Toxic Certainty

[Sapius]

Laird: I like to think of it as, "One God, many aspects". Perhaps I am a Hindu at heart.

Namestey! Personally I have nothing against that, however, ‘One (God)’ is but yet another aspect arising in and of duality itself though; I can go as far as realizing a one-NESS of it all, but not any kind of an Absolute One. Perhaps, I have no heart at all :D

[Leyla Shen]

I wonder how their recipients feel about them? At the risk of coming across as paternal: do you think that a person is more or less likely to change eir mind towards your own opinions if they perceive you as respectful and fair, or as derogatory and unbalanced?

Oh, stop your flippen moaning, man. Really, I don’t give a fuck about how people feel about my insults; they were perfectly appropriate truths, in the circumstances. I am not under the delusion that there is any worth to those whose mental capacity doesn’t extend beyond sweet talking marketing campaigns and “big brother loves you” propaganda, despite their protestations to the contrary. You have to be nuts to think you can reason with that. They are afraid, and that is it. No room for truth or philosophy, there. You could tell them anything that fits their emotional bias was wise and, you know what? They'd be more than happy to believe you. See, marketers already know what the cats want to hear--and marketees lap it up like a serve of rich, udder-warm milk.

But perhaps your aim in posting to this thread is not so much to change minds as to have fun, and if so then it would be hypocritical of me to take issue with you, because I am something of a hedonist too.

There’s some truth to that, sort of. I am often amused to death by people in general. This forum’s no different in that regard. However, my reasons for engaging here have nothing to do with politically influencing anybody, though discussions on this topic might make it seem so to those who have such an agenda. You easily forget that I didn’t nominate myself as the token member of the “Muslim race”--and, 11 pages later, we are yet to see a consistent, rational argument (including definitions) for equating race with religion and consequently discriminating against every single “Muslim.”

The way the argument goes so far--from a self-proclaimed atheist, no less!--is that anyone from the Christian race is not intrinsically violent because acts of violence are not a true representation of that religion. But, the same reasoning is not true of the “Muslim race” because of 9/11 and suicide bombers and, therefore, concluding that Muslims are intrinsically violent* is both philosophically sound and politically astute and anything I say can and will be used against me and every other Muslim. And here you are, with all your “affirmative femininity,” proclaiming that I should not reject with absolute scorn and contempt the insanity in this position so as not to risk her taking it as proof of her well presented, philosophically sound [note sarcasm] argument???

Time she faced the truth squarely in the face, and that is: the intrinsic connection between her race, her sheer stupidity and the way she feels. Has nothing to do with Muslims.

From that, I’m sure you have enough intelligence to work out my position with respect to others on this thread.

(*Except the Christian race Muslims, that is, because--after all--they‘re “Christians” and not Christians--oh, and oppressed Muslim women and children are also excluded, being just as much the victims as anyone else--unless it‘s Muslim race women like me, whose Westernisation counts, nevertheless, as intrinsic Muslimness! You think those women should disrobe? For what? What the secular Western woman stands for? She is often abused. It’s all over the news--every day! We even have ads for it. Can't be that isolated an occurrence. But that’s OK, it’s done by secular men in our society [except when it's a Muslim]--no need for further “philosophically” based socio-political discrimination than that.)

[Bilby]

I asked before on the definitive description of a “Muslim”. No-one was able to answer, because there doesn’t seem to be one. Does the whole argument hinge on whether Muslims are a religion or a race? So if I can’t answer this little red herring, then my logic is unsound? They’re the people bombing civilians (or trying to) on a daily basis; does that help? No-one cares a fig whether they’re a race or a religion.

So far every “Christian” act of violence from Nazi Germany to South Africa has been invoked, with the exception of the Spanish Inquisition. The day that South African, German Nazi, Russian, American, Welsh, Spanish grand inquisitor, and for all I know, Laplandian, terrorists begin targeting civilians en masse, on a daily basis, I promise you I’ll be discriminating against them too.

Another thing. Are you certain that westerners are responsible for any violence at all? You didn’t read it in the newspapers did you? Surely you didn’t see it on the news on TV? I’m just trying to understand the reasoning here. So the news that reports secular violence is factual, but that reporting Muslim violence is fabricated? Because the Australian media is controlled by Zionists? Even though the number of Jews in Australia is something like, five?

I’m amazed just how difficult it’s been trying to get anyone here to agree that terrorism is wrong. The typical response has been, well yes it’s wrong, but… so in the end, it’s not really wrong is it? Because of the Jews. Because terrorism is the ball, not the man. Or because, what about Bosnia, eh?

So no-one here can quite bring themselves to categorically say that terrorism is wrong. Certainly not Leyla, shy little petal that she is.

[Dan Rowden]

I asked before on the definitive description of a “Muslim”. No-one was able to answer, because there doesn’t seem to be one.

Defining a Muslim is simple enough: a Muslim is an adherent of Islam. See, that wasn't hard, was it?

Does the whole argument hinge on whether Muslims are a religion or a race? So if I can’t answer this little red herring, then my logic is unsound?

No, your logic is unsound (not to mention your political understanding) for a myriad of other reasons; however, speaking of Muslims as a race nevertherless betrays one of two things: a) disregard for language and fact, or b) deep ignorance regarding Muslim reality.

They’re the people bombing civilians (or trying to) on a daily basis; does that help?

Muslims are doing this on a daily basis? Really? Where? Iraq? Are you suggesting that logic tells you it's appropriate to adopt a discriminative posture towards Muslims generally because of events in a civil war zone created by us? Or that it's appopriate because a particular fanatical organisation considers terrorism as an appropriate means to an end? If so, your logic sucks. Do you know your attitude essentially gives that very organsiation grounds for wanting to kill us? Thanks a bunch.

So far every “Christian” act of violence from Nazi Germany to South Africa has been invoked, with the exception of the Spanish Inquisition. The day that South African, German Nazi, Russian, American, Welsh, Spanish grand inquisitor, and for all I know, Laplandian, terrorists begin targeting civilians en masse, on a daily basis, I promise you I’ll be discriminating against them too.

Can you desist in this insipid propaganda? It's making you look worse than merely ignorant and given to hyperbole. What you say above is also a non sequiter. I gave you a list of terroristic behaviours perpetrated by peoples other than Muslims in response to your unsupported claim that Muslims are intrinsically more violent than anyone else. I also didn't need to go back in history beyond the 20th century to do so. Your knowledge of politics and history is obviously very limited. My list could have been ten times as long too, maybe even 20 times......actually, probably 50 times.

Another thing. Are you certain that westerners are responsible for any violence at all? You didn’t read it in the newspapers did you? Surely you didn’t see it on the news on TV? I’m just trying to understand the reasoning here. So the news that reports secular violence is factual, but that reporting Muslim violence is fabricated? Because the Australian media is controlled by Zionists? Even though the number of Jews in Australia is something like, five?

Ah, I see you've learned the skills of propagandist argument very well, even if only with respect to your own mind (i.e. you propagandise yourself). Did anyone mention "fabrication" with respect to news, per se? You seem not to have any ability whatever to filter information offered in so-called "news" reports. It's not even always that reporters are consciously aware of their own behaviour or that what they convey via certain information sources is true. When Iraq invaded Kuwait we were showered with absurd reports of babies being thrown onto floors out of cribs. However "faithfully" the news might have relayed such reports, the fact is they were lies. Politically, they gave the West the moral impetus to go to war with Iraq. Yet, it was all a lie and our politicians and military knew it. More recently you have something like the videoed beheading of Nick Berg. There's hardly any need for me to speak of the moral outrage surrounding that and the political mileage available because of it. And yet, the video is almost certainly fake (although Berg is certainly dead) and more than likely shot in Abu Grahib prison. Point being, just because it's in the news, it doesn't mean it is true or remotely accurate. The trouble is because of your already established attitude of discriminaton and demonisation you are either unable to unwilling to apply rational filters to information beamed to your brain via news services. You seriously need to learn to identify political manipulation when it's being tossed at you. It would help you a lot.

I’m amazed just how difficult it’s been trying to get anyone here to agree that terrorism is wrong.

It's amazing how falsely sanctimonious you are being about this issue. Of course terrorism is wrong. That's not the problem - indeed it really is a red herring in this discussion. The issue is your stupendously narrow vision of what constitutes terrorism and where it is being perpetrated. Then there's your equally narrow vision of political realities. Both need desperate measures to redress. If you take Afghanistan and Iraq out of the equasion - which is sensible to do as it is non-Muslims that have dragged both those countries into civil war scenarios - all you really have left is Al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah (in terms of meaningful threats to us). No doubt these are dangerous organisations and one in need of destruction. But even though I can say I want such people dead, I nevertheless find the the political demands for a cessation of action on the part of Al-Qaeda quite reasonable (Jemaah Islamiah is just a mindless Javanese cult that ought be destroyed for that reason alone). This of course does not mitigate the moral outrages of their methodology. But really, you keep harping on about these terrorists and yet they have killed numbers of people that don't even come close to the deaths that we can contribute to our own (non-Muslim) groundless behaviour. Until you address that point I think you should appreciate how difficult it is to take you seriously.

The typical response has been, well yes it’s wrong, but… so in the end, it’s not really wrong is it? Because of the Jews. Because terrorism is the ball, not the man. Or because, what about Bosnia, eh?

Obviously you're confused. People who see things that are actually complex in black and white moral terms belong in some Xian cult. Yes, terrorism is wrong. That's not the point - the point is there is no basis for your originally postulate that we can rightly and reasonably discriminate against all Muslims because of certain contemporary political realities. Your attempts to make that case have been variously laughable and/or depressing.

So no-one here can quite bring themselves to categorically say that terrorism is wrong. Certainly not Leyla, shy little petal that she is.

Well -playing Devil's advocate - why should anyone do this anyway? Because you say so? Who made you the moral arbiter of the world? But I'm wondering if your powers of comprehension are a little bit off because you don't even seem to be getting the actual message that people are sending you - which is not that terrorism isn't wrong, but that its manifestation in the world isn't a "Muslim" issue but rather a human one.

[Laird]

Oh, stop your flippen moaning, man.

Hmm, not quite the interpretation that I was hoping for. I was hoping that you'd perceive it as prompting.

I am not under the delusion that there is any worth to [certain other people]

Isn't this sort of devaluing of other people akin to the very mindset that you're so critical of?

You have to be nuts to think you can reason with that.

Can I be a cashew? They're my favourites.

However, my reasons for engaging here have nothing to do with politically influencing anybody, though discussions on this topic might make it seem so to those who have such an agenda.

