I have no respect for terrorists, their actions, or their motives. Shame on those that do, regardless of how displeased they are with our nation's foreign policy.
The last thing in the world we need to do is give terrorist credibility by either "respecting" them or giving any consideration to their grievances. To do so ONLY encourages more terrorist attacks.
If anyone in the middle east wants to "make a point" to "be heard" they can take it to the UN. They can take it to the leaders of their countries. Slamming planes into office buildings can never be condoned in any way shape or form.
I think so far most of the things that Scott H. Has said are true. Just by encouraging the terriorists like some of you are doing almost guarantees more attacks like 9/11. But hey, if you wanna take the chance of being killed in a building that a terrorist hi-jacked plane hits then keep encouraging them.
<strong>So, dropping atom bombs on Japan was terrorism then.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nothing unconventional about planes dropping bombs. And of course, Eugene's point applies as well. WWII wasn't an example of terrorism. It was total war. Total war is awful in it's own way. Terrorism is awful in another way. Sometimes bad things overlap, have similar characteristics. That doesn't make them the same bad thing.
I kind of agree with George Carlin on all this...fine, go ahead and kill, rape and pillage...see if I care. It all boils down to one thing...religion...stupid campfire tales of fear and stupidity shrouded in "the rules of man" from some bearded nothing from nowhere.
When the hell are we going to wake up and understand that the true god is right under our feet (E-A-R-T-H) and the true sense of goodness and understanding is within all of us. We all have two arms, two legs, eyes and a brain which we only have achieved in using 20% of. We have a long way to go and I don't think any of us are going to see the day. Either from time or the inevitable stupidity of powers today.
Me? I don't care...right now my thoughts are:
Good guys? Keep 'em...but stay away from these...
Bad guys? A bloody stain on the carpet. Get rid of 'em.
Oh, and I don't respect any loner ****head that needs to kill themself and take an unneeded amount of innocents for some "agenda" from "god".
Ahhhh too much rhetoric. Why try to get in the mind of a sociopath. Frankly I don't care what the US has done abroad...all I know is that thousands of US citizens are dead and that must not go unpunished. Whether you call the opponent a Terrorist or a Freedom Fighter is up to you...Self Preservation reigns supreme.
At times we do altogether too much self flaggelation. I like what Silvio Berlusconi said about the general situation. His speech was perhaps colored by racism, or at least a level of cultural elitism, and (furthermore) it perhaps should not have come at the time when it did, but it was in essence correct. And every democratic westerner would do well to keep it in mind:
"We must be aware of the superiority of our civilization, a system that has guaranteed well-being, respect for human rights and - in contrast with Islamic countries - respect for religious and political rights, a system that has as its values understandings of diversity and tolerance..."
"The West will continue to conquer peoples, like it conquered communism," even if that means confronting "another civilization, the Islamic one, stuck where it was 1,400 years ago."
Perhaps his sweep of history and culture is unfair, but the core is entirely correct. We have managed to understand the seperation of church and state. The Islamic world has not. Think for a moment if the right wing, religious right, christian coalition yahoos were universally revered, even for a short time, and subsequently armed. They wouldn't be the objects of ridicule (that they richly deserve); they would instead be your government. That is essentially the taliban. The west may not be perfect, but, to our great benefit, we have taken care to guard against this. Religion may, and often does, inform politics, but it does not infallibly dictate the civic code. As political civic beings, we are better, we are more advanced. They have to catch-up to us, we must never make, or encourage, the retrograde policies which, thankfully, are for the most part our history.
So Matsu? Would you say that the Protestant Reformation which led to a type if religious diversity and maybe then the separation of church and state led to our pluralistic society that allows the West to move forward in this world while the religious bigotry of the Islamic world holds them back?
Hummm?
Maybe the Islamic worlds inability of introspection and self criticism holds them back?
Naw that?s crap. It?s all the US fault. I?ll go hijack a plane and crash it into Sear?s because the US asked for it. Maybe the people here will respect me for that?
Punish the many(innocent) for the crimes of the few...???
this sounds like an idea I have heard before...
