[Timo]

by Finboy:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BRussell:
Thanks - after about 3/4 of a thousand posts here, I believe that's the first time anyone ever said I had a good one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

No way. You've been praised MANY times, I'm sure.

Finboy's right, though of course we've all been damned with faint praise on the boards. You're the senior Mr Reasonable around here.

And regarding the chess analogy: I sure hope someone's looking a number of moves ahead.

[San Acoustic]

NOVEMBER 01, 13:24 EST Pa. Church Damaged in Arson STOVERSTOWN, Pa. (AP) -
A fire at a church with a roadside sign that says ``Trust Mohammed to be
damned'' was intentionally set, investigators said.

The fire Wednesday at
Old Paths Baptist Church in North Codorus Township may have started in
multiple locations, investigators said.

``It's arson. It was lit,'' said
John Seiler, agent in charge of the Harrisburg office of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

The church's sign - which says ``Trust
Mohammed to be damned, trust Jesus to be delivered'' - may be considered in
the investigation, Seiler said.

The Rev. Matthew Jarrell said the church
put up the sign ``to speak truth.'' ``Somebody has to be right. Somebody
has to be wrong,'' he said. ``We think the Bible is right and Koran is
wrong. We think Jesus is right and Mohammed is wrong.''

The fire broke out
shortly after midnight and burned for an hour before someone called 911,
township fire chief Marvin Stine said. An adjoining nine-classroom school
was damaged. North Codorus Township is about 90 miles west of Philadelphia.

[pfflam]

However also in Pennsylvannia, near Harrisburgh over 100 jewish graves were desecrated. And the work that was needed to do the damage done would have taken a large group a very long time.

I only happen to have read this because I live near a very heavily jewish neighborgood and saw a jewish newspaper. Why doesn't anybody else report this...or did I miss it in the papers?

[pfflam]

And another thing:

about this judging cultures: Murukami wrote an article in the Times about this war being between two essentially different systems
one a system that is premissed on opening and inclusion, and the other based on closure, univocity, catagory and finality. Guess which is which.

Anyway, from the perspective or our culture of openness it would be right to judge another culture as, at least innapropriate for total assimilation, if its only goal would be to take the premis of openness upon which your culture is based and try to close it down. In that case one might even be tempted to go so far as to say that that culture is wrong... or at least wrong for us.


it reminds me of this:
A Hindu friend of mine, brilliant open minded artistic physisist, was being sympathetic to the radical Hindus in India. I was surprised because I associated them with fundamentalists here in the states. He said that he understood them and their feelings against the Muslims in india for several reasons. Mainly the history of post Manu Hinduism is one of a religion that is extremely flexible and can work with almost any other form of religion: there are even Christian Hindus -(though I wouldn't expect the brand of Christians on these boards would understand that) Anyway, they have allowed all sorts of religions to enter freely in their environment including Islam. The only religion among many that was allowed to co-esist that then turns around and starts to make demands on the tolerant environment of Hinduism is, ...guess.../ Islam, it seems that when it feels that it may be threatened by the loss of its specificity it reacts by trying to close the systems of openness that are providing viable options that may "tempt" it. It tries to close open systems.

we are called imperialists by many.... but our imperialism would not be one of speading the restrictions that fundamentalist Islam wants to enclose all with-in.... I judge that as fiicked up.

[ 11-02-2001: Message edited by: pfflam ]

[pfflam]

...I should have that read "innapropriate for total dialogue"

[zigzag]

My own comments about making judgments about other cultures should not be confused with "God is on our side." Few things would make me happier than to see all of the world's religions disappear. When I talk about making judgments, I do it in the context of having been violently attacked by members of a culture that espouses values and ideals that are antithetical to ours - oppression and theocracy as opposed to personal freedom and democracy. I make no apologies for prefering our culture, flawed as it may be, to theirs, and believe that our ideals are worth defending when threatened.

As for the reality of the threat, things have clearly changed. We're no longer dealing with small, isolated instances of terrorism - we're dealing with an act of mass destruction on our own soil (5,000 people burned and buried alive, in case anyone's forgotten), and the stated intent to commit further acts of mass destruction, i.e. war, by people willing to commit suicide in furtherance of their cause, people who aren't interested in mediation or negotiation. Just for instance, there is information that major bridges are now being targeted. Whether this particular information is reliable or not, the threat is real. I believe that decisive military action is justified in order to suppress the forces behind the threat, and I believe that those who oppose it are, respectfully, in a state of denial. As I've said before, I don't think we have the luxury of waiting to see what happens next.