I don't understand why you're presenting such a strong case if, as you write above, you don't intend to influence people. Frankly, I suspect that you're misrepresenting yourself in the above quote, particularly due to my firm belief that you are doing so in the quote below. I don't think that you should resile from an effort at persuasion - you are good at it; my hope in prompting you to avoid insults is that you will become even better at it.

You easily forget that I didn’t nominate myself as the token member of the “Muslim race”

Well I don't forget the words of your opening post: "I'm from the Muslim race."

And here you are, with all your “affirmative femininity,” proclaiming that I should not reject with absolute scorn and contempt the insanity in this position so as not to risk her taking it as proof of her well presented, philosophically sound [note sarcasm] argument???

It's not so much that I think that Bilby will take it as proof of eir argument - although that's part of it - it's more that a bitter pill is harder to swallow.

[Leyla Shen]

I asked before on the definitive description of a “Muslim”. No-one was able to answer, because there doesn’t seem to be one.

It’s your argument, Bilby. You’re supposed to provide that definition so that we can appropriately discriminate. I mean, I reckon by the contents of this discussion, that a Muslim is anyone who implicitly supports terrorism--and, accordingly, that makes you a Muslim. So, I am morally correct in discriminating against you, and will continue to do so.

But, I have a request: please provide an essay on the difference between politics and philosophy.

Does the whole argument hinge on whether Muslims are a religion or a race? So if I can’t answer this little red herring, then my logic is unsound?

Red herring???? What the? It’s the premise of your argument!

They’re the people bombing civilians (or trying to) on a daily basis; does that help?

Jews are bombing people (not trying to, but actually doing it) on a daily basis--but I (and they) still call them Jews. Also, I’m not bombing people on a daily basis--am I not, then, from the Muslim race?

No-one cares a fig whether they’re a race or a religion.

No-one who is ignorant, that is, cares a fig whether “they” are a race or a religion.

So far every “Christian” act of violence from Nazi Germany to South Africa has been invoked, with the exception of the Spanish Inquisition.

[Wowow. This just gets better and better!] Yes, it’s all just magic, in the end, isn’t it? There are no connections between any world events. They all arise independently from each other. Nevertheless, my questions, here: “Invoked” by whom, or what? Wholesome Christian values versus ….? What were the geopolitical conditions precipitating Hitler‘s rise to power in Germany--God? I suppose no-one, particularly an atheist, cares about that either, eh?

The day that South African, German Nazi, Russian, American, Welsh, Spanish grand inquisitor, and for all I know, Laplandian, terrorists begin targeting civilians en masse, on a daily basis, I promise you I’ll be discriminating against them too.

Liar. There's ample evidence in this thread alone that you will not.

Another thing. Are you certain that westerners are responsible for any violence at all?
You didn’t read it in the newspapers did you? Surely you didn’t see it on the news on TV? I’m just trying to understand the reasoning here.

! [gob smacked] It’s part of your “argument,” Bilby. I would have thought the reasoning would be perfectly clear to you, therefore. Apparently, though, I am right--and there actually is no reasoning in it.

So the news that reports secular violence is factual, but that reporting Muslim violence is fabricated? Because the Australian media is controlled by Zionists?

The argument that because the news reports violence by Muslims as violence by Muslims but violence but members of any other religion as “a white man who has obviously lost his marbles” proves that Muslims are intrinsically more violent is ridiculous. Especially when you consider statistics. The 2006 Census (Victoria) shows 2,985,802 people (out of 4,932,422 total) of Victorians identify as Christians and 109,371 as Muslims. Given that well over 50% of the population identify as Christian, on what rational grounds is it reasonable to assume that because the news reports crimes by religion only in the case of Muslims then it is true that all Muslims are intrinsically violent? (Sydney’s statistics were: 4,434,700 Christians to 168,786 Muslims with a total population of 6,549,179.)

…Even though the number of Jews in Australia is something like, five?

Obviously, you’ve never been to Caulfield. I had a friend who lived there for some time, some time ago. (She lives on the Harbour now and I am always welcome in her home when in Sydney--hands me a key to come and go as I please.)

I’m amazed just how difficult it’s been trying to get anyone here to agree that terrorism is wrong. The typical response has been, well yes it’s wrong, but… so in the end, it’s not really wrong is it? Because of the Jews. Because terrorism is the ball, not the man. Or because, what about Bosnia, eh?

Put forward a decent argument and you might find yourself less amazed at what you proclaim to be other people’s ignorance. You’re an idiot.

So no-one here can quite bring themselves to categorically say that terrorism is wrong. Certainly not Leyla, shy little petal that she is.

I don’t buy into the ignorant Christian-a-la-Bush mentality, “If ya ain’t with us, your agin us.” Fuck, you people can’t even define who the enemy is.

[Leyla Shen]

I'll get back to your post later, Laird.

[Bilby]

Dan, all Muslims are adherents of Islam? Ask a decent Muslim whether a terrorist is an adherent of Islam. An abortion clinic bomber is an adherent of Christianity? David Hicks, who claimed to be an adherent of Islam, is a Muslim? Apparently he’s now changed his mind. How long, exactly, was he a Muslim for? Does he even know himself? I’m glad it’s so clear-cut for you.

Leyla described herself as being of the Muslim race on page 1. Have a look. Take it up with Leyla.

Muslims, as a recognisable group, are intrinsically more violent than any other. Perhaps you could offer specific examples where a collective of people, today, exhibit more terrorist behaviour than Muslims. Until you can do this, the above statement stands.

Are the news reports concerning Muslim terrorism true or not true? Simple question. Where is the political manipulation regarding the news in Australia? There are many vague allusions to media manipulation all throughout this thread, but nothing to substantiate it. Where are the actual examples of news reports concerning Muslim violence which have been fabricated or are inaccurate?

You say: “terrorism is wrong, but that’s not the point. The point is we can’t discriminate against Muslims because of certain contemporary political realities.” I would have thought the wisest thing to do is to discriminate against Muslims because of certain contemporary political realities.

I don’t see terrorism as being recognised as a human problem at all. It is recognised as a predominantly Muslim problem. It isn’t American soldiers or Jews targeting women in English discos. But I assure you, if and when other recognisable collectives of “humanity” indulge in this behaviour, I will in all fairness discriminate against them as well.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan, all Muslims are adherents of Islam?

By definition. Islam not being a race.

Ask a decent Muslim whether a terrorist is an adherent of Islam.

I don't care about whether Muslims like to distance themselves from others by denying their authenticity. If a person adheres to the basic principles of Islam and identifies as Muslim, they are Muslim. Who is and is not a "good" Muslim is an issue for Islam.

An abortion clinic bomber is an adherent of Christianity?

He is if he believes in the basic tenets of Xianity. If he doesn't then he isn't.

David Hicks, who claimed to be an adherent of Islam, is a Muslim?

Why is this so complicated for you? If he identifies as a Muslim and adheres to the basic pillars of Islam, then he's a Muslim.

Apparently he’s now changed his mind. How long, exactly, was he a Muslim for? Does he even know himself? I’m glad it’s so clear-cut for you.

It is clear cut. He was a Muslim for the period that he ascribed to the beliefs that are central to Islam. It's not complicated at all. Islam is not a race one is born into.

Leyla described herself as being of the Muslim race on page 1. Have a look. Take it up with Leyla.

She was taking the piss at your opening salvo in this thread. She may come from a Muslim heritage but she is only Muslim if she adheres to the beliefs. Islam is not a race.

Muslims, as a recognisable group, are intrinsically more violent than any other. Perhaps you could offer specific examples where a collective of people, today, exhibit more terrorist behaviour than Muslims. Until you can do this, the above statement stands.

The above statement is unsupported by evidence. It isn't true just because you assert it.

Are the news reports concerning Muslim terrorism true or not true?

Oh, good grief. I'll have to deal with the rest of this later.

[Jamesh]

I don’t see terrorism as being recognised as a human problem at all.

It is*, but it is a pointless comment of Dan's. It adds no value. What is not a human problem?

* One just has to imagine a Katrina size disaster across the whole US, or if a tidal wave or Bird Flu event had some catastrophic effects and we could no longer get help from outside. We'd soon revert to seflishness and some to savagery. War is like this. Fortunately though, post war, countries who cooperate with the West tend to do remarkably well.

Are you suggesting that logic tells you it's appropriate to adopt a discriminative posture towards Muslims generally because of events in a civil war zone created by us?

In reality this statement is propaganda. The civil war was not created by us, we merely removed a dictator. We were a cause in setting up the circumstance for civil war, but we certainly are not the major cause as to why Arabs are killing each other.

Arabs need to socially evolve, and we are causing them to do this more rapidly than otherwise would have occurred. Most probably Hussein and his horrible sons, and the Bathist leadership would have caused far more deaths over the next 50 years than the number the West has caused, for instance, every death from sanctions rests on their dead heads, not the West, and there is an extreme likelyhood, that once some revolution occurred to oust the Hussein regime, then a civil war would have occurred in any case.

[Shahrazad]

Bilby wrote,

Muslims, as a recognisable group, are intrinsically more violent than any other. Perhaps you could offer specific examples where a collective of people, today, exhibit more terrorist behaviour than Muslims. Until you can do this, the above statement stands.

I nominate the US of A. They have caused thousands of deaths in illegal wars and commit war crimes. That is terrorism.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if you buy the media's vocabulary of calling what the Arabs do "terrorism", and what the US soldiers do "acts of war".

I'll just give you one little example. I live in a country called Panama. I'm not making this up; it really exists. In December 1989, people there were minding their own business when all of a sudden, they were invaded by the most powerful army in the world. They killed between 4000 and 10,000 people, almost all civilians. Military objectives could have been targeted making sure that civilian casualties were rare. That was not done. Was that an act of terrorism or not?

Even after that happened to me, I still did not become prejudiced against USA citizens and assume that they are all violent. I judge them on an individual basis, as all people should be judged.

Oh Bilby, let me assure you that Dan is right in that Muslims are worshipers of a religion, not a race. Yes, it is that cut and dry.

[Dan Rowden]

Taking up the latter part of Bilby's post:

Are the news reports concerning Muslim terrorism true or not true?

Which reports? Please be specific. Do you mean Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel? The chaotic social upheaval in Iraq? Most of these reports are totally true and accurate. What is your point? Do you think they constitute some kind of just and complete view of the political dynamics they stem from?

Simple question. Where is the political manipulation regarding the news in Australia?

