It must be PC to hate the US.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Teriba, let me make one simple suggestion to you. I'm not going to flame you for your post, but i would suggest you do a bit of reading from some of the Age of Enlightenment philosophers, and John Stuart Mill. You might find some thoughts in common with him, such as "I am not aware that any community has a right to force another to be civilized," but likely many more as well, that would help you to be both a more well-rounded thinker (and debater here on the forums). Some samples:

A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.

A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.



 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
44
91


<< You guys all seem to be missing the point. People listen to terrorism, people don't listen to peaceful protest. I live in BC where peaceful protest abounds. It seems like it has become many peoples careers out here, chaining themselves to trees, camping out on parliament, etc. These people are not only not listened too, but they are detested. I am not promoting terrorism, but I am saying it is the only way to get attention in todays world. How about this:

"The 60 million people who starve to death every year could be adequately fed by the grain saved if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 percent."

"Every 2 seconds, a child dies of starvation."

That's a lot of people dying of starvation, the death toll on September 11 is a mere drop in the bucket and inconsequential in the grand scheme.

If you can prove that George W Bush has an iq higher than 80 I will gladly retract my ignorant comment.

All of you just talk about military power, how you can crush all the other nations. We are dependent on you for our own survival? F*ck that, who is going to attack us. We don't need a military presence and you only do because you use offensive economic tactics. If you would just take a couple steps back you too would not have any enemies and wouldn't have to spend several trillion dollars annually on your defense budget.
>>

Since arguing with you is pointless (you hear what you want to hear and disregard the rest) I am going to fall back to an oldie but a goodie. Go take a long walk off a short pier.

ZV
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,673
482
126
I nominate teriba for the annual "AT Idiot of the Year" award.

Could I possibly get anyone to second the nomination?
 

Jimbo

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,641
0
76


<< You guys all seem to be missing the point. People listen to terrorism, people don't listen to peaceful protest. I live in BC where peaceful protest abounds. ...These people are not only not listened too, but they are detested. >>

So Canuks will listen to and be influenced by terrorism? Wow! You people really are as wimpy as your stereotype. Next time I feel really stressed, I'm going to swing by BC and gun down a few hundred locals. What will I get? A ticket?


<< "The 60 million people who starve to death every year could be adequately fed by the grain saved if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 percent." >>

Oh! I see. People are starving in the world because the mean ole' Americans are eating up all of the food. Thank you for correcting me and my errant thought process. I thought EVERY case of starvation this century was caused by corrupt governments and inefficient and ineffective government that did not have to ability to get the food to their citizens.


<< If you can prove that George W Bush has an iq higher than 80 I will gladly retract my ignorant comment. >>

Judging by your post I will wager his IQ is greater than yours.

<< All of you just talk about military power, how you can crush all the other nations. We are dependent on you for our own survival? F*ck that, who is going to attack us. We don't need a military presence and you only do because you use offensive economic tactics. >>

You don't need a military presence because your country DOES NOTHING and HAS NOTHING that anybody wants! That is the truth of the matter. ANY two-bit Fiefdom could screw with your country if they felt like it and there would be nothing you could do to stop it. I want to build my foreign policy around the concept a laying low and hoping nobody notices me. Please tell me, what real lasting good does Canada do in the world? Do you try to end famine when you see it? No. You ship over a few bags of grain and then feel good because you did SOMETHING. Meanwhile your attempts at humanitarian aid get to feed some warlord?s troops or rot on a wharf somewhere in Africa. I guess in your world it does not matter how effective your help is, just as long as you get to go through the motions and feel good about it.


<< If you would just take a couple steps back you too would not have any enemies and wouldn't have to spend several trillion dollars annually on your defense budget. >>

Unlike you, who would WE go crying to after we disposed of our military?
 

busmaster11

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2000
2,875
0
0


<< Teriba, let me make one simple suggestion to you. I'm not going to flame you for your post, but i would suggest you do a bit of reading from some of the Age of Enlightenment philosophers, and John Stuart Mill. You might find some thoughts in common with him, such as "I am not aware that any community has a right to force another to be civilized," but likely many more as well, that would help you to be both a more well-rounded thinker (and debater here on the forums). Some samples:

A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.

