But the Quran says...!!! [Archive]

Madrigal

21 Sep 2006, 06:23 PM

Irrelevant pile of drivel about the Quran?

Totally.

First of all, I only bring up the Quran in this sub-forum when people force me to

Forced? Your poor thing. I'll tell that big meanie charred_heart to stop bullying you.

e.g. when they believe they are in the position to have an informed opinion about Islam and its role in middle east politics.

It's role. This great role you dream of is absurdly magnified. That seems to be the only factor that carries any weight for you. Just because great political movements, atrocities or liberation struggles are often verbally justified on the basis of religious mandates - whether it is Bush's bible-thumping or Bin Laden's proclaimed allegiance to Allah - that does not deny that what is at stake is something much more complex, current and volatile, which is the struggle for political and economic hegemony, property, land, autonomy or self-determination. Look past the religious speeches and try to unveil the material interests that they are encloaking. Religions have often been used for this purpose. Pure rhetorical demogoguery and black and white thinking to excite the masses into a blind patriotic fervor for cold, hard and very un-holy interests. By sidetracking the discussions onto this front, you're doing exactly what they want you to do.

You believe that other issues are more relevant. Instead of pointing out why,

Spare me. There are a number of threads here about the Middle East. Most of which I have commented on, and many of which have been hijacked into pointing out that the Quran dictates how virtuous rape is. Save it from this one, thanks.

you decide to start a thread, personally attacking people and calling them all sorts of names.

I haven't personally attacked anyone. Ask yourself why you take it personally.

distraction tactics

21 Sep 2006, 06:30 PM

There are definitely more pressing things to talk about, like the latest Muslim fashions and Islamo-Leninism. Get with it, folks.

meshou

21 Sep 2006, 06:33 PM

Why do we never see Palestinian-Christians, or Arab-Christians in general (and there are a lot of them) blowing themselves up, if the real issues are the ones you stated?We see a few blowing OTHER people up. They're slightly less often and in the US though, and it doesn't get gobs of press.

demagogic_schizoid

21 Sep 2006, 06:52 PM

We see a few blowing OTHER people up. They're slightly less often and in the US though, and it doesn't get gobs of press.

No, per bombing christian terrorist get a lot more press than Islamic ones - because Islamic terrorists attacks are happening every day whilst a christian one is a very rare event indeed.

Stoned_Rider

21 Sep 2006, 06:54 PM

Rape was brought up in a thread titled "This is a rave about Islam". In fact I only made a minor reference to it before CH decided to make a fuss about it.
Interestingly, he chose to discuss rape and IGNORE the other points I raised that were directly relevant to murdering critics of Islam, which is exactly what the thread was all about.

I stand by my position that all the other instances in which I brought up Islam it was totally relevant. You don't like Islam being brought up - start your own forum and BAN me. Or simply put me on ignore.

I don't really like your attitude either but I never complained about it, or tried to impose MY view on what YOU should be saying. I respect that you have the right to say whatever the hell you want, no matter how bigoted you sound. I realize this is a PUBLIC FORUM and when I signed up I was fully aware that there would be people whom I wouldn't really share a coffee with.

How about we leave each other alone. I have no interest in discussing anything with you and from now on I will ignore everything that you say.

Stoned_Rider

21 Sep 2006, 06:55 PM

whilst a christian one is a very rare event indeed.
Forgot to say that an Arab-christian one is a virtually non-existent event.

meshou

21 Sep 2006, 06:59 PM

No, per bombing christian terrorist get a lot more press than Islamic ones - because Islamic terrorists attacks are happening every day whilst a christian one is a very rare event indeed.No, not really. We demonize the bombers in Isreal (the Palestinians, but strangely not the Israeli ones) a lot more than the ones in northern Ireland, or India or the Christian Identity movement in general.

Non-Islamic terroism is just as dangerous and prevelent as Islamic. They just didn't manage to get a hugeass target. Yet.

raincrow007

21 Sep 2006, 07:01 PM

*looks at watch*

Yeah well, I'd hoped for more than this by now, but *shrugs*

I think I'll let Claverhouse make the final ruling. He likes politics. ;)

demagogic_schizoid

21 Sep 2006, 07:05 PM

No, not really. We demonize the bombers in Isreal (the Palestinians, but strangely not the Israeli ones) a lot more than the ones in northern Ireland, or India or the Christian Identity movement in general.

No we don't. It's just that the attacks being carried out by various Islamic groups across the world today are so much more frequent than attacks by the groups that you refferred to, and the attacks themselves are on a much larger scale.

Also, I like the way you talk about "demonizing" mass murderers like it's a bad thing.

Madrigal

21 Sep 2006, 07:06 PM

*looks at watch*

Yeah well, I'd hoped for more than this by now, but *shrugs*

I think I'll let Claverhouse make the final ruling. He likes politics. ;)

The only reason I put it here is because it's only directed at this forum. Yep, it's a rant, but how much ranting goes on in the Relationships forum? It is equally about politics masquerading as religion, and those who buy it, and those who obsessively shove it down our throats whenever we try to discuss something that's going on. I see people consistently derailing threads in this subforum and I wanted to point it out. Frankly, these things are what drain any interest I have in participating in this section of INTPc. If I'm not the only one, I think this is in the right place.

Edit: Also, I have to get back to work now, so I'll pass by later. :) I'm still at the office.

ApeTheDog

21 Sep 2006, 07:07 PM

The Quran sucks, though. Even the pope said it.

meshou

21 Sep 2006, 07:14 PM

No we don't. It's just that the attacks being carried out by various Islamic groups across the world today are so much more frequent than attacks by the groups that you refferred to, and the attacks themselves are on a much larger scale.I'd be willing to wager Christian terrorisim or White Idenity group terrorism, as a whole, is just as common worldwide.

As for scale, there are only one or two groups that have been able to manage 9-11 scale shit in the history of the world. It's a matter of organization, not of numbers, and any other group similarly organized would be just as dangerous.

Also, I like the way you talk about "demonizing" mass murderers like it's a bad thing.I don't talk like it's a bad thing. I said "compared to." We're MUCH more outraged by a suicide bomber in Isreal than a fertility clinic bombing in Chicago. One is MORE demonized.

But thanks for being a condecending prick and putting words in my mouth. It seems to be a talent of yours.

Claverhouse

21 Sep 2006, 07:15 PM

Moved to Rants from The World

Mainly because of this agit-prop:

It's role. This great role you dream of is absurdly magnified. That seems to be the only factor that carries any weight for you. Just because great political movements, atrocities or liberation struggles are often verbally justified on the basis of religious mandates - whether it is Bush's bible-thumping or Bin Laden's proclaimed allegiance to Allah - that does not deny that what is at stake is something much more complex, current and volatile, which is the struggle for political and economic hegemony, property, land, autonomy or self-determination. Look past the religious speeches and try to unveil the material interests that they are encloaking. Religions have often been used for this purpose. Pure rhetorical demogoguery and black and white thinking to excite the masses into a blind patriotic fervor for cold, hard and very un-holy interests. By sidetracking the discussions onto this front, you're doing exactly what they want you to do.

vrag naroda

Claverhouse :ph34r:

Lee

21 Sep 2006, 07:20 PM

Ymir

21 Sep 2006, 07:21 PM

Islam isn't just a religion, it is also a political system, and a legal system. When discussing the middle-east it is impossible to discuss politics without Islam. Don't expect me to agree with some marxist drivel about what causes terrorism and stagnation in Islamic countries.

ptGatsby

21 Sep 2006, 07:23 PM

to do with the economics and politics of Communism.

Errmmm... when did the practical side of communism ever reflect any of Marx's work?

I think the point is that a book of ideology (which Marx's Capital was not, to begin with, but was generally treated that way for some reason) does not reflect reality.

Marx is a perfect example of how far reality shifts from what is written in a book... even an influencial book.

meshou

21 Sep 2006, 07:25 PM

I am surprised you think the Qu'ran has so little to do with these issues.It's just that saying FUCK THE QU'RAN and blaming it on people's religion both insults the many, many, many members if the religon who aren't insane and makes the problem into "Moslems" instead of "Extremists."

I'd rather go after EXTREMIST terrorists of all kinds and have the Qu'ran only as an explaination of HOW they are extremists and not why. Why is as much, if not more, politics and economics as religion.

ptGatsby

21 Sep 2006, 07:26 PM

Don't expect me to agree with some marxist drivel about what causes terrorism and stagnation in Islamic countries.

Well, I agree with Madrigal in part and I'm on the other side of her political views. I don't think it has anything to do with 'Marxism' or anything else.

Islam is part of the picture, but right now the threads tend to get bogged down in "Islam bad religion! Source of all evil! Nothing else had an influence". If that is the case, take it to a seperate thread to argue your point. Specific topics and interpretations in the holy books of religion should have their own discussion, rather than intrude into other threads.

Some leeway is, of course, given considering how involved religion is right now... but it should never consume threads the way it has been lately.

demagogic_schizoid

21 Sep 2006, 07:29 PM

I'd be willing to wager Christian terrorisim or White Idenity group terrorism, as a whole, is just as common worldwide.

I wouldn't. Click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_incidents) for a list of notable terrorist incidents throughout history. Now you can dispute the osurce, but if any of these incidents are untrue or if any notable ones have been missed out, I'm sure you will be able to correct me. And I am sure you will agree that a very disproportionate number of the attacks were carried out by muslims.

As for scale, there are only one or two groups that have been able to manage 9-11 scale shit in the history of the world. It's a matter of organization, not of numbers, and any other group similarly organized would be just as dangerous.

Maybe this because christian governments don't tend to fund christian terrorists.

I don't talk like it's a bad thing. I said "compared to." We're MUCH more outraged by a suicide bomber in Isreal than a fertility clinic bombing in Chicago. One is MORE demonized.