You can't be serious. Do you seriously think the news we get from the ABC and SBS has the same market and political paradigm as, say, that we get from the commercial stations? Do you think all print media just want to print raw news, or that they always have access to raw facts? You obviously know nothing whatever about how news in gathered in conflict zones, how economics controls the content of news, how issues of so-called national security censor the content of so-called news, how editors and news outlet owners dictate news content according to market forces. Are you 15 years old or what? Your naivette, as I've previously noted, is quite disturbing - and getting moreso by the post. We don't need direct political manipulation by our politicians for our news to be politically manipulated. We DO NOT gather most of our own news. Do you know this? Please answer this question: do you think the "news" you get from Fox is not politically biased? You cannot automatically trust any news service, no matter what country it is. The grain of salt principle is one you need to learn - fast.

There are many vague allusions to media manipulation all throughout this thread, but nothing to substantiate it. Where are the actual examples of news reports concerning Muslim violence which have been fabricated or are inaccurate?

Excuse me, you're the one asserting them to be true. The onus of proof is actually on you. Why should I default to such a view when we have millions of historical examples of the falsity of news items? I think you're being a complete twat on this matter. At least one item in any given news bulliten contains significant factual error. Do you know this? God help you if you don't. People in news certainly do. Do you know that almost none of these factual errors get fixed in subsequent news bullitens? No, I guess youy wouldn't know that either because you live in la la land. And it's not simply about fabrication or inaccuracy, it's about incompleteness. Do you understand that what is not said, what is omitted from a news story - or any story - can be as important as what is included? You know little about the psychology of the market or propaganda, do you?

You say: “terrorism is wrong, but that’s not the point. The point is we can’t discriminate against Muslims because of certain contemporary political realities.”

Your ability to paraphrase exemplifies the quality of your mind. It is kind for me to say it sucks deeply.

I would have thought the wisest thing to do is to discriminate against Muslims because of certain contemporary political realities.

Yes, but your "wisest" is my "idiocy". The fact is you have no understanding of contemporary political realities, nor of the history that has created them. You do know these things matter, don't you?

I don’t see terrorism as being recognised as a human problem at all. It is recognised as a predominantly Muslim problem.

That's because your understanding and knowledge of world politics and history is appallingly vacuous.

It isn’t American soldiers or Jews targeting women in English discos. But I assure you, if and when other recognisable collectives of “humanity” indulge in this behaviour, I will in all fairness discriminate against them as well.

Are you mentally ill? I'm sorry, it never occured to me before that you are. It is obvious to me now that you are quite fucked up. I'm sorry for that, but the truth is you have no capacity for reason at all. It is sad that you are, however, indicative of humanity, Muslim or otherwise.

[Katy]

I love the way Bilby conveniently ignores every post I've made in favor of repeatedly asserting that no one has provided facts and examples that I have provided. I guess it's easier than reading. Or is it the thinking part you're missing? Both?

[Bilby]

People who resort to rudeness betray their own upbringing. Take this up with your parents, Dan. Who, out of the two of us, is behaving like a 15 year old child?

Generally “terrorism” is taken to mean the act of violence against civilians outside of the arena of war. Obviously the board considers this definition too narrow. When I hear “terrorism” I’m not thinking of the US armed forces, for example, even though everyone else is.

The latest spate of Muslim terrorism is directed against nightclubs. Apparently this is because nightclubbing is abhorrent to Islam. Where do the Jews figure in this, or American involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan or Panama? What is so difficult about condemning acts of terrorism like this, without resorting to counter-argument about Americans? Does one absolve the other?

I’m not really fearful of the American armed forces arriving here and setting up terrorist cells. Quite frankly, the Americans are my least concern. Leyla mentioned before that I’m only interested in saving my neck, so yes, that’s basically it. Whatever role America has taken as a custodian of world peace, and whether or not you agree with it, has no relevance to my fears of extremist terrorism gaining a foothold here in Australia.

I’m worried about anyone with enough hatred for our secular way of life to want to do us harm. I garner my information from the news, which to date, is accepted by the board as being factual as there have been no instances to the contrary put forth. At the moment, the main area of concern is the Muslim. So lets’ stop pretending it’s the American.

If you can't debate, take up something easier.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Bilby wrote,

Muslims, as a recognisable group, are intrinsically more violent than any other. Perhaps you could offer specific examples where a collective of people, today, exhibit more terrorist behaviour than Muslims. Until you can do this, the above statement stands.

I nominate the US of A. They have caused thousands of deaths in illegal wars and commit war crimes. That is terrorism.

Not just in other countries, either - see Ruby Ridge.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It's a hardly disputed fact that suicide terrorism has only one cause and that is foreign occupation. See also Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism from Robert A. Pape.

When we'd leave apart the suicidal element, Europe already knows a long standing terrorist tradition, like RAF, IRA, ETA (bombed two airports last two years) but nobody ever felt the need to pin it all on a certain cultural religious or political color, apart from not-us-ism. USA had its UNA-bomber and Oklahoma. These things are very circumstantial and temporal anyway. One day a woman drives her car on purpose high speed into a large Washington crowd and the other day someones blows his own car up, both causing similar damage but with apparently different motives. In my country random young kids have taken up the habit to throw rocks from bridges crashing the wind shields of speeding cars on the high way or even speeding trains, causing at times death and destruction. And the kids keep doing it, one after another. Different kids each time. Why? An appetite for destruction perhaps that goes around like a subconscious disease or rot but some kind of religion? Not really. It's more the lack of one, perhaps hiding behind the ideas of the nearest ideology in some cases.

[Dan Rowden]

People who resort to rudeness betray their own upbringing. Take this up with your parents, Dan. Who, out of the two of us, is behaving like a 15 year old child?

Well, you're right, I am being rude - or more accurately, I've lost patience with you. That's my fault, not yours.

Generally “terrorism” is taken to mean the act of violence against civilians outside of the arena of war.

Yes, but you see that definition is riddled with political convenience because it's always one side of the debate that presumes the right to define and declare the criteria of war and when it begins and ends or exists at all. Similarly with the cultural distinction between combatant and civilian. Are you suggesting we are the only ones with the right to such declarations and definitions? By all means argue that ours are better, but try and avoid a gargantuan double standard if you can, ok?

Obviously the board considers this definition too narrow. When I hear “terrorism” I’m not thinking of the US armed forces, for example, even though everyone else is.

There you go again. There is something strangely sophomoric about the way you make your arguments. You twist words and concepts just enough to make your own arguments and "morality" look more valid, but that sort of shit won't work with me. I wasn't born yesterday. No-one merely thinks of the US armed forces when they hear the term "terrorism". We hear "terrorism" when we hear the word "terrorism". What you hear is "Muslim". Pavlov, meet Dog; Dog, meet Pavlov - I'm sure you'll get on just fine. No-one here denies Islamic fanaticism and terrorism; it's kind of hard to ignore. But its fact and existence is not congruent with the premise of your opening post nor other random assertions you have made. Are certain forms of Islamic fanaticism a danger to us, specifically? Duh, of course; that's obvious - but again it doesn't add up to your overall philosophy of discrimination. It also doesn't take into account complex causal factors, but you don't like complexity much, do you? Let me ask you another question you probably won't answer: did you support the invasion of Iraq? If so, why? (sorry, that's two questions)

The latest spate of Muslim terrorism is directed against nightclubs.

Oh, I didn't know they'd indentified the culprits. When did that happen?

Apparently this is because nightclubbing is abhorrent to Islam.

Hmm, I hope then they don't find out what's going on in Dubai.

Where do the Jews figure in this, or American involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan or Panama?

I'm sure there's a point in that question somewhere, I'm just not able to find it right at this moment....

What is so difficult about condemning acts of terrorism like this, without resorting to counter-argument about Americans? Does one absolve the other?

What the hell are you on about? Are you drunk or stoned? No-one could possibly be this silly. No-one is failing to condemn such acts. The counter-arguments have got nothing to do with any particular acts of Islamic violence and the condemnation thereof; they have to do with your unwarranted extrapolations and claims of intrinsic Islamic violence. As I said, I think your powers of comprehension are badly amiss somewhere. The point is violence is no more historically systemic to nominally Islamic nations than any other. Political, cultural and economic circumstance are far more significant factors in such matters. Look at the long played out turmoil in Latin America (everyone forgets poor ol' LA). But then, they're a bit swarthy so maybe they're Muslim too...

I’m not really fearful of the American armed forces arriving here and setting up terrorist cells.

Me neither. I suppose you think you have a point in saying that? Take it from me, you don't.

Quite frankly, the Americans are my least concern.

I presume you're young; you'll learn, but sadly probably at all our expense.

Leyla mentioned before that I’m only interested in saving my neck, so yes, that’s basically it.

That's a perfectly reasonable motive and goal. It doesn't, however, constitute a reasonable justification for discrimination against Muslims in your own culture (because the connection doesn't exist). You are far more likely to be killed by a Vietnamese with an overcooked croissant. Ya gotta watch those Frenchy slopes....

Whatever role America has taken as a custodian of world peace,

Tosses a coin: heads I laugh, tails I cry.......

and whether or not you agree with it, has no relevance to my fears of extremist terrorism gaining a foothold here in Australia.

That's because your understanding of global politics is 100% non-existent.

[Carl G]

Bilby,

It is not our job to convince you of your wrongheadedness and general ignorance of how the world works. You will have to do the research and open your own eyes, if you are motivated to do so. As it is, you do come across as a brain-washed 15-year old. Perhaps begin work on opening your mind to more logical alternatives to your current mindset, again, if you are interested. If not, fine, you'll make a great herd member and and be welcomed as a slave to the system.

[Shahrazad]

Bilby said:
Muslims, as a recognisable group, are intrinsically more violent than any other. Perhaps you could offer specific examples where a collective of people, today, exhibit more terrorist behaviour than Muslims. Until you can do this, the above statement stands.

Shah said:
I nominate the US of A. They have caused thousands of deaths in illegal wars and commit war crimes. That is terrorism.

(A few lines down Shah proceeds to give an example of such violent acts.)

Bilby said:
Whatever role America has taken as a custodian of world peace, and whether or not you agree with it, has no relevance to my fears of extremist terrorism gaining a foothold here in Australia.

Shah, now:

That was your reply? I will again paste what you asked:
"Perhaps you could offer specific examples where a collective of people, today, exhibit more terrorist behaviour than Muslims."

I did exactly that, and instead of recognizing that Muslims are not the most violent group, you call Americans "custodians of world peace"! What the fuck?

