GENIUS FORUMS

Carl G wrote:

millipodium wrote:
Fine. Ignore the actual teachings and history of islam. Im not saying we haven't inflamed things. You're ignoring part of the problem. I recognize all of it. I am superior to you, because I am willing to recognize more facets of the actual reality. You're wearing political blinders.

You're bullshitting me again. You don't know what I know. And your fucking ego is disgusting.

Tell me what you know. Is it your job to keep everyone's ego in check? Isn't that indicative of massive ego?


You appear to be in denial about the teachings of islam.

see carl, I don't value the self-negation you nihilists hold in high regard, so accusing me of having a large ego means nothing.

Let me guess, you're around 18 years old.

Carl G wrote:Let me guess, you're around 18 years old.

You can't deal with the situation, so you're looking for the ad hominem attack. Why are you so pathetic?

Carl wrote:

When one sees that it was Western powers who partitioned the Middle East into present borders (after WWI), created Israel (after WWII), instated many leaders including Bin Laden, and in '96 more or less baited Saddam into taking Kuwait, then a pattern of control and manipulation on a grand scale emerges.

Yes, but the Arab fundamentalists want to do the same thing, they want the world to be controlled by an entirely Islamic regime.

Russia and America have both tried to control that area of the world. I am not denying that, however one must admit that living under a capitalist ideology is much saner than an Islamic ideology.

What would you rather? Pick an evil, capitalist corruption or an islamic state ruled by force, Of course the American power elitists have tried and still try to control the middle east for the oil resources and other geo-political reasons.

And of course the existence of Israel is bogus, but capitalist corruption is much more tolerable globally than allowing groups to impose an ignorant religious ideology on entire nations.

Which evil is more tolerable? Corrupt Capitalists? Or Religious Arabs? Both are struggling for power, but one is less hospitable for the cultivation of genius.

It took centuries for the west to evolve to where religion is separate from state, and the christian church has lost much of its power here in the west. That is a good thing, we want that dinosaur to dry up foreover. Many of these Arab countries are in the same condition England was in the eighteenth-century. Divided by religious ideologies, struggling for resources, power and violent as a result.

Ryan. Most on here are actually anti-intellectuals, and prefer garbling critical thinking with irrational notions of 'totality' and 'enlightenment'. They prefer the intellectual nihilism of religious orthodoxy, as long as it's not the religion of white people, the most rational of them all.

millipodium wrote:as long as it's not the religion of white people, the most rational of them all.

...wow.


It is my understanding that most here are atheist, no?

Rory wrote:

millipodium wrote:as long as it's not the religion of white people, the most rational of them all.

...wow.


It is my understanding that most here are atheist, no?

No. most are fundamentalist buddhist. But regardless of what they are, most are unable or unwilling to critically analyze religious doctrine.

Ryan wrote:

Diebert wrote:When we talk about al-Qaeda for example, we talk about a group with a well defined geopolitical goal: driving out foreign military and non-Eastern interference in several countries and to (then) force regime change.

But isn’t the regime change based on replacing existing political systems with Islamic based governments? Meaning governments that are run similar to Iran who use strict, yet irrational islamic religious text as a guide for morality? If this is the case, then isn’t there a relationship between Islamic extremism and terrorism?

They aim to replace one hardly democratic Shari'a-based political system (eg the absolute Saudi monarchy) with some version of the hardly democratic Shari'a-based political system called the Caliphate

What's exactly non-political or even extreme about all that??

Ryan wrote:For instance: Osama bin Laden is known as a religious hero and well as a war hero. He is using an extreme interpretation of the Quran to justify his politically driven terrorist strikes.

Isn’t this the truth? Or Was the documentary I watched on his life entirely propaganda?

One could surely create a similar cut and slice job on Bush and the neo-conservatives. Actually there are a few already. Religion and religious language is an important part of their lives and their expressions. It doesn't mean it's always the main rational of their goals and methods.

Ryan wrote:

Diebert wrote:Suicide terrorism for example is caused out of extreme desperation and powerlessness, not so much by religious fantasies.

I agree with you that this is the case for the people in Palestine who are being oppressed by the Israeli army, but members of Al-queda are not in the same state of desperation. They are funded by rich arabs.

I wasn't talking about financial desperation. It's more like the position that any 'fair' battle is a recipe for disaster because of the endless superiority, technical as well political wise, of the opponent. Any active resistant, even peaceful, will be defanged and crushed before you could say the words: "mass protest organization". The system of control that is in place, including intelligence services and their infiltrations, must not be underestimated, even if it likes to blend in with the background. Point in case: Saddam and his Mukhabarat. So Saddam started gassing Kurdish villages and/or camps for the reason many Kurdish groups became increasingly extreme in their terrorist actions to destabilize the region - for their own political purposes and gains.

Diebert wrote:

One could surely create a similar cut and slice job on Bush and the neo-conservatives. Actually there are a few already. Religion and religious language is an important part of their lives and their expressions. It doesn't mean it's always the main rational of their goals and methods.

I agree that the American government is influenced by their religious views. One of my main points is that the USA is a better country to live in because as far as human rights is concerned, it has evolved to a higher state within the country. Many middle-east countries are governed strictly by religious doctrine similar to England in the sixteenth-century.

I'm suggesting that it is fortunate as far as the world is concerned that a country like Iran or North Korea isnt as powerful as America. America is corrupt and ignorate, but it could be much worse.

However, my main point is that you cannot talk about political conflict, power struggles, without considering the partial influence of some sort of learned morality, that morality is usually the result of being influenced by religious texts.

Bush is acting according to strict religious principles from the bible. And the Bin Ladens are acting according to the Quran.

It would be far too simplistic to merely suggest that Man strives for power and that’s it. He tries to be moral in the process, but usually fails miserably. It is very complicated, there is the desire for superiority, desire for power, desire for recognition, desire for financial security, and most importantly the desire to be good, to be moral, and to eradicate evil and ignorance from the world.

For instance: Bin Laden was filthy rich, but he spent his days and nights with barely any luxury sleeping on desert sands at night, this was a man highly influenced by religious texts. Each party that is rebelling against the other sees themselves as the good party, and the other as the evil party.

When they recruit people for Al-Quada, the fact that they are a freedom fighting organization that are battling the evil Americans is a big selling point to pick up young, naive vunerable males that live in poverty and yearn for heroism.

Ryan Rudolph wrote: I agree that the American government is influenced by their religious views. One of my main points is that the USA is a better country to live in because as far as human rights is concerned, it has evolved to a higher state within the country. Many middle-east countries are governed strictly by religious doctrine similar to England in the sixteenth-century.

I have no real disagreement nor agreement with that viewpoint. I was only responding on the discussion about the origin of Islamic extremism and /or Islamic terrorism.

Ryan wrote:I'm suggesting that it is fortunate as far as the world is concerned that a country like Iran or North Korea isnt as powerful as America. America is corrupt and ignorate, but it could be much worse.

Where in lies the corruption and ignorance of Iran in your opinion, apart from the relative lack of personal rights to express?

I could make an argument that the 'worse' starts when a country tries exporting their 'way' of doing things, in other words becoming the aggressor and instigator of wars. This is was the number one war crime the Nazi leadership was trialled for at Nuremberg. In sixty years a lot of things have changed in the views of the international community, many of which are not even realized yet.

Ryan wrote:However, my main point is that you cannot talk about political conflict, power struggles, without considering the partial influence of some sort of learned morality, that morality is usually the result of being influenced by religious texts.

Agreed, in reality there's no clear divide between church and state, between morality, philosophy and worldview or politics. No matter how we wish there would. When dividing church and state in the West, it was an attempt to keep state governance based on reason, while degrading the church to the area of irrationality or faith. But government of course is made of people who normally do not separate one from the other in whatever they do.

So when examining the causes to explain the emergence of 'Islamic Extremism', you can see now where the problem starts. The religion of Islam has never been isolated from government and law like Christianity has been. This is because Islam has one big difference with Christianity in that it's way more based on practice and law as opposed to belief. To be able to fulfill these one has to arrange society in a certain way to support it. To separate Islam from government means effectively killing Islamic law and therefore Islam. This explains the resistance toward any 'modern' secular government.

Ryan wrote:When they recruit people for Al-Quada, the fact that they are a freedom fighting organization that are battling the evil Americans is a big selling point to pick up young, naive vunerable males that live in poverty and yearn for heroism.

Also, when studying Hamas, Hezbollah and also the Sadr militia in Iraq you'd notice that they are partly of even mostly about humanitarian and social support. They offer protection, funding, schooling, medical supplies at the level of the common man where a failing government isn't able to.

So this is not only about heroism in terms of violence and warfare. Not only a political but also cultural and social elements are crucial in understanding Muslim extremism.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Bush is acting according to strict religious principles from the bible.

Too bad he never read past Leviticus.

Diebert wrote:

Where in lies the corruption and ignorance of Iran in your opinion, apart from the relative lack of personal rights to express?

They are violators of human rights within their own country; there are harsh penalties against offenders of Islamic influenced law.

Diebert wrote:

Also, when studying Hamas, Hezbollah and also the Sadr militia in Iraq you'd notice that they are partly of even mostly about humanitarian and social support. They offer protection, funding, schooling, medical supplies at the level of the common man where a failing government isn't able to.

Yes, in your view, how do you explain the tension between Hezbollah and Israel? Why did this conflict emerge? And how do you explain the recent assassinations within Lebanon? Is it simply a power struggle between the western influenced Christian Lebanese and the Islamic (Syrian) influenced Arabs?

Ryan Rudolph wrote: They [Iran] are violators of human rights within their own country; there are harsh penalties against offenders of Islamic influenced law.

Compared to the human rights in e.g. Saudi Arabia, Iran seems quite enlightened. Yet, somehow Saudi Arabia is not listed in any axis of evil, even hailed as 'ally' at times. How come?

Oh, it must have been the deployment of US troops there, or the fact they are the major purchaser of US armaments?

I'm still interested, why listing Iran first? They do great on progressing science, culture, art, economy, (Islamic) philosophy, so I ask again: where is the corruption and ignorance? A more or less democratic choice to have less of 'human rights' or your view on what they are supposed to be, can hardly be seen as 'corruption'?

Another interesting observation on Iran would be the sudden decline in those human rights and reform only the last few years, with elections that brought such a conservative force back. Perhaps a reflection of the election of GW Bush in the USA? Or the war on terror? Did conservative forces grabbed back power as reaction on world events or internal plotting?

Ryan wrote:Yes, in your view, how do you explain the tension between Hezbollah and Israel? Why did this conflict emerge? And how do you explain the recent assassinations within Lebanon? Is it simply a power struggle between the western influenced Christian Lebanese and the Islamic (Syrian) influenced Arabs?

Explain the tensions? It seems quite similar to tensions between the Kurds and Turkey/Iran/Iraq. The real complexity starts when the conflict becomes interesting to foreign sponsors with agendas on energy, misplaced humanitas and geo-politics, while the locals often desire longer term safety, rights, opportunities, jobs and so on. And at some point the faith is put into a certain leader, party or organization, even media, to know best to accomplish the goals or represent them. Not so much difference with what happens in many countries on some level.

And when tensions keep rising and no solution emerges, violence becomes the main route to channel the tensions to prevent the coherency of the group to disappear completely.

Diebert wrote:

so I ask again: where is the corruption and ignorance?

Many sources have reported that Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran all have groups within them that support and fund terrorist organizations functioning in places like the United Kingdom, Spain, France and the United States.

And some critics suggest that the governments do not deter, but actually encourage this sort of behavior.

It is also known that Iranian government funded much of the military efforts against Israel by supporting Hezabollah, many of the middle-eastern countries do not approve of the existence of Israel, and the Iranian president has been quoted in denying the holocaust stating that Israel should be whipped off the map. Now this is only one side of the story, it is the west's side because they are close allies with Israel, but nevertheless it reveals an anti-Semitic view towards the Jewish people.

It is a complicated situation, Israel and the West are guilty of atrocities and exploitation of resources, but the Arab world exhibits similar levels of ignorance, barbarity, corruption and irrational religious ideologies.

The West and Israel also fear that the leaders of Iran have a doomsday vision for the middle-east because critics claim that there are members in power that believe Allah will not return unless millions of the Zionists and infidels die by the hands of the Muslims thus fulfilling the prophecy allowing Judgment day to occur.

At first I thought this was bogus, propaganda created by the west to convince people to support their agenda, but after reading many of the Iranian president's daily blogs, I discovered that he does seem to be neurotically obsessed with the return of a prophet, which he begs Allah for everyday.

Do you think there is any evidence to suggest that a large number of members within the Iranian government would support an unprovoked military strike against Israel?

Ryan Rudolph wrote: Many sources have reported that Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran all have groups within them that support and fund terrorist organizations functioning in places like the United Kingdom, Spain, France and the United States.

The government cracks down on dissent, so they hide abroad. The same dissenters also found out their governments are assisted by certain foreign influences who migh be more vulnerable than their own government. This is the case of Egypt and Saud Arabia, both the main starting places of Al Queda. And of course what you call "terrorist organizations" have often major humanitarian and political agendas and activities, outside the military wing.

And some critics suggest that the governments do not deter, but actually encourage this sort of behavior.

I believe it's way more complex than that. They have cracked down more than anyone in the past on dissent including terrorists but at the same time they do support the groups that they sympathize with elsewhere. But every major power works like that, "funding" the (armed) opposition in a country you don't like the leadership or state form. Check out US involvement in Cuba, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Korea, ah well you get the picture for a complete list: USA Invasions, Bombings, Military Aid Political Interventions and Sanctions 1947-2003

So what is extreme or terrorist about this behavior when everybody does it? Would it be perhaps because we have difficulty accepting things work that way for us, that we have to demonize it in opponents.

and the Iranian president has been quoted in denying the holocaust stating that Israel should be whipped off the map.

How would you explain the Persian Jews living in Iran then? Even have a parliament seat. The context of those sayings you refer to, the proper translations show that the accusation is that the holocaust is abused as political tool by Zionists (which seems not an unreasonable idea since no body talks about any other major group of victims of the holocaust anymore). And it's clear they want the state of Israel to be undone, which is another reasonable, though unpractical solution to the Middle East problem. It doesn't mean the 'Jews' would have to leave (though they might want to), only share power with the people they share much of the land and water with. Of course there will always be the man in the street or the crazy minor politician talking about "driving Jews in the sea" or "nuking Iran" or "turn the Middle East in a parking lot".

It is a complicated situation, Israel and the West are guilty of atrocities and exploitation of resources, but the Arab world exhibits similar levels of ignorance, barbarity, corruption and irrational religious ideologies.

Yes and I even wonder how much the religious ideologies have to do with atrocities and their scale really. The lack or minimizing of religion might cause even larger suffering eg holocaust or the UN sanctions on Iraq, while the situation in Rwanda is interesting being the most Christian country in Africa, so perhaps Christianity destroyed the old natural religion and being an emtyp shell itself gave way to "destructive ideology", not unlike Germany 1850-1945.

The West and Israel also fear that the leaders of Iran have a doomsday vision for the middle-east

All parties involved in thinking a savior will come on the clouds on the height of destruction and despair, will be utterly disappointed. In the mean time they should be locked away in all countries, as some form of health measure.

At first I thought this was bogus, propaganda created by the west to convince people to support their agenda, but after reading many of the Iranian president's daily blogs, I discovered that he does seem to be neurotically obsessed with the return of a prophet, which he begs Allah for everyday.

Well, much of it is traditional phrasing which Muslims often use at the beginning and end of everything they say. But there's a messiah element present in Iranian politics just as US politics. That's why the situation is so explosive. They mirror each others insanity.

Do you think there is any evidence to suggest that a large number of members within the Iranian government would support an unprovoked military strike against Israel?

The other way around seems more likely since after Iraq the West (or at least the US-Israel-UK love triangle) believes they can get away with it internationaly. Iran wouldn't do such thing for what are I believe rational as well as religious reasons. They also won't budge to demands for the same religious reasons but also nationalistic reasons - a case of defending identity.