When you say someone is being demonized, it means they are being disproportionately criticised. What it appears that you are saying is that Palestinian suicide bombers are treated unfairly by western media and public opinion - if you thought the condemnation levelled at them was correct, you wouldn't normally have used the word "demonize". But maybe you just made a mistake, if so, I accept that, after all everyone makes mistakes and you can't pay 100% attention to everything you post. But at the end of the day it's still your mistake and it's not my fault - all I can do is judge the meaning of your post on what you say.

meshou

21 Sep 2006, 07:36 PM

if you thought the condemnation levelled at them was correct, you wouldn't normally have used the word "demonize".Demonize. (http://www.answers.com/demonized&r=67) Third definiton. "To represent as evil or diabolic." No mention on whether this representation must be wrong or unfair.

I used the annotative meaning correctly. In my experience, connotation depends on the context. My context was fairly clear.

demagogic_schizoid

21 Sep 2006, 07:38 PM

Yes you're right. Sorry.

Do you think we are right to demonize them?

meshou

21 Sep 2006, 07:47 PM

Do you think we are right to demonize them?I think you'd be hard pressed to find something more evil than an organized group of fanatical mass murderers willing to kill innoccents for personal gain.

I don't argue causes because I think these people are hunky-dory, I argue causes because I think the people in charge of stoping them are fuckups.

Lee

21 Sep 2006, 07:49 PM

Errmmm... when did the practical side of communism ever reflect any of Marx's work?When did I mention the practical side?

I don't think Communism can ever work, but that doesn't mean that individuals may believe it can, and have their influence felt politically and economically. While it is true that Communist revolutions have generally culminated in brutal totalitarian regmies, inequality and poverty far removed from Marx's ideal, that doesn't change the motivations and goals of many who took part and helped incite those revolutions.

I think the point is that a book of ideology (which Marx's Capital was not, to begin with, but was generally treated that way for some reason) does not reflect reality.

Marx is a perfect example of how far reality shifts from what is written in a book... even an influencial book.Great, but that doesn't change the importance of that book in understanding the actions and goals of Communists.

Lee

21 Sep 2006, 07:55 PM

It's just that saying FUCK THE QU'RAN and blaming it on people's religion both insults the many, many, many members if the religon who aren't insane and makes the problem into "Moslems" instead of "Extremists."

I'd rather go after EXTREMIST terrorists of all kinds and have the Qu'ran only as an explaination of HOW they are extremists and not why. Why is as much, if not more, politics and economics as religion.The extremists do find justification for their extremism in the Qu'ran, they truly believe they are doing Allah's will. You might like to pretend that it has nothing to do with Islam, but the extremists who would happily kill you would beg to differ.

Besides, I have seen nobody, here or elsewhere try and pin all Muslims down as extremists, they even go out of their way to include the disclaimer "this does not apply to all who call themselves Muslim," or whatever. In fact, after reading about the Qu'ran my optimism about the whole situation is greatly elivated, since it would appear that so many Muslims are good, nice, law abiding people who treat others with respect, despite the Qu'ran, not because of it.

ptGatsby

21 Sep 2006, 07:56 PM

I wouldn't. Click here for a list of notable terrorist incidents throughout history. Now you can dispute the osurce, but if any of these incidents are untrue or if any notable ones have been missed out, I'm sure you will be able to correct me. And I am sure you will agree that a very disproportionate number of the attacks were carried out by muslims.

Hmm... how about we slice this down.

How many terrorist attacks where there from 1970-1979 that were islamic based?

I counted zero on my scan. I suppose you could count the PLO or something, but those were secular political movements. I count... umm... well over 10 IRA, Black Liberation groups... a few government assasinations. Actually, I think the IRA and associates had something near 50 bombing attacks?

How about before 1970? Anything? I see a lot of political bombings... nothing islamic. Anarchists, Marxists... but nothing Islamic?

Then in 1981, I see one. And wow, a few more. Wonder what triggered them, and their intent... attacks on US and such? Then bang, 1990 hits, and all sorts of groups pop up.

Tell me, what kind of logic states that a 1300 year old religious movement somehow is 'evil' by about two decades of terrorism... at best. I mean, the evidence you presented is exactly why some of us find this stance ridiculous.

ApeTheDog

21 Sep 2006, 08:00 PM

meshou

21 Sep 2006, 08:05 PM

The extremists do find justification for their extremism in the Qu'ran, they truly believe they are doing Allah's will. You might like to pretend that it has nothing to do with Islam, but the extremists who would happily kill you would beg to differ.I believe people find all sorts of justification for doing what they want to do anyway. As for terrorists, they THEMSELVES list their greivances as political acts (although they attribute the cause of those acts to not sharing their beliefs).

demagogic_schizoid

21 Sep 2006, 08:11 PM

The whole Christianity/no terrorists - Islam/terrorists divide has everything to do with the monetary split between regions than with content of the religion.

It IS fundamentally unfair that some people are born into a cesspool of misery which they can never climb out of, and others are born into the world of luxury. Is it so strange that it breeds fundamentalists? (There are fundamentalists on both sides - those who will defend their richess as earned, and those who will condemn the divide)

I agree with that.

I think we have to close the divide, but the same rules should apply for the poor as for the rich, or else we are just glorifying poverty rather than trying to find ways to eliminate it whilst encouraging the poor to not fall into the hands of the many people who wish to exploit them for their own ends - ie political extremists. To do this you nned to make use of deterrants as well as investment and increased opportunities for the poor. Right now I don't think we have enough of either - it seems to me like the left turns it's back on the former, and the right on the latter.

demagogic_schizoid

21 Sep 2006, 08:14 PM

Hmm... how about we slice this down.

How many terrorist attacks where there from 1970-1979 that were islamic based?

I counted zero on my scan. I suppose you could count the PLO or something, but those were secular political movements. I count... umm... well over 10 IRA, Black Liberation groups... a few government assasinations. Actually, I think the IRA and associates had something near 50 bombing attacks?

How about before 1970? Anything? I see a lot of political bombings... nothing islamic. Anarchists, Marxists... but nothing Islamic?

Then in 1981, I see one. And wow, a few more. Wonder what triggered them, and their intent... attacks on US and such? Then bang, 1990 hits, and all sorts of groups pop up.

Tell me, what kind of logic states that a 1300 year old religious movement somehow is 'evil' by about two decades of terrorism... at best. I mean, the evidence you presented is exactly why some of us find this stance ridiculous.

Maybe. I've never read the Qu'ran. But I know that I believe Islamofascism to be the biggest current threat to security and the future of humanity that we face, whatever the reasons for it. And yes, I believe it is on a different scale to any threat we have faced since WW2, because their demands are non-negotiable, unlike groups such as the IRA, and their thirst for the blood of their enemies is unmatched.

ptGatsby

21 Sep 2006, 08:14 PM

When did I mention the practical side?

From Mad;

I'm sick of the debates in this subforum. Any relevant debate about the Middle East gets hijacked into a wholly irrelevant pile of drivel about the Quoran. Geopolitics, economy, resources, wealth, power, imperialism, oppression, those are the issues.

You responded;

I am surprised you think the Qu'ran has so little to do with these issues

The Qu'ran is the major ideological text for most of the Middle-East, and therefore the words contained in the Qu'ran have a major influence over the economy, politics, wealth, power and oppression in that region and relations with the wider world. To suggest that the Qu'ran is not integral to these issues is like saying that Marx's Capital has nothing to do with the economics and politics of Communism.

The problem is the disjunction between 'Islam as an ideal' (ie: Communism as an ideal) and 'Islam as it exists' (ie: Communism as it exists).

In order for the contention that the Qu'ran (and the religious quotes from it) is responsible, it needs to be shown that Islam as it exists depends upon it. That is to say, the Qu'ran is Islam.

No such comment can be made of Marx and the like. Its important to be clear that they are saying that 'Islam is an evil religion, that it is the source of terrorism and it is embodied in the Qu'ran'. To them, its not just an ideological work, an undefined thing that has negative consequences. Its a solid and practical thing, and that it is not outside influences that drive the changes.

For good argument, the two must not be mixed up...

In other words, it must be shown that the Qu'ran, as an ideal, is inherently evil. Such a thing could never apply to Marx' work... the most that could be said is that the conclusions were wrong.

Great, but that doesn't change the importance of that book in understanding the actions and goals of Communists.

Really? I don't understand... how do you work from Das Capital to the actions of communists?

Its easy to understand from the Qu'ran (as it has laws, social systems, etc)... but from Das Capital? Its a critical work on Capitalism... its an economics paper gone on too long.

If we study Marxism and Islam, then there is a correlation - the same ground. But the Qu'ran and Das Capital cannot be compared.

Lee

21 Sep 2006, 08:15 PM

I believe people find all sorts of justification for doing what they want to do anyway. As for terrorists, they THEMSELVES list their greivances as political acts (although they attribute the cause of those acts to not sharing their beliefs).They list among their geivences political acts, but they do not shy away from their larger ideological agenda, which is a worldwide Muslim state. They see the Western world as decadent and morally intolerable, something to be eradicated in the service of Allah. The bigger crackpots like Osama Bin Laden even claim to still be fighting the crusades.

This isn't just a dispute about land or some recent political intervention (though such things certainly don't help, since they can be twisted to capitalise on a general attitude of contempt for infidels into a desire to kill them). The ideology that drives the extremists, and has done so since at least the 1920s (and before in different forms) isn't negotiable, I mean, what are we to do? Make a halfway agreement for them to kill only half the Jews?

This isn't some big secret, because the extremists openly and quite vigorously espouse this stuff, and they also claim to find justification for it in the Qu'ran. Of course, we could say that this is simply a twisting of the Qu'rans real message or selectively ignores other passages, and perhaps so, but by tying this ideology to the Qu'ran, the chasm between ordinary Muslim and extremist is closed to a relatively easy leap.

ptGatsby

21 Sep 2006, 08:28 PM

Maybe. I've never read the Qu'ran. But I know that I believe Islamofascism to be the biggest current threat to security and the future of humanity that we face, whatever the reasons for it. And yes, I believe it is on a different scale to any threat we have faced since WW2, because their demands are non-negotiable, unlike groups such as the IRA, and their thirst for the blood of their enemies is unmatched

Hold up... I need to understand this. You agree that Islamic terrorism is new. You agreed that the Qur?an has always been evil (ie: Islam evil).