Someone could just as easily say that Muslims are trying to save the world from the great USA empire, who is the real world's enemy. They have the power to invade any country with or without reason. They could lead the world into another major war. They are the ones I fear. Muslims are actually on my side, though this definitely does not mean that I condone their methods.

You say you want to save your neck. I also want to save mine, and the ones most likely to attack my region are the USA. The difference between you and me is that you are prejudiced against a whole group of people, and I am not.

Perhaps you could offer specific examples where a collective of people, today, exhibit more terrorist behaviour than Muslims. Until you can do this, the above statement stands.

Either concede that your statement does not stand, or prove that the USA violent acts I referred to never occurred.


-

[Kevin Solway]

[Following posts recovered from google cache]

------------------------------------
Re: Toxic Certainty
by Shahrazad on Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:37 am

Bilby,


When I refer to terrorism, I mean the murder of innocent citizens outside of the scope of war.
The rules of war actually require for civilians to be left alone. A better way to separate war from terrorism might be based on who is targeted and who the attacker's victims are. If the targets / victims are civilians, then it is terrorism. If they are military sites and armed soldiers, then it is war.

You yourself say that "innocent citizens" should not be murdered. Why then have you been unable to accept the USA was wrong to have done this in Panama and in other places? Why will you call anything Al-Qaeda does terrorism, and anything USA does "acts of war"? How do you have the gall to say that anyone here is biased in favor of Muslims, when you give the USA a free pass only because they have never targeted Australia?



The definition has to be that narrow, unfortunately, because otherwise terrorism becomes all manner of things like eating meat and swatting mosquitoes,
Cows and mosquitoes are not persons. When I talk about victims, I always mean homo sapiens.

The reason your definition is ridiculous is because you only want it to apply to Muslims.

-

Shahrazad

Posts: 430
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:03 am
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Toxic Certainty
by Shahrazad on Sat Jul 07, 2007 8:04 am

Dan said to Bilby,


And I have asked you twice before to offer evidence of your claim of misogyny inherent and peculiar to Islam and you have consistently ignored me. You ain't got nothin' have you?
She has consistently ignored my questions also. But she does like replying to Jamesh, because he is willing to reinforce her prejudices.

-

Shahrazad

Posts: 430
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:03 am
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Toxic Certainty
by Leyla Shen on Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:53 am

DQ: In my view, one of the main causes of Islamic terrorism is the lack of analytical thought, self-questioning and individual rebeliousness allowed within Islamic culture as a whole.

I've always found the response to terrorism by mainstream Muslims to be muted at best. In my eyes, they should be demonstrating in the streets in their tens of thousands, protesting against the great harm that the Islamic terrorists are inflicting upon their own religion. But no, barely a word is spoken about it.

Either they are incredibly passive and stupid (as a result of their mind-numbing religion), or they are beset with fear.

Ataraxia: Lets call a spade a spade.Brainwashed.

Leyla: Well, you've certainly demonstrated some blinding genius so far. Do tell, what is brainwashing so we, the unenlightened, might see when a spade is a spade and when it's a brainfart.

Ataraxia: How about "The Qu'ran is the literal word of God and thou shalt act accordingly".Everything that follows from that amounts to brainwashing.


There are at least three religions that have the same teaching, all of them Abrahamic. Your point about Islam, the causes of terrorism and demonstrating on the streets in the tens of thousands protesting was? But pay attention, these points have been subsequently addressed. Keep the argument current, please.


I can't imagine what i could say subsequently that would convince you of my point of view,…


How about telling me what you said to convince yourself you said something meaningful. Personally, I didn’t see anything resembling a point of view. Just an assertion. Exactly how narrow is your vision?


…so I'll leave it at that.


I suggest you review the purpose of this forum. It is not good enough to ride on the coattails of one its founders, or any of its members. You might fall off and get hurt when they go for a dive into the nearest mosque.
"Sleepy time, when I lie..."

Leyla Shen

Posts: 1823
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 6:12 am
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Toxic Certainty
by Ataraxia on Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:55 am

How about telling me what you said to convince yourself you said something meaningful. Personally, I didn’t see anything resembling a point of view. Just an assertion. Exactly how narrow is your vision?


How narrow is my vision?Less narrow than people who do this 5 times per day in unison.Every day.

http://www.masjidalrahman.org/images/prayers.jpg

What purveyors of individual thought they are as they chant passages from a singular source,day in day out.Such free thinkers unencumbered by directives from Imams.

Such free spirits that they bow down before people who would declare fatwas on the likes of Salman Rushdie for having the audacity to express himself via fiction.

Such invidualists, that one of their primary goal is to live in a Caliphate where the law was determined 1400 years ago by some chap who 'conversed with God' and no correspondence needs entering into.

Where once a year they go to circle around the Kabbaa for their Hajj.Circling in direction, dressing ,acting as prescribed.Yes what was I thinking.It's all pure coincidence multi millions do the exact same thing 'at least once in their life'
http://www.arabia.it/english/islam/mecca2.jpg

What would be more interesting would be evidence of non-brainwashing.


I suggest you review the purpose of this forum. It is not good enough to ride on the coattails of one its founders, or any of its members. You might fall off and get hurt when they go for a dive into the nearest mosque.
Thanks for the advice on proper forum ettiquette.So," thou shalt not agree with any previous posts less they be guilty of riding a coattail.
"

Thanks again,I'll be sure to fall into line in future.
Ataraxia

Posts: 37
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Melbourne
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Toxic Certainty
by David Quinn on Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:46 am

Diebert,


David, I think you fail when it comes to applying wisdom to global or international affairs.

Because I assert the obvious truth that Islamic culture is a more violent and oppressive culture than Western culture and that Islamic religion plays a large role in fostering suicide-bombing?

I don’t pretend that my opinions on this matter address all the ins and outs of what is a complex issue, but I don’t see how anyone who values free thought could argue with these basic points about Islamic religion itself.

Holland has a long history of being a free-thinking and progressive country. Would you like to see it taken over by Islamic culture?



DQ: The dogmas and rituals of Islam intrude deeply into a Muslim's personal life, effectively nullifying his individual freedoms, such as freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

DvR: Your idealist or habitual view of the culture you're still part of might be feeding such thoughts. Since when do unenlightened people, or at least people uninterested in philosophy have 'freedom of thought' to any degree that would be worth shouting about?

I can’t argue with that. It's true that most Westerners don't make the best use out of the freedoms they have.

I’m not saying that Western culture is perfect by any means, but it is a lot better than Islamic culture. At least it gives people the freedom to utter meaningless rubbish if they want to. They don’t have to rigidly adhere to a religious script all the time.



DQ: For example, there are hardly any atheists in these societies.

DvR: It doesn't matter because while some can live without any specific 'god' idea, nobody can live without belief. Gods only change form and name and to the degree one is 'feminine' (to use a term you're comfortable with) to that degree one is theist in the ultimate sense.

True. But still, I would rather live in a place where I can change my beliefs any time I choose. That doesn’t seem possible in Islamic culture.



DQ: The very word "Islam" means submission, which itself carries violent overtones.

DvR: It means "total surrender of oneself to God" in any real context. Which is exactly what you're preaching as well! You murderer!

Unfortunately, in Islamic culture, it usually means rigid submission to the intrusive rituals and scripts that the religious leaders menacingly foster upon the population.



DQ: In my view, one of the main causes of Islamic terrorism is the lack of analytical thought, self-questioning and individual rebelliousness allowed within Islamic culture as a whole.

DvR: What is the problem with India, Indonesia, Turkey, Malaysia, UAE or Qatar?

India is largely Hindu and so massive that it is a world in itself. It also has many outlets for free-thinking individuals to express themselves.

Indonesia has only recently emerged from a dictatorship and still persecutes dissenters. Only a few months ago, we had an Indonesian fellow on this forum who said that dissention was very difficult in his country.

Turkey has a long history of being influenced by Western culture and, out of all Islamic countries, probably deviates the most from the infantile 7th century tribal mindset.

I don’t know too much about Malaysia, UAE or Qatar.



And I'm not sure how you gauge 'analytical thought' and 'self-questioning', let alone individual rebelliousness. One could just as well say they are often more friendly, communal, thorough, literate and less self-centered than Western citizens.

As long as the person they are talking to doesn’t challenge Allah, Mohammad, or any of the other underpinnings of Islamic culture.



DQ: The proof lies in the lack of diversity in Muslim cultures, the lack of dissidents, the widespread fear of speaking out and being killed or ex-communicated as a result, etc. This is extreme violence, in my opinion.

DvR: Diversity seems a question of traveling enough or looking more to Discovery Channel. Lack of dissidents and widespread fear, perhaps they experience more loyalty to their identity as a people or part of a religion. Less nihilism but such valuing comes with a price, I grant you that. I don't see this as better or worse than what I see around me here.

You seem disillusioned by Dutch culture, but at least you have the freedom to express such disillusionment within that culture. Your countrymen also have the freedom to choose nihilism if they want. They wouldn’t have that choice in an Islamic state.



DQ: The Islamic religion lends itself to theocracy because its central teachings are primarily social and political in nature. Mohammad himself was a tribal leader intent upon political conquest.

DvR: And that is wrong, how?

It is shallow and outward. It doesn’t help people realize their infinite nature.



You prefer teachings that have no impact on social and political realities. Do you want to keep teaching confined to the armchair?

Genuine spiritual teachers are apolitical – meaning that what they ultimately point to is inward and beyond politics and society. Jesus, Buddha, Kierkegaard, Hakuin, etc, were apolitical.



DQ: I've always found the response to terrorism by mainstream Muslims to be muted at best. In my eyes, they should be demonstrating in the streets in their tens of thousands, protesting against the great harm that the Islamic terrorists are inflicting upon their own religion. But no, barely a word is spoken about it.

Either they are incredibly passive and stupid (as a result of their mind-numbing religion), or they are beset with fear.

DvR: Nobody marches unto the streets to complain about themselves or a tiny fraction thereof. One only does that to pressure the government into action.

They could set a precedent, then. It is in the mainstream Muslims’ own interests, particularly those who live in the West and enjoy Western democratic society, to distance themselves as far as possible from the Islamic terrorists and emphatically let everyone know that they do not agree with them. At the moment, they are in danger of being painted with the same brush because they don't do enough in this regard.

No one really knows where mainstream Muslims stand in relation to Islamic fundamentalism. It may be because they themselves don't really know where to stand.



DQ: That's right. It [terrorism] is the one and only avenue of rebellion open to Muslims.