Actions present in many forms, both lesser and greater in many religions...
Religions often over generalize everything... and get specific only when it would threaten there presently held beliefs...
thats why there are often several different factions of a faith...
Since religion cannot be taken out of this discussion becuase of it direct influence on the infamous events of 9/11... I would have to remind you of the Islamic Law (al-Shari'ah)... and it many unquestionable rules...
Kill the infidel..., etc.
Now I could say the same about christains and attack them in a retro-fashion... using phrases in the questionable laws in the bible... questioning the people of the present by the actions of the past (visiting the sins of the father unto the sons an daughters) but I wont becuase we wont get anywhere doing that...
This Law, while being rooted in the sources of the Islamic revelation, is a living body of law which caters to the needs of Islamic society. Islamic laws are essentially preventative and are not based on harsh punishment except as a last measure. The faith of the Muslim causes him to have respect for the rights of others and Islamic Law is such that it prevents transgression from taking place in most instances. That is why what people consider to be harsh punishments are so rarely in need of being applied.
I have seen how happy the people are now to be free of the taliban... and I will remind myself not to judge a people for the crimes of a few...
they taliban are terrorists who inspire fear, terror and are dictators that decide what "is" freedom... they are in no way to be parralelled with freedom fighters...
What it is is years of humanistic 'liberal' (not as in left vs right) thought; the Rennaissance; the Enlightenment; the Industrial era, and even the age of High modernism and yes post-modernism. In each of these successive eras we have hashed out ideas about individuality in relation to truth, state, and god...ideas that that have led to an over-all relatively large amount of personal freedom.
In each of these eras there are a large number of interlocking contributing factors, but, probably the main factor is the changes in the means of production due to a technological (Metaphysical) frame of mind which is an inheritence of the Platonic/Greek world view, that, and a smattering of the Judao/Christian ethical code.......
Some people see that the west went through cataclysmic war just as the industrial revolution came to an end and the age of imperialism also ended, and, they see a similarity with contemporary Islam: namely that they are feeling the effects on the social body-identity of large scale technological changes, while at the same time a sense of self-hood, that at one time in the imagination covered vast lands, is now seen as being disparate and fragmented.... this then leads to a radical attempt to fuse all the fringes of the "self" under a unity. In the west this took the form of Fascism, in the Middle East it is taking the form of Jihad and Pan-islamism.
we have adapted to fragmentation and even have learned to make it a value to be praised --I think there is definitely some merit to its acceptance, and I too praise its value --its a glorious history in many respects. However, there is also some darker movements in the western Esprit that don't make the above indicated historical movement all the peaches-in-regalia it may at first seem... after all, it included the rationalistic pruduction of bars of soap made from humans
Also, in a basic way, I 'understand' the terrorists: they were a bunch of blind idiots.
<strong>... Think for a moment if the right wing, religious right, christian coalition yahoos were universally revered, even for a short time, and subsequently armed. They wouldn't be the objects of ridicule (that they richly deserve); they would instead be your government. That is essentially the taliban... </strong><hr></blockquote>
This is essentially the flip side of Jerry Falwell's and Pat Robertson's infamous and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A28620-2001Sep14"; target="_blank">stupid conversation</a> regarding sept. 11. Stop being so ignorant, Matsu. The Taliban were on the radar screens of evangelicals well in advance of the rest of America.
Christianity Today, Week of August 27
The Soviet Union, United States, and others helped create Afghanistan's ruling Taliban. Will the world's most Islamic state backfire?
[quote]A popular information site on Afghanistan advertises the land-locked Asian nation as "The Friendliest Country in the World, Possibly the Universe."
Tell that to the 24 relief workers detained there since August 5 for allegedly teaching Christianity. Or even to the citizens of Afghanistan - a country ravaged by 23 years of war, plagued by disease, drought, and famine, and ruled with an iron fist by its self-declared leaders, the Taliban.