A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.
>>

You know, I don't disagree with any of that. Given the proper circumstances, I will very well fight for the same causes.

But where you and I never seem to see eye to eye, is that I don't see what you see. I see us in the most powerful country with the most powerful military and wealthiest economy. I see us in near perfect equilibrium between government obligation and freedom. In fact, I see us with more freedom, and more resources to take advantage of that freedom than anywhere else... So whats this cause of yours?
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126


<< You know, I don't disagree with any of that. Given the proper circumstances, I will very well fight for the same causes.

But where you and I never seem to see eye to eye, is that I don't see what you see. I see us in the most powerful country with the most powerful military and wealthiest economy. I see us in near perfect equilibrium between government obligation and freedom. In fact, I see us with more freedom, and more resources to take advantage of that freedom than anywhere else... So whats this cause of yours?
>>



My "cause" (as such) would be that we, being the U.S. and the rest of the civilized world, have not only the right, but the obligation to combat terrorism, under the principles of the theory of the "just war" as described by St. Thomas Aquinas and others.

Additionally, i would submit to a certain other person on this board, that his fellow Canadian has a far better grasp on the reality of the true nature of the U.S.


text link

Let me quote him, as i think what he said is quite apt to the topic at hand in this thread....

...(About those) who are justifying Tuesday's atrocity by attacking U.S. foreign policy: however the view is hedged, when a person says the United States "had it coming," what he or she means is that murder is a morally appropriate
rejoinder to a perceived slight or injustice. The annihilation of innocent civilians is thereby cast as a legitimate means to promote one's political or theological ends.

This is familiar territory for the radical left: Since the time of Lenin, Marxists have preached the virtues of exterminating
inconvenient classes of individuals in order to bring those still living into a state of equality. . . .

At the heart of the propaganda campaign against the United States is a moral equivalence conflating what is evil with what is merely imperfect. (emphasis added). In the Cold War, this tactic took the form of the argument that the United States was just as dictatorial as the Soviet Union because poor Americans were allegedly not "free" from injustice, racism and want. Now that we have entered a new kind of war, this fatuous argument has been recycled: Yes, Islamist maniacs slaughter thousands of innocents . . . but think of the psychic pain inflicted on the Middle East by Taco Bell and the Backstreet Boys. Who is to judge which is more inhumane?
 

Emos

Golden Member
Oct 27, 2000
1,989
0
0
glenn1,
I also like this exerpt from that article you linked:

One of the amazing things about the far left's embrace of the anti-American ideology of some in the Middle East is their willful blindness about what these fanatics actually believe in. Susan Sontag [third to last item], for example, is a Jew. Does she honestly believe that America is responsible for more evil than a bunch of Muslim fanatics who would gas her in a second if they could?

Could any gay person seriously argue for appeasement of people who would execute [him] on the spot if [he] lived under their rule? Could any serious feminist not believe in opposing fanatics who would eviscerate the slightest shred of freedom for women? I just don't get it. Liberals of all people should be the most serious about fighting this scourge. Is their hatred of America that deep?

 

busmaster11

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2000
2,875
0
0


<< Let me quote him, as i think what he said is quite apt to the topic at hand in this thread....

...(About those) who are justifying Tuesday's atrocity by attacking U.S. foreign policy: however the view is hedged, when a person says the United States "had it coming," what he or she means is that murder is a morally appropriate
rejoinder to a perceived slight or injustice. The annihilation of innocent civilians is thereby cast as a legitimate means to promote one's political or theological ends.
>>


This makes perfect sense, and I agree completely. While I would never claim the moral equivalence conflating what is evil with what is merely imperfect, I do wish that you address the US foreign policy. You may not remember my views on this, but though I have never claimed that there ever existed anything that can come close to justifying what happened 9/11, I do believe the US foreign policy strongly influenced their decision.