DvR: No, not to Muslims but to some Muslim people opposed to the political situation in their home countries or countries they regard as home. Similar story with eg IRA, ETA, Tamil tigers (communist), Kurdish (secular) seperationalists, KLA and of course People's Mujahedin of Iran (secular socialists!). Al-Qaeda can only be blamed to have done the same as all the other terrorist, only bigger and apparently smarter, technically and tactically since they got what they wanted.

There is a difference in that Al-Qaeda regards the whole of Western culture, and indeed all non-Muslim cultures, as evil and should be wiped out. This is religious-based thinking, rather than political. It goes deeper than concerns about certain political situations.



DQ: It would seem that it is a case of groups of young idealistic men, plagued by Islamic-induced guilt over their Westernized middle-class lifestyles, coming together and gradually cajoling each other into developing a more extremist mentality.

DvR: They would make great candidates for Genius philosopher then!

Sure, provided they placed value upon reason above all else and were willing to challenge and discard Islamic teaching.

-

David Quinn

Posts: 2351
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2001 8:56 pm
Location: Australia
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Toxic Certainty
by Cory Duchesne on Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:51 am

Maybe it is this thread where I should be posting the following article:



Most suicide bombers are Muslim

Suicide missions are not always religiously motivated, but according to Oxford University sociologist Diego Gambetta, editor of Making Sense of Suicide Missions, when religion is involved, the attackers are always Muslim. Why? The surprising answer is that Muslim suicide bombing has nothing to do with Islam or the Quran (except for two lines). It has a lot to do with sex, or, in this case, the absence of sex.

What distinguishes Islam from other major religions is that it tolerates polygyny. By allowing some men to monopolize all women and altogether excluding many men from reproductive opportunities, polygyny creates shortages of available women. If 50 percent of men have two wives each, then the other 50 percent don't get any wives at all.

So polygyny increases competitive pressure on men, especially young men of low status. It therefore increases the likelihood that young men resort to violent means to gain access to mates. By doing so, they have little to lose and much to gain compared with men who already have wives. Across all societies, polygyny makes men violent, increasing crimes such as murder and rape, even after controlling for such obvious factors as economic development, economic inequality, population density, the level of democracy, and political factors in the region.

However, polygyny itself is not a sufficient cause of suicide bombing. Societies in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean are much more polygynous than the Muslim nations in the Middle East and North Africa. And they do have very high levels of violence. Sub-Saharan Africa suffers from a long history of continuous civil wars—but not suicide bombings.

The other key ingredient is the promise of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for any martyr in Islam. The prospect of exclusive access to virgins may not be so appealing to anyone who has even one mate on earth, which strict monogamy virtually guarantees. However, the prospect is quite appealing to anyone who faces the bleak reality on earth of being a complete reproductive loser.

It is the combination of polygyny and the promise of a large harem of virgins in heaven that motivates many young Muslim men to commit suicide bombings. Consistent with this explanation, all studies of suicide bombers indicate that they are significantly younger than not only the Muslim population in general but other (nonsuicidal) members of their own extreme political organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. And nearly all suicide bombers are single.




Anyone have any good reasons for objecting to the above theory that Muslim suicide bombings are tightly linked to the Polygyny of muslim culture and the muslim promise of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for martyrs?

Cory Duchesne

Posts: 1200
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:35 am
Location: Canada
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Toxic Certainty
by Shahrazad on Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:56 am

Ataraxia,

Are there Christians around where you live? If so, you should know that they are as primitive as Muslims in their beliefs and practices, especially fundamentalist Christians.

To single out Muslims as bad among so many religious groups smacks of prejudice. There is nothing wrong with Muslim culture that isn't also wrong with Christian culture or with religious cultures in general.

-

Shahrazad

Posts: 430
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:03 am
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Toxic Certainty
by Dan Rowden on Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:17 am

One of the difficulties in resisting the domestic political influence of Islam and its various follies is that we have too many religious artifacts still ensconsed in our own socio-political structures. The Brits own head of State is also the head of their Church; the US has a born again idiot at the helm (well, actually, he's always been an idiot but you know what I mean) and here in Australia our own Parliament recites the Lord's Prayer before every Parliamentary session and the Xian faction is the strongest in our current conservative government.

"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you...."

Dan Rowden

Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 10:03 am
Location: Brisbane., Australia
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Toxic Certainty
by Shahrazad on Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:45 am

the US has a born again idiot at the helm
Who is that? Bush is a born-again Cristian? Wow.

Shahrazad

Posts: 430
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:03 am
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Toxic Certainty
by Matt Gregory on Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:46 am

Americans recite prayers in the legislature as well. They take a roll call, say a prayer, then they say the Pledge of Allegiance.

Matt Gregory

Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 1:40 am
Location: Detroit
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Toxic Certainty
by Matt Gregory on Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:48 am

Shahrazad wrote:
the US has a born again idiot at the helm
Who is that? Bush is a born-again Cristian? Wow.

Bush isn't a born-again Christian, he's just a Christian.

Matt Gregory

Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 1:40 am
Location: Detroit
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Toxic Certainty
by Matt Gregory on Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:54 am

Okay, maybe he is. Bush is a Methodist and Wikipedia says Methodists are into the born-again thing, but I was raised as a Methodist and I've never known any born-again people and was never taught about that. I didn't have a very religious upbringing, though.

Matt Gregory

Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 1:40 am
Location: Detroit
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Toxic Certainty
by Dan Rowden on Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:08 am

My understanding is that Bush can quite accurately be categorised as "born again". Whatever the definitive truth of that, fact is he's happy to say God tells him what to do.

Link

Dan Rowden

Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 10:03 am
Location: Brisbane., Australia
Top

[Diebert van Rhijn]

[Additional posts recovered from google cache]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Toxic Certainty

Postby Dan Rowden on Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:08 am

Because I assert the obvious truth that Islamic culture is a more violent and oppressive culture than Western culture and that Islamic religion plays a large role in fostering suicide-bombing?

What is this obssession with suicide bombings? They constitute a miniscule proportion of acts of violence commited by Muslim fanatics or idealogues of various persuasions. I know they make better headlines, but really.....

I don’t pretend that my opinions on this matter address all the ins and outs of what is a complex issue, but I don’t see how anyone who values free thought could argue with these basic points about Islamic religion itself.

Islam is certainly a more oppressive culture if many respects. However, I still say cultural oppression takes many forms and I don't see much evidence of meaningful intellectual freedom in ours. It's all utterly token. Islam is bad, but it's not quite Borg-like. I think we do have to avoid false cariacatures in this argument as debate of a cultural and political nature tends to lend itself to that if one isn't careful. Our apparent lesser herdliness is to me just a veneer and one washed away with the slightest provocation. It's the historical fate of many Muslims nations to live in provocative times. Unfortunately that provocation is going to get worse rather than better so we can expect Islamic conservatism to be even more consolidated. Why wouldn't it? Ours has.

Holland has a long history of being a free-thinking and progressive country.

Does it? :)

Would you like to see it taken over by Islamic culture?

I hope that's a rhetorical question!

I’m not saying that Western culture is perfect by any means, but it is a lot better than Islamic culture.

Yes, when I look at the daily life of the average Briton I see a world of difference. Oh, no, wait, no I don't! The dole for everyone! Immediately!

At least it gives people the freedom to utter meaningless rubbish if they want to. They don’t have to rigidly adhere to a religious script all the time.

Hmm, this argument seems to defeat itself. Seems to me you're arguing greater freedom for Muslims there!

But still, I would rather live in a place where I can change my beliefs any time I choose. That doesn’t seem possible in Islamic culture.

Why do you think there are no Jews, Xians or humanists in Muslim countries? Most of the pressure to not change your beliefs would be familial and that pressure exists in all sorts of cultures. Can you imagine wanting to convert to Islam in a Greek orthodox community?

Indonesia has only recently emerged from a dictatorship and still persecutes dissenters.

They have dissenters? I didn't think that was possible in Islamic nations! :)

Turkey has a long history of being influenced by Western culture and, out of all Islamic countries, probably deviates the most from the infantile 7th century tribal mindset.

Hmm, I guess the Ottoman Empire and Al-Andalus didn't have much influence on Western Culture and intellectualism. Oh, wait, maybe it did given that the Islamic cultrure of Al Anadlus.......nah, history is for people who like things complicated!

Diebert wrote: And I'm not sure how you gauge 'analytical thought' and 'self-questioning', let alone individual rebelliousness. One could just as well say they are often more friendly, communal, thorough, literate and less self-centered than Western citizens.

David wrote: As long as the person they are talking to doesn’t challenge Allah, Mohammad, or any of the other underpinnings of Islamic culture.

Strictly speaking those are underpinnings of Islamic faith, not Islamic culture (which is a more nebulous and problematic term much as "Xian culture" would be). Within Islam you can disagree about aspects of those things. Islam does have theological debate. Purely Quranic Muslims don't abide by Hadith traditions for example.

It is shallow and outward. It doesn’t help people realize their infinite nature.

True enough. For that you need Hollywood and Botox parties. You can fast realise your infinitely stupid nature that way.

Genuine spiritual teachers are apolitical – meaning that what they ultimately point to is inward and beyond politics and society. Jesus, Buddha, Kierkegaard, Hakuin, etc, were apolitical.

Their truths are but not how those truths manifest practically in society. Politics [in a pure sense] is ultimately how you live. It's just that the "truths" of the religous lead to really shitty politics.

It is in the mainstream Muslims’ own interests, particularly those who live in the West and enjoy Western democratic society, to distance themselves as far as possible from the Islamic terrorists and emphatically let everyone know that they do not agree with them.

Well, you know what, I reckon we shouldn't ask them to do that until we and our intelligence agencies who originally created and harboured them do the same. Seems only fair.

At the moment, they are in danger of being painted with the same brush because they don't do enough in this regard.

Only by people ignorant of history and geo-politics, David, and of course people who get all their knowledge from Fox news.

No one really knows where mainstream Muslims stand in relation to Islamic fundamentalism. It may be because they themselves don't really know where to stand.

I think this is party true. If it's complicated for us why the hell can't it be complicated for them? And when they do decry terror, they get 2 seconds in the news and everyone says they never say anything. I frankly think Islamic terrorism has put them in a worse position than it has us. I'll accept the argument that mainstream Muslims should say more when mainstream Xians declare the Pope a right-wing idiot and Bush a religous nutter - in numbers in the streets. I mean, turn around is fair play, surely...

[...]Al-Qaeda regards the whole of Western culture, and indeed all non-Muslim cultures, as evil and should be wiped out.


Can you demonstrate this? I think you've gone into cariacature mode there.

