A letter from a man who understands

[PSUColonel]

I have angered many of you with what you thought were racial comments over the past few months. They were not. I simply would like to apologize to those who thought they were, and post a letter by a man who I feel understands the stakes, and pretty much sums up the way I have been feeling the last few years. Perhaps this can help to shed some light on the way many of you have percieved me.

_________________________________________________________________

The Peaceful Majority by William Haynes

I used to know a man whose family was German
aristocracy prior to World War Two. They owned a
number of large industries and estates. I asked him
how many German people were true Nazis, and the answer
he gave has stuck with me and guided my attitude
toward fanaticism ever since.

"Very few people were true Nazis "he said," but many
enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were
too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought
the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just
sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew
it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the
end of the world had come. My family lost everything I
ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies
destroyed my factories."

We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking
heads" that Islam is the religion of peace, and that
the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in
peace.

Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is
entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to
make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the
specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the
name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule
Islam at this moment in history.

It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who
wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the
fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or
tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually
taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave.
It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor
kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after
mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the
stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals.
The hard quantifiable fact is that the "peaceful
majority" is the "silent majority"and it is cowed and
extraneous.

Communist Russia comprised Russians who just wanted to
live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were
responsible for the murder of about 20 million people.
The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge
population was peaceful as well, but Chinese
Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million
people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War 2
was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and
slaughtered its way across South East Asiain an orgy
of killing that included the systematic murder of 12
million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword,
shovel, and bayonet. And, who can forget Rwanda, which
collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the
majority of Rwandans were "peace loving"?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt,
yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the
most basic and uncomplicated of points:

Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by
their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our
enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend
from Germany, they will awake one day and find that
the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will
have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians,
Rwandans, Serbs Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians,
Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have
died because the peaceful majority did not speak up
until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold; we must pay
attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics
who threaten our way of life.

Lastly, I wish to add: I sincerely think that anyone
who rejects this as just another political rant, or
doubts the seriousness of this issue or just deletes
it without paying heed to it, or sending it on, is
part of the problem. Lets quit laughing at and
forwarding the jokes and cartoons which denigrate and
ridicule our leaders in this war against terror. They
are trying to protect the interests and well being of
the world and it's citizens. Best we support them.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Is it too early in this thread for an "in before the lock" post?

[Eaglesfan27]

Is it too early in this thread for an "in before the lock" post?

Nope.

[sachmo71]

Is it too early in this thread for an "in before the lock" post?

NEVER!

[st.cronin]

Is it too early in this thread for an "in before the lock" post?

Probably not.

PSU, fwiw, I don't particularly care if you're a racist or not, but I do appreciate your apology. I also agree with the meat of that letter. But please do try to keep in mind that this is, at it's root, a football board.

[Groundhog]

Lets quit laughing at and
forwarding the jokes and cartoons which denigrate and
ridicule our leaders in this war against terror. They
are trying to protect the interests and well being of
the world and it's citizens. Best we support them.

Everything was just dandy up until this last paragraph. Our fearless leaders are protecting the intersts and well being of their world, not the world. It's a gigantic difference, and this topic has been beaten to death lately on this board and everywhere else. Our leader's heroic rhetoric deserves to be criticized and carefully examined, especially when it doesn't match up with their actions, much the same as the heroic rhetoric that was used by the various other nasty governments/groups listed in your post.

[John Galt]

Thanks for that. It is now totally crystal clear to me why you refuse to accept hip-hop as part of American culture.

[PSUColonel]

Probably not.

PSU, fwiw, I don't particularly care if you're a racist or not, but I do appreciate your apology. I also agree with the meat of that letter. But please do try to keep in mind that this is, at it's root, a football board.

and I am a football man ;)

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Same comments from PSU as before, with different window dressing. I should never have even bothered reading it. It's parallels speak only to how peace loving Muslims in Muslim countries should act and nothing about how people in the U.S. should act towards the Muslim minority here. Which of course was the main thrusts of PSUC's prior threads. Give it up. At least here. That was the worst apology I have seen in a while. It could be better stated as "I apologize, but ... I'm right." Moving on here.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I have angered many of you with what you thought were racial comments over the past few months. They were not.

Maybe not "racial" comments, but they were "racist" ones.

[PSUColonel]

Same comments from PSU as before, with different window dressing. I should never have even bothered reading it. It's parallels speak only to how peace loving Muslims in Muslim countries should act and nothing about how people in the U.S. should act towards the Muslim minority here. Which of course was the main thrusts of PSUC's prior threads. Give it up. At least here. That was the worst apology I have seen in a while. It could be better stated as "I apologize, but ... I'm right." Moving on here.

The letter is geared toward all muslims, even those living within the United States.

[PSUColonel]

Maybe not "racial" comments, but they were "racist" ones.

They were not meant to be taken that way. I was merely attempting to make a point.

Forgive me for my grammar...I got it

[RedKingGold]

Definitely in before the lock

It just seems like you post this stuff to get attention.

We get it. You don't like Muslims. We particularly do not care what you think.

[PSUColonel]

Is there a reason why this thread should be locked????


I am honestly being sincere.

[cartman]

Is there a reason why this thread should be locked????


I am honestly being sincere.

If you honestly wonder why it shouldn't be locked, that is the exact reason why it should.

That line of thinking has been used in many examples. It could also be applied to Iraq. The majority of people in the Baath party were not active, supporting members. They had to join the Baath party to get access to the decent jobs. After the invasion, the US denied participation in the reconstructed goverment to all Baath party members.

It could also have been used as an example of those who were against the invasion of Iraq all along. They were angry at the use of the military by the neo-con fanatics. That correlation was conveniently left out of this article. Just like in most all things, context is key.

[PSUColonel]

If you honestly wonder why it shouldn't be locked, that is the exact reason why it should.

That line of thinking has been used in many examples. It could also be applied to Iraq. The majority of people in the Baath party were not active, supporting members. They had to join the Baath party to get access to the decent jobs. After the invasion, the US denied participation in the reconstructed goverment to all Baath party members.

It could also have been used as an example of those who were against the invasion of Iraq all along. They were angry at the use of the military by the neo-con fanatics. That correlation was conveniently left out of this article. Just like in most all things, context is key.


I can certainly understand that you have YOUR opinion, but why should threads that differ from what you think just automatically be locked?? This is more of a free speech issue than anything.

[JPhillips]

PSU: Nobody is saying that you can't speak your mind. Nobody is advocating that you get locked up. Nobody is threatening you with physical harm.

This isn't a public forum. It's Skydog's forum and he has allowed us to post here. Just like any private place, what behavior is allowed is defined by the owner. Skydog has repeatedly boxed/banned folks for repeatedly posting the same incendiary content and what you're doing certainly qualifies under past standards.

I don't know if you'll be banned and I don't really care. I'm content letting the world see you for who you are. Don't, though, try to make this out to be a free speech argument. You're in Skydog's home and if you're smart you'll pay attention to how he treats other troublemakers and behave accordingly.

[RedKingGold]

This is more of a free speech issue than anything.

Correction: Your right to free speech means absolutely nothing here. The right to free speech only applies to public/government entities to which FOFC is not one.

Therefore, this thread can be locked by any mod at any time for any reason.

The mods on the board just don't do it to this one because it has not crossed the line for indecency.

[panerd]

Why do you guys give him the attention he so desperately craves? (I know. Catch 22, this post will bump this to the top. But it was pretty close to the top anyways)

[WVUFAN]

Um ... why is my post blinking?

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Um ... why is my post blinking?

Great. You broke the Internet. Good job.

[st.cronin]

I don't know, but it's awesome.

[WVUFAN]

Great. You broke the Internet. Good job.

I knew I was destined for great things. First the internet, then the world!!

BWAHAHAHA (that's me laughing manically) WAHAHAHAHA!!

[tanglewood]

The Peaceful Majority by William Haynes

I used to know a man whose family was German
aristocracy prior to World War Two. They owned a
number of large industries and estates. I asked him
how many German people were true Nazis, and the answer
he gave has stuck with me and guided my attitude
toward fanaticism ever since.

"Very few people were true Nazis "he said," but many
enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were
too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought
the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just
sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew
it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the
end of the world had come. My family lost everything I
ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies
destroyed my factories."

We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking
heads" that America is the nation of peace, and that
the vast majority of Americans just want to live in
peace.

Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is
entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to
make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the
specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the
name of America. The fact is that the fanatics rule
Islam at this moment in history.

It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who
wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the
fanatics who systematically slaughter Islamic or
tribal groups throughout the Middle East and are gradually
taking over the entire region in an American wave.
It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor
kill. It is the fanatics who take over church after
church. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the
stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals.
The hard quantifiable fact is that the "peaceful
majority" is the "silent majority"and it is cowed and
extraneous.

Communist Russia comprised Russians who just wanted to
live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were
responsible for the murder of about 20 million people.
The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge
population was peaceful as well, but Chinese
Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million
people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War 2
was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and
slaughtered its way across South East Asiain an orgy
of killing that included the systematic murder of 12
million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword,
shovel, and bayonet. And, who can forget Rwanda, which
collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the
majority of Rwandans were "peace loving"?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt,
yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the
most basic and uncomplicated of points:

Peace-loving Americans have been made irrelevant by
their silence. Peace-loving Americans will become our
enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend
from Germany, they will awake one day and find that
the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will
have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians,
Rwandans, Serbs Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians,
Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have
died because the peaceful majority did not speak up
until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold; we must pay
attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics
who threaten our way of life.

Lastly, I wish to add: I sincerely think that anyone
who rejects this as just another political rant, or
doubts the seriousness of this issue or just deletes
it without paying heed to it, or sending it on, is
part of the problem. Lets quit laughing at and
forwarding the jokes and cartoons which denigrate and
ridicule our leaders in this war against terror. They
are trying to protect the interests and well being of
the world and it's citizens. Best we support them.

