Suspicious Activity Reporting program . . .

filmtwit said:
I would assume the lack of access to bomb making material during the 16th, 17th and 18th century had something to do with native north and south americans not blowing themselves up during that time period. But I'm sure that if they had, some would have.
Click to expand...

Riiight. Cause gun powder wasn't available back then?

Here's another example: Tibetan Buddhists. Where are the suicide bombings of Beijing?
 
Rodchenko said:
There have always been brave martyrs sacrificing themselves for every cause.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about brave martyrs.

We're talking about indiscriminate killing of non-combatants.

Kamikaze pilots, for instance, sacrificed themselves for the greater good of their country, but again did so because of a ridiculous unjustified belief in the divinity of the Mikado.
 
And how successful has the freeing of Tibet been?

You make the mistake of assuming that Al Qaeda see martyrdom as an end in itself, and have no wider socio-political aims, which they certainly do have. If you fail to take them into account, you will never be able to resolve the conflict, as bombing the crap out of random people by way of pro-active revenge (as the US and Israel seem to do on a regular basis) is only going to lead to the increased militancy of the 'enemy'.
 
Roger Hicks said:
And of course you believe every word they say, and seek no further explanation.

There is no dichotomy. Yes, they have stated their aims. Repeatedly, as you say. But of course they intended to provoke fear, suspicion, etc.: exactly the things you "guaranteed" they did not think about. Why else would they do it?

The aim of terrorists is to spread terror, and as a result of 9/11 they have succeeded in the United States, possibly beyond their wildest dreams. Frightened people make stupid mistakes, and waste a lot of energy, time and money on trying (almost invariably unsuccessfully) to avoid all risks, including the imaginary and trivial.

Like Mike, I lived in the UK when the IRA was bombing right left and centre. I drank sometimes in one of the pubs they bombed. I could have been there that night. And you know what? We saw it for what it was: a tiny risk, far smaller than that of being killed in a traffic accident, with just a few madmen responsible. We did not glorify it by calling it a war.

That was the real mistake on the part of the USA: taking the murderers at their word, as "warriors" of jihad. If they had treated them as common criminals or madmen -- which is what they were/are -- they would have alienated far fewer people who would normally have abhorred the criminal behaviour. But cast it in terms of a Christian-Muslim war, and loony extremists on both sides will spring to defend "their" religion.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

+1 Very well said
 
edge100 said:
We're not talking about brave martyrs.

We're talking about indiscriminate killing of non-combatants.

Kamikaze pilots, for instance, sacrificed themselves for the greater good of their country, but again did so because of a ridiculous unjustified belief in the divinity of the Mikado.
Click to expand...

That's my point. Whether it's a religious belief (which I would regard as misguided anyway) or national pride for which someone becomes a 'hero' doesn't matter. People will continue to be so deluded. However, that leaves it incumbent on the rest of us to find a solution, not try to outdo their murdering (as happened in Afghanistan and Iraq). And solutions are there to be found, even if one side is as intransigent and set on genocide as Israel is.
 
Rodchenko said:
And how successful has the freeing of Tibet been?

You make the mistake of assuming that Al Qaeda see martyrdom as an end in itself, and have no wider socio-political aims, which they certainly do have. If you fail to take them into account, you will never be able to resolve the conflict, as bombing the crap out of random people by way of pro-active revenge (as the US and Israel seem to do on a regular basis) is only going to lead to the increased militancy of the 'enemy'.
Click to expand...

The self-immolation here is amazing to behold.

Take away the metaphysics of jihad, and the actions of Al Qaeda make no sense whatsoever. You seem to think that the Middle East is some unique case of colonialism.

It's not. The world is full of far worse abuses, that are not accompanied by acts of terror.
 
The world is set up as a network of abuses. that's the whole basis of how transnational capitalism works.

The actions of Al Qaeda do, however, make great tactical and strategic sense, in that (with the help of GWB), they have expanded geographically and in terms of numbers, with their influence on the region, as well as on US & British domestic life (and I'm thinking of the very current DRIP here), massively disproportionate to their overall support.
 