On August 5, Taliban authorities closed down the Kabul office of Shelter Now, a Germany-based aid group, and arrested eight foreigners and sixteen Afghan employees. All will remain in captivity until the Taliban conducts a full investigation into the extent of what they allege is a conspiracy by aid groups (including the U.N.'s World Food Program) to convert Muslims... <hr></blockquote>
<strong>What it is is years of humanistic 'liberal' (not as in left vs right) thought; the Rennaissance; the Enlightenment; the Industrial era, and even the age of High modernism and yes post-modernism. In each of these successive eras we have hashed out ideas about individuality in relation to truth, state, and god...ideas that that have led to an over-all relatively large amount of personal freedom. </strong><hr></blockquote>Well, as usual, I only understand about 10% of what you're saying. But I'd add that post-modernism has also led to the kind of relativistic thinking that started this thread.
I'm not making up excuses for the Taliban or Bin Laden. First of all, Taliban are not terrorists in my opinion. They are, well were, the government of Afghanistan. A government that came to be by overthrowing the excisting government by force but that's the way some governments come to power. Actually, up until a month ago, the Northern Alliance, now backed by the western world, were the rebels. The Taliban referred to them as terrorists.
However, it does reiterate my point. To the people of the U.S the people that flew a plane in to the WTC are terrorists. To the people that support them they are heroes.
Those people see them as freedom fighters. You may have the opinion that the U.S never took their freedom from them but they disagree. These people don't think in borders and countries. They think in tribes and in the end they're all Arabs. They see the U.S as the main supporter of Israel and Israel took their land and freedom from them. That's the way they see it. So while you may feel that you didn't take anyone's freedom they disagree.
I read an article, I think in Time, about the Pashtun tribe. It consists out of two main factions that fight each other. However, when attacked they stick together.
The way I see it the U.S can get rid of Taliban and Bin Laden and do two things. Declare war on pretty much the entire middle east, country by country because terrorists are everywhere. Or they could meet with the heads of state and just listen. Ask them why is this happening. What can we do to change it.
On a personal note: I do not hate the U.S. I don't agree with some of it's foreign policies. I also don't agree with what it's doing right now. But just the same as I understand the terrorist's motivation, I understand that it's out for blood now. It's only human to want revenge.
In the end, however, reason and diplomacy must prevail. One thing America should have learned, has learned, from Vietnam is that you can't kill everyone that is against you. That's a war that you will lose. No matter how many tanks and bombs and planes you have.
I understand why many of you disagree with me. I knew that when I posted it. I would have been fairly shocked if everyone had jumped up and said: "Damn! You're right! Forgive and forget."
I just hope that, in time, you will be able to forgive because we can never have peace without it. If wanting peace makes me a liberal or whatever else you wish to call me then I'll wear that tag with pride.
Hey bud, i know what your trying to say, about the media being bios towards freedom fighters. And i personally dont support US all the way though, because this country was in war with mine, IN THE COLD WAR. But terrorism is a dirty way to fight. I know that because Russia was in war with Chechnya (supported by Usama, and other muslim extremist syndicates).
But i dont think that pulling up to a civilian building with a car that is filled with explosives, killing hundreds of civilians, their limbs being blown off if a good cause. That?s a dirty way to fight. This is going to be a bloody war, that will last for another 20 years, claming 1000 of lives. And the propaganda seen on the TV will influence the next generation to hate a certain ethnic groups.
War is pointless.
Sorry if I seam a bit disoriented its just that I have to run to school now. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
These people don't think in borders and countries. They think in tribes and in the end they're all Arabs. They see the U.S as the main supporter of Israel and Israel took their land and freedom from them. That's the way they see it. So while you may feel that you didn't take anyone's freedom they disagree.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which are the Arabs in Afghanistan again? The Tajiks or the Pashtuns?
Which are the Arabs in Afghanistan again? The Tajiks or the Pashtuns?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ha ha. I get a laugh out that every time. All these "experts" with "respect" for the terrorist don't even know the Muslims from the Arabs from the Persian from the Asians.
They don't even know what the **** they are talking about and then they try to tell me I should respect people that kill 5000 people.
I respect terrorists as we know them. They are willing to die for what they believe in. They don't do it for personal gain. They believe it is right to shoot English soldiers. They believe it's right to blow up an American embassy. They believe it so much that they have no problem strapping themselves with dynamite and blowing themselves up during rush hour in Tel Aviv.