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

Wow, some word susbstitution and it reads just like an Al Qaeda press release. :rolleyes:

[WVUFAN]

Wow, some word susbstitution and it reads just like an Al Qaeda press release. :rolleyes:

What part in that column do you disagree with?

[tanglewood]

Which column?

[WVUFAN]

Which column?

The one the thread is talking about: "Peaceful Majority".

[Buccaneer]

Everyone sees what they want to see and no one is more right than the other.

[WVUFAN]

Everyone sees what they want to see and no one is more right than the other.

I agree with that. I'm just curious as to what aspect of the column Tanglewood looks at and sees "Al Qaeda-ish".

[cartman]

I can certainly understand that you have YOUR opinion, but why should threads that differ from what you think just automatically be locked?? This is more of a free speech issue than anything.

Just like in most all things, context is key.

You must have missed the last line in my post.

[tanglewood]

The one the thread is talking about: "Peaceful Majority".

The comparisons with Nazi Germany, the USSR etc. were completely different situations which distort perspective. Raidcal Islam is not systematically imprisoning and murdering millions of people. Radical Islam is only in political control over Iran and perhaps Saudi Arabia and Syria (depending on your definition) presently, none of which are engaging in genocide. The inference that they could do in the future is horrendously speculative.

The fact that the majority of Muslims are peacuful is not 'fluff', but vital. Even necon strategy in the Middle East recognises, even relies upon, moderate muslim majorities. Infact the whole piece seems to be contradictory, as it denigrates suggestions that the majority of Muslims are peaceful, then demands that this majority act and force their will upon the radical element.

Although I find the tone of the whole column slightly distasteful, I don't necessarily disagree with much of it. (I completely agree taht Sharia Islam is barbaric and that fundamentalist Islam is dangerous) What I suppose fuels my distaste is that following such vitriolic outpourings are usually offerings of dangerous solutions. It is in that fashion that I find the final paragraph most worrying. Firstly, in its statement that our leaders have the worlds best interest at stake. This is false they have their own best interest at stake, not even necessarily that of their own nation and certrainly not that of the whole world. Also the implication that these leaders should be exempt from criticism. As liberal democracies, criticism of our political leadership is one of the rights and advantages that makes us the 'good guys', as George Bush might say.

As response to your wondering what I saw as 'Al Qaeda-ish', Bin Laden has used similar strategies in his videos. Say that the American way of life is terrible, but that its people are not to blame just its leaders, then that the people must pay for the mistakes of their leaders.

[WVUFAN]

The comparisons with Nazi Germany, the USSR etc. were completely different situations which distort perspective. Raidcal Islam is not systematically imprisoning and murdering millions of people. Radical Islam is only in political control over Iran and perhaps Saudi Arabia and Syria (depending on your definition) presently, none of which are engaging in genocide. The inference that they could do in the future is horrendously speculative.

The fact that the majority of Muslims are peacuful is not 'fluff', but vital. Even necon strategy in the Middle East recognises, even relies upon, moderate muslim majorities. Infact the whole piece seems to be contradictory, as it denigrates suggestions that the majority of Muslims are peaceful, then demands that this majority act and force their will upon the radical element.

Although I find the tone of the whole column slightly distasteful, I don't necessarily disagree with much of it. (I completely agree taht Sharia Islam is barbaric and that fundamentalist Islam is dangerous) What I suppose fuels my distaste is that following such vitriolic outpourings are usually offerings of dangerous solutions. It is in that fashion that I find the final paragraph most worrying. Firstly, in its statement that our leaders have the worlds best interest at stake. This is false they have their own best interest at stake, not even necessarily that of their own nation and certrainly not that of the whole world. Also the implication that these leaders should be exempt from criticism. As liberal democracies, criticism of our political leadership is one of the rights and advantages that makes us the 'good guys', as George Bush might say.

As response to your wondering what I saw as 'Al Qaeda-ish', Bin Laden has used similar strategies in his videos. Say that the American way of life is terrible, but that its people are not to blame just its leaders, then that the people must pay for the mistakes of their leaders.

I think you're reading too much into the article. I think the intent of the article is much simpler, and more innocent than you're seeing.

I think the analogies to Nazi Germany and the Russians are not that Islam is the cause of millions of people dying, but rather people (still) think that EVERYONE, or nearly everyone was a Nazi or a Communist that was in those countries, just like there's a good number of people in this country that blame ALL Muslims for what a small group did. The idea ALL Germans were Nazis and were active in Nazi activity was false, as not all people who follow Islam are terrorists. I think that's the author's point.

I do agree with the idea that it is the responsibility of the peaceful followers of that religion to curtail and confront those who are casting a shadow over them.

As for the last part of the column, I have to say I agree with you -- it's really the responsibility of us as citizens to actively and consistantly question and criticize our leaders. However, there's a point where the criticism hurts the nation instead of helps, and one has to be aware of where that line is.

[JPhillips]

WVU: That line is far from where we are. Remember that in 1942 Churchill asked Parliament for a rigorous debate and a vote of confidence after a number of defeats.

The analogies really don't work all that well. Not everyone was a member of the Nazi Party, but Hitler had enormous support for a while and most people knew that something was being done to the Jews. It's just not true to imply that a minority supported Hitler.

On a different note, does anyone else think the story of the German aristocrat is BS?

[WVUFAN]

WVU: That line is far from where we are. Remember that in 1942 Churchill asked Parliament for a rigorous debate and a vote of confidence after a number of defeats.

That was a different era, and a completely different set of ... well, type of people. You have to admit that the mindset of people in the the 1940's are completely different from those living now.


The analogies really don't work all that well. Not everyone was a member of the Nazi Party, but Hitler had enormous support for a while and most people knew that something was being done to the Jews. It's just not true to imply that a minority supported Hitler.
Initially, yes, not because the great number of Germans were Nazis, but because of the circumstances that they lived (recovering from WWI, the treatment of Germans as a whole by the allied countries) that led to Hitler rising to power. It reminds me, really, of why fundamental Islam has risen -- the people in that country feel downtrodden for so long, and need a scapegoat. We're it.

I disagree that a majority of people in Germany knew about the ongoing Holocaust. I've read several items that suggest otherwise.

[JPhillips]

WVU: They may not have known the specifics of the Holocaust, but it's hard to believe that people that heard Hitler and saw Jews living near them disappear were completely unaware.

I'll let the rest of it go to avoid a complete threadjack!

[WVUFAN]

WVU: They may not have known the specifics of the Holocaust, but it's hard to believe that people that heard Hitler and saw Jews living near them disappear were completely unaware.

I'll let the rest of it go to avoid a complete threadjack!

Some threads need to be jacked. :) Besides, it's not a true thread unless there's a discussion of Hitler.

[cartman]

Besides, it's not a true thread unless there's a discussion of Hitler.

This man agrees:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/MikeGodwin.jpg/180px-MikeGodwin.jpg

[Groundhog]

I think you're reading too much into the article. I think the intent of the article is much simpler, and more innocent than you're seeing.

I disagree. Maybe that was the intent, but the tone stings my tastebuds too.


I do agree with the idea that it is the responsibility of the peaceful followers of that religion to curtail and confront those who are casting a shadow over them.

That would be nice in a perfect world, but it doesn't happen because it's not that simple. The peaceful followers don't have the power to curtail it. They can condemn the actions of the extremists - and they do - but that's all they can do. It doesn't work.

In the States (and to a lesser extent here and probably elsewhere) you have extremist Christians picketing gay funerals, soldier's funerals, and targetting abortion clinics and doctors. Of course this kind of activity offends peaceful Christians, and they rightly condemn it, but you don't see them out picketing the extremists, or coming up with other ways to stop them once and for all.


As for the last part of the column, I have to say I agree with you -- it's really the responsibility of us as citizens to actively and consistantly question and criticize our leaders. However, there's a point where the criticism hurts the nation instead of helps, and one has to be aware of where that line is.

Perhaps, but it's nowhere near that point right now. People aren't criticizing our leaders because they are happy with the way things are, they are criticizing them because things are crappy for a lot of people. A foreign war on terror grabs headlines and keeps people distracted for awhile, but people are more interested in the declining quality of life back home than toppling some tyrant in a country on the other side of the world, whatever the reasons for it were.

The fact is that the domestic issues that really affect the citizens of our countries, rather than its wealthy leaders - issues like increasing poverty, lack of affordable healthcare, education, and many others - are considered far more important to the majority of citizens. Our governments are the opposite, and rank these issues second; a distant second is probably more accurate. People have every right to complain about that, and if that hurts the nation then perhaps its the leaders who should be held responsible for not only ignoring the issues that citizens see as being most important, but by excluding the issues from politics all together. We all live in a democracy which should entitle the majority to voice their concerns and action change, but it clearly doesn't operate like that right now.

[JPhillips]

Besides, it's not a true thread unless there's a discussion of Hitler.

These guys also agree.

[WVUFAN]

That would be nice in a perfect world, but it doesn't happen because it's not that simple. The peaceful followers don't have the power to curtail it. They can condemn the actions of the extremists - and they do - but that's all they can do. It doesn't work.

It does if it's done correctly, and the will of a majority over the rule of a minority has occurred many times.


In the States (and to a lesser extent here and probably elsewhere) you have extremist Christians picketing gay funerals, soldier's funerals, and targetting abortion clinics and doctors. Of course this kind of activity offends peaceful Christians, and they rightly condemn it, but you don't see them out picketing the extremists, or coming up with other ways to stop them once and for all.
You're absolutely right, and I agree that Christians have the same responsibility to maintain their own, and they're not doing it.