[roger_ramjet]

More on judging cultures, this is from The New Statesman.

Lost in the swamp of modernity

Peter Watson
Monday 29th October 2001

His survey of scholars around the world convinced Peter Watson that, outside the west, there were no new ideas in the 20th century.

Westerners and Muslims, according to Edward Said in these pages two weeks ago, are all swimming in the same seas. Both are stranded " . . . between the deep waters of tradition and modernity". The events of 11 September therefore represent no clash of civilisations, he said. That idea is "a gimmick . . . better for reinforcing defensive self-pride than for critical understanding of the bewildering interdependence of our time".

The sad - if admittedly bewildering - truth is that "modernity" is in fact more like a swamp, a treacherous landscape where some civilisations can't get a footing. Modernity itself has magnified differences between civilisations and, in so doing, has helped bring terrorism to the point where it takes the form it has. This is not a "vast generalisation" (another criticism that Said makes about westerners), or at least not one that I alone make. I do not say my research has been exhaustive, but what follows is not just one westerner speaking...

[VRL]

Originally posted by zigzag:
<STRONG>My own comments about making judgments about other cultures should not be confused with "God is on our side." Few things would make me happier than to see all of the world's religions disappear.</STRONG>

Interesting thoughts in general, but I disagree with this. Religion, in and of itself, is not bad or worthy of removal from the face of the earth. What is bad: If a person (or group) chooses to use religion as a means of attaining selfish, damaging goals - goals that harm others without regard or remorse. Religion embraced and touted, in such a case, is only a facade.

The same can be said of many things. ... Money, sex, positions of authority, etc. None are necessarily bad things, but can be selfishly used, and thus can have an appearance of being "bad" or "evil".

The attitude that one chooses, the motives behind the actions, as well as actions taken are more important. Words used and labels chosen (because of ignorance, misinterpretation, or deliberate intention) often misrepresent the facts.

It is my contention that the Taliban, Al Qaeda etc. understand how to manipulate/use religion, and at the same time, encourage and exploit ignorance and misinterpretation (of religion, the West, and so on). Their ultimate goal: Power. (Freedom and democracy are their enemy - so America and the West are their enemy.)

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by San Acoustic:
<STRONG>
Couch this most recent conflict in any terms you wish. Doing so does not change the reality. This is a religious war, one fiction battling the other to achieve a fictional end for the maniacs who wish to hurry it upon us...</STRONG>

It's a religious war for them but not for us. And insisting otherwise won't make it so. Talk about fictions.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by VRL:
<STRONG>

Interesting thoughts in general, but I disagree with this. Religion, in and of itself, is not bad or worthy of removal from the face of the earth. What is bad: If a person (or group) chooses to use religion as a means of attaining selfish, damaging goals - goals that harm others without regard or remorse. Religion embraced and touted, in such a case, is only a facade.

The same can be said of many things. ... Money, sex, positions of authority, etc. None are necessarily bad things, but can be selfishly used, and thus can have an appearance of being "bad" or "evil".

The attitude that one chooses, the motives behind the actions, as well as actions taken are more important. Words used and labels chosen (because of ignorance, misinterpretation, or deliberate intention) often misrepresent the facts.

It is my contention that the Taliban, Al Qaeda etc. understand how to manipulate/use religion, and at the same time, encourage and exploit ignorance and misinterpretation (of religion, the West, and so on). Their ultimate goal: Power. (Freedom and democracy are their enemy - so America and the West are their enemy.)</STRONG>

All valid points. My purpose was to demonstrate that I wasn't interested in the relative merits of Christianity vs. Islam, but in the relative merits of freedom vs. oppression. The oppressive party just happens to subscribe to Islam in this case (generally speaking) - but they could just as well be Christian. Indeed, plenty of oppression has occured in the name of Christianity over the ages. But Christians, by and large, seem to have lost interest in using force to impose their religion on other cultures.

You're correct that religions, like guns, don't kill - people do. And religion has created much beauty and done much good. But that doesn't erase the fact that religion often does, in fact, serve as a basis for human conflict. For that reason, I personally wouldn't mind seeing it disappear, even though I know it won't.

[Face Ache]

Solution.

a) Delete Nile Crocodile and all of his posts. He is not contributing to the evolution of mankind. Crocodiles are reptiles that have not budged one little bit in the last 50 million years of evolution (they may have a few more teeth though).

b) Stop bombing.

c) Feed everybody.

d) Offer US$500 Million for Osama bin Laden (alive). $500 million is not that much (ask Bill Gates).