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do not and will never respect terrorist even if i share their opinion (i have serious doubt to share their opinions indeed). Killing innocent people is pure evil. Saying that terrorism is the only way for them to be respected is pure stupidity, a minority has not the right to control the majority of the people in a democratic republic where the humans right of every people are respected. There is much better way to defend your opinion.
Terrorism leads to chaos. Democraty even if not perfect have been waited since so many millenium.
So for me : absolutely no respect for any terrorist they are just been unhabited with hate, or controled by other people with sect's method
That the Taliban appeared first on the 'radar of Evangelicals' says nothing to my point. I'm willing to concede that you're right, but I'm also inclined to think that a major part of the Evangelical concern -- with Islamic Fundamentalism -- is due to both their own self-righteous propoganda and their manachean 'us v. them', 'christian v. pagan' rhetoric. None of that disqualifies them from being right about the Taliban, mind you. However, take the stupid conversation and imagine it as the guiding principal of our heads of state. Imagine also that they were armed, and that the rest of the population is too hungry/scared/sick/confused to do anything about it.
It seems impossible. It isn't, but that it is well guarded against is a testament to the seperation of church and state; to the pluralist society -- as Scott H nicely surmised.
We have simply learned more about civics. And if the Evangelicals get their heads too big, either through too much penetration in government, or too much popular support, what stops them from behaving badly?
Full bellies, and full schools. As Pfflam (I think fairly) outlined, we have done much more in the mental arena to guarantee that the religious zealots don't hijack the proceedings. Yet, though perhaps there is no cure for this, we maintain disturbing and very dark undercurrents. Perhaps secularism will hijack our society while we're all busy investigating the priests? But there is greater possibility that we will find balance, and in that balance opportunity for all.
I find it interesting that you thought it was OK to subjugate (the Islamic fundamentalist/Arab Nationalist/whoever those pagan monkeys in the desert might be) when perhaps the implication suggested the Christian should do that work. However, when I suggested that all devout groups might behave badly in the proper conditions, you balked. To be clear, the advances of western civic culture are not specifically judeo-christian, they are, rather, in putting belief in its proper place. They are, largely, republican (in the classical sense of the word)
... I'm willing to concede that you're right, but I'm also inclined to think that a major part of the Evangelical concern - with Islamic Fundamentalism - is due to both their own self-righteous propoganda and their manachean 'us v. them', 'christian v. pagan' rhetoric...<hr></blockquote>
Let's see. The term manichaean comes to us from Christian theology. It was one of the first heresies. It is certainly a temptation but I'm not sure why you believe evangelicals to be more susceptible than others. This is the kind of discussion that would engage a believer. It is at least possible, don't you think, that someone like that would be less likely to be tempted by such a world view than another person who doesn't believe we are all sinners. (Solzhenitsyn is right. The line between good and evil runs not between groups but through every individual soul.) How often do we see the term "NAZI" thrown around? And how often is it an evangelical Christian using this label? Are not the people who so recklessly use that word also manichaean in their thinking? So why do you believe evangelicals to be particularly persuaded to Talibanism? It has become a habit of though to refer to the Christian right in America and the Taliban in the same breath. But it is lazy thinking and it doesn't illustrate any point other than kneejerk hostility towards conservative Christians.
[quote]... take the stupid conversation and imagine it as the guiding principal of our heads of state.<hr></blockquote>
Let's not. Falwell and Robertson speak for themselves. Televangelists get far too much attention. Television ministries have a lot of reach but no depth. The heart and soul of the church is among the people who wander into that building just down the street from you. There's a reason why that both Falwell and Robertson felt the need to walk back from that conversation - even among their supporters there was a great deal of dispute about what they had said.
The failure of the evangelical world as I see it is not an over-involvement in the world but in their underrepresentation in the larger culture. They are too comfortable in their cultural ghetto and have not significantly engaged the world outside their churches and parachurch organizations. This translates into something quite the opposite of Talibanism.
all I was doing was responding to ScottH and giving a mini-historical take as to why the "west" has a particular relationship to the idea of the individual and society.
As for moral relativism growing from post-modernism. I can see your point, however, post-modernism is complex, and when the term is being used to describe a practice and not a condition (ex= "he is a post-modernist," not, "in the post-modern age") it is often motivated by a pervading sense of an ethical struggle, and a concern for a ethics that would be prior to "essences".
That issue is complex and would demand many threads, but, I could say that post-modernists are arguing something similar to what we want when we hope Osama Bin Laden would not think his world view is the absolute TRUTH and everybody else is wrong and so should be killed.
Comments
Do I know why they did it? Yep. So what.
I have no respect for terrorists, their actions, or their motives. Shame on those that do, regardless of how displeased they are with our nation's foreign policy.
(two good foreign policy books:
Blowback, Chalmers Johnson
Special Providence, Walter Russell Mead)
If anyone in the middle east wants to "make a point" to "be heard" they can take it to the UN. They can take it to the leaders of their countries. Slamming planes into office buildings can never be condoned in any way shape or form.
<strong>So, dropping atom bombs on Japan was terrorism then.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nothing unconventional about planes dropping bombs. And of course, Eugene's point applies as well. WWII wasn't an example of terrorism. It was total war. Total war is awful in it's own way. Terrorism is awful in another way. Sometimes bad things overlap, have similar characteristics. That doesn't make them the same bad thing.
I kind of agree with George Carlin on all this...fine, go ahead and kill, rape and pillage...see if I care. It all boils down to one thing...religion...stupid campfire tales of fear and stupidity shrouded in "the rules of man" from some bearded nothing from nowhere.
When the hell are we going to wake up and understand that the true god is right under our feet (E-A-R-T-H) and the true sense of goodness and understanding is within all of us. We all have two arms, two legs, eyes and a brain which we only have achieved in using 20% of. We have a long way to go and I don't think any of us are going to see the day. Either from time or the inevitable stupidity of powers today.
Me? I don't care...right now my thoughts are:
Good guys? Keep 'em...but stay away from these...
Bad guys? A bloody stain on the carpet. Get rid of 'em.
Oh, and I don't respect any loner ****head that needs to kill themself and take an unneeded amount of innocents for some "agenda" from "god".
"We must be aware of the superiority of our civilization, a system that has guaranteed well-being, respect for human rights and - in contrast with Islamic countries - respect for religious and political rights, a system that has as its values understandings of diversity and tolerance..."
"The West will continue to conquer peoples, like it conquered communism," even if that means confronting "another civilization, the Islamic one, stuck where it was 1,400 years ago."
Perhaps his sweep of history and culture is unfair, but the core is entirely correct. We have managed to understand the seperation of church and state. The Islamic world has not. Think for a moment if the right wing, religious right, christian coalition yahoos were universally revered, even for a short time, and subsequently armed. They wouldn't be the objects of ridicule (that they richly deserve); they would instead be your government. That is essentially the taliban. The west may not be perfect, but, to our great benefit, we have taken care to guard against this. Religion may, and often does, inform politics, but it does not infallibly dictate the civic code. As political civic beings, we are better, we are more advanced. They have to catch-up to us, we must never make, or encourage, the retrograde policies which, thankfully, are for the most part our history.
Hummm?
Maybe the Islamic worlds inability of introspection and self criticism holds them back?
Naw that?s crap. It?s all the US fault. I?ll go hijack a plane and crash it into Sear?s because the US asked for it. Maybe the people here will respect me for that?
Punish the many(innocent) for the crimes of the few...???
this sounds like an idea I have heard before...
Actions present in many forms, both lesser and greater in many religions...
Religions often over generalize everything... and get specific only when it would threaten there presently held beliefs...
thats why there are often several different factions of a faith...
Since religion cannot be taken out of this discussion becuase of it direct influence on the infamous events of 9/11... I would have to remind you of the Islamic Law (al-Shari'ah)... and it many unquestionable rules...
Kill the infidel..., etc.