Please do not misconstrue that satement of mine or anyone elses' to indicate in any way that "we had it coming." Anyone who does is doing so as a smokescreen to avoid addressing our foreign policy decisions.

I don't know all the reasons behind the Muslims' hatred of us, but I know thate someone out there must be mighty desparate to do what they did, and sacrifice their lives for it. We've got people in a headlock and don't even know it.

Having admitted my limited understanding of it, I submit this: your own credibility will be limited if you ignore the question or fail to address it with respect. Since you like quotes so much, wasn't there one to the effect of, "If one doesn't know his opponents arguments, he doesn't know his own."?
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126


<< I do wish that you address the US foreign policy. >>



Which aspect of U.S. foreign policy? I'll be happy to offer my views on the subject, but it would be easier to do so if i had a narrower subject to work with... "U.S. foreign policy" is pretty broad. Could you offer a few specific questions perhaps?
 

kulki

Senior member
Jul 18, 2001
739
0
0


<< I bet we dislike them more than they dislike us. I mean I can't imagine them thinking any less of us that I think of them. >>


funny but true
very true
 

busmaster11

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2000
2,875
0
0


<<

<< I do wish that you address the US foreign policy. >>



Which aspect of U.S. foreign policy? I'll be happy to offer my views on the subject, but it would be easier to do so if i had a narrower subject to work with... "U.S. foreign policy" is pretty broad. Could you offer a few specific questions perhaps?
>>


LOL Good question... :)

The truth is, quite frankly, my question is, why do you think they are so mad at us? I believe that is 100% foreign policy related, if not let me know... You can give links if you're otherwise forced to retype.
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
wouldn't have to spend several trillion dollars annually on your defense budget.



You really are stupid.
 

CraigRT

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
31,440
5
0


<< Self-righteous friggin' Canadian. >>



I know you were getting on HIS case... but I as a Canadian will admit we're pretty much the same as the US, whether it be good or bad.... it's all the same almost.. US/CANADA are brother countries and we work in similar ways.. don't bother getting mad at Canadians, some just think Canada is a better place even though if you look at it from this standpoint it's way similar. I love both US and Canada... PATRIOT for North American I am. I am indeed a proud Canadian though!!
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,767
6,770
126
Glenn1, I'd be curious as to how you would gestimate Christ would react to your quotes as follows:

A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.

A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.

I'm just curious because of a long standing impression thay while we think we have God on our side, we pay no attention to the non intuitive, turn the other cheek part on His message. I just wonder how many intelligent people hold two obviously incompatable views and never seem to exhibit any sign of conflict.

The Tibetans handed China Tibet, but they may have really been religious in more than name.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
You guys all seem to be missing the point. People listen to terrorism, people don't listen to peaceful protest. I live in BC where peaceful protest abounds. It seems like it has become many peoples careers out here, chaining themselves to trees, camping out on parliament, etc. These people are not only not listened too, but they are detested. I am not promoting terrorism, but I am saying it is the only way to get attention in todays world.

Well there teriba, let me put it to you this way. We did indeed get the point that there are a bunch of nut case terrorists who want Americans dead. It's only logical that a society responds to a deadly threat.

However, on the flip side, they got the 'point' as well. Many of them were on the receiving end of 10,000 JDAM bombs. One no longer heard Jihad! Jihad! and "Death to America" from that part of the world after the bombs began falling. Amazing what a little bit of military action can accomplish, isn't it?

"The 60 million people who starve to death every year could be adequately fed by the grain saved if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 percent."

Ah, the old "Blame America First" mentality. So one might gather that another 60 million people who die of cancer every year could have been saved if the big bad old USA would hurry and develop a cure for cancer as well, right? No worries, we recognize your agenda.

"Every 2 seconds, a child dies of starvation."

Every 15 seconds, a human dies of an automobile accident. And your point is?

That's a lot of people dying of starvation, the death toll on September 11 is a mere drop in the bucket and inconsequential in the grand scheme.

That's a lot of people killed in car wrecks too.

If you can prove that George W Bush has an iq higher than 80 I will gladly retract my ignorant comment.

All hail oh wise and munificent teriba! Can you prove that George W. Bush doesn't have an IQ higher than 80? Doubtful at best.

All of you just talk about military power, how you can crush all the other nations. We are dependent on you for our own survival? F*ck that, who is going to attack us. We don't need a military presence and you only do because you use offensive economic tactics. If you would just take a couple steps back you too would not have any enemies and wouldn't have to spend several trillion dollars annually on your defense budget

The number for the US Defense budget is around $300 billion annually, NOT 'several trillion dollars annually' as you so eloquently insist.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Should that matter ? They were being murdered and their women raped, all their property was being confiscated by the Camel Buggering Hordes of Iraqi's. We saved them from that. So we did it for free flowing oil we still did it.

The largest Amount of Finantial and Food Aid than any other country in the world.

As true as these statements may be often our aid requires purchasers to buy US goods/military wares. Furthermore, the US producers are often subsidized by the government. It?s great that we feed more of the world than any other country (and we deserve recognition for it). But it is a legitimate criticism that the US rarely acts without an angle; ie we are not benevolent. And we are the world's net number one producer and seller of weapons of war.

a) the most powerful nation in the world

b) the most ignorant nation in the world


Our test of world history means half of the important stuff happened in Europe, a third happened in the 20th century, and 60% happened since 1500.

If we know this little about US history what do you think we know about the world?!

"[The] survey reveals that our next generation of leaders and citizens is leaving college with a stunning lack of knowledge of their heritage and the democratic values that have long sustained our country. ... We cannot ignore the role of our public schools in contributing to this historical ignorance, so we must ask educators at all levels to redouble their efforts to bolster our children's knowledge of U.S. history and help us restore the vitality of our civic memory."

Interesting critique of world history texts.

Violence = awareness. LMAO at that one.

Watch the evening news . . . I?m not sure I agree with the term awareness but the media certainly buys into the principle of highlighting the worst of human behavior. Terrorists do evil actions but they clearly have enough intellect to play the media.

dumb ass, when has terrorism ever stopped the US from doing what we want to do.
1) 10/23/83
2) The paper notes that recent events will force policymakers to reconcile the sometimes conflicting goals of security and civil liberties.
3) This report, delivered as testimony before a congressional committee, reviews federal preparations to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks in the U.S. and around the world. The bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993 and the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995 increased concerns about domestic terrorism, refocusing efforts that had been primarily concerned about ?international terrorism and airline hijacking.?

National Security Archive on terrorism and US policy 1980-2001

then what was our agenda in the whole Kosovo thing? Did we ever get anything out of helping Kosovo? Seems like United States is good people to me.

My understanding is that the US was pressed into action as increasing numbers of Muslims were arriving and the grumblings from Iran that they might directly intervene.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0


<< the grumblings from Iran that they might directly intervene. >>

I sincerely doubt that. Iran really isn't any kind of military Power to worry about. The Serbs would have kicked their asses big time.
 

Spagina

Senior member
Dec 31, 2000
565
0
0


<<

<< Hrm... if our agenda in Kuwait was to preserve our flow of oil, then what was our agenda in the whole Kosovo thing? Did we ever get anything out of helping Kosovo? Seems like United States is good people to me. >>


It was a NATO peace-keeping misson.
>>



Desert Storm was a UN operation. If it was a US Operation, we would have marched into Baghdad and beheaded that filthy excuse for a human being Hussein.