My plan works perfectly apart from a few small details....

a) Nile Crocodile apparently cannot be stopped or made to see reason. His thick skin and pointy teeth make him rather impervious to our logic attacks. This man uses a Mac? Windows is the home of mediocrity. Please... go home.

b) America only bombs. This is their way of winning a war with minimum losses to their side and no concern whatsoever of civilian casualties on the other side. There are a few reasons for this but I'm not getting into a pissing match with the Croc. Just say "cluster bomb" three times.

BTW: The official Red Cross statistics for the WTC bombing are closer to 2500 people dead, not 6000. Will the US stop bombing once 2500 innocent Afghani civilians have died? Will we HEAR when 2500 innocent Afghani civilians have died? Is the 2500 figure of the WTC collapse even being widely reported in the US? Croc hasn't heard it. Reading the New York Times you wouldn't even know there was a war on...

c) The intention is to actually starve the Afghanis into overthrowing their Government. Dumb huh? I'll bet more than 2500 die from that clever (?) tactic.

d) The last thing the USA wants is Osama bin Laden alive. He might talk...

REMEMBER AMERICA: THESE TOTALLY UNFOUNDED ATTACKS WERE IN NO WAY CAUSED BY FIFTY YEARS OF NASTY INTERNATIONAL POLITICS ON YOUR SIDE. IT WAS JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE JEALOUS OF YOUR HAMBURGERS.

Now go about your business and rest assured that YOUR GOVERNMENT IS WORKING FOR YOU!!!

(And a big "Hello" to Echelon)

[roger_ramjet]

Solution.

Send Face Ache over to Afghanistan to reason with bin Laden. If that doesn't work, at least it will raise the average IQ over here.

REMEMBER AMERICA: SEPT 11 WAS REALLY OUR FAULT BECAUSE WE HELPED AFGHANISTAN DEFEAT THE RUSSIAN INVADERS AND AFTERWARD WE HURT THEIR PRIDE BY SENDING THEM AID.

[Nile Crocodile]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<STRONG>Solution.

Send Face Ache over to Afghanistan to reason with bin Laden. If that doesn't work, at least it will raise the average IQ over here.
</STRONG>

Face Ache may help bin Laden shoot himself in the head.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
REMEMBER AMERICA: SEPT 11 WAS REALLY OUR FAULT BECAUSE WE HELPED AFGHANISTAN DEFEAT THE RUSSIAN INVADERS AND AFTERWARD WE HURT THEIR PRIDE BY SENDING THEM AID.

What's sad is, this really IS the 'argument' the peaceniks are using. You left out one other very 'logical' reason they hate us; we support a nation that's some 2,000 miles from Kabul, and gee whiz, poor babies don't like that much.

[BRussell]

The official Red Cross statistics for the WTC bombing are closer to 2500 people dead, not 6000.

Now you're doing your best to minimize what happened. You know, you're right. Really, it wasn't THAT bad. Not that many people were killed, when you stop and think about it.

A couple of factual points about your statement:
1. It wasn't a bombing.
2. It wasn't just the WTC - there were two other planes full of people, and one other office building.
3. Estimates are currently around 5000, not 6000.
4. The reason some stats are lower than 5000 is that some numbers include only known and identified dead. But thousands more people are missing and unidentifiable because their remains have been buried, burned, or otherwise completely destroyed.

c) The intention is to actually starve the Afghanis into overthrowing their Government.

That's actually the intention? According to whom? Then why is the US continuing to send aid? That would kinda defeat the purpose of this "Operation Starvation." The actual intention is to defeat the Taliban military so the Northern Alliance can move in and replace the gov't with one that doesn't support and protect terrorists.

d) The last thing the USA wants is Osama bin Laden alive. He might talk...

Oh, great, here come the conspiracies. Let me guess, he's actually a paid US operative who killed 5000 people under CIA orders so they can take over Afghanistan and we'd all have cheaper heroin.

[roger_ramjet]

Something new from Daniel Pipes:

The Danger Within: Militant Islam in America
Commentary
November 2001

...In June 1991, Siraj Wahaj, a black convert to Islam and the recipient of some of the American Muslim community's highest honors, had the privilege of becoming the first Muslim to deliver the daily prayer in the U.S. House of Representatives. On that occasion he recited from the Qur'an and appealed to the Almighty to guide American leaders "and grant them righteousness and wisdom."