Now I could say the same about christains and attack them in a retro-fashion... using phrases in the questionable laws in the bible... questioning the people of the present by the actions of the past (visiting the sins of the father unto the sons an daughters) but I wont becuase we wont get anywhere doing that...
This Law, while being rooted in the sources of the Islamic revelation, is a living body of law which caters to the needs of Islamic society. Islamic laws are essentially preventative and are not based on harsh punishment except as a last measure. The faith of the Muslim causes him to have respect for the rights of others and Islamic Law is such that it prevents transgression from taking place in most instances. That is why what people consider to be harsh punishments are so rarely in need of being applied.
I have seen how happy the people are now to be free of the taliban... and I will remind myself not to judge a people for the crimes of a few...
they taliban are terrorists who inspire fear, terror and are dictators that decide what "is" freedom... they are in no way to be parralelled with freedom fighters...
E PLURIBUS UNIX
-----------------------------
In each of these eras there are a large number of interlocking contributing factors, but, probably the main factor is the changes in the means of production due to a technological (Metaphysical) frame of mind which is an inheritence of the Platonic/Greek world view, that, and a smattering of the Judao/Christian ethical code.......
Some people see that the west went through cataclysmic war just as the industrial revolution came to an end and the age of imperialism also ended, and, they see a similarity with contemporary Islam: namely that they are feeling the effects on the social body-identity of large scale technological changes, while at the same time a sense of self-hood, that at one time in the imagination covered vast lands, is now seen as being disparate and fragmented.... this then leads to a radical attempt to fuse all the fringes of the "self" under a unity. In the west this took the form of Fascism, in the Middle East it is taking the form of Jihad and Pan-islamism.
we have adapted to fragmentation and even have learned to make it a value to be praised --I think there is definitely some merit to its acceptance, and I too praise its value --its a glorious history in many respects. However, there is also some darker movements in the western Esprit that don't make the above indicated historical movement all the peaches-in-regalia it may at first seem... after all, it included the rationalistic pruduction of bars of soap made from humans
Also, in a basic way, I 'understand' the terrorists: they were a bunch of blind idiots.
my 2cents
<strong>... Think for a moment if the right wing, religious right, christian coalition yahoos were universally revered, even for a short time, and subsequently armed. They wouldn't be the objects of ridicule (that they richly deserve); they would instead be your government. That is essentially the taliban... </strong><hr></blockquote>
This is essentially the flip side of Jerry Falwell's and Pat Robertson's infamous and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A28620-2001Sep14"; target="_blank">stupid conversation</a> regarding sept. 11. Stop being so ignorant, Matsu. The Taliban were on the radar screens of evangelicals well in advance of the rest of America.
Christianity Today, Week of August 27
The Soviet Union, United States, and others helped create Afghanistan's ruling Taliban. Will the world's most Islamic state backfire?
<a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/135/44.0.html"; target="_blank">In Perspective: The Friendliest Murderous Militants in the World</a>
By Todd Hertz | posted 8/30/01
[quote]A popular information site on Afghanistan advertises the land-locked Asian nation as "The Friendliest Country in the World, Possibly the Universe."
Tell that to the 24 relief workers detained there since August 5 for allegedly teaching Christianity. Or even to the citizens of Afghanistan - a country ravaged by 23 years of war, plagued by disease, drought, and famine, and ruled with an iron fist by its self-declared leaders, the Taliban.
On August 5, Taliban authorities closed down the Kabul office of Shelter Now, a Germany-based aid group, and arrested eight foreigners and sixteen Afghan employees. All will remain in captivity until the Taliban conducts a full investigation into the extent of what they allege is a conspiracy by aid groups (including the U.N.'s World Food Program) to convert Muslims... <hr></blockquote>
[ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
<strong>What it is is years of humanistic 'liberal' (not as in left vs right) thought; the Rennaissance; the Enlightenment; the Industrial era, and even the age of High modernism and yes post-modernism. In each of these successive eras we have hashed out ideas about individuality in relation to truth, state, and god...ideas that that have led to an over-all relatively large amount of personal freedom. </strong><hr></blockquote>Well, as usual, I only understand about 10% of what you're saying. But I'd add that post-modernism has also led to the kind of relativistic thinking that started this thread.