Roger the biggest mistake of the US was bombing innocent countries in retaliation. 90% of the 9.11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia and the US bombed everybody except Saudi Arabia had they bombed the Saudi a large part of the muslim world would have cheered very loudly as they absolutely hate the Saudis and everything they stand for. A large number of muslims now sees the US and Europe as protectors of the worst muslim Regime and killer of Innocents. as they say you reap what you seed and the US as well as Europe were quiet good at seeding hate.

Suicide Bombers should also be seen as what they often are (911 is an exception) an act of Desperation (which I do not condone killing in order to achieve ones goals is always wrong)
 
DominikDUK said:
Roger the biggest mistake of the US was bombing innocent countries in retaliation. 90% of the 9.11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia and the US bombed everybody except Saudi Arabia had they bombed the Saudi a large part of the muslim world would have cheered very loudly as they absolutely hate the Saudis and everything they stand for. A large number of muslims now sees the US and Europe as protectors of the worst muslim Regime and killer of Innocents. as they say you reap what you seed and the US as well as Europe were quiet good at seeding hate.

Suicide Bombers should also be seen as what they often are (911 is an exception) an act of Desperation (which I do not condone killing in order to achieve ones goals is always wrong)
Click to expand...

In what sense?

How many teachers and mechanical engineers have to blow themselves up to disprove this canard that suicidal terrorism is an affliction of the poor and/or otherwise downtrodden?
 
Rodchenko said:
That's my point. Whether it's a religious belief (which I would regard as misguided anyway) or national pride for which someone becomes a 'hero' doesn't matter. People will continue to be so deluded. However, that leaves it incumbent on the rest of us to find a solution, not try to outdo their murdering (as happened in Afghanistan and Iraq). And solutions are there to be found, even if one side is as intransigent and set on genocide as Israel is.
Click to expand...

Religious faith is by no means the only irrationality on which people act.

But it is the only one we provide pride of place for in our society. For example, it is currently logistically impossible for someone to be elected President of the United States without affirming a profound belief in the God of Abraham and in Jesus as his son.

In fact, besides being born the the US and being over 35, this is the ONLY prerequisite for the job. One does need to have a good understanding of law, politics, history, or any other material body of knowledge.

We privilege religious faith in virtually every sphere of our lives.

Whenever people do really bad things to other people, you can be assured that, at bottom, there is a ridiculous belief at play. It just so happens that religious faith - as the most prominent of our irrationalities - is most commonly involved.

Even when the irrationality is largely secular or frankly atheist, there is still irrationality at play. The gas chambers and the gulags were not the result of too much rational thinking.
 
edge100 said:
. . . I'm sorry, Roger, but this is just dead wrong. The answer to religious violence (which this certain is) is not to ignore the role that religion plays. . .
Click to expand...
Well, you analyze it your way, and I'll analyze it mine. My view is that you're the one who is "dead wrong".

It's almost NEVER religious. It's either the hijacking of religion for political ends, or the action of religious loonies so extreme that few of their co-religionists could begin to understand their world picture, as with murdering doctors at abortion clinics.

Look at Northern Ireland. Stop slaughtering the other side, tit for tat every time, and the tension winds down. Kill THEIR kids when they kill OUR kids (cf. Israel/Palestine) and it ratchets up.

I'll go for the path that leads to (relative) peace, thanks all the same. How many Muslim friends have you discussed this with?

Cheers,

R.
 
DominikDUK said:
Roger the biggest mistake of the US was bombing innocent countries in retaliation. 90% of the 9.11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia and the US bombed everybody except Saudi Arabia had they bombed the Saudi a large part of the muslim world would have cheered very loudly as they absolutely hate the Saudis and everything they stand for. A large number of muslims now sees the US and Europe as protectors of the worst muslim Regime and killer of Innocents. as they say you reap what you seed and the US as well as Europe were quiet good at seeding hate.

Suicide Bombers should also be seen as what they often are (911 is an exception) an act of Desperation (which I do not condone killing in order to achieve ones goals is always wrong)
Click to expand...
Is this not what I was saying?