That's what is irking me about this post though. Many are sitting on here claiming that the United States did it just for the oil. That very well may be the case, but oil is an extremely important commodity for the United States/Canadian/French/English/German/Russian/etc. economy and security. Every industrialized nation today is a consumer of oil. Some may not use as much as the United States, but they rely on it nonetheless. There is no true Green nation, except for those that have absolutely no industry and no economy.

Another thing, the United States was not the only country liberating Kuwait in Desert Storm. If you read the list of nation's, it was a vast number of nation's contributing their efforts to Desert Storm. Those governments must have seen some importance in liberating Kuwait as well. Running around claiming that the US freed Kuwait out of some selfish desire is a completely ignorant comment.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126


<< The truth is, quite frankly, my question is, why do you think they are so mad at us? I believe that is 100% foreign policy related, if not let me know... You can give links if you're otherwise forced to retype. >>



Okay, i can work with that question. In the broader sense, i would argue that it's not really that important to understand why they're mad at us. In some ways, giving what grieves them the dignity of a name and calling it a "reason" for them to hate us enough to commit an act of mass murder like what occurred on 9-11 is somewhat spurious. In my view, even a valid and just grievance becomes suspect at best when coupled with an innapropriate response/action (and calling 9-11 an "inappropriate act" is a euphemism to the point of absurdity). For example, is it important for a parent to understand the motivation for a child who thows a temper tantrum, and attempt to negotiate with him, or is the better approach to simply proceed to the spanking?

But to answer your question, the Islamic extremeists (hereafter, "Islamicists" for brevity) have, in their own minds at least, legitimate gripes. That's not to say that they are valid to anyone but them, but they can be identified and qualified. Many of them have already been noted and addressed here, but here's a short list:

1. Islamicists resent the West in general, and the U.S. in particular, for having eclipsed their civilization and its glory days of 1000 years ago. They pine for the days when the peoples of Islam and the Caliphs were the most advanced on earth, and envy the West and the U.S. for having assumed that position in their stead.

2. Islamicists have been intellectually, socially, and culturally stagnant for nearly as long. The Arab world and Islam (with the sole exception of Turkey) pointedly rejected the Enlightenment and modern ideals of Locke, Voltaire, and such, instead choosing to turn inwardly like the Chinese of centuries ago.

3. Arab nations and other Islamic nations have not developed socially, culturally, or intellectually to the point of being able to have a population of educated, sophisticated, and skeptical citizens. Despotism, enforced by thousand year old religious dogma, have conspired to render their populations poor, malleable to be controlled in their opinions by dictatorial and cult of personality dominated "news" media, and mercuric in their opinions.

4. Perhaps most importantly at all, Islamicists seem to have an utter inability to conduct honest self-assessment and criticism, rather relying on blaming others for their failures, be it Israel, the U.S., or whatever other strawman is convienent.


Essentially, the "reason" that Islamicists are mad at us, is because in the U.S., they see a reflection of their own impotence and the bankruptcy of their belief system. The culture of the West is simply more advanced and superior to their own in nearly every respect, and this causes what is called in psychology "cognitive dissonance." Essentially, while they fundamentally understand that the way of Western civilization has triumphed over their fundamental, religiously-based notions of what civilization should be (essentially, a world-wide Muslim theocracy), and they are mentally incapable of coming to grips with that fact in their conscious minds. Dissonance grown unchecked leads them down the same path to madness and evil that the Nazis took.

Okay, that's my brief take on why the Islamicists hate us. If you wanted to ask any more specific questions on specific U.S. foreign policy questions, i'd be glad to give them a shot. :)
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126


<< Glenn1, I'd be curious as to how you would gestimate Christ would react to your quotes as follows: >>




Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword. -- Jesus [Matthew 10:34]

When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace, but when a stronger than he shall come upon him and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armor, and divide his spoils. He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathers not with me, scatters." -- Jesus, (emphasis added) [Luke 11:21-23]

Then said He unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. -- Jesus [Luke 22:36]

How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked? Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked. [Psalms 82:2-4]


Does that perhaps answer your question? :)




 

HOWITIS

Platinum Member
Apr 26, 2001
2,165
0
76
i hate the french and thats PC in america, so let em hate us. the hegemonic state is always hated. its a self-fullfing prophecy.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I sincerely doubt that. Iran really isn't any kind of military Power to worry about. The Serbs would have kicked their asses big time.

What makes you think the Serbs would have triumphed over Iranians?


Looks like KLA/Iranian Militants at work
The movement's main US operative, who spoke in an interview in Brooklyn, N.Y., on condition of anonymity, asserts that some rebels want to accept offers of weapons and training from Islamic radicals, or mujahideen, from Iran and other Muslim states who fought for the Bosnian Muslims . . .KLA supporters in the US are also working through the Albanian-American Civic League, a lobbying group, to drum up political support for their cause in Washington. They have spoken to officials at the National Security Council and have the attention of a number of influential lawmakers, including Sen. Jesse Helms (R) of North Carolina and Rep. Benjamin Gilman (R) of New York, the chairmen of the Senate and House foreign relations committees.

Hmm evidence is mounting . . .

"The gap between the public political rhetoric and the private professional discussions is huge," a European defense official said. "Europe is beginning to realize that Kosovo is not just about a rebellion. It's about a growing Iranian attempt to support and dominate movements in states in Europe."

Reuven Paz, who teaches at Haifa University, is regarded as one of Israel's leading researchers of radical Islamic movements, particularly Hamas. He says Iran and Saudi Arabia view the conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia as that pitting Islam against Christianity.

Yugoslav officials say the KLA's goal is to sever Kosovo from Yugoslavia and merge it with Albania. But Western strategists go further. They say an Islamic Kosovo could serve as a bridge for an Iranian sphere of influence that would soon join Albania in the east to Bosnia in the west. They say Macedonia, which also contains a significant Muslim population, would soon succumb to Iranian control.

Quietly, the Iranian element in Kosovo is being discussed in Washington, particularly in Congress. Analysts have warned that U.S. troops in Kosovo under the NATO umbrella would be more vulnerable than ever as Islamic agents would smuggle weapons and people from Bosnia and Albania.


 

busmaster11

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2000
2,875
0
0
Glenn1,
Thank you for your courteous and well thought out reply.

Well, first off, where were you when I posted this? :)
http://forums.anandtech.com/arcmessageview.cfm?catid=38&threadid=655751

Second, who are you referring to in your reasons? The majority of Muslims in the world, ie those who hate the US? Or Al Qaeda and the various cults/militant groups? Or one and the same?

Okay... I can understand your thinking that these "Islamicists" in question are not to be respected for their views, if I was in agreement with your list. If that was all, I would say it was rather frivolous... But I believe these people have different goals than us. They may not even know what to do with wealth and prosperity, being what they believe to be devout fundamentalist muslim. Bin Laden himself had access to millions of dollars and he's never looked like anything but crap incarnate.

Your #1: I don't know the history of culture and society in the middle east but I'm convinced that at some point they did in fact have a very rich and fourishing culture, but I think that was probably before Islam was introduced. (Hence the flying rugs, genies, lamps, mythology, etc...) So I don't think Islam had anything to do with the "glory days" but if I'm wrong, please let me know. If I'm right, it invalidates that one.

I do agree that the fundamentalists want to populate the world with nothing but Muslims; in fact, at a different time they may be likened to Christian missionaries, who often did more harm than good and were often noted as being hypocrites in their teachings...

Your #2: Can you show that Muslim fundamentalists ever cared about culture, history, even intellect? The Taliban have burned libraries, blown up Buddhas, neglected zoos, closed schools, universities, etc and made it into the most sterile hellhole ever...

Your #3: Similiar to #2. I believe if they wanted to develop culture, society, etc they would have done a better job than what is evident... So are you saying they don't want to, or want to but are unable to?