Perhaps, but it's nowhere near that point right now. People aren't criticizing our leaders because they are happy with the way things are, they are criticizing them because things are crappy for a lot of people. A foreign war on terror grabs headlines and keeps people distracted for awhile, but people are more interested in the declining quality of life back home than toppling some tyrant in a country on the other side of the world, whatever the reasons for it were.

The fact is that the domestic issues that really affect the citizens of our countries, rather than its wealthy leaders - issues like increasing poverty, lack of affordable healthcare, education, and many others - are considered far more important to the majority of citizens. Our governments are the opposite, and rank these issues second; a distant second is probably more accurate. People have every right to complain about that, and if that hurts the nation then perhaps its the leaders who should be held responsible for not only ignoring the issues that citizens see as being most important, but by excluding the issues from politics all together. We all live in a democracy which should entitle the majority to voice their concerns and action change, but it clearly doesn't operate like that right now.
Oddly enough, I agree with most of this, but there are people in this country who criticize not to help the country, but to destroy the leaders in control for no reason other than to bring themselves to power. Those people aren't patriots, or doing their duty, they're hindering progress. (Yes, both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of this)

I'm an isolationist, so I believe in the "us first" mantra. One of the reasons I'm against the war is because of this. Then again, I don't think we should come to the rescue of a country that's in need and have those same countries criticize us when we act like the policemen of the world. Either you accept our help when you ask for it, and accept that we will be involved in the world's affairs, or don't expect our help at all. After all, a surprisingly few countries helped when we have natural disasters or tragedies, but expect our aid when they have one.

[cartman]

:eek:

http://www.northstar.k12.ak.us/schools/tan/student/02_03/greg/pic1/hitler%20cartman

[st.cronin]

Hey, does anybody know anything about Dante Aligheri's political motivations behind the Divine Comedy? I asked in the werewolf board, but nobody answered.

[WVUFAN]

I saw something about it on a documentary on Hell one time, that there was this big political rift in northern Italy at the time. I do remember that one of the people in Hell in Inferno was the Pope in power at the time.

[cartman]

Hey, does anybody know anything about Dante Aligheri's political motivations behind the Divine Comedy? I asked in the werewolf board, but nobody answered.

There were two groups in northern Italy at the time, the Guelphs and the Ghibellines. Guelphs were disposed towards the Pope as leader, and the Ghibellines were more in favor of the Roman emperor as leader. There was a schism in the Guelphs, with some wanting the Pope to be supreme ruler, and others wanting the city-states to have some independence. Dante was one of the ones favoring city-state independence. His side lost. Pope Boniface sent troops into Florence, and the group containing Dante was exiled, and he never was able to return to Florence. His exile was a great influence in many parts of the Divine Comedy, namely his exile, and his contempt for the supporters of supreme papal authority.

Hope that clears things up for you.

:D

[st.cronin]

That's more or less the sketch I have ... but it appears that he was sympathetic to the idea of Roman rule, as well. Am I wrong about that?

Also, why is Cato in purgatory, when Brutus is in hell? That doesn't make any sense to me.

[cartman]

That's more or less the sketch I have ... but it appears that he was sympathetic to the idea of Roman rule, as well. Am I wrong about that?

Also, why is Cato in purgatory, when Brutus is in hell? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Not sure about him being sympathetic to Roman rule, but it could make sense, because of Brutus being in hell. From what I remember, Brutus was put in the 9th Circle for killing Julius Caesar, leading to the breakup of the Roman Empire. Cato was always a controversial character, because he was given a task by God to be a gatekeeper, even though he lived a godless existence. It wasn't clear if that was his fate to be a gatekeeper for all-time, or if it was a penance to serve before going to heaven.

[st.cronin]

I've been working on a theory that Dante's politics are the key to understanding the theology outlined in the Comedy.

[WVUFAN]

That's more or less the sketch I have ... but it appears that he was sympathetic to the idea of Roman rule, as well. Am I wrong about that?

Also, why is Cato in purgatory, when Brutus is in hell? That doesn't make any sense to me.

I would assume that it was because Cato is remembered by many as being a nobler sort than Brutus was.

Then again, if I remember my history at all, didn't Cato commit suicide? Did the Christians in that era have the same rule of "suicide = hell" than modern day Catholics?

[st.cronin]

I would assume that it was because Cato is remembered by many as being a nobler sort than Brutus was.

Then again, if I remember my history at all, didn't Cato commit suicide? Did the Christians in that era have the same rule of "suicide = hell" than modern day Catholics?

Yes and yes. There's even a circle of hell in the Comedy that's specifically set aside for the suicides. That's why it makes no sense that he's in purgatory. There's no explanation given, either - unless you think that Dante didn't realize that Cato was a suicide, which I don't think is likely.

[cartman]

Then again, if I remember my history at all, didn't Cato commit suicide?

Yep, he definitely went out on his own terms. He tried to stab himself, but failed to do so fatally. He was found passed out from his wounds. He was patched up, and when first left alone, he removed the bandages and pulled his intestines out. That worked.

[Young Drachma]

Thanks for that. It is now totally crystal clear to me why you refuse to accept hip-hop as part of American culture.

lol

[st.cronin]

Yep, he definitely went out on his own terms. He tried to stab himself, but failed to do so fatally. He was found passed out from his wounds. He was patched up, and when first left alone, he removed the bandages and pulled his intestines out. That worked.

That's the Plutarch version, I believe. Other versions differ in details, but I think they all agree that he was a suicide.

[cartman]

That's the Plutarch version, I believe.

Yep, that was the book we used when I took a Roman Life class back in college.

[BrianD]

Yep, he definitely went out on his own terms. He tried to stab himself, but failed to do so fatally. He was found passed out from his wounds. He was patched up, and when first left alone, he removed the bandages and pulled his intestines out. That worked.

You have to have a little respect for that. Anybody can take a bunch of pills or sit in a running car in the garage, but few can reach into a wound and pull out their intestines.

[WVUFAN]

You have to have a little respect for that. Anybody can take a bunch of pills or sit in a running car in the garage, but few can reach into a wound and pull out their intestines.

In a completely gory sense, it's more heroic to die that way. Kinda like samurais and the way they committed suicide.

[Groundhog]

You have to have a little respect for that. Anybody can take a bunch of pills or sit in a running car in the garage, but few can reach into a wound and pull out their intestines.

Some particularily brave folks in medieval Japan would, according to legend, remove their intestines with their hands after committing seppuku (harakiri).

[Groundhog]

In a completely gory sense, it's more heroic to die that way. Kinda like samurais and the way they committed suicide.

Beat me to it. :)

[MrBigglesworth]

... a letter by a man who I feel understands the stakes...

As for us who watch it all unfold; we must pay
attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics
who threaten our way of life.
I've always found this odd. Forgive my generalizations, but on the extreme right it is simultaneously believed that the USA is the greatest and most powerful country in the world with no close peer but several powerful allies, and also that not only some of our lives but also our very way of life is threatened by a bunch of rag tag fanatics halfway around the world who can't even take over a country the size of New Hampshire in their own backyard. I've never understood it. At least with communism the threat was real.

[JPhillips]

I saw thisand thought it was interesting. From a recent hearing on Capitol Hill.

"There's no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in Washington strengthens our democracy. Period," Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

[Passacaglia]

Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by
their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our
enemy if they don't speak up,

Interesting contradiction. Are they irrelevant, or are they the enemy? For the record, I agree with much of this article, but it seems like you admit that it's not Islam that we're at war with -- it's the fanatics with power in it.

[stevew]

The parallels between the samarai seppuku and certain board members actions around here are quite humorous.

[Chubby]

yawn

[rkmsuf]

yawn

but I thought we were all supposed to care?

[Chubby]

but I thought we were all supposed to care?

That somebody can copy and paste a letter by someone else?

Nope.

[AlexB]

Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by
their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our
enemy if they don't speak up

Any semblence of objectivity is hereby lost: according to the writer -

'Warmongering Muslims are our enemy' and
'Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy'

The unwritten equation in the piece is therefore 'All Muslims are our enemy', which it is apparent is PSU's perspective. The vast majority of western Muslim organisations are in unison in decrying terrorist acts in the western countries.

However,I fail to see the difference between Iraqi groups attacking western soldiers in Iraq, and for example the French Resistance, who are celebrated for their role in WW2.

It just depends on which side of the fence you happen to be on - a group of Iraqis are fighting to defend their way of life against uninvited occupying forces who are trying to impose their way of life onto them, much in the same way as Hitler tried to do to the French.

If the western forces put down the Iraqi rebels, they will be viewd in history as evil terrorists attempting to derail a liberating force.

If the western forces pull out of the region and leave the country to sort itself out, and a way of life more traditionally Middle Eastern than western emerges, history will see them as glorious indomitable freedom fighters.

[WVUFAN]

The parallels between the samarai seppuku and certain board members actions around here are quite humorous.

I would never have the ... ahem ... guts to pull out my own intestines, thank you very much.

[st.cronin]

However,I fail to see the difference between Iraqi groups attacking western soldiers in Iraq, and for example the French Resistance, who are celebrated for their role in WW2.

The premiss here is that all occupying armies are equivalent. Personally, I think that's nonsense.

[Toddzilla]

Everything was just dandy up until this last paragraph. Our fearless leaders are protecting the intersts and well being of their world, not the world. It's a gigantic difference, and this topic has been beaten to death lately on this board and everywhere else. Our leader's heroic rhetoric deserves to be criticized and carefully examined, especially when it doesn't match up with their actions, much the same as the heroic rhetoric that was used by the various other nasty governments/groups listed in your post.+1

*Excellent* post, sir.

[AlexB]

The premiss here is that all occupying armies are equivalent. Personally, I think that's nonsense.

From the perspective of the people attacking occupying forces, they quite clearly are equivalent...

[Toddzilla]

Is there a reason why this thread should be locked????


I am honestly being sincere.Because you are a racist, xenophobic attention whore.

[rkmsuf]

alrighty then

[st.cronin]

From the perspective of the people attacking occupying forces, they quite clearly are equivalent...

Even if I agree (and I don't) that perspective is not neccesarily the correct perspective, or even a useful one.

[AlexB]

Even if I agree (and I don't) that perspective is not neccesarily the correct perspective, or even a useful one.

Only not useful as you believe the forces are not an invading army, but a liberating force.

To reverse the example, if a Middle eastern country successfully invaded the US or the UK (i.e. toplled Bush or Blair, created new elections with the intent of imposing Shariah law), we would likely champion those who fought against the foreign forces. We would see the soliders as invading hordes, while in their home country they would be seen as saving the west from its own decadence.

It's a matter of perspective, and until Bush and Blair realise this, they will always make decisions based on what they believe is right, rather than considering how this will be seen by people from completely different histories, cultures, and belief systems will see it/react.

The western way is the best for the west. It is not necessarily the best for everyone.

[st.cronin]

Only not useful as you believe the forces are not an invading army, but a liberating force.

To reverse the example, if a Middle eastern country successfully invaded the US or the UK (i.e. toplled Bush or Blair, created new elections with the intent of imposing Shariah law), we would likely champion those who fought against the foreign forces. We would see the soliders as invading hordes, while in their home country they would be seen as saving the west from its own decadence.

It's a matter of perspective, and until Bush and Blair realise this, they will always make decisions based on what they believe is right, rather than considering how this will be seen by people from completely different histories, cultures, and belief systems will see it/react.

The western way is the best for the west. It is not necessarily the best for everyone.

I think invading army/liberating force doesn't change the underlying meaning. And their purpose has just as much to do with what is best for the west as what is best for the east. In other words, even if it were demonstrable that the mideast is worse off for western involvement, there would still be a case for western involvement BASED ON THE NEEDS OF THE WEST.

Considering US history, I don't think there is any way you can disagree with this. The US puts it's troops on the line only when it is in the US's interests.

So, to argue that the US occupation is bad for Iraqis is only half the argument that must be made - it must also be argued that the US occupation is bad for the US. Additionally, to try to compare the US occupation to a Nazi occupation is just outrageous.

[AlexB]

I think invading army/liberating force doesn't change the underlying meaning. And their purpose has just as much to do with what is best for the west as what is best for the east. In other words, even if it were demonstrable that the mideast is worse off for western involvement, there would still be a case for western involvement BASED ON THE NEEDS OF THE WEST.

Considering US history, I don't think there is any way you can disagree with this. The US puts it's troops on the line only when it is in the US's interests.

So, to argue that the US occupation is bad for Iraqis is only half the argument that must be made - it must also be argued that the US occupation is bad for the US. Additionally, to try to compare the US occupation to a Nazi occupation is just outrageous.

Outrageous? Really? Ok. While it's obviously not exactly the same (not liebensraum, no mass genocide against a particular section of society, the Nazi's weren't trying to 'save' the French people), there are a lot of similarities, most of which are true to any invasion to be fair (and hence why I said that the viewpoints of most occupied populi against an occupyuing force are similar): economic and political motivation, easy victory over the armed forces, overthrow of the ruling body, imposition of a puppet leader, fierce local resistance to the foreign army...

You make a logical argument, and it works on the basis of 'sod everyone else'.

But if we (the west, I'm English) are going to operate on this basis, we have to expect consequences, which is a mightily pissed off culture of people who will fight against us every step of the way.

And the natural reaction to this is more polarisation of the two cultures, more radicalisation of western-based Muslims, more attacks and scares. Short term the 'what's best for the west' attitude might (and similar to your reply to my post, personally I don't agree that it is) be good for the west, long term it will not.

[st.cronin]

You make a logical argument, and it works on the basis of 'sod everyone else'.



I can understand why you would think that reading my short post, but that's not really it. The equation is more like this is better in sum for everybody than it is worse in sum for everybody. And hopefully the people that it is worse for are our enemies, and not our friends (or even potential friends).

And I hate to keep bringing this up, but in a recent poll 15% of BRITISH muslims think suicide bombing of innocent civilians is perfectly fine by their religion. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think ignoring that is not a good idea.

[AlexB]

I can understand why you would think that reading my short post, but that's not really it. The equation is more like this is better in sum for everybody than it is worse in sum for everybody. And hopefully the people that it is worse for are our enemies, and not our friends (or even potential friends).

And I hate to keep bringing this up, but in a recent poll 15% of BRITISH muslims think suicide bombing of innocent civilians is perfectly fine by their religion. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think ignoring that is not a good idea.

See my above post. Direct result of our (this time I do mean Blair's) foreign policy. Much as it pains me to say, if our politicans had been brave enough to satnd up like the French and Germans instead of blindly following a man with his head so far up Bush's arse it wasn't true, this would not be the case.

Most rational people would say suicide bombing of innocent civilians is abhorrent. Most rational people would also say lying to the British public about the strength of evidence for WMDs as a justification for a war that killed thousands of innocent Iraqis is also abhorrent.

How do we rectify it? With a lot more difficulty than before we went down this path. Does anyone actually remember the plan was to win 'hearts and minds'? How do we think that one's going?

[WVUFAN]

See my above post. Direct result of our (this time I do mean Blair's) foreign policy. Much as it pains me to say, if our politicans had been brave enough to satnd up like the French and Germans instead of blindly following a man with his head so far up Bush's arse it wasn't true, this would not be the case.

Opinions like this further my belief the US should close up shop and let people like this ... and France/Germany and our other "allies" fend for themselves.

[st.cronin]

See my above post. Direct result of our (this time I do mean Blair's) foreign policy.

I admit I don't know much about psychology, but I honestly don't see how that's possible. Some foreign leader does something that I think is evil, and that changes how I see my religion?

[AlexB]

I admit I don't know much about psychology, but I honestly don't see how that's possible. Some foreign leader does something that I think is evil, and that changes how I see my religion?

I don't claim to be an expert either, but I do know you can read a lot from a little, and there are certainly a number of interpretations of every religion, Christianity included.

If a person feels vehemntly angry about something another culture has done to his brethren, is is so much of a stretch that a teacher of another interpretation says 'look here: this piece of the scriptures says enemies of God can be beheaded' that the person would focus on that rather other sections of the scripture with more benevolent ideas? With enough anger, and enough convincing, is it completely improbable?

I've deliberately made no mention of any religion, as I know next to nothing about the contents of any religious books except the Bible, (and I only have a passing knowledge of that) but to use an example from there - if a Christian extremist was in this situation, as God wiped out all men bar Noah and his family with a great flood, is it completely unbelievable that it could be used as a justification to drown all those against God?

As we are both (hopefully) logical people, this is not an obvious conclusion, but it is a conclusion that could be drawn from this one passage...

So yes, I can see how an act considered to be evil could change how someone sees their religion.

[AlexB]

Dola,

Been an interesting discussion: don't think I'm conceding, but gotta go for a few hours now! I'll check back in a while. :)

[st.cronin]

I don't claim to be an expert either, but I do know you can read a lot from a little, and there are certainly a number of interpretations of every religion, Christianity included.

If a person feels vehemntly angry about something another culture has done to his brethren, is is so much of a stretch that a teacher of another interpretation says 'look here: this piece of the scriptures says enemies of God can be beheaded' that the person would focus on that rather other sections of the scripture with more benevolent ideas? With enough anger, and enough convincing, is it completely improbable?

I've deliberately made no mention of any religion, as I know next to nothing about the contents of any religious books except the Bible, (and I only have a passing knowledge of that) but to use an example from there - if a Christian extremist was in this situation, as God wiped out all men bar Noah and his family with a great flood, is it completely unbelievable that it could be used as a justification to drown all those against God?

As we are both (hopefully) logical people, this is not an obvious conclusion, but it is a conclusion that could be drawn from this one passage...

So yes, I can see how an act considered to be evil could change how someone sees their religion.

Suicide bombing of innocents is quite a stretch, though. Even given the premises you have put forward, where could you find 15% of a Christian population to be susceptible to that sort of manipulation? I think 1.5% would be difficult to round up.

[st.cronin]

I'm a little sorry my threadjack attempt didn't take. I was looking forward to more chat about Dante and Cato.

[WVUFAN]

We should create a thread about a completely random subject, and count the number of times we can threadjack it. :)

[Klinglerware]

And I hate to keep bringing this up, but in a recent poll 15% of BRITISH muslims think suicide bombing of innocent civilians is perfectly fine by their religion. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think ignoring that is not a good idea.

But then again, another poll indicates that 15% of ALL Brits believe that they might consider being a suicide bomber if they were in the same circumstances as a Palestinian. Interestingly, this general percentage range seems to hold, regardless of sex, social class, or even political orientation (you can check the cross-tab yourself).

So, if 15% of everybody in the UK believes it, can you say that it's exclusively a British Muslim opinion?

http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2004/guardian-march-2004.asp

[st.cronin]

But then again, another poll indicates that 15% of ALL Brits believe that they might consider being a suicide bomber if they were in the same circumstances as a Palestinian. Interestingly, this general percentage range seems to hold, regardless of sex, social class, or even political orientation (you can check the cross-tab yourself).

So, if 15% of everybody in the UK believes it, can you say that it's exclusively a British Muslim opinion?

http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2004/guardian-march-2004.asp

As I'm sure you're aware, that's a completely different question than the poll I'm referencing.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

As I'm sure you're aware, that's a completely different question than the poll I'm referencing.

Doesn't it go directly to your question about whether you could find 15% of Christians who hold a similar opinion?

[Groundhog]

Suicide bombing of innocents is quite a stretch, though. Even given the premises you have put forward, where could you find 15% of a Christian population to be susceptible to that sort of manipulation? I think 1.5% would be difficult to round up.

Under the right circumstances, I think that you'd find 15% of the population of a Christian nation would feel much the same. There aren't any Christian nations currently in that situation, but if there were I don't doubt that they'd find quotations from their scriptures to justify any extremist actions that they carried out. Paul Hill (executed abortion clinic doctor killer), the KKK, extreme anti-gays, and many others pull out scripture quotes to support their beliefs. It doesn't matter to them that there are plenty of other quotes that could be used to defend their targets and condemn their own actions. I guess it's an example of doublethink.

It's easy to fall prey to manipulation when you are in a hopeless situation like many of them are, just as it's easy to criticize and portray them as monsters when you're not.

I'm not saying it's right to kill innocent people in these attacks - it's certainly not - but they're not doing it because their religion is more barbaric than the Christian religion. Their book has that same "thou shall not kill" rule.

[AlexB]

Suicide bombing of innocents is quite a stretch, though. Even given the premises you have put forward, where could you find 15% of a Christian population to be susceptible to that sort of manipulation? I think 1.5% would be difficult to round up.

Again, you're thinking as we in the west usually do: Christians haven't had the circumstances that we're talking about for British Muslims, to use your reference.

No doubt, in England and the US, I agree you wouldn't find 15% agreeing to suicide bombing innocents. But again, it's back to the we are brought up in a different belief system, with different social, religious, cultural, political and economic lives to those in the Middle East.

While British Muslims live in the same country, and are in the same economic circumstances as the rest iof the population, I would venture that is the only factor that is definitely common between British Muslims and non-Muslims - especially the 15% who think that suicide bombing of innocents is OK.

15% sounds a large percentage, and it's larger than anyone would like, but that means that 85% do not agree with the sentiment: more than five times as many.

I'll bet now that a high percentage of Christians will be of the opinion that God's plagues were a necessary evil in the Old Testament, which included from memory the killing of the eldest sons of all families who didn't mark their doors/windows as being of the faith?

However, if it came round that all first born would die tomorrow if they didn't pledge allegiance to God, would the same number of Christians be in favour? I venture not: many people will say that they believe something in theory, or when it does not directly affect them or is unlikely to actually happen - when it comes to direct responsibility / involvement, the number is likely to be much much lower.

Or in other words, the 15% who agree that suicide bombings are acceptable is an inflated figure because it is unlikely to have be backed up by direct reality. Much in the same way that many of the people who argue in favour of going to war in Iraq might well have a rethink if they were given a uniform, helmet and rifle and the told to jump on a plane to Baghdad.

[AlexB]

But then again, another poll indicates that 15% of ALL Brits believe that they might consider being a suicide bomber if they were in the same circumstances as a Palestinian. Interestingly, this general percentage range seems to hold, regardless of sex, social class, or even political orientation (you can check the cross-tab yourself).

So, if 15% of everybody in the UK believes it, can you say that it's exclusively a British Muslim opinion?

http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2004/guardian-march-2004.asp

I was unaware of this, but it is what I have been trying to point out: St cronin is projecting based on his own personal values and life circumstances, not from the perspective of the people he is talking about

[WVUFAN]

I was unaware of this, but it is what I have been trying to point out: St cronin is projecting based on his own personal values and life circumstances, not from the perspective of the people he is talking about

If someone's personal belief system is such that they believe it's acceptable to engage in suicide bombings, they probably should not be alive to act on it.

There are certain things and actions, regardless of life circumstances or personal values, that are universally reviled and need to be so. If a group, large or small, Christian or Muslim, believes or acts in a way that is counter to life in general, that group need not exist anymore.

To summarize -- if you believe and that it's perfectly ok to engage in a suicide bombing action, it doesn't matter what your belief system is. I don't care what happened in your past -- you are a threat to me.

Entirely too much touchy-feely stuff going on.

[John Galt]

If a group, large or small, Christian or Muslim, believes or acts in a way that is counter to life in general, that group need not exist anymore.

WVUFAN is a pacifist? Who knew?

[WVUFAN]

WVUFAN is a pacifist? Who knew?

Yeah, I wear tie-dye shirts and talk about peace, love and understanding. I'm in anti-war rallies all the time, and I belong to Moveon.org.

Yep, you got me. :)

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Opinions like this further my belief the US should close up shop and let people like this ... and France/Germany and our other "allies" fend for themselves.

The bigger picture you are missing is why he has that viewpoint. Until you figure that out, you will never get it. Sorry.

You may be surprised that many U.S. allies marched in step with the U.S. on virtually all foreign policy -- until Iraq. A misguided adventure that has made the world (the one the allies live within) less safe that was clearly now based on speculative (and I am being nice using that word) evidence. And I'm not talking about just the "French," but countries like Canada and the Scandinavian countries, etc.

[WVUFAN]

The bigger picture you are missing is why he has that viewpoint. Until you figure that out, you will never get it. Sorry.

You may be surprised that many U.S. allies marched in step with the U.S. on virtually all foreign policy -- until Iraq. A misguided adventure that has made the world (the one the allies live within) less safe that was clearly now based on speculative (and I am being nice using that word) evidence. And I'm not talking about just the "French," but countries like Canada and the Scandinavian countries, etc.

I would say that the US has been "the bad guy" in the eyes of the much of the world long before this war came about. Specifically the French, our valued "ally", has been giving us fits for years before this happened.

My statement is less about the ongoing war (which I'm against, as I stated before, but for different reasons than many of you have) and more about the hypocritical attitude that much of the world has about us. They EXPECT the US to rush to the aid of countries that are having issues -- whether is be natural disasters, like the tsunami's in Asia, or internal political issues, like Kuwait being invaded by Iraq in the early 1990's. They EXPECT us to lend BILLIONS of dollars (like the Tsunami issue) to aid them, yet turn and do anything they can to bring the country down.

My point is that it shouldn't be that way. We should either refuse aid to other countries, and not interfere in world policies (my way), or make the world understand that with our presence when they need us, they will have to accept us when we choose to make our presence known.

[ISiddiqui]

Opinions like this further my belief the US should close up shop and let people like this ... and France/Germany and our other "allies" fend for themselves.

I'm not sure they'd mind all that much. Not like the UK/France/Germany are asking the US to intercede on their behalf all that much (let's face it, we were just as much behind the Kosovo war to establish NATO as not simply a relic of the Cold War).

Furthermore, allies aren't generally required to sign on to an offensive war (or 'invasion', if you'd like). There is precedence for this in the Suez Crisis, where the US, under Eisenhower, acted just like the French and Germans did in the Iraq War, when the Brits and French attacked Egypt. Eisenhower denounced them and gave them no support. Basically told them to get out of there. If we sold out our "allies" then, then why should they care about our offensive wars now?

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Why these discussions don't make progress:



You may be surprised that many U.S. allies marched in step with the U.S. on virtually all foreign policy -- until Iraq. A misguided adventure that has made the world (the one the allies live within) less safe that was clearly now based on speculative (and I am being nice using that word) evidence. And I'm not talking about just the "French," but countries like Canada and the Scandinavian countries, etc.


I would say that the US has been "the bad guy" in the eyes of the much of the world long before this war came about. Specifically the French, our valued "ally", has been giving us fits for years before this happened.

[MrBigglesworth]

If a group, large or small, Christian or Muslim, believes or acts in a way that is counter to life in general, that group need not exist anymore.
Some 69 percent of conservative Christians favor military action against Baghdad;
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1010-02.htm

Late last month a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel unanimously recommended approval of a vaccine for the human papilloma virus (HPV). The vaccine appears to be 100 percent effective at protecting against the most prevalent viruses that cause cervical cancer. While public health professionals view the vaccine as miraculous, many conservative organizations opposed it on the grounds that it might encourage promiscuity among adolescent girls. Now that it appears certain that the FDA will approve the vaccine, conservatives are attempting to discourage its use.

The pharmaceutical giant Merck produced the vaccine known as Gardasil. It will be nothing short of a lifesaver for many women. Cervical cancer is the second most prevalent cancer killer among women in America, striking nearly 14,000 women each year. Of those, nearly 4,000 die annually. Poor women and women of color will benefit the most from the vaccine, as Latino and black women have the highest rates of cervical cancer. Lower-income women typically lack the funds and health insurance necessary to have regular screenings for HPV.

Despite the benefits of the vaccine, conservative organizations began to rally against it last year. One of the most vocal opponents was the Family Research Council. The council “promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society.” Last October the council’s president, Tony Perkins, spoke decidedly against the vaccine. Mr. Perkins proclaimed, “Our concern is that this vaccine will be marketed to a segment of the population that should be getting a message about abstinence. It sends the wrong message.” He even stated that he would not vaccinate his 13-year-old daughter...

Now that FDA approval is all but certain, conservative organizations are strategizing to blunt acceptance of the vaccine.
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/3551/1/189

My point is not that Christians are bad or evil or anything, just to point out WVUFAN is applying a standard to Muslims that he does not apply to Christians. Both items show a disrespect to life in general. If WVUFAN were to read that 70% of Muslims in Iran wanted to invade Ethiopia so they could put their system of government there, he would find them to be bloodthirsty savages. If he read that they were denying their children medicine, he would decry their lack of respect for life.

[WVUFAN]

My point is not that Christians are bad or evil or anything, just to point out WVUFAN is applying a standard to Muslims that he does not apply to Christians. Both items show a disrespect to life in general. If WVUFAN were to read that 70% of Muslims in Iran wanted to invade Ethiopia so they could put their system of government there, he would find them to be bloodthirsty savages. If he read that they were denying their children medicine, he would decry their lack of respect for life.

Quite a generalization there, Bigglesworth.