You can have a war with a nation, in which there may be collateral damage. You can have civil wars and wars of independence.

You do not, however, bomb or shell a bank-robber's house, or a murderer's, and kill his wife and children, because he is a criminal. Still less do you then call it a war to justify murder.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Well, you analyze it your way, and I'll analyze it mine. My view is that you're the one who is "dead wrong".

It's almost NEVER religious. It's either the hijacking of religion for political ends, or the action of religious loonies so extreme that few of their co-religionists could begin to understand their world picture, as with murdering doctors at abortion clinics.

Look at Northern Ireland. Stop slaughtering the other side, tit for tat every time, and the tension winds down. Kill THEIR kids when they kill OUR kids (cf. Israel/Palestine) and it ratchets up.

I'll go for the path that leads to (relative) peace, thanks all the same. How many Muslim friends have you discussed this with?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

It's virtually always religious.

Ask yourself this: what are Islamic extremists EXTREME about?

Their faith. In fact, their knowledge of their faith is unparalleled.

Moreover, for someone to be extreme, there needs to be something to be extreme about. A lever only works when it's acted upon by some force.

Virtually every one of our conflicts - past and present - goes away if we eliminate unjustified beliefs in certain dogmas - religion included. The number of these conflicts that are or were EXPLICITLY religious is virtually without limit.

Jewish Israelis - Muslim Palestinians
Muslim Pakistanis - Hindu Indians
Christian Serbs - Muslim Bosnians
Irish Catholics - Irish Protestants

We could go on and on. Without religion, the reasons for these conflicts disappear.
 
edge100 said:
It's virtually always religious.

Ask yourself this: what are Islamic extremists EXTREME about?

Their faith. In fact, their knowledge of their faith is unparalleled.

Moreover, for someone to be extreme, there needs to be something to be extreme about. A lever only works when it's acted upon by some force.

Virtually every one of our conflicts - past and present - goes away if we eliminate unjustified beliefs in certain dogmas - religion included. The number of these conflicts that are or were EXPLICITLY religious is virtually without limit.

Jewish Israelis - Muslim Palestinians
Muslim Pakistanis - Hindu Indians
Christian Serbs - Muslim Bosnians
Irish Catholics - Irish Protestants

We could go on and on. Without religion, the reasons for these conflicts disappear.
Click to expand...
No.

It's always easier to appeal to an extreme version of religion (which requires no rational thought) than to appeal to political thought such as Zionism, Greater Serbia, the Plantations, etc. At this point, you have to accept the liars on their own terms -- as you appear to have done. Of course they're explicitly religious -- and you're as big a sucker as their victims if you accept their "explanations".

Again I ask: how often have you discussed this with friends or even acquaintances from Israel, Palestine, Pakistan, India, Serbia, Bosnia and Ireland?

Likewise Han Chinese members of the CCP, Tibetans, Cypriots...

I freely admit I have no Muslim Bosnian or Turkish Cypriot friends or acquaintances. The rest -- well, I have discussed it with people who have direct experience, and it's always politics. Religion is at best a place-holder. To pretend that religion is the central issue is either naive or simply ignorant. Which do you plead?

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
No.

It's always easier to appeal to an extreme version of religion (which requires no rational thought) than to appeal to political thought such as Zionism, Greater Serbia, the Plantations, etc. At this point, you have to accept the liars on their own terms -- as you appear to have done. Of course they're explicitly religious -- and you're as big a sucker as their victims if you accept their "explanations".

Again I ask: how often have you discussed this with friends or even acquaintances from Israel, Palestine, Pakistan, India, Serbia, Bosnia and Ireland?

Likewise Han Chinese members of the CCP, Tibetans, Cypriots...

I freely admit I have no Muslim Bosnian or Turkish Cypriot friends or acquaintances. The rest -- well, I have discussed it with people who have direct experience, and it's always politics. Religion is at best a place-holder. To pretend that religion is the central issue is either naive or simply ignorant. Which do you plead?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Just as pithy in your ignorance as in your wisdom, I see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom