas preach and witness for their particular brand of faith because they believe in "that ideology's inherent and incontrovertible, absolute truth."
Quote:
Originally Posted by heliodorus04
Bin Laden and Pisarro and Cortez share a theological position of moral superiority that can't be removed from them.
Warren Jeffs, James Dobson, and George W. Bush "share a theological position of moral superiority that can't be removed from them."
It took 400 years for Christianity to quit justifying violence as a tool to save the heretics. How long will it take for Islam...?
Gotta call bullshit on that one. Christianity hasnt stopped, they just happen to be on top for now so there is less need for violence but its still being done, daily. The men of the middle east are trapped in poverty while there are huge riches coming to their country, they see none of it. They are using religion as a justification for leveling the playing field. Its that simple.
Quote:
What do you think of Obama condeming Jeremiah Wright's comment about "chickens coming home to roost" after 9/11? Either he's afraid to take the heat he would undoubtedly get or he sees no connection between our foreign policy and 9/11.
Hell I am not running for president and fully agree with this statement but I only say it with people whom I consider friends due to the backlash I get when I say it. So flame away, I said it.
__________________
"I'm not here to make a record, ya stupid cracker" Governor Pappy O Daniel
I want to add this about the pentagon's media propaganda campaign.
First, the Department of Justice should launch an investigation to see if the pentagon broke any laws prohibiting gov't sponsored propaganda. That is highly unlikely to happen given the fact that Bush has appointed quite a few DoJ officials. And, I doubt these folks are willing to bite the hand that feeds them. Plus, accountability these days seems to be a non-existent thing.
Second, on the media side of things I am glad that this type corruption is finally starting to become more visible to the average American. I believe many "nutjob lefties" have been talking about this kind of problem for decades. (Read Manufacturing Consent by Edward Hermann and Noam Chomsky) Of course, so many people chose to write off this type of problem as "conspiracy theories" when in fact many of the stuff writen was backed up by facts and statistics.
Quote:
America’s media system is dominated by a handful of giant corporations obsessed with making money, and terrified of upsetting the apple cart. Problem is, critical, accountable journalism questions authority, stirs the pot, and almost always spills more than a few apples. It even scares away a few coveted advertisers and pisses off politicians who would otherwise hand over policy favors, earmarks and tax breaks worth millions.
I can't stress enough that I think our media is a huge part - not the only part - of the mess we are in today. Where was the "critical, accountable journalism questioning authority" during the build up to Iraq? It was nearly non-existent! If it did exist it was brushed off by the mainstream as "rantings of unpatriotic nutjobs." If the media would have actually investigated, instead of parroted, the claims of the Bush admin during the build up to the invasion of Iraq we would most likely not be there right now. But, hey, we can't change what happened in the past; we can only learn from it. Will we?
As for Christianity vs. Islam... Here is another way to say what Helio wrote in a slightly different way... What if all religions are fanciful illusions created by humans in their quest to calm their uncertainty about a guaranteed future event, death? Read The Future of an Illusion by Freud. If you use "the google" you can read it for free.
Well if you are going to open the discussion to religion vs sprituality vs atheism then that is just a whole nother ball of wax. I will say this about that. I have never witnessed a better way to hypnotize a group of people and polarize them to either work, fight your battles, etc than the religions that we have that promise rewards in the afterlife. Its pure genius.
I will go to Jim Morrison for this one...."No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
__________________
"I'm not here to make a record, ya stupid cracker" Governor Pappy O Daniel
Linear Mode