If I were to read that 70% of Muslims in Iran wanted to invade Ethiopia so they could put Democracy in place, I'm all for it. If they wanted to put in a government that allows women basic civil rights, allows for a fair and impartial court system, and free voting for all, I'm fine with that.

As for the HPV vaccine, well, some conservative Christians are morons. There's no valid reason why this shouldn't be given as a vaccine to everyone if it works, and it seems to.

[st.cronin]

Doesn't it go directly to your question about whether you could find 15% of Christians who hold a similar opinion?

Well, I don't think that's a similar opinion. The poll I am referencing uses language like "KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE". Also, 15% of British Muslims, and the numbers were much higher in countries like Spain and France.

And my point is not that this is a barbaric culture - it's that it's a dangerous culture. Maybe leaving them alone to get their house in order is the best idea. I don't happen to think so.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Why these discussions don't make progress:

Yep. I specifically was talking not about the French, but that's all WVU wants to talk about apparently.

[st.cronin]

The French. :mad: That would be an excellent threadjack.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I would say that the US has been "the bad guy" in the eyes of the much of the world long before this war came about.

Nope. Simply not true. And please don't bring up the French again. You do know by the way that there was vast support for going into Afghanistan, where allies have lost lives fighting there (Canada continues to lose soldiers everyday over there). No, among allies, the U.S. was NOT the bad guy. But Iraq and the deception related to it has now made those same allies start to think twice. As I said, until you understand that viewpoint (first raised by JRS), you will never get it.

[cartman]

The main difference between Cato and Brutus is that, although they both killed an emperor, Cato betrayed only himself by taking his own life, while Brutus betrayed Caesar with the plot to kill him, which to Dante was a much worse crime, so much worse that his co-conspirator Cassius joins him (and Judas) in the 9th circle, to be eternally eaten alive and the skin flayed from their back for all eternity. Cato got off fairly easy, becoming the equivalent of a Wal-Mart greeter.

[WVUFAN]

Yep. I specifically was talking not about the French, but that's all WVU wants to talk about apparently.

Dude, I mentioned them once in the thread. I haven't constantly referenced them.

We can talk about them if you want, but I have only brought them up once in this thread.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Dude, I mentioned them once in the thread. I haven't constantly referenced them.

We can talk about them if you want, but I have only brought them up once in this thread.

C'mon, you expressly responded to my post and brought up the French. Please, then give me examples of where U.S. alllies thought the U.S. was the bad guy before the Iraq war.

[MrBigglesworth]

Quite a generalization there, Bigglesworth.

If I were to read that 70% of Muslims in Iran wanted to invade Ethiopia so they could put Democracy in place, I'm all for it. If they wanted to put in a government that allows women basic civil rights, allows for a fair and impartial court system, and free voting for all, I'm fine with that.
That's exactly my point, you believe that killing people for your ideals is noble, while someone else killing people for their ideals is cause for them 'not to exist'. Now, I could do without suicide bombers too. But the blanket statement of people 'not having a general respect for life' I think is a bit overblown because what you mean is, 'people that don't have the same respect for life that you do'.

As for the HPV vaccine, well, some conservative Christians are morons. There's no valid reason why this shouldn't be given as a vaccine to everyone if it works, and it seems to.
You may think they are morons, but you don't believe that conservative Christians 'need not exist anymore'.

[WVUFAN]

Nope. Simply not true. And please don't bring up the French again. You do know by the way that there was vast support for going into Afghanistan, where allies have lost lives fighting there (Canada continues to lose soldiers everyday over there). No, among allies, the U.S. was NOT the bad guy. But Iraq and the deception related to it has now made those same allies start to think twice. As I said, until you understand that viewpoint (first raised by JRS), you will never get it.

And I say I don't CARE about their viewpoint. If you want to kill me and/or my way of life, I DO NOT CARE HOW YOU CAME TO THAT DECISION.

That's the big difference, evidently between us.

So while many like you want to 'understand' the enemy, I want to eliminate them. (and by enemy, I do not mean Islam, I mean terrorists who want to kill us)

Oh, and Vinatieri for Prez? The French suck. That's TWICE I've brought them up.

[WVUFAN]

You may think they are morons, but you don't believe that conservative Christians 'need not exist anymore'.

That's because not all Conservative Christians want to ban that vaccine. You quote ONE group and are basing an entire group from it.

And, there's a distinct difference between someone wanting to ban a vaccine for HPV, and someone strapping a bomb to their chest and blowing themselves up in a mall. BIG difference.

[cartman]

Please, then give me examples of where U.S. alllies thought the U.S. was the bad guy before the Iraq war.

If anything, all of Europe was firmly on board to go after Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. The only time Article 5 of the NATO treaty has even been invoked was on Sept. 12th, 2001. Article 5 states that any attack against any one member of NATO is considered an attack against all NATO members. It is amazing how quickly that goodwill and cooperation was thrown away with Iraq.

[cartman]

You quote ONE group and are basing an entire group from it.

There seems to be a lot of that going on in this thread from all points of the spectrum.

[WVUFAN]

There seems to be a lot of that going on in this thread from all points of the spectrum.

The only group I'm talking about are those who have a desire to blow themselves up. Fairly small group, I would think.

[MrBigglesworth]

That's because not all Conservative Christians want to ban that vaccine. You quote ONE group and are basing an entire group from it.
But the conservative Christians that do want to ban the vaccine, should they not be alive anymore?

And, there's a distinct difference between someone wanting to ban a vaccine for HPV, and someone strapping a bomb to their chest and blowing themselves up in a mall. BIG difference.
HPV kills 4000 people a year. Which means that the decision to try and ban a vaccine on it is, in effect, contributing to 4000 innocent deaths per year. I think both show a distinct disrespect for lift, and the suicide bombing is more violent, but the vaccine has an end result far worse.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

So while many like you want to 'understand' the enemy, I want to eliminate them.


Well, this does actually seem to get to the heart of the matter. In general I think you will find it extremely difficult to eliminate an enemy if you fail to understand him. Knowing your enemy is the first key to victory. To neglect to learn about your enemy is foolish, and to reject outright the effort to understand him is simply the height of idiocy.

It reminds me of the part of Fog of War where Bob McNamara talks about how the Washington establishment obsessed over the domino theory in Vietnam and how it would become a Chinese client state and such. Then decades later he met the Vietnamese foreign minister who told him:

"Mr. McNamara, You must never have read a history book. If you'd had, you'd know we weren't pawns of the Chinese or the Russians. McNamara, didn't you know that? Don't you understand that we have been fighting the Chinese for 1000 years? We were fighting for our independence. And we would fight to the last man. And we were determined to do so. And no amount of bombing, no amount of U.S. pressure would ever have stopped us."

[-Mojo Jojo-]

dola

While poking around wikipedia to find that Fog of War quote, I also came across this list of the 11 lessons McNamara learned from Vietnam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War), documented in a book written in 1996 (before the Iraq invasion was even a glimmer in Dick Cheney's eye). It's unbelievable really how prescient they were of what was to come. We've been down this road before. Read it and weep:

1. We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.

2. We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.

3. We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.

4. Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.

5. We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine…

6. We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.

7. We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.

8. After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did.

9. We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.

10. We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.

11. We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

And I say I don't CARE about their viewpoint. If you want to kill me and/or my way of life, I DO NOT CARE HOW YOU CAME TO THAT DECISION.

That's the big difference, evidently between us.

So while many like you want to 'understand' the enemy, I want to eliminate them. (and by enemy, I do not mean Islam, I mean terrorists who want to kill us)

Oh, and Vinatieri for Prez? The French suck. That's TWICE I've brought them up.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about the viewpoint that JRS expressed as a citizen of Great Britain, an ALLY of the U.S. You made your comment about closing up shop because JRS criticized his own prime minister and Bush for going into Iraq. I said you should listen to the viewpoints of your ALLIES. Yes, the same ones that opened their arms after 9/11 and were willing to do anything to help, including sacrificing the lives of their citizens in the invasion of Afghanistan (and as far as the UK is concerned, dying in the deserts of Iraq). Yet, you rail against this same ally when he starts thinking he was led down the garden path into a war based on speculation (I'll avoid for now saying "lies") by a country which now seems was only interested in IRAQ for revenge? Oil? I don't know what the hell why really. But your utter disdain for the opposing viewpoints of your friends, the very friends you will need to succeed in this "war of terror" is precisely the reason why you and Mr. Bush will never win it.

But of course, you will believe in the almighty strength of the U.S. to win anything on its own. It can't. And now Iraq is the second example in a generation of that. Your shortsightedness is astounding.

By the way, I'm still waiting for your proffered support of when the U.S. was considered the "bad guys" by its allies and the western world before it was poised to go into Iraq on flimsy evidence. Was it the same countries fighting shoulder to shoulder with U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan? You throw it out these facts and speculation and then you can never support them. I doubt you'll fail to acknowledge the point again.

[molson]

I think we're just a few posts away from coming to a consensus.

[AlexB]

Quite a generalization there, Bigglesworth.

If I were to read that 70% of Muslims in Iran wanted to invade Ethiopia so they could put Democracy in place, I'm all for it. If they wanted to put in a government that allows women basic civil rights, allows for a fair and impartial court system, and free voting for all, I'm fine with that.

As for the HPV vaccine, well, some conservative Christians are morons. There's no valid reason why this shouldn't be given as a vaccine to everyone if it works, and it seems to.

You don't get it: (and for reference I am not against the US, I'm just not in support of their actions on this one ;) ) being 'touchy-feely' is not the point I was trying make - the point I was trying to make, which has been demonstrated for the third time in this thread, is this:

You are condemning the people who attack the US for the same thing you are backing your country for - fighting in what they believe in.