This is religious-based thinking, rather than political. It goes deeper than concerns about certain political situations.

I think this is true for some but more broadly it's an assertion for which I can find almost no evidence and bucket loads of counter-evidence. I think it's just too easy an argument. It's like Germans saying Jews are just fanatics that we can't take seriously on any level. There is certainly a religious dimension, but then there is in what we do too.

Islam didn't create this modern Islamic Jihad creature - we did. One can argue that Islam is more than capable of manifesting it under the right circumstances, but so what? So, is Xianity, so is National Socialism, so is Communism and so is Corporatism. Basically we're caught in the middle of irrational ideological warfare. Seems eerily familiar, really.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Toxic Certainty

Postby Diebert van Rhijn on Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:21 pm

I don’t pretend that my opinions on this matter address all the ins and outs of what is a complex issue, but I don’t see how anyone who values free thought could argue with these basic points about Islamic religion itself.

And yet here I am, arguing your basic points, perhaps freeing them up in the process.

Holland has a long history of being a free-thinking and progressive country. Would you like to see it taken over by Islamic culture?

We have 300 mosques and around a million Muslim believers; that's around 6%. The progressiveness of this country always preached the 'multi-cultural' possibilities. The major problems revolve around the integration of specific nationalities and their cultures, only some of them are Muslim. These problems revolve around the youngsters getting involved in violence, drugs trade, crime and other anti-social behavior, often out of frustration.

Apart from all that I don't fear a take-over. I think that would be an irrational fear, feeding delusional thoughts.

I’m not saying that Western culture is perfect by any means, but it is a lot better than Islamic culture. At least it gives people the freedom to utter meaningless rubbish if they want to. They don’t have to rigidly adhere to a religious script all the time.

Your glass looks half full there. I think the unlimited uttering of meaningless rubbish is not as innocent or fruitful as you seem to imply. Why would it? It's just another form of terrorism to my mind. More destructive on the long run (as in 'mind over matter').

True. But still, I would rather live in a place where I can change my beliefs any time I choose. That doesn’t seem possible in Islamic culture.

Hmm, you make a belief sound like a fashionable garment. Wouldn't that be the problem in the first place?

DQ: The very word "Islam" means submission, which itself carries violent overtones.

DvR: It means "total surrender of oneself to God" in any real context. Which is exactly what you're preaching as well! You murderer!


Unfortunately, in Islamic culture, it usually means rigid submission to the intrusive rituals and scripts that the religious leaders menacingly foster upon the population.

I've come to know my own Western world as doing that just as well; submitting to scripts that our media-culture foster upon the population. They are less obvious once stuck in the middle of them. Apart from that I don't know how bad these rituals really are for the ones who have no inclination toward wisdom. It's not like some kind 'freedom' brings an ignorant person by 'accident' to the discovering of wisdom. Does it really work like that, you think? I could argue for the reverse if needed.

Turkey has a long history of being influenced by Western culture and, out of all Islamic countries, probably deviates the most from the infantile 7th century tribal mindset.

They are also one of the more aggressive ones, hunting down the Muslim-light Kurds not unlike the back then near-secular Saddam did. They're massing on the border of Iraq, threatening to invade. One can wonder if this is a Muslim influence or a mostly secular military one. Hint: it's the mostly secular military pulling the strings on this. Looking also at Saddam I'd almost say Muslim countries are getting more dangerous and militant the more secular their government becomes.

You seem disillusioned by Dutch culture, but at least you have the freedom to express such disillusionment within that culture. Your countrymen also have the freedom to choose nihilism if they want. They wouldn’t have that choice in an Islamic state.

It's this mental trick you perform of displacing a member from one culture into one other and by that method analyzing its quality. I suspect my disillusion (which I share with many) with my own culture is a sign of its weakness and corruption. A Muslim's pride on his own culture or religion is a strength of its health.

Philosophy has nothing to do with this ultimately, I believe it can just as easily grow in a Muslim culture, using their cultural language as it can develop here. You introduce a 'hidden requirement' of having to dismiss religion before one can move on. I don't believe that and I don't see evidence for it in history. Most enlightened teachers seem to follow the language and expression of their culture effortlessly. Jesus was according to the story not killed because he rejected the Jewish religion but because he rejected the 'modern' interpretation of it and therefore their authorities who had sucked the life out of the teachings to survive and prosper.

And lets not forget in this that the greatest body-count tragedies of the 20th century didn't come from a religious inspiration but from largely secular ideas like National-Socialist 'liberation' (Hitler), Communist 'centralization' (Stalin), and Corporate Entertaino-Fascism (UN/USA). With that in mind why do I have to fear Muslim culture and the violence they are supposed to spread?

DQ: The Islamic religion lends itself to theocracy because its central teachings are primarily social and political in nature. Mohammad himself was a tribal leader intent upon political conquest.

DvR: And that is wrong, how?


It is shallow and outward. It doesn’t help people realize their infinite nature.

If social and political concerns are shallow and outward then why are you even concerned about Muslims at all? Your interest in it becomes shallow and outward as well because it forces you to go into the 'ins and outs' and before you know it you have to address social and politics aspects of your own culture compared to the Islamic one to even start making your case. You can't have it both ways: the Islamic effect on society and politics as shallow and outward by its very definition and your address of the outer aspects of Muslim culture as not equally shallow.

Genuine spiritual teachers are apolitical – meaning that what they ultimately point to is inward and beyond politics and society. Jesus, Buddha, Kierkegaard, Hakuin, etc, were apolitical.

Jesus and Kierkegaard both have outward leanings though, criticizing outward aspects of society and church (power), let alone someone like Nietzsche. I also suspect that any political leanings would be edited out the older scriptures to have it survive the political chaos.

I do agree that being apolitical is the wisest. Leave it to the followers to create a banner and unite the people by damning the opposition.

No one really knows where mainstream Muslims stand in relation to Islamic fundamentalism. It may be because they themselves don't really know where to stand.

I don't think fundamentalism is the problem causing terrorism at all. It are specific, more revolutionary ideologies although being tiny, obscure and radicalized, are creating such a buzz that one starts to believe every fundamentalist Muslim must have sympathy or some link with them. And added to that people are adding the activities of all kinds of nationalists ('insurgence') and independent nations (Iran) to create a fictional 'group' which is actually not a group at all ('Iraq did 9/11'). This indifference is a sign of ignorance.

There is a difference in that Al-Qaeda regards the whole of Western culture, and indeed all non-Muslim cultures, as evil and should be wiped out.

Where is this thought based on? The words of G.W. Bush or some other media outlet? Al-Qaeda themselves state over and over that they do everything:

" in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, 'and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,'"

Now you can argue that this is just PR and they really hate our way of living, instead of general disapproval, but in that case you'll have to provide a bit of evidence, not just make the accusation based on a feeling or impression. If they hate Western culture I'd assume they'd attack Sweden as first, and then the Netherlands. Forget America!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

[Additional posts recovered from google cache]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Toxic Certainty

Postby Leyla Shen on Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:44 pm

How narrow is my vision?Less narrow than people who do this 5 times per day in unison.Every day.

http://www.masjidalrahman.org/images/prayers.jpg

What purveyors of individual thought they are as they chant passages from a singular source,day in day out.Such free thinkers unencumbered by directives from Imams.

Such free spirits that they bow down before people who would declare fatwas on the likes of Salman Rushdie for having the audacity to express himself via fiction.

Such invidualists, that one of their primary goal is to live in a Caliphate where the law was determined 1400 years ago by some chap who 'conversed with God' and no correspondence needs entering into.

Where once a year they go to circle around the Kabbaa for their Hajj.Circling in direction, dressing ,acting as prescribed.Yes what was I thinking.It's all pure coincidence multi millions do the exact same thing 'at least once in their life'
http://www.arabia.it/english/islam/mecca2.jpg

And what is it that you--as such a free thinker, free spirit and individualist--do that is so worthy of adulation? Such freedom of thought, spirit and individuality that you can only find your own through a picture of men in a mosque, asking loftily after it for evidence of non-brainwashing…

Yes, such evidence would be “interesting.” More interesting, however, is the “man” who implies he knows and is better than such a thing, yet can only express it by lashing out henid-style.

Thanks for the advice on proper forum ettiquette.So," thou shalt not agree with any previous posts less they be guilty of riding a coattail.

By the way, that’s “lest,” not “less.” And, yes.

Thanks again,I'll be sure to fall into line in future.

Flew right over your head, didn‘t it? (rhetorical)
"Sleepy time, when I lie..."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Toxic Certainty

Postby Ryan R on Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:22 pm
Cory wrote:

Anyone have any good reasons for objecting to the above theory that Muslim suicide bombings are tightly linked to the Polygyny of muslim culture and the muslim promise of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for martyrs?

And nearly all suicide bombers are single.

I don’t completely agree with this statement. A substantial percentage of them are single, but not nearly all. This theory only offers a partial explanation for the phenomenon. There are many other factors to consider.

Quinn is correct is suggesting the tribal nature of the Islamic culture is also to blame. For instance: the latest bombings that took place in London were actually committed by married educated Muslim men. These were successful men, with security and women, so their tribal identification with Islam is the only explanation for their involvement.

Also, I watched a documentary on martyrdom in Afghanistan, and the film illustrated how the wives of suicide bombers were exalted and treated like Celebrities by supporters in the community.

It isn’t as simple as merely the promise of sexual rewards. That is only one incentive among many. A significant incentive for the male mind is to die knowing that you have been exalted as a hero by your community.

These sorts of tactics have been used to manipulate many other races/cultures into giving their lives. The Romans, The Samurai, The English, and the Nazi’s all brainwashed soldiers into thinking that to die gloriously fighting for what you believe is the highest act of courage, and therefore deserves the highest degree of exaltation.

The male mind has a weakness for heroism regardless of race or culture. I bet with the right charismatic argument and environmental situation, I could convince many of the gullible Christians living near me to embark on a moral religious quest that may have violent ramifications, especially if I stroke their egos by the promise of heroism and sensual godhood in the afterlife.

Moreover, sexuality is highly stigmatized in much of the middle-east, so I’d imagine that when they are promising beautiful virgins in the afterlife, it is probably explained as being more angelic, eternal and otherworldly, which would leave a young gullible male feeling quite intrigued.

This is true because on the one hand, his hormones are ragging, and he wants to possess a female very strongly, and on the other hand, he has a deep yearning for moral spiritual attainment, and heroism so you put those desires together in the wrong environment like the middle-east, and it’s a recipe of disaster.