How do you resolve this in your mind? How do you ignore all the other types of terrorism and how those problems were resolved?

I know that recent terrorism has gotten more and more dangerous. More than 23 simultaneous car bomb attacks by the IRA isn't that impressive anymore. But why does this make it so different? Can you see why I see it as an emotional decision?

I must admit, I just don't understand... This is a complex issue. I do believe Islam has had an influence, and I'm not really for any religion (ie: They all program triggers into people)...

But history (and economics, psychology, sociology, criminology) all shows that the causes are not that simple. That these conditions would exist devoid of Islam... and the results would too... at best it would of created something to bind them together and we'd be calling it something else. Islam is the common bond, it gives unity to a dangerous movement.

And it wasn't always non-negotiable. They were very clear what they wanted over the last 20+ years. They were ignored, and this is where we are at!

But keep the root causes the same, and in another 20 years, it will have spread farther, deeper. It will get worse, with higher variations (not planes, something bigger). These kinds of things always do.

Lee

21 Sep 2006, 08:34 PM

Really? I don't understand...No, you clearly don't.

Despite Madrigal's wishes, it is not possible to disentangle the words in the Qu'ran and the various interpretations from the economic, social and political conditions in the Middle East and the relations to the wider world. This is largely because the vast majority of people and leaders in the Middle East make their economic, social and political decisions based upon (at least in part) their interpretation of the Qu'ran.

Now, while the interpretations are certainly varied, the variation is not independent of the actual words. Since a text with the words "kill infidels", is easier to interpret as a command to kill infidels than a text which does not contain those words, less selective reading and semantic gymnastics are required to come to the conclusion that the text commands the murder of infidels. This is just an make-believe example, but the Qu'ran really does contain many passages with similar (though generally less extreme) wording.

But I digress. My point about Communists and Marx's Das Capital is simple. Marx's work provides part of the ideology (the economic paradigm if you like) that influences the social, political and economic decisions of communists. Trying to disentangle the Marx's economic theories as presented in Das Capital from communist social, political and economic decisions is both futile and wrong, since it will only hinder our understanding of the situation.

Change Das Capital for The Communist Manifesto if you like, or even a selection of communists works, it doesn't matter to the point I am trying (unsuccessfully) to make.

demagogic_schizoid

21 Sep 2006, 08:44 PM

Hold up... I need to understand this. You agree that Islamic terrorism is new.

I didn't say that.

You agreed that the Qur?an has always been evil (ie: Islam evil).

No I just said that for whatever reason the largest threat to people's well-being today comes from Islamofascism.

How do you resolve this in your mind? How do you ignore all the other types of terrorism and how those problems were resolved?

You can't use the same tactics for dealing with Al Qaeda as you can with the IRA. Al Qaeda's demands are essentially non-negotiable. They may throw up ultimatums now and again, but these are more often than not just strategic, to see how far they can push their luck. In the long run, complying with their demands would do nothing to stop their campaign - in fact it would probably help it to gain momentum.

I know that recent terrorism has gotten more and more dangerous. More than 23 simultaneous car bomb attacks by the IRA isn't that impressive anymore. But why does this make it so different? Can you see why I see it as an emotional decision?

See above. It's clear what the IRA wanted, and they did accept certain boundaries, however despicable their actions.

I must admit, I just don't understand... This is a complex issue. I do believe Islam has had an influence, and I'm not really for any religion (ie: They all program triggers into people)...

That is my view too.

But history (and economics, psychology, sociology, criminology) all shows that the causes are not that simple. That these conditions would exist devoid of Islam... and the results would too... at best it would of created something to bind them together and we'd be calling it something else. Islam is the common bond, it gives unity to a dangerous movement.

I don't think you can just take Islam out of the equation that way, because the development of the whole Islamic world has been profoundly influenced by the religion. Personally I can't be sure one way or the other. I wouldn't ignore motives like nationalism and economic interests, just as I wouldn't ignore the effect that religious doctrine has on people, or on an entire society, regardless of their background.

And it wasn't always non-negotiable. They were very clear what they wanted over the last 20+ years. They were ignored, and this is where we are at!

I don't agree. And I think we were right to ignore such people.

But keep the root causes the same, and in another 20 years, it will have spread farther, deeper. It will get worse, with higher variations (not planes, something bigger). These kinds of things always do.

I agree, we have to deal with the problem of authoritarianism, ignorance, poverty, human desperation etc. in the Islamic world. But don't you think that Islamic doctrine plays a part in creating those root causes?

Lee

21 Sep 2006, 08:53 PM

What I might add here is that the Qu'ran is not the source of these problems, while the Qu'ran influences and constrains the present, the Qu'ran itself is the consequent of socioecnomic conditions that preceeded and shaped it. The Qu'ran is a book, nothing more, humans are the problem.

Madrigal

22 Sep 2006, 01:39 AM

Rape was brought up in a thread titled "This is a rave about Islam".

Untrue. Don't make me dig them up. You know what I'm talking about. From reading this thread, I can see I'm not the only one who has gotten this impression. It's tiring and it kills the spirit of the threads.

In fact I only made a minor reference to it before CH decided to make a fuss about it.

Uh huh, that's what we usually call baiting.

Interestingly, he chose to discuss rape and IGNORE the other points I raised

An approach he might want to adopt more often.

I stand by my position that all the other instances in which I brought up Islam it was totally relevant. You don't like Islam being brought up - start your own forum and BAN me. Or simply put me on ignore.

I want to ignore you, but I simply cannot do so when your sole aim in that subforum is to bait charred_heart or whoever into a discussion about how inherently EVIL Islam is, at the expense of the entire political discussion. It's people like you who make us think that the masses out there are too brainwashed to sustain a serious debate. We've got the entire propaganda machine of the world's greatest hegemon and all of its blood-sucking allies peddling your anti-Islam rhetoric - they don't need your help, and neither do we.

I don't really like your attitude either but I never complained about it, or tried to impose MY view on what YOU should be saying.

Tell me when I derail a thread, and I'll listen.

I respect that you have the right to say whatever the hell you want, no matter how bigoted you sound.

I don't respect your right to be a bigot.

How about we leave each other alone. I have no interest in discussing anything with you and from now on I will ignore everything that you say.

And I will continue not ignoring you.

Madrigal

22 Sep 2006, 01:51 AM

Moved to Rants from The World

Mainly because of this agit-prop:

vrag naroda

Claverhouse :ph34r:

I'm taking that as a joke. While I don't think that the Rants forum is below the World forum in quality threads, I started this there because it's about how world issues are discussed, and there is a regular segment of posters that concentrates on that particular subforum which I was trying to address. By moving the thread, you ignored this fact, and at the same time, implied that this thread is more about letting off steam than trying to raise an issue. It wasn't. I was at work and could not focus on this debate til now. In any case, I have stated my point, it was considered, and that's pretty much all that matters.

demagogic_schizoid

22 Sep 2006, 01:51 AM

How can arguing against a religion be bigotry? A religion is an idea, a personal choice, and Stoned Rider has every right to to give his opinion, especially when the debate is about the Middle East and global terrorism, which is impossible to discuss without mentioning the role of Islam.

And by the way Madrigal, why is Stoned Rider one of the masses, and you aren't? Who made you so important? (except for your own imagination). Also it's pretty hypocritical to call him one of the masses when he is in fact going against what the vast majority of his countrymen believe in - one thing you can't accuse him of is not thinking for himself.

Madrigal

22 Sep 2006, 02:04 AM

I am surprised you think the Qu'ran has so little to do with these issues.

The Qu'ran is the major ideological text for most of the Middle-East, and therefore the words contained in the Qu'ran have a major influence over the economy, politics, wealth, power and oppression in that region and relations with the wider world. To suggest that the Qu'ran is not integral to these issues is like saying that Marx's Capital has nothing to do with the economics and politics of Communism.

While George W. Bush peers into the souls of Americans and screens the evil-doers from the good-doers, and proclaims his divine right to massacre helpless peoples across the globe, when he blocks bills in favour of abortion or stem cell research or other anti-Catholic initiatives, I can clearly see past that rhetoric and understand the social and economic issues that drive his policies. I will not blame an entire religion for the political aims that are attained in its name, just as I won't blame Marx for Stalinism, or the notions of Democracy and Freedom for the results of illegitimate, imperialist occupation or genocide.

Dom

22 Sep 2006, 02:06 AM

Dom

22 Sep 2006, 02:07 AM

While George W. Bush peers into the souls of Americans and screens the evil-doers from the good-doers, and proclaims his divine right to massacre helpless peoples across the globe, when he blocks bills in favour of abortion or stem cell research or other anti-Catholic initiatives, I can clearly see past that rhetoric and understand the social and economic issues that drive his policies. I will not blame an entire religion for the political aims that are attained in its name, just as I won't blame Marx for Stalinism, or the notions of Democracy and Freedom for the results of illegitimate, imperialist occupation or genocide.

what the fuck does he have to gain by blocking stem cell research???

demagogic_schizoid

22 Sep 2006, 02:09 AM

=)) I'm being ignored by Madrigal. I take it as a compliment - if you don't like someone and can beat them in an argument, 10/10 times you will choose to do so. :)

EDIT: oh yeah and by this I don't mean that she likes me and could win the argument but chooses not to. I mean the other thing.

Madrigal

22 Sep 2006, 02:13 AM

what the fuck does he have to gain by blocking stem cell research???

Oh, you probably missed the memo. The Catholic church is a huge business, I hear. They've got branches in every neighbourhood and everything. And some politicians need their support. Because they can reach a hell of a lot of hearts and minds. And wallets.

Dom

22 Sep 2006, 02:15 AM

Oh, you probably missed the memo. The Catholic church is a huge business, I hear. They've got branches in every neighbourhood and everything. And some politicians need their support. Because they can reach a hell of a lot of hearts and minds. And wallets.

he isn't electable to another term.... this is tosh they wont pay him for it...

Where is the direct benefit to Mr shit-for-brains W bush?

meshou

22 Sep 2006, 02:24 AM

=)) I'm being ignored by Madrigal. I take it as a compliment - if you don't like someone and can beat them in an argument, 10/10 times you will choose to do so. :)How many minds have YOU ever changed on this board? Like an actual, deep seeded belief? I'm not so bad at debate, and I've changed all of one that I recall. Assuming I'm not a total fuckup, let's take that as an average over three years.

So, unless you DO respect a person, and think you can learn from arguing, why argue? Lack of self control, immaturity, a vitrolic nature... usually things that don't reflect well on you.

So, if you don't argue to change minds, what do you argue for? Popular opinion. Madrigal is coming off as more mature for abstaining from a futile effort. I think she's winning.

demagogic_schizoid

22 Sep 2006, 02:39 AM

Nemesis

22 Sep 2006, 02:42 AM

=)) I'm being ignored by Madrigal. I take it as a compliment - if you don't like someone and can beat them in an argument, 10/10 times you will choose to do so. :)

Oh, so that's why you haven't even entered the thread I started about the Canadian who was unjustly treated by the United states!

Madrigal

22 Sep 2006, 02:48 AM

How many minds have YOU ever changed on this board? Like an actual, deep seeded belief? I'm not so bad at debate, and I've changed all of one that I recall. Assuming I'm not a total fuckup, let's take that as an average over three years.

I've also only changed one mind over the internet (actually recruited someone), ever since I've used the internet. I've given up on trying to change ideologies this way, but I haven't yet given up on trying to have a discussion on the Middle East without it being derailed into exhaustive postings of Quran extracts in arabic over the "right to rape women."

So, unless you DO respect a person, and think you can learn from arguing, why argue? Lack of self control, immaturity, a vitrolic nature... usually things that don't reflect well on you.

So, if you don't argue to change minds, what do you argue for? Popular opinion. Madrigal is coming off as more mature for abstaining from a futile effort. I think she's winning.

Hehe. :) Truth is, I've already tried to discuss with him on other topics, and he has consistently dodged my points. What was it that Bush said? "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice.. uh.. you aint gonna fool me agin!"

meshou

22 Sep 2006, 02:49 AM

1.) You argue. Not to change opinions, just because when you see someone putting a forward a view you don't agree with and you can tear that view apart, 9/10 people will do it. Especially Madrigal, who it seems to me, judging by her attitude that I have observed on various threads, would especially love to do that.And it has nearly no effect on the other party in nearly every single case.

There comes a time when someone is so hopellesly pointless, you shove them out of your awareness. Swift [deleted by Dr. Haight] got that bad for me. Why not accept you're just loathsome to some people?
2.) When someone asks you decent questions, like I did, and you simply ignore them, that is just cowardice.Or that person doesn't see the merit in them?
Tell me what was vitriolic or immature about my post? You can't, because it wasn't any of those things.I don't know, I haven't been picking over what you've been saying much, and you are pretty pointless to argue with, because even if I did point it out, you'd continue to deny it.

Madrigal has been paying good attention, and I can't speak to her experiences. She can make her own decisions about you fine.
So as it was clearly a post not out of keeping with the tone of the thread, there was no good reason to ignore it. Maybe she doesn't like you and thinks you're such an idiot you're not worth listening to. That's why I'd ignore someone. Same with you, I imagine.
So I claim victory.Yes, everyone is king of the hill.
The only reason to ignore someone, unless they have been particularly out of line with you, is knowing that that person has it over you in some way.I think she genuinely finds you infuriatingly stupid and pointless, since I know she's not a coward.

Nemesis

22 Sep 2006, 03:02 AM

The answer is: The very nature of Islam. Here you are provoking yet another Islam - and possibly Quran - discussion which I will get flamed for.
:stop:

Where have you been flamed before? I've noticed you tend to get into rather heated debates where explatives are hurled around, but I don't think I'd call that being seriously flamed.

Madrigal

22 Sep 2006, 03:03 AM

Madrigal has been paying good attention, and I can't speak to her experiences. She can make her own decisions about you fine. Maybe she doesn't like you and thinks you're such an idiot you're not worth listening to. That's why I'd ignore someone. Same with you, I imagine.Yes, everyone is king of the hill. I think she genuinely finds you infuriatingly stupid and pointless, since I know she's not a coward.
Thanks, your opinion is one of the ones I most respect on this forum; you'll concede that someone's right even if you disagree with them on other issues, and you're never hesitant about calling people on their shit, including my own on several occasions. ;)

Nemesis

22 Sep 2006, 03:26 AM

I think she genuinely finds you infuriatingly stupid and pointless, since I know she's not a coward.
*high-five*

Madrigal

22 Sep 2006, 03:40 AM

Islam isn't just a religion, it is also a political system, and a legal system.

When religion becomes intertwined with the State, ask yourself who is benefitting from that combination, and who is losing. That's when you'll realize which interests the cocktail is serving. At the same time, the oppressed may naturally demand their liberation from occupation through religious appeals, especially since it is that language that taints the moral and value system of the mystically inclined. The heart of the matter does not however cease to be geographical, social, political. A material need or desire is identified, and the familiar language of religion is used to convey it.

When discussing the middle-east it is impossible to discuss politics without Islam.

Never said to rule out Islam. This is a statement against the anti-Islamic obsession reflected on this Board to the detriment of political debate, an obsession that some very powerful people are doing their best to inculcate, preparing our minds for further slaughtering of the Arab people.

Don't expect me to agree with some marxist drivel about what causes terrorism and stagnation in Islamic countries.

It isn't about Marxism. A sharp neocon speaking to another neocon may say the exact same thing; it is their fools who they'll make to believe another.

cafe

22 Sep 2006, 11:01 AM

what the fuck does he have to gain by blocking stem cell research???
It's not banned. Private companies may do it, but at this point, it is blocked from being federally funded. Unless I am confused, the main problem is embryonic stem cell research. There are other types of stem cell research, I think.

LongSilence

22 Sep 2006, 11:13 AM

When religion becomes intertwined with the State, ask yourself who is benefitting from that combination, and who is losing. That's when you'll realize which interests the cocktail is serving. At the same time, the oppressed may naturally demand their liberation from occupation through religious appeals, especially since it is that language that taints the moral and value system of the mystically inclined. The heart of the matter does not however cease to be geographical, social, political. A material need or desire is identified, and the familiar language of religion is used to convey it.

Never said to rule out Islam. This is a statement against the anti-Islamic obsession reflected on this Board to the detriment of political debate, an obsession that some very powerful people are doing their best to inculcate, preparing our minds for further slaughtering of the Arab people.

It isn't about Marxism. A sharp neocon speaking to another neocon may say the exact same thing; it is their fools who they'll make to believe another.

There's a difference between holding the banner of Marxism on high and viewing and analysing the world from a Marxist perspective. The Marxist method of cultural criticism is actually one of the old guy's more successful ideas. Doesn't mean you're not still bent around his ideas, as this post patently shows.

Heleuiski

22 Sep 2006, 12:24 PM

It's not banned. Private companies may do it, but at this point, it is blocked from being federally funded. Unless I am confused, the main problem is embryonic stem cell research. There are other types of stem cell research, I think.

He did it so that he will keep his christians on his side.

meshou

22 Sep 2006, 12:37 PM

He did it so that he will keep his christians on his side.You see, he wants to make it look like if liberals were in charge, there'd be orgies in the street.

Damn straight.

demagogic_schizoid

22 Sep 2006, 12:49 PM

Oh, so that's why you haven't even entered the thread I started about the Canadian who was unjustly treated by the United states!

1.) Because I don't dislike you, so I have no wish to go out of my way to argue with you. This is not the same as me ignoring you. If you ask me appropriate questions I will answer them. If I didn't, I could say it's because you are beneath my consideration or whatever, but really it would be running away.

2.) I just didn't find the topic interesting.

meshou, you say you weren't picking through my posts - well then maybe you shouldn't bother giving an opinion. When someone makes a post like the one Madrigal made, insulting another member who I have a lot of respect for and referring to "the masses", I think it's perfectly appropriate to ask certain questions. Those questions should be answered, if not, the person in question is just running away. It doesn't matter WHO asks the questions - I treat every post the same regardless of who posted it. Otherwise you are simply attacking the messenger and not dealing with the issues themselves. The question is not whether I am any of the things you decribed, it's whether that particular post was - and if you can't show how it was, then there's really no point in you getting involved, because you simply add nothing to the conversation.

Nemesis

22 Sep 2006, 01:30 PM

2.) I just didn't find the topic interesting.
You admit that you don't have a problem with denial of civil rights unless it's in Iran? Lol. Thanks.

demagogic_schizoid

22 Sep 2006, 01:52 PM

You admit that you don't have a problem with denial of civil rights unless it's in Iran? Lol. Thanks.

No.

Why do you always miss the point?

What I was talking about on this thread is when one poster has a tantrum and refuses to answer any posts by another poster, for personal reasons, even when that post contains perfectly relevant questions directed at them which they would answer if anyone else made the post. I'm against that, it lets personal feeling get in the way of discussing the issues.

You twisted that to mean that if I don't respond to every post you make, then I am running away.

I never denied that countries in the west sometimes subvert human rights. I never said I agreed with it. Unlike you, I didn't jump into your thread and try and belittle what happened. I don't have an opinion either way on extraordinary rendition, I don't know all the issues involved. I don't feel it compares to closing down dissenting newspapers in the large scheme of things. But I still wouldn't go out of my way to defend it either. So I didn't say anything. Where is the rule that says I have to have an opinion on everything.

However, I am flattered that you make posts with me in mind. Because I can assure you that when I posted about Iran, I didn't once think "ooooh I hope Nemesis replies".

BTW - there are many examples of abuse of human rights in Iran which I have not commented on as well. It doesn't mean I'm deliberately trying to ignore them. I just don't have that sort of energy. It's the same thing with your post about the Canadian muslim. Get over it.

demagogic_schizoid

22 Sep 2006, 02:04 PM

How many minds have YOU ever changed on this board? Like an actual, deep seeded belief? I'm not so bad at debate, and I've changed all of one that I recall. Assuming I'm not a total fuckup, let's take that as an average over three years.

So, unless you DO respect a person, and think you can learn from arguing, why argue? Lack of self control, immaturity, a vitrolic nature... usually things that don't reflect well on you.

So, if you don't argue to change minds, what do you argue for? Popular opinion. Madrigal is coming off as more mature for abstaining from a futile effort. I think she's winning.

And one more thing, it is possible to change minds. When I was 16 I went on that anti-war march in central London. I was a complete lefty until about a year ago (at the last British elections even). I used to post on a pro-war website as "Blair_Sells_Arms_To_Saudi_Arabia". But then I realised that every argument was pretty much being won by the pro-war people, and that the anti-war ones really were a collection of arrogant, elitist, ignorant, self-righteous closet racist liberals. and I realised that the pro-war ones might have often sounded harsh, but that they actually were able to put aside their prejudices and try and find rational solutions to the problems this world faces rather than just latching onto causes designed simply to reinforce their own sense of self-importance.

www.hurryupharry.bloghouse.net

Thatg was the site where I found all the information and reasoning which eventually helped me put the guilt, pessimism and general unhappiness of being an orthodox lefty behind me (I still wouldn't call myself right wing). I challenge you to go into the comment boxes and peddle your anti-war views, and see if you can come out on top. There are many articles and hundreds of comments every day, and some very knowledgeable people indeed.

Oh and by the way, to come to the opinions I've got I had to go against pretty much everything I was taught - my own family has definite left wing leanings (my grandfather was a Trade Unionist all his life representing bus drivers and shipbuilders in Sunderland. He also hates the USA and votes for Socialist Labour) So I think you're wrong to say that I could never change my mind or be converted, because that is exactly how I came to have the opinions I now have.

Stoned_Rider

22 Sep 2006, 02:41 PM

First of all I'm glad to see this thread is finally where it deserves to be.

Rants and Raves
Is something bugging you? Post your rants and raves here, it'll make you feel better. This is also the right place for heated debate and controversial topics.

The World forum is for discussing news, current events, and politics. A rant directed towards the contents of the World forum is just that - a rant. Something was clearly bugging Madrigal and the sole purpose behind this thread was to make herself feel better by personally attacking other forum users. She might argue that no names were mentioned but I trust that INTPc users are smart enough not to fall for her pathetic, silly, childish little word games.

As for Islam, I will continue to bring it up in whichever thread, in whichever subforum, I feel would be relevant. However I will not argue with the mods or admins should they decide to delete or move my posts. They are the only ones capable of that and I trust they are objective and fair enough to take that sort of decision.

Today I was discussing Ahmadinejad with my colleagues at work. They sincerely believe that Allah is on his side and they prayed that Allah grants him victory over his enemies i.e. "enemies of Allah". They hate America only because he, a fellow "righteous" Muslim, hates America, full stop. Had he not been a Muslim they wouldn't have given a poop, just like they don't give a poop about Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro (until they embrace Islam that is).

Moroccan-American relations are quite healthy in fact. Moroccan people were never oppressed or persecuted by the US, poverty in Morocco is not caused by the US, and Bush never even tried to impose any sort of change in Morocco, because we are doing so ourselves. What other reason could there be for a Moroccan to hate America with such passion and get behind a Persian leader (non-Arab) half the world away who probably doesn't even give a toss about Morocco?

So don't give me this bullshit about oppression and persecution and "geopolitics". Arab mentality has always been hard-wired to be a religious one. Even my most liberal friends use the word "Allah" in every other fucking sentence in their speech. Allah this, Allah that. Even I find myself forced to do that, or else I'd come across as some sort of freak. They see the whole world and life in general from a strictly religious perspective.

Therefore I believe it is safe to assume that their world opinions are largely if not solely based on Islam. It is my conviction that if Islam were to be taken away from their lives, they would have a brand new positive perspective on life. They would aim to bridge gaps between them and the west instead of building walls. They will no longer see any sort of western influence as "Satanic". They might not agree with the west on everything but they will debate such issues instead of blowing innocent people up.

These were briefly my reasons for believing Islam is the issue of most relevance to the middle-east. I might not be very good at expressing myself with words so you probably still don't get the full picture, but I hope you now at least have some sort of idea what it's like to be a middle-eastern and to live among middle-easterns.

Ferrus

22 Sep 2006, 02:48 PM

What the Qu'ran says exactly is fairly useless for a discussion of geopolitics, international economics or other such issues, I agree. However, for a discussion of the domestic issues of the Islamic world - which sometimes, though not always impinge on the international scence, a knowledge of Islam and its tennants are essential for any understanding, surely? I would be like trying to understand Medieval Europe whilst ignoring the existence of Christianity.

Besides which, you automatically assume it is evil corrupt Westerners who are obsessed by Islam, what the Qu'ran says or whatever. I think you will find most people in the Arab world would be deeply interested in such ideas too, the fact that they react so strongly to any denigration of their religions rather suggests that they have more than a passing interest in it, doesn't it?

Just because you are an atheist (as am I), just because you have a political philosophy that relegates religion to the mere status of a product of the superstructure and you come from a culture that is Western (in the broaded sense of the term) which has largely relegated - since the enlightenment - religion to a matter that is either private or at least circumscribed in its bounds shouldn't blind you to the importance of Islam in their culture. As my Muslim politics teacher once said - to a Muslim Islam is not merely a religion in the sense that it is called that in the West, but it is a complete way of life that affects everything, including politics and economics. Do ignore the utmost importance of Islam in the analysis of events in the Middle East is utter folly - one that reveals the hidden arrogance of many Marxists about non-Western cultures that can be as supercillious as the most exploitative capitalist.

Nemesis

22 Sep 2006, 03:42 PM

No.

Why do you always miss the point?

What I was talking about on this thread is when one poster has a tantrum and refuses to answer any posts by another poster, for personal reasons, even when that post contains perfectly relevant questions directed at them which they would answer if anyone else made the post. I'm against that, it lets personal feeling get in the way of discussing the issues.

You twisted that to mean that if I don't respond to every post you make, then I am running away.

I never denied that countries in the west sometimes subvert human rights. I never said I agreed with it. Unlike you, I didn't jump into your thread and try and belittle what happened. I don't have an opinion either way on extraordinary rendition, I don't know all the issues involved. I don't feel it compares to closing down dissenting newspapers in the large scheme of things. But I still wouldn't go out of my way to defend it either. So I didn't say anything. Where is the rule that says I have to have an opinion on everything.

However, I am flattered that you make posts with me in mind. Because I can assure you that when I posted about Iran, I didn't once think "ooooh I hope Nemesis replies".

BTW - there are many examples of abuse of human rights in Iran which I have not commented on as well. It doesn't mean I'm deliberately trying to ignore them. I just don't have that sort of energy. It's the same thing with your post about the Canadian muslim. Get over it.
Sure thing buddy. You keep telling yourself that.

SensEye

22 Sep 2006, 04:36 PM

Getting back the original point of the rant:

I'm sick of the debates in this subforum. Any relevant debate about the Middle East gets hijacked into a wholly irrelevant pile of drivel about the Quoran. I have noticed this tendency on occassion.

There's some crazy shit in the Qu'ran just like there is some crazy shit in the bible (old testament stuff). I'm not sure going through interpretations of the words with a fine tooth comb adds much to the big picture.

If someone wants to make a point that there are more Qu'ran literalists than there are bible literalists due to differences in Islamic culture (for example) I can see the relevance.

However, in general, I suspect throwing Qu'ran quotes around in an Islamic argument is about as useful as throwing bible quotes around in a Christian argument. Which, in my experience, is not very.

Ferrus

22 Sep 2006, 04:47 PM

However, in general, I suspect throwing Qu'ran quotes around in an Islamic argument is about as useful as throwing bible quotes around in a Christian argument. Which, in my experience, is not very.
True, what is important is the way in which people act: however given that most people in the Middle East believe that the Qu'ran is God's words (not Muhammed's or any other mortals) they are of tantamount importance to them and how they act. Indeed they consider themselves God's slaves. I find it incredible that some people here believe that economics or nationalism or whatever influences them more than what they consider the immutable, timeless words of God. Economics, nationalism, oppression or whatever will motivate those who primarily are focused on the transient world of earth but the real fire of Islamic culture (and they have an elan that is completely lacking in the oft effete West) is that they act because they believe their actions grant them merit in the eyes of God. This doesn't mean they wantonly commit terrorism or that they act independantly of the oppression: it does mean that their motives for fighting such things are rather different than most in the secular West. For example, the main problem of poverty for Muslims, as I can see, is not so much the psychological effect on the impoverished, but rather the fact that it is resultant of the immorality of those who allowed them to be impoverished. The Bible is a farrago of nonsense so Christians only take certain sections out, ones that justifies their illogical religion, one that philosophically owes more to St Paul, St Augustine and St Aquinas than the Bible - and fundamentalist christians would argue the bible is divinely inspired but clearly it isn't the word of God as sent through a medium.

Madrigal

22 Sep 2006, 05:17 PM

The extremists do find justification for their extremism in the Qu'ran, they truly believe they are doing Allah's will. You might like to pretend that it has nothing to do with Islam, but the extremists who would happily kill you would beg to differ.

I would happily kill someone if they've killed my family, robbed my land, or occupied my country for decades. And I don't believe in Allah. Is it the Quran that's responsible for the rage of these peoples, or is it the interference of Imperialist powers that have been dismembering the region, plundering their resources, and brutalizing populations into submission?

I don't care how many violent passages there are in the Quran; if one feels the need to blow themselves up in an Israeli market place to protest against the oppression of their nation, I will be intelligent enough to take a look at their living conditions and history instead of being so delerious so as to imagine that these people were peacefully going about minding their own business, living a peachy life, until they one day stumbled across the Quran which dictated "you must kill! Kill the infidels!" I hope you can see my point.

I suppose the Columbine kids decided to kill their classmates because Marilyn Manson told them to? Or maybe it was because they went bowling that morning?

BerberElla

22 Sep 2006, 05:26 PM

I would happily kill someone if they've killed my family, robbed my land, or occupied my country for decades. And I don't believe in Allah.

But what if you haven't had a member of your family killed, or your land robbed, or your country occupied?

Then what?

Would you get up and go across the world because someone occupied another mans land, or killed their family?

Someone you don't know but at the most can say "Well hey, they are white/black, female/male like me, or a *religion* like me"?

Because what is an islamic convert who goes to another country going to fight for?

You can spend your time imagining that the quran has nothing to do with it, that's fine, not true but fine. But you can't stop others from saying it, or adding it to where they see it's relevence.

Madrigal

22 Sep 2006, 05:32 PM

But what if you haven't had a member of your family killed, or your land robbed, or your country occupied?

Then what?

Would you get up and go across the world because someone occupied another mans land, or killed their family?

Someone you don't know but at the most can say "Well hey, they are white/black, female/male like me, or a *religion* like me"?

Yep. May I ask you why Blair jumped in to help out Bush in Iraq, when England hadn't even been bombed yet? WTF business was it of England's? Why did 16 foreign armies invade Russia during the Revolution? Why did Orwell and others go to Spain to fight Fascism during the Civil War? Why did Fascists lend other fascists a helping hand during WW II, and the spread of dictatorships in Latin America? Solidarity, my dear friend, solidarity and mutual interest. That doesn't distinguish Islam at all.

ptGatsby

22 Sep 2006, 05:34 PM

Someone you don't know but at the most can say "Well hey, they are white/black, female/male like me, or a *religion* like me"?

Unfortunately, injustice is injustice. People react to it... no more or less than sending money to 3rd world countries, etc.

In any case, I think the conclusion probably is that Islam does play an important role, but shouldn't dominate the entire thread... and in those cases, specifics shouldn't detract too much from the main topic. Its only a problem when the topic dies off because of the specific details on only one influence.

My view is that the details that are bogging down these threads should be seperated; I'd recommend Madrigal start imperialist threads (etc), and the other side start Islamic threads (etc). At least then, there is a place to argue over interpretations, influence and the like, instead of having one dominate a thread on a specific world topic.

There are lots of contentions that would be interesting, from interventions to the influence of Islam + wealth.

BerberElla

22 Sep 2006, 05:40 PM

Yep. May I ask you why Blair jumped in to help out Bush in Iraq, when England hadn't even been bombed yet? WTF business was it of England's? Why did 16 foreign armies invade Russia during the Revolution? Why did Orwell go to Spain to fight Fascism during the Civil War? Why did Fascists lend other fascists a helping hand during WW II, and the spread of dictatorships in Latin America? Solidarity, my dear friend, solidarity and mutual interest. That doesn't distinguish Islam at all.

Your talking armies, how do Al Qaeda appeal for fighters?

By saying come and show your solidarity?, or by saying "It is jihad" which is an Islamic call to war?

It's the ordinary man, sitting in the mosque, being handed the video, seeing it on the news or downloding it on the net, who is responding to a call for 'solidarity', not an organised army, not a army obeying a leader of their own country.

An English man, born and raised, and with a tree that stretches back through generations, all tied to England, hits 30 and converts to Islam, and all of the sudden his solidarity is for the ummah?

Madrigal

22 Sep 2006, 05:51 PM

Your talking armies, how do Al Qaeda appeal for fighters?

By saying come and show your solidarity?, or by saying "It is jihad" which is an Islamic call to war?

By appealing to their fraternity with those that are oppressed, by appealing to their cultural identity, by demonstrating that if you let them trample on one country, they will be stronger when it comes to trampling on you; must I quote Brecht for you?

It's the ordinary man, sitting in the mosque, being handed the video, seeing it on the news or downloding it on the net, who is responding to a call for 'solidarity', not an organised army, not a army obeying a leader of their own country.

Dear God, get a clue. Who gives a shit if it's a State army or not? Orwell went to Spain on his own. Emma Goldman went to Russia on her own, and she wasn't even a Communist. It just so happens that it's the dominant classes who can rely on mass armies to fulfill their aims; the oppressed have to build their own armies, their own parties, their own organizations. That is their greatest challenge. And just because nobody's screwing you over personally doesn't mean that sitting around waiting for a bomb to drop on your lap is the most intelligent decision to make.

An English man, born and raised, and with a tree that stretches back through generations, all tied to England, hits 30 and converts to Islam, and all of the sudden his solidarity is for the ummah?

Crazy world, isn't it? :)

BerberElla

22 Sep 2006, 05:54 PM

And just because nobody's screwing you over personally doesn't mean that sitting around waiting for a bomb to drop on your lap is the most intelligent decision to make.

I agree, which is why I am not sitting around waiting to be blown up by someone who does take the quran literally. (and there are so many of them)

Madrigal

22 Sep 2006, 05:56 PM

I agree, which is why I am not sitting around waiting to be blown up by someone who does take the quran literally. (and there are so many of them)

Right... and you aren't sitting around educating yourself either.

BerberElla

22 Sep 2006, 05:58 PM

Right... and you aren't sitting around educating yourself either.

I could say the same about you, you haven't even read the quran yet dismiss it out of hand, sweet version of education.

Madrigal

22 Sep 2006, 06:01 PM

I could say the same about you, you haven't even read the quran yet dismiss it out of hand, sweet version of education.

Don't you have an imperialist army to be joining? I have a lot of replies to get to on this thread, and you're delaying that. :wave:

BerberElla

22 Sep 2006, 06:03 PM

Don't you have an imperialist army to be joining? I have a lot of replies to get to on this thread, and you're delaying that. :wave:

Not really, i am happy to stay here and watch this kind of mind at work, it's really fascinating. People told me about 'Western dont have a clue' like you but I didn't believe it.

I think i'll just chill and watch you, it's educating to say the least.

attila_the_hunny

22 Sep 2006, 06:07 PM

Don't you have an imperialist army to be joining? I have a lot of replies to get to on this thread, and you're delaying that. :wave:

And here I thought you had a protest to go to.

Madrigal

22 Sep 2006, 06:12 PM

Not really, i am happy to stay here and watch this kind of mind at work, it's really fascinating. People told me about 'Western dont have a clue' like you but I didn't believe it.

I think i'll just chill and watch you, it's educating to say the least.

I'm pleased that you will watch, though I have no hope that you will learn.

And here I thought you had a protest to go to.

Actually I have a deadline to meet. So I'll be back later, again.

charred_heart

22 Sep 2006, 07:08 PM

I agree, which is why I am not sitting around waiting to be blown up by someone who does take the quran literally. (and there are so many of them)
Sahara, I think you should read this (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=14523)
edit: not in relation to what you said though.

BerberElla

22 Sep 2006, 07:16 PM

Sahara, I think you should read this (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=14523)
edit: not in relation to what you said though.

Thanks, I did.

Lee

22 Sep 2006, 07:35 PM

First, your point, while valid, is a notable distancing from your initial comments. I agree that studying and trying to understand the historical events which shaped the Qu'ran, Bible, Torah or whatever, and also studying the social circumstances that shape current interpretations are more important than the texts themselves.

However, the importance in understanding the culture of the Middle-East (in particular) cannot be understood without talking about their holy book, which is moulded upon the culture that shaped it.

But second...

While George W. Bush peers into the souls of Americans and screens the evil-doers from the good-doers, and proclaims his divine right to massacre helpless peoples across the globeThat's just patently silly.

I can clearly see past that rhetoric and understand the social and economic issues that drive his policies.I really don't think you can, granted I have seen little more than quite superficial analysis, but most of your political views seem to be based off seriously flawed to vague dialectical materialism and socialist class war theories.

I will not blame an entire religion for the political aims that are attained in its name, just as I won't blame Marx for Stalinism, or the notions of Democracy and Freedom for the results of illegitimate, imperialist occupation or genocide.That sounds remarkably like something I once heard George W. Bush say.

Ferrus

22 Sep 2006, 08:37 PM

Don't you have an imperialist army to be joining? I have a lot of replies to get to on this thread, and you're delaying that. :wave:
Could you actually argue logically rather than making "witty" and innane ripostes? Kthx

Madrigal

22 Sep 2006, 09:08 PM

Tell me, what kind of logic states that a 1300 year old religious movement somehow is 'evil' by about two decades of terrorism... at best. I mean, the evidence you presented is exactly why some of us find this stance ridiculous.

Yeah, it is ridiculous. The "evils" of Islam and the Quran are especially evil nowadays because the US is forcefully attempting to reshape the Middle East. Never before did we have to hear so much propaganda on the supposed all-encompassing Islamic hatred for the West and its Freedom.

They list among their geivences political acts, but they do not shy away from their larger ideological agenda, which is a worldwide Muslim state.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. How about the wordwide consequences of U.S. political and military intervention? Has the U.S. not been conquering the world for decades already? They're still interfering, invading sovereign countries, supporting dictators, meddling in weaker countrys' national economic policies, and all the while we're supposed to be fearing the coming Invasion of its enemy-du-jour. Ironic if you ask me.

meshou

22 Sep 2006, 09:10 PM

Lee

22 Sep 2006, 09:28 PM

This is exactly what I'm talking about. How about the wordwide consequences of U.S. political and military intervention? Has the U.S. not been conquering the world for decades already? They're still interfering, invading sovereign countries, supporting dictators, meddling in weaker countrys' national economic policies, and all the while we're supposed to be fearing the coming Invasion of its enemy-du-jour. Ironic if you ask me.The US must be the single most inept empire ever, because it has spectacularly failed to conquer and colonise practically anywhere.

The US is a lot of things, and the leaders have done many things which I do not agree with or think right, but the US is not a empire out to conquer the world. At best, it is a fleeting arrangement of politicians who sometimes do evil in the world to keep themselves in power until the next guy comes along, a common symptom of practically every government that ever existed. The intentions you ascribe to those in power in the US are completely betrayed by their words and actions, on almost every front. That is not to say that all policies of the US government are benign or right, just that they show little of the purposefulness you suppose they have.

To show how asymmetric the values of the US government and the Islamic Extremists really are, just imagine what would happen if Islamic Extremists could wield the incredible military and economic power the US has (they would certainly show Bush how to do unilaterla action properly). Trying to equate both sides in this conflict is a neat rhetorical trick, but it bears no resemblence to what these sides say and do.

demagogic_schizoid

22 Sep 2006, 09:32 PM

The US must be the single most inept empire ever, because it has spectacularly failed to conquer and colonise practically anywhere.

The US is a lot of things, and the leaders have done many things which I do not agree with or think right, but the US is not a empire out to conquer the world. At best, it is a fleeting arrangement of politicians who sometimes do evil in the world to keep themselves in power until the next guy comes along, a common symptom of practically every government that ever existed. The intentions you ascribe to those in power in the US are completely betrayed by their words and actions, on almost every front. That is not to say that all policies of the US government are benign or right, just that they show little of the purposefulness you suppose they have.

To show how asymmetric the values of the US government and the Islamic Extremists really are, just imagine what would happen if Islamic Extremists could wield the incredible military and economic power the US has (they would certainly show Bush how to do unilaterla action properly). Trying to equate both sides in this conflict is a neat rhetorical trick, but it bears no resemblence to what these sides say and do.

Quoted for truth.

ptGatsby

22 Sep 2006, 09:42 PM

The US must be the single most inept empire ever, because it has spectacularly failed to conquer and colonise practically anywhere.

Hmm, the definition of 'Colony' includes;

* a geographical area politically controlled by a distant country

How far removed is that from the various political and military interventions throughout the world? There is a long history of overthrowing countries until a 'friendly' dictator emerges. Its not quite controlled... but its the next best thing.

But otherwise, I do agree with you.

Course, I'd make an argument that Islam could not generate this kind of a society capable of such things (Its like saying Christianity is responsible for the western position, where its all unified)... and I'd argue that the US could easily find itself on a slippery slope towards such a civilisation (if it hasn't already)... and I'd make an argument that political pressure would also be applied to an Islamic state doing such things (Islam is hardly a billion people united, and so pressure would mount from both sides. The assumption is that the world under their 'rule' would be the same as now).

I have no doubt that Islam progressing through the same history path would of been slave owners, etc. Maybe worse, maybe time would of ground them to moderates... who knows.

But they certainly don't deserve equivalence now. That does not, however, imply that they didn't contribute factors to the current state of affairs.

Lee

22 Sep 2006, 09:49 PM

Madrigal

22 Sep 2006, 09:55 PM

The US must be the single most inept empire ever, because it has spectacularly failed to conquer and colonise practically anywhere.

The US is not an Empire that assumed its global position during Capitalism's most healthy historical moment. It became an Empire during the Capitalism's more convulsive and decadent stage. You can mark Capitalism's turning point at 1914, the year in which the system needed to begin destroying mass human and economic resources to continue expanding again. Not a good era to be a hegemon, if you ask me.

The US is a lot of things, and the leaders have done many things which I do not agree with or think right, but the US is not a empire out to conquer the world.

Semicolony is not the same as colony. Imperialism takes on many different forms.

At best, it is a fleeting arrangement of politicians who sometimes do evil in the world to keep themselves in power until the next guy comes along, a common symptom of practically every government that ever existed.
That's a very anti-intuitive way to look at it.

The intentions you ascribe to those in power in the US are completely betrayed by their words and actions, on almost every front. That is not to say that all policies of the US government are benign or right, just that they show little of the purposefulness you suppose they have.

There have been repeated cases of ineptitude and failure - Vietnam and Iraq are only two examples. But it doesn't mean there's no global design being imposed, and it doesn't mean it hasn't succeeded and continues to succeed on a variety of fronts. I posted a very long list of US-backed dictators here once, which stretched throughout the 20th Century. Was that pure coincidence?

To show how asymmetric the values of the US government and the Islamic Extremists really are,

Don't even start about values, Lee. You can't talk to me about US govt. values when they have helped make 30,000 people disappear in my country alone, while training Latin American dictators and their forces on how to torture dissidents, how to wage dirty wars. School of the Americas, maybe you should look that up. Not to mention that the US is the only country whose govt. dropped an atomic bomb. So save the values song and dance for someone else who's easily shocked by a burka.

demagogic_schizoid

22 Sep 2006, 09:55 PM

I should note here that I do not think Islamic Extremists are all they're cracked up to be, there is a lot of propoganda and misleading information that serves poiliticians interests and not necessarily the people of America. That being said, I think they could inadvertantly pull of something very beneficial in Iraq, not because they are just such good people or even because the war was right all along, but because they might just leave a free and potentially prosperous state. Regardless of the prior rights, wrong and intentions of those involved, we can all hope for that future.

Exactly.

To use a recent example, nobody now cares about America's intentions when they nuked Japan or got involved in Korea, because the difference between Japan and S.Korea on one hand and N.Korea on the other speaks volumes about the danger American "imperialism" presents as a pose to the danger of collectivist doctrines.

Lee

22 Sep 2006, 09:55 PM

Course, I'd make an argument that Islam could not generate this kind of a society capable of such things (Its like saying Christianity is responsible for the western position, where its all unified)...I don't understand what you mean here.

I have no doubt that Islam progressing through the same history path would of been slave owners, etc. Maybe worse, maybe time would of ground them to moderates... who knows.Try finding any civilisation that has not got slavery in its past. In fact, the Middle-East is among the worst. A little known fact is that more slaves were taken from Africa to the Middle-East than were taken to the Americas or Europe, but luckily for those who were taken to America and Europe, those societies were in the early stages of a political movement to bring down the institution of slavery. The Middle-East had no such corresponding movement.

Madrigal

22 Sep 2006, 10:09 PM

I keep trying to go back and address the posts in order, but everytime I answer one I get answers to that answer and... hehe. Be back later.

ptGatsby

22 Sep 2006, 10:12 PM

I don't understand what you mean here.

I guess the question is, are the values that are present in Christianity required; or alternatively, must the values in the Qu'ran be missing in order for such a society to be present?

IOW, could an industrial civilization work under full Islamic law? Could Israel operate under the Torah, or the US operate under the OT/NT? Could Iran operate under the Qu'ran?

I would contend that such a thing is impossible; that any group that could of risen to power would require certain basic forms to emerge. I do believe that certain forms (democracy or similar structures) are required, just as I believe increased suffrage would emerge from industrial nations. Democracy is a matter of personal power (ie: emergence of small arms and political movements, instead of just the military)... its not just voting.

Islam may be a barrier to entry (Iran is an example of a 'Islamic' state that has gone practical)... but the end result of passing through that barrier is the removal of the traits which hold back advancement. The farther back you go, the worse the socio-political landscape...

IOW, an Islamic state could never be in the position the US is in without giving up some of its core ideology, no more than the US could of if it embraced the OT, or Israel the Torah.

The danger is in having made it, then slipping back. A tower of cards, if you will.

As you say, what would happen if the US became like the enemy?

Try finding any civilisation that has not got slavery in its past. In fact, the Middle-East is among the worst. A little known fact is that more slaves were taken from Africa to the Middle-East than were taken to the Americas or Europe, but luckily for those who were taken to America and Europe, those societies were in the early stages of a political movement to bring down the institution of slavery. The Middle-East had no such corresponding movement.

Yes, exactly. Civilisations are not so different, religion or not. I mean, Christianity was practising slavery(even if they didn't like it!) long before Islam even existed.

It comes back down to: could a civilisation become industrialised and move into the information age if true slavery (lack of human rights) existed? I don't think it has... even in those cases where it appears for a moment, the advancement is all external. Industry requires the capitalist mindset, which operates on velocity... freedom feeds the velocity, and it takes on a life of its own.

Lee

22 Sep 2006, 10:22 PM

The US is not an Empire that assumed its global position during Capitalism's most healthy historical moment. It became an Empire during the Capitalism's more convulsive and decadent stage. You can mark Capitalism's turning point at 1914, the year in which the system needed to begin destroying mass human and economic resources to continue expanding again. Not a good era to be a hegemon, if you ask me.Unfortunately, that just shows your ignorance of how capitalism works. It doesn't even make a bit of sense, since you can't expand by destroying resources.

Semicolony is not the same as colony. Imperialism takes on many different forms.Oh, I agree the US government has placed all kinds of puppet governments in power around the world, and meddled in all sorts of things it shouldn't have. However, these usually reflect the particular political circumstances and incentives acting upon those in power, not an overarching goal.

Just look at the governments themselves, who often vehemently disagree with each other (often most vigorously on foreign policy), publically deride one another and have very different concepts about how society works, yet we are also to suppose they are part of a wider conspiracy to impose American Hegemony on the world? This is precisely why the only Chomsky book I ever read made no sense, because he completely failed to produce any causal explanation of how these events were connected.