A little over a year later, addressing an audience of New Jersey Muslims, the same Wahaj articulated a rather different vision from his mild and moderate invocation in the House. If only Muslims were more clever politically, he told his New Jersey listeners, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate. "If we were united and strong, we'd elect our own emir [leader] and give allegiance to him.... [T]ake my word, if 6-8 million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us." ...

And this is from today's Weekly Standard.

Killing Massoud

[ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]

[zigzag]

Yet another reason to not only abide by the doctrine of separation of church and state, but enforce it rigorously. This includes defeating the well-intended but misguided idea of having the federal government fund religious charities. But that's a subject for a separate thread.

The problem is that people think we need more religion in government, schools, etc., as long as it's predominately their religion, i.e. Christianity. I'd bet dollars to donuts that if Islam or Mormonism or Scientology started spreading quickly in the U.S., the born-agains would start having serious second thoughts about any relationship between government and religion.

[Lerkfish]

back to terrorism:

one of my favorite movies had Mel gibson as a freelance weapons dealer in cambodia and ran air runs during vietnam (Air Cambodia? I forget the name),

anyways, he said he as an australian was supporting the US because he makes judgements on countries based on how fun their saturday nights are.

with this as a criteria, I got to thinking...even if the terrorists suceeded completely and destroyed us all and replaced every government with a taliban-like regime....they have spent their entire lives on hatred and repression. They cant ever win...they lose no matter what. By loving my family and laughing at comedies and just being thankful to god for ALL his creatures, even the crazy fanatical ones trying to kill me, even if my life is short, at least it was a LIFE, not a wasted cesspool of hate.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled program, already in progress...

[VRL]

Again, religion is not what is evil (in regards to the current war). People (al Qaeda, the Taliban) who USE some concept of religion as well as ignorance, hatred etc. in their selfish pursuits for power - they might very well be evil. These groups are using religion to solicit wide support, hoping that anti-American and anti-West sentiment can be manipulated to their advantage. - Power is their goal, not the well-being of people. (Take a look at the Taliban rule of Afghanistan again.)

Comparing self-labeled radicals in Afghanistan with other religions/religious groups is inappropriate, not to mention completely unjust.

Off topic: The proposed charity bill, where the U.S. government could enlist the help of charitable organizations when dealing with those Americans who are in need ... this should not be dismissed outright because of the possible involvement of religions. (You all should read about the bill at http://thomas.loc.gov/) The organizations would have strict guidelines, as would those who need help. Charity groups are (generally) good at helping people and operating efficiently. The same cannot necessarily be said of the bureaucratic government.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by VRL:
<STRONG>Again, religion is not what is evil (in regards to the current war). People (al Qaeda, the Taliban) who USE some concept of religion as well as ignorance, hatred etc. in their selfish pursuits for power - they might very well be evil. These groups are using religion to solicit wide support, hoping that anti-American and anti-West sentiment can be manipulated to their advantage. - Power is their goal, not the well-being of people. (Take a look at the Taliban rule of Afghanistan again.)</STRONG>

if this was directed at me, please read MY post again. I said nothing about religion or islam. I was talking about the terrorists and the Taliban regime. I purposely did not mention religion because I agree with what you are saying about how religion is mainly being used as a recruitment device here.

If you were NOT directing that at me, then I still agree with you.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by VRL:
<STRONG>Off topic: The proposed charity bill, where the U.S. government could enlist the help of charitable organizations when dealing with those Americans who are in need ... this should not be dismissed outright because of the possible involvement of religions. (You all should read about the bill at http://thomas.loc.gov/) The organizations would have strict guidelines, as would those who need help. Charity groups are (generally) good at helping people and operating efficiently. The same cannot necessarily be said of the bureaucratic government.</STRONG>

We should have another thread about this, but one of the problems is that "The organizations would have strict guidelines:" Do we want gov't setting strict guidelines on religious organizations? And if charity groups are so good, and gov't so bad, why involve the (bad) gov't in the (good) charities in the first place?

[VRL]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>

If you were NOT directing that at me, then I still agree with you. </STRONG>

Not directed at you ...

[VRL]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>We should have another thread about this, but one of the problems is that "The organizations would have strict guidelines:" Do we want gov't setting strict guidelines on religious organizations? And if charity groups are so good, and gov't so bad, why involve the (bad) gov't in the (good) charities in the first place?</STRONG>

That's a good point.