FKA Cosmic Prostitute



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Toxic Certainty

Postby Diebert van Rhijn on Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:40 pm

It isn’t as simple as merely the promise of sexual rewards. That is only one incentive among many. A significant incentive for the male mind is to die knowing that you have been exalted as a hero by your community.

One factor that is not named yet I think is a different view on the worth of ones own life compared to a fear of ones own death. The moment an act can make someone's life and/or death meaningful (in eyes of Allah or community) this opportunity is taken by the kind of people gravitating toward the terrorist ideologies.

But it starts with less worries and fears about ones own demise. Pride, respect and 'holiness' (the sense of the sacred) are valued more than life and death. This was also the secret behind some torture methods in Abu Ghraib.

This mindset can open the door to extreme acts beyond the understanding of an average Western mind but less weird in the eyes of the average Muslim mind, even if he would disagree with the act because of certain religious reasons.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Toxic Certainty

Postby Leyla Shen on Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:23 pm

Ryan wrote:

The male mind has a weakness for heroism regardless of race or culture. I bet with the right charismatic argument and environmental situation, I could convince many of the gullible Christians living near me to embark on a moral religious quest that may have violent ramifications, especially if I stroke their egos by the promise of heroism and sensual godhood in the afterlife.

Correct, but this is exactly why Quinn is not correct. Quinn is trying to paint an entirely different picture.

"Sleepy time, when I lie..."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Toxic Certainty

Postby Ataraxia on Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:34 pm

And what is it that you--as such a free thinker, free spirit and individualist--do that is so worthy of adulation? Such freedom of thought, spirit and individuality that you can only find your own through a picture of men in a mosque, asking loftily after it for evidence of non-brainwashing…

I made a statement they are brainwashed.You got all huffy and requested me to back up said statement - I aquiesced despite my better judment and gave you but a few examples of many available that show symptoms of brainwashing related to Islam.

If i could be bothered with this i could provide more,but as predicted in the previous post it would be a waste of my time.It has proven to be so.

Just to remind you of the dictionary definition of brainwashing.noun.

1. a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs, originated in totalitarian countries, esp. through the use of torture, drugs, or psychological-stress techniques.
2. any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, esp. one based on repetition or confusion:

Islam would meet definition 1 broadly speaking, and definition 2 rather nicely.

I note that you again have not refuted my statement but instead focussed on the person making them.Ad hominem I believe it's called.

Yes, such evidence would be “interesting.” More interesting, however, is the “man” who implies he knows and is better than such a thing, yet can only express it by lashing out henid-style.

Hardly 'lashing out'.All I said is they are brainwashed.Notably you have chosen not to refute this statement.Am i to conclude you agree?

By the way, that’s “lest,” not “less.” And, yes.

....And then followed with some pedantry

Flew right over your head, didn‘t it? (rhetorical)

....and condescension.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Postby David Quinn on Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:40 am

Diebert,

DQ: Holland has a long history of being a free-thinking and progressive country. Would you like to see it taken over by Islamic culture?

DvR: We have 300 mosques and around a million Muslim believers; that's around 6%. The progressiveness of this country always preached the 'multi-cultural' possibilities. The major problems revolve around the integration of specific nationalities and their cultures, only some of them are Muslim. These problems revolve around the youngsters getting involved in violence, drugs trade, crime and other anti-social behavior, often out of frustration.

Apart from all that I don't fear a take-over. I think that would be an irrational fear, feeding delusional thoughts.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't asking about the prospect of Holland being taken over by Islam. I agree that it is very unlikely to happen. Rather, I was asking whether you would be happy to live in a Holland run by Islam, as opposed to the current set up of secularism and civil freedom.

In other words, do you personally regard Islamic culture to be on a par with Western culture? I personally regard it to be inferior because of the reduced individual freedoms it provides.

DQ: I’m not saying that Western culture is perfect by any means, but it is a lot better than Islamic culture. At least it gives people the freedom to utter meaningless rubbish if they want to. They don’t have to rigidly adhere to a religious script all the time.

DvR: Your glass looks half full there. I think the unlimited uttering of meaningless rubbish is not as innocent or fruitful as you seem to imply. Why would it? It's just another form of terrorism to my mind. More destructive on the long run (as in 'mind over matter').

I agree that it is undesirable. A free society gives scope for individuals to express themselves freely, and unfortunately, yes, what we currently see being expressed by most Western individuals isn't pretty to watch. But this can only be rectified by individuals taking personal responsibility for their freedom and using it in the wisest possible way.

In other words, it isn't the Western system of free society which is at fault, but rather the decadent individuals who live in that system.

Conversely, if the system is unfree to begin with, then it becomes far more difficult for individuals to value wisdom and express themselves wisely. And that is why I consider Islam (and all intrusive regimes, generally) to be an undesirable system.

DQ: True. But still, I would rather live in a place where I can change my beliefs any time I choose. That doesn’t seem possible in Islamic culture.

DvR: Hmm, you make a belief sound like a fashionable garment. Wouldn't that be the problem in the first place?

Yes, if an individual was constantly changing his beliefs willy-nilly, that would be a problem. But nonetheless, it is important to have a system in which the individual has the freedom to do this if he so chooses.

Obviously, a free society doesn't automatically guarantee a wise society. It merely sets it up as one of its many possibilities. But an unfree society negates the possibility of a wise society from the very start.

DQ: You seem disillusioned by Dutch culture, but at least you have the freedom to express such disillusionment within that culture. Your countrymen also have the freedom to choose nihilism if they want. They wouldn’t have that choice in an Islamic state.

DvR: It's this mental trick you perform of displacing a member from one culture into one other and by that method analyzing its quality.

It's a valid method of comparing cultures. We can compare different cultures on the basis of how much individual freedom they provide.

I suspect my disillusion (which I share with many) with my own culture is a sign of its weakness and corruption. A Muslim's pride on his own culture or religion is a strength of its health.

Or it could be a sign of his strength of suppression and denial. The free Dutch society allows everything to be brought to the surface, such that everyone can see the fruits of individual expression in all their glory and depravity. An unfree Islamic society tries to suppress all these undercurrents and hide behind a uniform facade of Islamic piety.

I think it is better to bring things to the surface, no matter how ugly they be. It is the only they can be properly dealt with.

Philosophy has nothing to do with this ultimately, I believe it can just as easily grow in a Muslim culture, using their cultural language as it can develop here. You introduce a 'hidden requirement' of having to dismiss religion before one can move on. I don't believe that and I don't see evidence for it in history. Most enlightened teachers seem to follow the language and expression of their culture effortlessly. Jesus was according to the story not killed because he rejected the Jewish religion but because he rejected the 'modern' interpretation of it and therefore their authorities who had sucked the life out of the teachings to survive and prosper.

If a society is too rigid and oppressive, then individual philosophical development becomes very difficult. That is why there is so little wisdom generated in Islamic culture. Even the Sufis had to couch what wisdom they had in obscure, indirect language so as not to be seen to be threatening the Islamic culture they lived in.

I agree that Jesus managed to become a wise person despite the oppressive society he lived in. But he was an extraordinary individual and fully accepted that being persecuted and killed by his society was a price that he would have to pay.

The idea that wise philosophers can arise no matter what the society only applies in the case of extraordinary individuals. Lesser individuals attempting to become wise in an oppressive society tend to be crushed from the very start. Lesser individuals need the help of a free, non-threatening society to help them grow and stand on their own feet.

And lets not forget in this that the greatest body-count tragedies of the 20th century didn't come from a religious inspiration but from largely secular ideas like National-Socialist 'liberation' (Hitler), Communist 'centralization' (Stalin), and Corporate Entertaino-Fascism (UN/USA). With that in mind why do I have to fear Muslim culture and the violence they are supposed to spread?

Well, these secular systems were just as dogmatic and oppressive as any religious system. I'm just as much against them as I am Islamic religion and culture.

DQ: The Islamic religion lends itself to theocracy because its central teachings are primarily social and political in nature. Mohammad himself was a tribal leader intent upon political conquest.

DvR: And that is wrong, how?

DQ: It is shallow and outward. It doesn’t help people realize their infinite nature.

DvR: If social and political concerns are shallow and outward then why are you even concerned about Muslims at all? Your interest in it becomes shallow and outward as well because it forces you to go into the 'ins and outs' and before you know it you have to address social and politics aspects of your own culture compared to the Islamic one to even start making your case. You can't have it both ways: the Islamic effect on society and politics as shallow and outward by its very definition and your address of the outer aspects of Muslim culture as not equally shallow.

Pointing out the errors of a behaviour isn't the same as engaging in that behaviour.

DQ: There is a difference in that Al-Qaeda regards the whole of Western culture, and indeed all non-Muslim cultures, as evil and should be wiped out.

DvR: Where is this thought based on? The words of G.W. Bush or some other media outlet?

I've seen and heard numerous quotes to this effect by Islamic fundamentalists over the last few years - describing, for example, the "Islamification of the world" as their ultimate goal.

As you say, it might be just a PR tactic, or mind-games, to scare Westerners, but I'm pretty sure they would jump at Islamificating the world if they had the chance.

Al-Qaeda themselves state over and over that they do everything:

"in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, 'and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together"

It wouldn't take much to shift from this position to that of regarding all lands on earth as "lands of Islam" and the death of all other cultures as the only sure means of eliminating all threat to Islam.

Now you can argue that this is just PR and they really hate our way of living, instead of general disapproval, but in that case you'll have to provide a bit of evidence, not just make the accusation based on a feeling or impression. If they hate Western culture I'd assume they'd attack Sweden as first, and then the Netherlands. Forget America!

With respect, America is by far the most powerful Western nation and the great prize. Islamic fanatics would know that if America were defeated, the rest of the Western world would quickly follow suit.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Toxic Certainty

Postby Leyla Shen on Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:39 pm

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.

Yes. I think you have the same 30% delusion Kevin has. Dan's reply to the final question in the quote below goes entirely ignored, I notice. You don’t really care what you’re talking about, for reasons obvious to me. It would certainly redeem you in my sight if you stopped bastardising language:

Diebert: David, I think you fail when it comes to applying wisdom to global or international affairs.

David: Because I assert the obvious truth that Islamic culture is a more violent and oppressive culture than Western culture and that Islamic religion plays a large role in fostering suicide-bombing?

I don’t pretend that my opinions on this matter address all the ins and outs of what is a complex issue, but I don’t see how anyone who values free thought could argue with these basic points about Islamic religion itself.

Holland has a long history of being a free-thinking and progressive country. Would you like to see it taken over by Islamic culture?