Your #4: If you're referring to Al Qaeda, perhaps. But saying that about all Muslims is too much of a blanket statement and any mind with objectivity would never accept it.

I may be able to add a reason to your list. As I believe Muslim fundamentalists desire a society much like the tyranny the Taliban built, it clashes, due to no one's fault with the west. They're mad at us for introducing sin and evil to their country. Of course that is no fault of ours - we have the right to live our culture as we wish... And as long as they don't respect their women we have no need to respect their regime.

I see no mention of anything related to US foreign policy in your examples. What about our backing of Isreal?
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126


<< Second, who are you referring to in your reasons? The majority of Muslims in the world, ie those who hate the US? Or Al Qaeda and the various cults/militant groups? Or one and the same? >>



Well, i'd say that all apply to the majority of Muslims in the world, but the question is one of degree. The average Abdul in downtown Cairo may experience some of the cognitive dissonance i spoke of, but not to the point of joining Al-Qaeda. The line between thoughts and actions of a terrorist sort is sort of the line of demarcation where insanity begins, IMHO.



<< Your #1: I don't know the history of culture and society in the middle east but I'm convinced that at some point they did in fact have a very rich and fourishing culture, but I think that was probably before Islam was introduced. >>



Most would probably recognize the era of Sulaeyman the Magnificent as being the height of Islamic culture. Here's a brief read about him...
Suleyman



<< Your #3: Similiar to #2. I believe if they wanted to develop culture, society, etc they would have done a better job than what is evident... So are you saying they don't want to, or want to but are unable to? >>



Chose to reject it, actually. Again, the sole exception being Turkey, led by the man called the "Father of modern Turkey,"
Ataturk. The fruits of Western civilization of the the genius of the Enlightenment thinkers is a gift to mankind from the West, the Islamic world could embrace it if they chose to, but have turned inward to a strict religious basis for their way of life.



<< I see no mention of anything related to US foreign policy in your examples. What about our backing of Isreal? >>



What of it? I support our backing of Israel. The people of somewhere like Iran have no legitimate basis to be angry at the U.S. for its Israel policy, as it doesn't even affect them. Israel is simply the strawman they use to provide the convienent reason for their expressions of anger at the West. It's not really about Israel, it's about an excuse, a ready-made vehicle for target their wrath against. The rest of the Arab and Muslim world doesn't give a tinkers damn about the Palestinians - if they did, the Palestinians could have easily been accomodated into their own populations, rather than being used like pawns, kept in place so that the excuse charade can continue. Is there any reason for the Palestinians to be treated like unwelcome homeless people in the nations who in theory support their cause? If Israel had never existed, the Islamicists would have invented it.

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
For example, is it important for a parent to understand the motivation for a child who thows a temper tantrum, and attempt to negotiate with him, or is the better approach to simply proceed to the spanking?

I am biased (studying pediatrics and child psychiatry) but YES understanding motivations matter. You may still decide to spank your child b/c usually a tantrum is just a tantrum. But what happens when you spank and the tantrum doesn't stop? After birth defects the second leading cause of infant mortality is accidental yeah, right . . . homicide is #3. Who's killing these babies? It ain't the nanny.

Biological parents accounted for 63% of the perpetrators of fatal child abuse. From 1985 through 1996, 9467 homicides among US children younger than 11 years were estimated to be due to abuse rather than the 2973 reported. The ICD-9 cause of death coding underascertained abuse homicides by an estimated 61.6%.

My point . . . a child that cries b/c Barney isn't on can be dealt with in a variety of ways. A child with specific, unaddressed complaints (lack of food, lack of love, lack of clean diaper, or disease) needs specific interventions. I'm not implying these people are childlike but they are communicating by "their accepted means". Our response can be reactionary . . . "kill em all and let god sort them out" . . . or we can look for a cause other than . . . "oh they hate us b/c we're us, they hate freedom, they hate democracy". I'm sure some do . . . and if that's the case the world's future really bites.