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
(not really sure what this smiley means, but seems to work just about anywhere)
I'm not making up excuses for the Taliban or Bin Laden. First of all, Taliban are not terrorists in my opinion. They are, well were, the government of Afghanistan. A government that came to be by overthrowing the excisting government by force but that's the way some governments come to power. Actually, up until a month ago, the Northern Alliance, now backed by the western world, were the rebels. The Taliban referred to them as terrorists.
However, it does reiterate my point. To the people of the U.S the people that flew a plane in to the WTC are terrorists. To the people that support them they are heroes.
Those people see them as freedom fighters. You may have the opinion that the U.S never took their freedom from them but they disagree. These people don't think in borders and countries. They think in tribes and in the end they're all Arabs. They see the U.S as the main supporter of Israel and Israel took their land and freedom from them. That's the way they see it. So while you may feel that you didn't take anyone's freedom they disagree.
I read an article, I think in Time, about the Pashtun tribe. It consists out of two main factions that fight each other. However, when attacked they stick together.
The way I see it the U.S can get rid of Taliban and Bin Laden and do two things. Declare war on pretty much the entire middle east, country by country because terrorists are everywhere. Or they could meet with the heads of state and just listen. Ask them why is this happening. What can we do to change it.
On a personal note: I do not hate the U.S. I don't agree with some of it's foreign policies. I also don't agree with what it's doing right now. But just the same as I understand the terrorist's motivation, I understand that it's out for blood now. It's only human to want revenge.
In the end, however, reason and diplomacy must prevail. One thing America should have learned, has learned, from Vietnam is that you can't kill everyone that is against you. That's a war that you will lose. No matter how many tanks and bombs and planes you have.
I understand why many of you disagree with me. I knew that when I posted it. I would have been fairly shocked if everyone had jumped up and said: "Damn! You're right! Forgive and forget."
I just hope that, in time, you will be able to forgive because we can never have peace without it. If wanting peace makes me a liberal or whatever else you wish to call me then I'll wear that tag with pride.
But i dont think that pulling up to a civilian building with a car that is filled with explosives, killing hundreds of civilians, their limbs being blown off if a good cause. That?s a dirty way to fight. This is going to be a bloody war, that will last for another 20 years, claming 1000 of lives. And the propaganda seen on the TV will influence the next generation to hate a certain ethnic groups.
War is pointless.
Sorry if I seam a bit disoriented its just that I have to run to school now. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>Maybe I should clarify.
These people don't think in borders and countries. They think in tribes and in the end they're all Arabs. They see the U.S as the main supporter of Israel and Israel took their land and freedom from them. That's the way they see it. So while you may feel that you didn't take anyone's freedom they disagree.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which are the Arabs in Afghanistan again? The Tajiks or the Pashtuns?
<strong>
Which are the Arabs in Afghanistan again? The Tajiks or the Pashtuns?
Ha ha. I get a laugh out that every time. All these "experts" with "respect" for the terrorist don't even know the Muslims from the Arabs from the Persian from the Asians.
They don't even know what the **** they are talking about and then they try to tell me I should respect people that kill 5000 people.
****ing morons.
<strong>I
I respect terrorists as we know them. They are willing to die for what they believe in. They don't do it for personal gain. They believe it is right to shoot English soldiers. They believe it's right to blow up an American embassy. They believe it so much that they have no problem strapping themselves with dynamite and blowing themselves up during rush hour in Tel Aviv.
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do not and will never respect terrorist even if i share their opinion (i have serious doubt to share their opinions indeed). Killing innocent people is pure evil. Saying that terrorism is the only way for them to be respected is pure stupidity, a minority has not the right to control the majority of the people in a democratic republic where the humans right of every people are respected. There is much better way to defend your opinion.
Terrorism leads to chaos. Democraty even if not perfect have been waited since so many millenium.