Religion is an aspect of culture (a group‘s collective identity), part of an analytical cultural subsystem--termed “mentifacts” by biologist Julian Huxley--centred around beliefs, legend, mythology, etc. ; and we all know what they are, right?

The religious influence (mentifact) in Islam can thereby be reduced to submission to Allah. In Christianity to salvation through Christ who has already died, absolving them of sin (Jewish apologetics, as I see it). And, in Judaism, the great biblical Israel as the final destiny for the Jewish “people.” (If Judaism is not religion inextricably “mixed” with politics--the despicable charge you save for Mohammed and Islam--I don’t know what is. Difference is, Jews have the Goyim to serve them--who are, obviously, not Jews.)

The “West,” then, becomes the culture of sub-culture and necessarily has no borders except the ones religiously imposed. Politics here, much like you, finds itself bobbing around in a shifting tide of borders. One minute you’re a Muslim, the next you’re better than that as a Christian, next better yet as a Buddhist, then an atheist and then again infinitely wiser than that! Such platitudes as this become quite interesting, psychologically. For even in this supposed infinite wisdom, the only kind of Muslim you can see is the one you are capable of seeing as a Christian--an atheist doesn’t believe God has anything to do with politics, period. (Nice to know you think you will be forgiven all your sins: “as you from crimes would pardon‘d be, let your indulgence set me free… --Prospero‘s Speech.)

So, David, when you live in a glass house, it isn’t wise to throw stones. Or, perhaps you are under the delusion it is not glass at all…

"Sleepy time, when I lie..."



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Toxic Certainty

Postby Bilby on Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:52 am

Q: Child pornography is evil, and should be denounced outright.

A: There are other forms of pornography, as in those involving adults. Why aren’t you also concerned with this?

Q: I am targeting child pornography because it is particularly evil. We should be taking harsher actions against child pornographers by increasing jail terms, for instance.

A: How draconian can you get. Why not bring back the noose? We should be trying to understand what motivates child pornographers; vilifying them does nothing to help the situation.

A: What about David Jones catalogues featuring child models? Your consumerism is based on the objectification of the child, so you’re part of the problem.

A: What about pornography involving women, who are drug addicts? Aren’t they victims too? You’re being morally duplicitous to just target child pornography. There are many other forms of pornography.

A: Child pornographers are victims themselves. Maybe they suffered from child abuse. Discrimination doesn’t solve anything here.

Q: As a society, we can’t condone evil acts, regardless of the perpetrator’s upbringing. I would have thought child pornography was abhorrent to everyone. I am asking that the board absolutely condemn child pornography as evil.

A: You didn’t answer the question about the David Jones catalogues. So you never buy clothes for your kids based on these catalogues? Isn’t the objectification of children just another form of pornography?

Q: All forms of pornography are wrong, but I’m not convinced that the examples here actually qualify as pornography. I think the definition here is a little too wide. I’m just asking for consensus that child pornography is evil.

A: We’re asking you to accept that there are other forms of pornography, not just your narrow interpretation of it. Maybe if you fix up the other forms of pornography, child pornography won’t be such an issue. It’s just part of a bigger problem of society’s dehumanisation of people generally, not just children.

Q: Other forms of pornography don’t absolve child pornography. You can’t excuse child pornography by constant references to other forms of pornography, whether real or imagined. I am targeting the very worst form of pornography, and asking for agreement on the evil nature of this, so we can move on and discuss ways to tackle it.

A: So you never buy kid’s clothes from David Jones?


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Diebert van Rhijn]

[Originally posted by me on Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:12 am]
----------------------------------------

Diebert wrote:(...) Apart from all that I don't fear a take-over. I think that would be an irrational fear, feeding delusional thoughts.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't asking about the prospect of Holland being taken over by Islam. I agree that it is very unlikely to happen. Rather, I was asking whether you would be happy to live in a Holland run by Islam, as opposed to the current set up of secularism and civil freedom.

You were clear enough. I merely indicated with the numbers that there doesn't seem to be some specific 'Muslim' problem here with integrating. There's a cultural problem though for certain specific nationalities which might illustrate my larger point.

In other words, do you personally regard Islamic culture to be on a par with Western culture? I personally regard it to be inferior because of the reduced individual freedoms it provides.

I was trying to get to the bottom of your disregard of Muslim culture, the reasoning behind it and the quality of that reasoning. So far I haven't found much clarity.

My own stand is that Western culture is certainly more destructive and nihilistic than any Muslim one, even if there would be some Muslim 'mono-culture' which I doubt. The Western culture is way easier to identify (big media, big mac, dense political subculture, bred out of richer post-colonial countries) than some large Muslim one.

Organizations like Al-Qaeda however, and their affiliations and copycats, seem way more like a hybrid of Islam with Western ideas of freedom, revolution, socialism and large scale planning. From this springs the monstrous violence in my opinion.

In other words, it isn't the Western system of free society which is at fault, but rather the decadent individuals who live in that system.

I don't think the individuals are so easy to separate from the society and culture. If anything, the society and culture is a product of them and the individual ideas largely a product of the greater womb they're born in.

Conversely, if the system is unfree to begin with, then it becomes far more difficult for individuals to value wisdom and express themselves wisely. And that is why I consider Islam (and all intrusive regimes, generally) to be an undesirable system.

I don't think it's different in the average Muslim culture than in the age of Judaism or Hinduism or the older Muslim cultures. Some things are harder, some things are easier. History shows sages popping up from many societies with a dominant religion in place.

Also it's noted you bring 'Islam' into the category of 'intrusive regimes'. That seems not correct, especially when Muslim terrorism without exception fights against what they see as repressing!

Obviously, a free society doesn't automatically guarantee a wise society. It merely sets it up as one of its many possibilities. But an unfree society negates the possibility of a wise society from the very start.

Aha! You're aiming for wise societies! It's one of the differences between our views. Personally I only aim for a few wise individuals. I cannot envision otherwise; it's by definition really.

DvR: It's this mental trick you perform of displacing a member from one culture into one other and by that method analyzing its quality.

It's a valid method of comparing cultures. We can compare different cultures on the basis of how much individual freedom they provide.

It depends if your valuing or description of individual freedom is based on your cultural upbringing or some universal cross-culture measuring lint.

I guess I just can't see how this idea of individual freedom is a proven advantage to free-thinking. In some cases it might benefit certain types (note: types born in the culture of individual freedom), but in many cases it might delude people even more than citing the Koran. It's just something to investigate deeply before reaching conclusions.

The free Dutch society allows everything to be brought to the surface, such that everyone can see the fruits of individual expression in all their glory and depravity. An unfree Islamic society tries to suppress all these undercurrents and hide behind a uniform facade of Islamic piety.

Currently I doubt the value of swimming in the glory and depravity of individual expression. I'm seeing it having more violent effects than suppressing it to a degree. Or perhaps it's just all equal in Taoist sense and one has to cherish the devil you know and keep it close.

I think it is better to bring things to the surface, no matter how ugly they be. It is the only they can be properly dealt with.

It's fundamental on the path of the sage but I seriously doubt it does anyone else much good, unless done in a serious therapeutic setting. Which could be seen as flirting with wisdom or self-knowledge in a controlled environment. Problem is that the exposure without any intent to walk to path has a reverse and destructive effect. It creates Nietzsche's Last Man.

That is why there is so little wisdom generated in Islamic culture. Even the Sufis had to couch what wisdom they had in obscure, indirect language so as not to be seen to be threatening the Islamic culture they lived in.

Oh, I don't know. First of all I think every philosopher up until today couched his wisdom to prevent people sinking in deeper trouble than they already were by taking in what they were not ready for. Only in this day and age there's this cry for naked superficial directness and it's why your own exposition of wisdom is so perfectly timely and not timeless as you might hope. It's a poison for a diseased body, but a poison milked out of the culture it was grown in.

I agree that Jesus managed to become a wise person despite the oppressive society he lived in. But he was an extraordinary individual and fully accepted that being persecuted and killed by his society was a price that he would have to pay.

He was free to preach and roam around for years, even preached in the temple itself, openly debating other religious teachers. The reason he was allowed is that he was considered knowledgeable and traditionally religious as outward appearances go. He had no problem vealing himself in the tradition he was born in. It made him more dangerous actually and this fluent and adaptive capability is exactly what could be expected from a wise man. He preached to the Jews mainly, that was his target clearly. If nobody had written his words down, translated, edited perhaps, he might have disappeared into obscurity like who knows how many Islamic teachers.

The idea that wise philosophers can arise no matter what the society only applies in the case of extraordinary individuals. Lesser individuals attempting to become wise in an oppressive society tend to be crushed from the very start. Lesser individuals need the help of a free, non-threatening society to help them grow and stand on their own feet.

Becoming wise is always extraordinary and no less. "Lesser" individuals should be left alone, even avoided. They have their own destinies to deal with.

As I said before, I do not regard the West as a free, non-threatening society when it comes to becoming wise. It's ideal to become a lesser individual with all the make-up.

....secular systems were just as dogmatic and oppressive as any religious system. I'm just as much against them as I am Islamic religion and culture.

Well, not as much because you said that "Islamic culture is a more violent and oppressive culture than Western culture". One has to provide at least some recent historical evidence to back that up. You cannot see Hitler as something 'un-Western' or some of the more bloody actions of the USA for that matter. It would be like fishing Muslim gnats out of your soup and swallowing a whole Western camel.

DvR wrote: You can't have it both ways: the Islamic effect on society and politics as shallow and outward by its very definition and your address of the outer aspects of Muslim culture as not equally shallow.

Pointing out the errors of a behaviour isn't the same as engaging in that behaviour.

But your pointing out constitutes a relation between your view and some culture's society and politics. Your very critique here is "primary social and political in nature". And you mentioned before that you found any teaching with such exoteric orientation shallow and outward.

I don't see a difference between Muslim critique inspired by their religious worldview or your critique inspired by your individual wisdom in that regard.

As you say, it might be just a PR tactic, or mind-games, to scare Westerners, but I'm pretty sure they [AQ] would jump at Islamificating the world if they had the chance.

You would like to cause society to become wise too if you had the chance. But you rather work with individuals. They chose to 'liberate' their own society by ruthless force and information warfare. If they are stuck in outward appearances, then there's no difference with how the UK, Australia and the USA are stuck in their attempt to battle them, feeding their own shadows as they go.

With respect, America is by far the most powerful Western nation and the great prize. Islamic fanatics would know that if America were defeated, the rest of the Western world would quickly follow suit.

Seen from a economical point of view, sure. Sweden and Holland still have a good name in the Islamic world though.