The US and their 'allies' are trying to push democracy - the people who are fighting back don't want democracy. So much so that in the UK there is a growing support amongst Muslims for the allowance to operate under Shariah law outside of UK laws. (This is a whole different debate - just used the example to show the strength of belief in the system).

You and me, and the US and the West strongly believe democracy to be the best way of life - we can all point to many examples of why this is the case, and how barbaric Shariah law can be.

Guess what - supporters of Shariah law can point to an equal number of reasons why democracy leads to decadence, lawlessness and war, and how Shariah law ensures a safer, more righteous life.

Until we as the West understand that (and here is the bit that people are missing - edit: some people after reading the intervening posts) the people fighting against the west believe that their way of life is superior at least as fervently as we believe in deomcracy, the situation will carry on.

We as the West can march into a country with our military might to try and bring about our aims - and this will inevitably kill some innocent civilians of the invaded nation. Suicide bombing is a resistance style, guerilla style of response, a way of trying to resist in their eyes oppression, and will inevitably involve the deaths of innocent western civilians. Where's the difference?

This is not a touchy feely thing - it's a why-the-fuck-are-we-surprised? thing, and a what-are-we-gonna-do-to change-things? thing...

[AlexB]

The French. :mad: That would be an excellent threadjack.

We could all agree on that :)

[AlexB]

And I say I don't CARE about their viewpoint. If you want to kill me and/or my way of life, I DO NOT CARE HOW YOU CAME TO THAT DECISION.

That's the big difference, evidently between us.

So while many like you want to 'understand' the enemy, I want to eliminate them. (and by enemy, I do not mean Islam, I mean terrorists who want to kill us)

Oh, and Vinatieri for Prez? The French suck. That's TWICE I've brought them up.

The don't get pissed when they want to fight back... Sounds like you want the world to be a duck shoot for the US army, and anybody who dares to even think about resisting is evil incarnate... Strange point of view.

[AlexB]

If anything, all of Europe was firmly on board to go after Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. The only time Article 5 of the NATO treaty has even been invoked was on Sept. 12th, 2001. Article 5 states that any attack against any one member of NATO is considered an attack against all NATO members. It is amazing how quickly that goodwill and cooperation was thrown away with Iraq.

From what I saw and felt, there was a massive wave of sympathy and empathy for the US attempts to rid the world of people such as Bin laden after 9/11. We were mostly all behind the raids against the Afghan Taleban.

However, Iraq has for many taken away all of the sympathy and then some, plus radicalised a whole new group of what we see as terrorists to attack us.

Unlike some I don't blame the US for the effect we have felt in the UK after Iraq, including 7/7. We could have stood strong and said 'fine, do what you gotta do, but we're not by your side on this one'... but no. As Obi Wan Kanobi once asked, 'Who is the more foolish: the fool, or the fool who follows him?'

[AlexB]

dola

While poking around wikipedia to find that Fog of War quote, I also came across this list of the 11 lessons McNamara learned from Vietnam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War), documented in a book written in 1996 (before the Iraq invasion was even a glimmer in Dick Cheney's eye). It's unbelievable really how prescient they were of what was to come. We've been down this road before. Read it and weep:

1. We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.

2. We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.

3. We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.

4. Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.

5. We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine…

6. We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.

7. We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.

8. After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did.

9. We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.

10. We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.

11. We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.

Perfect summation of the situation.

[Coder]

Haven't really gotten involved in this discussion, but I have to say that Jari, you've very elegantly expressed my exact thoughts in just about everyone of your last few posts. Very well put.

[Coder]

This:

You are condemning the people who attack the US for the same thing you are backing your country for - fighting in what they believe in.


..and this:


You and me, and the US and the West strongly believe democracy to be the best way of life - we can all point to many examples of why this is the case, and how barbaric Shariah law can be.

Guess what - supporters of Shariah law can point to an equal number of reasons why democracy leads to decadence, lawlessness and war, and how Shariah law ensures a safer, more righteous life.



Are thoughts I've often felt very important arguments in this debate, and something people are so quick to forget.

[st.cronin]

This:



..and this:




Are thoughts I've often felt very important arguments in this debate, and something people are so quick to forget.

If you are willing to suppose that Sharia law is in some way equivalent to democracy, you really are not going to get anywhere in these kinds of talks. What's the point of having politics if in the end it doesn't matter.

[MrBigglesworth]

If you are willing to suppose that Sharia law is in some way equivalent to democracy, you really are not going to get anywhere in these kinds of talks. What's the point of having politics if in the end it doesn't matter.
How do you get that from this:

You and me, and the US and the West strongly believe democracy to be the best way of life

He isn't saying they are equivalent at all. Just that they think Sharia is better, like we think democracy is better, and that the same people that cheer us on in our wars fighting to impose our beliefs on others, condemn the others for fighting to uphold their own beliefs.

[Antmeister]

Wow...I am very impressed that this thread didn't go to hell by the 10th post. I thought by now there would be mass boxings. Good job in having a pretty healthy dialouge.

[Coder]

If you are willing to suppose that Sharia law is in some way equivalent to democracy, you really are not going to get anywhere in these kinds of talks. What's the point of having politics if in the end it doesn't matter.

That's not the point at all.. the point is that different people value different things, and all consider their point to be the best.

[st.cronin]

That's not the point at all.. the point is that different people value different things, and all consider their point to be the best.

But if that's not the point, then it's not the same thing to be fighting for sharia law as for capitalistic democracy. It's not the same thing to be right as to be wrong.

[AlexB]

But if that's not the point, then it's not the same thing to be fighting for sharia law as for capitalistic democracy. It's not the same thing to be right as to be wrong.

The point is that's what right in one circumstance is not necessarily right transplanted into completely different circumstances.

Tbh, I've got nothing more - if you can't see the underlying point thus far (I'm not saying you have to agree with it, but I can't see how the basic point hasn't gotten through), I've got no other way of expressing it - I'd be re-repeating myself :)

Ironically the fact that the point hasn't gotten through demonstrates the point :(

Antmeister said something about how it's refreshing people haven't got boxed, and after a page and a half that's why I posted in this thread, as it seemed a civil discussion - kudos to everyone for keeping it that way.

[st.cronin]

The point is that's what right in one circumstance is not necessarily right transplanted into completely different circumstances.

Tbh, I've got nothing more - if you can't see the underlying point thus far (I'm not saying you have to agree with it, but I can't see how the basic point hasn't gotten through), I've got no other way of expressing it - I'd be re-repeating myself :)

Ironically the fact that the point hasn't gotten through demonstrates the point :(

Antmeister said something about how it's refreshing people haven't got boxed, and after a page and a half that's why I posted in this thread, as it seemed a civil discussion - kudos to everyone for keeping it that way.

I do see the underlying point. I certainly understand most of the arguments that are made against anything that I believe.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

But if that's not the point, then it's not the same thing to be fighting for sharia law as for capitalistic democracy. It's not the same thing to be right as to be wrong.

So you fight for the your beliefs in what is right; the point is you can hardly condemn the other fella for fighting for his beliefs. He came by them as honestly as you did yours, and holds them at least as dearly. And in the end neither one of you is going to convince the other of much of anything with cruise missiles and car bombs. You can kill each other, I guess, but neither side in this conflict is going to run out of warm bodies for a very long time.

[WVUFAN]

So you fight for the your beliefs in what is right; the point is you can hardly condemn the other fella for fighting for his beliefs. He came by them as honestly as you did yours, and holds them at least as dearly.

You absolutely can condemn the other fella for his/her beliefs. Can you say the same arguments with the Communists in Soviet Russia? Or the Nazi's in Germany? The Facists in Italy?

There's certain beliefs, quite honestly, that ARE wrong, no matter how "honest" you came by them. They're just wrong.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

You absolutely can condemn the other fella for his/her beliefs. Can you say the same arguments with the Communists in Soviet Russia? Or the Nazi's in Germany? The Facists in Italy?

There's certain beliefs, quite honestly, that ARE wrong, no matter how "honest" you came by them. They're just wrong.

The beliefs are wrong. Fighting for what you believe in isn't.

[WVUFAN]

The beliefs are wrong. Fighting for what you believe in isn't.

It is if the underlying system is wrong. For example, soliders who fought for Hitler, despite the idea of fighting for their beliefs were still wrong.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

It is if the underlying system is wrong. For example, soliders who fought for Hitler, despite the idea of fighting for their beliefs were still wrong.

To insist that this is true requires that there be some unassailable and absolutely correct point of view -- someone that we can all check with to find out for certain whether our beliefs are wrong before we fight for them. I'll be pleased to find out who it is that provides that reference point. On occasion I might like to drop him an email.. If it's you, I'll be sadly disappointed (no offense intended).

[WVUFAN]

To insist that this is true requires that there be some unassailable and absolutely correct point of view -- someone that we can all check with to find out for certain whether our beliefs are wrong before we fight for them. I'll be pleased to find out who it is that provides that reference point. On occasion I might like to drop him an email.. If it's you, I'll be sadly disappointed (no offense intended).

None taken. We have differing points of view, so I understand that you don't follow mine.

I couldn't hope to rationalize what I'm saying to you, because I honestly understand what you're saying -- I just don't happen to agree. I believe there to be a pretty clear line between what is good and decent and what isn't. I can see that line, I can tell you what the line is, but if you don't see if or agree, we're never gonna come to a understanding. That's doesn't mean that the line doesn't exist, it's just that you don't see it.

I don't think it's proper to fight for a wrong cause. I don't think that just because it's in your belief system that certain actions, no matter how noble your intentions, should be allowed. I don't think certain beliefs should be allowed, and if that's a facist statement, so be it. There's right, and there's wrong, and that's all there is to it.