So for me : absolutely no respect for any terrorist they are just been unhabited with hate, or controled by other people with sect's method
That the Taliban appeared first on the 'radar of Evangelicals' says nothing to my point. I'm willing to concede that you're right, but I'm also inclined to think that a major part of the Evangelical concern -- with Islamic Fundamentalism -- is due to both their own self-righteous propoganda and their manachean 'us v. them', 'christian v. pagan' rhetoric. None of that disqualifies them from being right about the Taliban, mind you. However, take the stupid conversation and imagine it as the guiding principal of our heads of state. Imagine also that they were armed, and that the rest of the population is too hungry/scared/sick/confused to do anything about it.
It seems impossible. It isn't, but that it is well guarded against is a testament to the seperation of church and state; to the pluralist society -- as Scott H nicely surmised.
We have simply learned more about civics. And if the Evangelicals get their heads too big, either through too much penetration in government, or too much popular support, what stops them from behaving badly?
Full bellies, and full schools. As Pfflam (I think fairly) outlined, we have done much more in the mental arena to guarantee that the religious zealots don't hijack the proceedings. Yet, though perhaps there is no cure for this, we maintain disturbing and very dark undercurrents. Perhaps secularism will hijack our society while we're all busy investigating the priests? But there is greater possibility that we will find balance, and in that balance opportunity for all.
I find it interesting that you thought it was OK to subjugate (the Islamic fundamentalist/Arab Nationalist/whoever those pagan monkeys in the desert might be) when perhaps the implication suggested the Christian should do that work. However, when I suggested that all devout groups might behave badly in the proper conditions, you balked. To be clear, the advances of western civic culture are not specifically judeo-christian, they are, rather, in putting belief in its proper place. They are, largely, republican (in the classical sense of the word)
I wonder why you disagree with me now, roger?
... I'm willing to concede that you're right, but I'm also inclined to think that a major part of the Evangelical concern - with Islamic Fundamentalism - is due to both their own self-righteous propoganda and their manachean 'us v. them', 'christian v. pagan' rhetoric...<hr></blockquote>
Let's see. The term manichaean comes to us from Christian theology. It was one of the first heresies. It is certainly a temptation but I'm not sure why you believe evangelicals to be more susceptible than others. This is the kind of discussion that would engage a believer. It is at least possible, don't you think, that someone like that would be less likely to be tempted by such a world view than another person who doesn't believe we are all sinners. (Solzhenitsyn is right. The line between good and evil runs not between groups but through every individual soul.) How often do we see the term "NAZI" thrown around? And how often is it an evangelical Christian using this label? Are not the people who so recklessly use that word also manichaean in their thinking? So why do you believe evangelicals to be particularly persuaded to Talibanism? It has become a habit of though to refer to the Christian right in America and the Taliban in the same breath. But it is lazy thinking and it doesn't illustrate any point other than kneejerk hostility towards conservative Christians.
[quote]... take the stupid conversation and imagine it as the guiding principal of our heads of state.<hr></blockquote>
Let's not. Falwell and Robertson speak for themselves. Televangelists get far too much attention. Television ministries have a lot of reach but no depth. The heart and soul of the church is among the people who wander into that building just down the street from you. There's a reason why that both Falwell and Robertson felt the need to walk back from that conversation - even among their supporters there was a great deal of dispute about what they had said.
The failure of the evangelical world as I see it is not an over-involvement in the world but in their underrepresentation in the larger culture. They are too comfortable in their cultural ghetto and have not significantly engaged the world outside their churches and parachurch organizations. This translates into something quite the opposite of Talibanism.
all I was doing was responding to ScottH and giving a mini-historical take as to why the "west" has a particular relationship to the idea of the individual and society.
As for moral relativism growing from post-modernism. I can see your point, however, post-modernism is complex, and when the term is being used to describe a practice and not a condition (ex= "he is a post-modernist," not, "in the post-modern age") it is often motivated by a pervading sense of an ethical struggle, and a concern for a ethics that would be prior to "essences".
That issue is complex and would demand many threads, but, I could say that post-modernists are arguing something similar to what we want when we hope Osama Bin Laden would not think his world view is the absolute TRUTH and everybody else is wrong and so should be killed.
[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>