If a person is doing wrong, is killing people, is blowing up people in cafes or malls, then they are WRONG. There's no justification for it, no rationale that needs to be understood. You posted some statements from McNamara, and there's some really good points, but there's a difference between understanding the motives of your enemy to defeat them, and understanding their motives for empathy purposes.

[WVUFAN]

Some particularily brave folks in medieval Japan would, according to legend, remove their intestines with their hands after committing seppuku (harakiri).

Going back to the original threadjack, I read in another thread you're a fan of some classic Japanese literature. I'm interested in picking up a few books, but I'm a novice at Japanese literature. Would you happen to have any suggestions for some initial books to pick up?

[John Galt]

If a person is doing wrong, is killing people, is blowing up people in cafes or malls, then they are WRONG.

Again with the pacifism.

You seem to conflate the methods of fighting (ie suicide bombing) with the motive for fighting (which has been crudely described as capitalist democracy v. militant Islam - a certainly debatable assessment).

Which of the following methods are inherently "good" and which are "bad?":

Torture
Carpet bombing
Suicide bombing
Use of nuclear weapons
Use of chemical weapons
Block bombing (the technique of blowing up civilian neighborhoods to kill key targets which necessarily kills many civilians)
Summary execution of prisoners

Are you saying some of these methods are "good" if the "good guys" use them, but "bad" if the "bad guys" use them? If so, there really isn't much else to discuss.

Personally, I say torture, carpet bombing, nuclear use, chemical use, and summary execution are wrong in almost all circumstances. But I'm sure many disagree. My point is that you can have an opinion about methods separate from who is using them.

In the case of suicide bombing (which originally started this conversation), I don't think there is a general rule. There was a study (I think I posted it on this board) a few years ago about the use of suicide bombing. As it turns out, the common element in an overwhelming majority of suicide bombings was occupation by a foreign force and not the religion or beliefs of the people involved. For that reason, Sri Lanka was over-represented in the suicide bomber population. Suicide bombers occur most commonly in occupied countries because they are a weapon of the weak. They are the weapon of those who have little else to use. For that reason, I don't see anything inherently wrong about the practice. I would certainly consider a suicide mission if America were occupied and I thought it would save my family.

However, the degree to which suicide bombings target civilians changes my view significantly. I don't think there is anything wrong with practice, per se, but like carpet bombing, I think targetting civilians should be an absolute last resort and is only justified in the narrowest of circumstances.

[AlexB]

...there's a difference between understanding the motives of your enemy to defeat them, and understanding their motives for empathy purposes.

I don't think it's an empathy, it's back to the idea that it is nigh on impossible to stop someone attacking you if you don't understand their reasons for doing so.

(Other than wiping them off the face of the earth I guess, but this is likely to be a much longer, drawn out and painful process for all parties)

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I can see that line, I can tell you what the line is, but if you don't see if or agree, we're never gonna come to a understanding. That's doesn't mean that the line doesn't exist, it's just that you don't see it.

What it means is that it is inherently subjective. That line exists in your head and nowhere else. Everyone else has a different line in their head, some people have lines very similar to yours, some have lines that are very different. None have the same one you have. And had you grown up in different circumstances, you'd have a different version of the line than you do now as well. It's fine for you to think that your line is right (and to act on it), in fact you'd be a hypocrite if you didn't. But you should have the humility to acknowledge that everyone else likewise believes they are right (or else they wouldn't believe what they do), and all things considered it's possible that some of them are just as right as you are.

The distinction between understanding someone in order to defeat or empathize with them is particularly hazy in this conflict. It is at its core a political contest, and empathizing with one's audience is critical to scoring political points. That's what some of McNamara's points were directed at. How on earth do you win hearts and minds if you are unable to empathize with those people? How can we politically outmaneuver our opponents within their own culture if we don't understand it? We will not defeat our enemy unless we can first empathize with them. And the first step towards that is to recognize that Muslims and Arabs are not inherently wicked or evil people, they are just pursuing a different line in their head, one that we need to figure out how to see.

[ISiddiqui]

I believe there to be a pretty clear line between what is good and decent and what isn't. I can see that line, I can tell you what the line is, but if you don't see if or agree, we're never gonna come to a understanding. That's doesn't mean that the line doesn't exist, it's just that you don't see it.

Slight correction, that doesn't mean that the line doesn't exist to you. It may not exist to him. You believe there is a line and it exists. He may not (edit: or may believe it exists somewhere else).

[Glengoyne]

But then again, another poll indicates that 15% of ALL Brits believe that they might consider being a suicide bomber if they were in the same circumstances as a Palestinian. Interestingly, this general percentage range seems to hold, regardless of sex, social class, or even political orientation (you can check the cross-tab yourself).

So, if 15% of everybody in the UK believes it, can you say that it's exclusively a British Muslim opinion?

http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2004/guardian-march-2004.asp

This reminds me of how I saw a salesman talk about his own goods to someone who had just purchased the same pieces from a competitor. He was quite cavalier about how he would sell his set for much less than they had paid. It was just "too bad they had already purchased elsewhere". The reason it reminds me of that is that it is easy to make a statement in a completely hypothetical situation. It takes nothing to say that you would do something, if you don't believe for a second you will find yourself in that position.

[cartman]

Hmm, this article from the Christian Science Monitor has some interesting info that seems to refute PSUColonel's basic premise:

hxxp://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html


The myth of Muslim support for terror

The common enemy is violence and terrorism, not Muslims any more than Christians or Jews.
By Kenneth Ballen

WASHINGTON - Those who think that Muslim countries and pro-terrorist attitudes go hand-in-hand might be shocked by new polling research: Americans are more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria.

The survey, conducted in December 2006 by the University of Maryland's prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, shows that only 46 percent of Americans think that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are "often or sometimes justified."

Contrast those numbers with 2006 polling results from the world's most-populous Muslim countries – Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria. Terror Free Tomorrow, the organization I lead, found that 74 percent of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are "never justified"; in Pakistan, that figure was 86 percent; in Bangladesh, 81 percent.

Do these findings mean that Americans are closet terrorist sympathizers?

Hardly. Yet, far too often, Americans and other Westerners seem willing to draw that conclusion about Muslims. Public opinion surveys in the United States and Europe show that nearly half of Westerners associate Islam with violence and Muslims with terrorists. Given the many radicals who commit violence in the name of Islam around the world, that's an understandable polling result.

But these stereotypes, affirmed by simplistic media coverage and many radicals themselves, are not supported by the facts – and they are detrimental to the war on terror. When the West wrongly attributes radical views to all of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims, it perpetuates a myth that has the very real effect of marginalizing critical allies in the war on terror.

Indeed, the far-too-frequent stereotyping of Muslims serves only to reinforce the radical appeal of the small minority of Muslims who peddle hatred of the West and others as authentic religious practice.

Terror Free Tomorrow's 20-plus surveys of Muslim countries in the past two years reveal another surprise: Even among the minority who indicated support for terrorist attacks and Osama bin Laden, most overwhelmingly approved of specific American actions in their own countries. For example, 71 percent of bin Laden supporters in Indonesia and 79 percent in Pakistan said they thought more favorably of the United States as a result of American humanitarian assistance in their countries – not exactly the profile of hard-core terrorist sympathizers. For most people, their professed support of terrorism/bin Laden can be more accurately characterized as a kind of "protest vote" against current US foreign policies, not as a deeply held religious conviction or even an inherently anti- American or anti-Western view.

In truth, the common enemy is violence and terrorism, not Muslims any more than Christians or Jews. Whether recruits to violent causes join gangs in Los Angeles or terrorist cells in Lahore, the enemy is the violence they exalt.

Our surveys show that not only do Muslims reject terrorism as much if not more than Americans, but even those who are sympathetic to radical ideology can be won over by positive American actions that promote goodwill and offer real hope.

America's goal, in partnership with Muslim public opinion, should be to defeat terrorists by isolating them from their own societies. The most effective policies to achieve that goal are the ones that build on our common humanity. And we can start by recognizing that Muslims throughout the world want peace as much as Americans do.

[CU Tiger]

Hmm, this article from the Christian Science Monitor has some interesting info that seems to refute PSUColonel's basic premiseNow that is a trustworthy and unbiased source...I have followed but intentioanlly stayed out of this debate, butthis is akin to saying the Ford copany magazine says Toyota's are cheaply built...

[cartman]

Now that is a trustworthy and unbiased source...I have followed but intentioanlly stayed out of this debate, butthis is akin to saying the Ford copany magazine says Toyota's are cheaply built...

I admit that the article is an editorial. But considering that it was the University of Maryland that conducted the survey the article was about, the proper analogy would be Ford using a Consumer Reports article to say that Toyota's are built cheaply.

[BrianD]

The survey, conducted in December 2006 by the University of Maryland's prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, shows that only 46 percent of Americans think that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are "often or sometimes justified."

Contrast those numbers with 2006 polling results from the world's most-populous Muslim countries – Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria. Terror Free Tomorrow, the organization I lead, found that 74 percent of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are "never justified"; in Pakistan, that figure was 86 percent; in Bangladesh, 81 percent.


Two points. First, I hope the questions were not worded as I have bolded them, and I hope the questions were asked in the same way. I would say that "terrorist attacks" and "attacks which intentionally target civilians" are not necessarily the same thing.

The second point is the stats of the American responses. 46% say the attacks are never justified. 24% say they are sometimes or often justified. What do the other 30% say? It can't be more than often or it would have been rolled into the 24%. If it was "may be justified", that probably also would have been rolled into the 24%. I'm curious where that 30% would belong.

[cartman]

A quick Google search shows that the OpEd piece was generally released, and was not in any way a CSM exclusive. The article showed up on numerous websites, ranging from Yahoo! News to numerous city newspapers.

Here is a link to the website of the group at U of Maryland that conducted the study:

hxxp://www.pipa.org/