That's a very anti-intuitive way to look at it.Perhaps, but how "intuitive" it is doesn't bother me, since I'd rather try and find out what is really happening rather than how intuitive my explanation sounds.

As it happens, that explanation does make good sense once we stop anthropomorphising the US government over a perion of the last 90 years. Most politicians are concerned with getting in and staying in positions of power, after all, that is their career.

Therefore, the decisions of politicians tend to reflect the incentives which different circumstances bring to them, most damaging US foreign policy (and this applies to the leaders of practically all countries) tends to come about in circumstances where politicians can increase their own wealth, power and influence by supporting dictatorial puppet governments and helping to displace less agreeable regimes.

There is nothing intrinsic to capitalism about this, in fact, capitalist countries tend to be the least badly behaved of the lot. Just look at how powerful not capialist countries behave on the world stage, such as Nazi Germany or "Communist" Russia.

There have been repeated cases of ineptitude and failure - Vietnam and Iraq are only two examples. But it doesn't mean there's no global design being imposed, and it doesn't mean it hasn't succeeded and continues to succeed on a variety of fronts. I posted a very long list of US-backed dictators here once, which stretched throughout the 20th Century. Was that pure coincidence?A long list of US backed dictators is not indicative of a "global design." A long list of US backed dictators is consistent with many other possible explanatioins, including the one I breifly outlined.

The idea that there has been this "global design" appears very weak when you consider how transient the US government has been, how many different people with different ideologies have sat in those seats of power, how antagonistic these supposed collaborators have been.

Quite frankly, the "glabal design" conspiracy theory doesn't hold up as an explanation of such very real facts as those you listed.

Don't even start about values, Lee. You can't talk to me about US govt. values when they have helped make 30,000 people disappear in my country alone, while training Latin American dictators and their forces on how to torture dissidents, how to wage dirty wars. School of the Americas, maybe you should look that up. Not to mention that the US is the only country whose govt. dropped an atomic bomb. So save the values song and dance for someone else who's easily shocked by a burka.Unfortunately, none of that tirade impacts upon my point, which is the asymmetry between the opposing sides. If Islamic Extremists could wield a state with the power of America, then you'd find out what a real empire looks like. Thing is, nobody can weild the power of America like that, since the very policital institutions and processes, as well as individual freedom conspire to prevent sure an ability in the hands of anyone.

Edit: I don't think it is beyond almost any American policitian to be as ruthless, violent and xenophobic as their Islamic Extremist counterparts, the main diffrence is the circumstances they are operating in.

Perhaps "values" was the wrong word, because you're right, the US has had a hand in lots of really bad shit, I wouldn't deny that or try and justify it. However, I think your explanation of why these events are occuring is severely flawed.

meshou

22 Sep 2006, 10:38 PM

We aren't imperialists. We just overthrow governments and assasinate when we don't like the leaders. Also, we poision economies and force them to borrow from us so every time we don't like a decision of theirs, we can yank them back into line.

We don't have colonies, we just invade and extort nations that don't tow the line.

demagogic_schizoid

22 Sep 2006, 10:40 PM

Lee

22 Sep 2006, 10:42 PM

IOW, an Islamic state could never be in the position the US is in without giving up some of its core ideology, no more than the US could of if it embraced the OT, or Israel the Torah.Sure, I agree.

One of the dilemmas of being a dictator is how to increase the nations power. In order to become powerful, the nation must expand its economy, encourage diversity, freedom and science. But for a dictator to wield power unilaterally he needs to suppress diversity, freedom and science.

This dilemma is unsolvable, since you cannot have one without the other. This is why so many dictatorial regimes are so poor and weak. Sadly, the Middle-East is cursed with oil reserves that have propped up such regimes in relative power.

Lee

22 Sep 2006, 10:43 PM

Melody

22 Sep 2006, 10:45 PM

Just because great political movements, atrocities or liberation struggles are often verbally justified on the basis of religious mandates - whether it is Bush's bible-thumping or Bin Laden's proclaimed allegiance to Allah - that does not deny that what is at stake is something much more complex, current and volatile, which is the struggle for political and economic hegemony, property, land, autonomy or self-determination. Look past the religious speeches and try to unveil the material interests that they are encloaking. Religions have often been used for this purpose. Pure rhetorical demogoguery and black and white thinking to excite the masses into a blind patriotic fervor for cold, hard and very un-holy interests. By sidetracking the discussions onto this front, you're doing exactly what they want you to do.:thumbup:

If Islamic Extremists could wield a state with the power of America, then you'd find out what a real empire looks like. Thing is, nobody can weild the power of America like that, since the very policital institutions and processes, as well as individual freedom conspire to prevent sure an ability in the hands of anyone.:thumbup:

Magajy

22 Sep 2006, 11:05 PM

I'm sick of the debates in this subforum. Any relevant debate about the Middle East gets hijacked into a wholly irrelevant pile of drivel about the Quoran. Geopolitics, economy, resources, wealth, power, imperialism, oppression, those are the issues. I'm fucking sick and tired of people jumping in with "but the Quran justifies rape! Islam is evil!" and other such bullshit. Get over it, look at the issues, and stop being the sad, sterile, pedantic, pseudo-intellectual wanking dilletante amateurs that they want you to be.

/rant

I agree. It has actually pushed me to shun INTPc as a whole for a while now; even though I appreciate a lot here are aethesits, I do enjoy their take on things, open mindedness and stuff.

But those that are out here just to demonise Islam as a whole, I just cannot stand, they speak of the Qur'an and I begin to wonder whether it is the same one I read daily; they speak of Islam and I wonder whether they speak of another version from saturn.

Hate Islam if you will, but don't make your disdain for it your reason for participating in this forum, I plead.

We have ur own fair share of extremists, and believe me it is an issue on every Muslims mind, how to quench their influence, but we don't see the world in the eyes of GWB.

And I found this funny
I agree, which is why I am not sitting around waiting to be blown up by someone who does take the quran literally. (and there are so many of them)There is no mention of bombs in the Qur'an, so they couldn't have read it literally.:lol:

INTrePid

22 Sep 2006, 11:07 PM

It's "Koran" btw.

Magajy

22 Sep 2006, 11:09 PM

It's "Koran" btw.

Says who?

demagogic_schizoid

22 Sep 2006, 11:10 PM

We have ur own fair share of extremists, and believe me it is an issue on every Muslims mind, how to quench their influence,

What even the ones who were out dancing in the streets after 9/11? When you say "every muslim", I find it impossible to believe you.

And I found this funnyThere is no mention of bombs in the Qur'an, so they couldn't have read it literally.:lol:

But there is mention of killing infidels, so then again maybe they could.

Arioch

22 Sep 2006, 11:11 PM

IOW, could an industrial civilization work under full Islamic law? Could Israel operate under the Torah, or the US operate under the OT/NT? Could Iran operate under the Qu'ran?

You know, a lot of people don't seem to realize something. There has never been a state in the history of the world that operated solely on the Qu'ran. There has enver even been a state that worked fully on the Quran and Hadith. dar-al-Islam, the Islamic Empire in the days of yore had laws that were based more on practicality then anything else. There was for example the practice that if a place had certain laws that did not go against any divine laws it was kept, simply because it worked.

Arioch

22 Sep 2006, 11:17 PM

It's "Koran" btw.

Qu'ran or Qur'an are both better ways to spell it. It is a holy book, not a side dish that one orders together with kun pow chicken

Magajy

22 Sep 2006, 11:22 PM

What even the ones who were out dancing in the streets after 9/11? When you say "every muslim", I find it impossible to believe you.I am sure you know what I am talking about, and I believe you are intelligent enough to distinguishe the type of Muslims I mean from those that will celebrate death of many poeple including Muslims.

But there is mention of killing infidels, so then again maybe they could.Quite sure, just as it is mentioned in other books that came before the Qur'an. In the Qur'an I can tell you, there is no such instruction blindly sitting there as an open authorisation for war, it always comes as in "fight them in response to them fighting you"; it's no different to any military rules of engagement.

Arioch

22 Sep 2006, 11:23 PM

But there is mention of killing infidels, so then again maybe they could.

It's funny, but whenever I hear the verses in which they claim Muslims are commanded to kill the infidels, I notice that often they forget the part that comes afterwards that usually says something like "but stop when they stop oppressing you".

Stoned_Rider

22 Sep 2006, 11:27 PM

It's funny, but whenever I hear the verses in which they claim Muslims are commanded to kill the infidels, I notice that often they forget the part that comes afterwards that usually says something like "but stop when they stop oppressing you".

Arioch and Magajy, Please (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=12873&p=369017).

Magajy

22 Sep 2006, 11:34 PM

Arioch and Magajy, Please (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=12873&p=369017).

I think this was exactly what Madrigal was ranting about.

I know that thread I have particpated in it; and I cannot but notice the sentence you higlighted in red was what Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said and not a quote of the Qur'an and it is in the PAST tense; we have discussed this long enough in that thread and I will not start a new discussion here.

meshou

22 Sep 2006, 11:37 PM

You do this personally? That's interesting.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed [...]

Yes.

demagogic_schizoid

22 Sep 2006, 11:40 PM

Stoned_Rider

22 Sep 2006, 11:41 PM

I think this was exactly what Madrigal was ranting about.

I know that thread I have particpated in it; and I cannot but notice the sentence you higlighted in red was by Ibn-Kathir and not a quote of the Qur'an and it is in the PAST tense; we have discussed this long enough in that thread and I will not start a new discussion here.

Excuse me? When did you participate in that thread? You didn't utter a single word!

Besides I don't believe Madrigal was ranting about Quranic discussions in the Philosophy and Spirituality subforum. I posted that link in order to avoid a prolonged Quran discussion in this thread. Can't I even post a link which is directly relevant to Arioch's claim?

meshou

22 Sep 2006, 11:43 PM

I agree with meshou there - each and every one of us is partly responsible for the actions of our governments, because however much we may try not to be, we are inevitably a part of our society, and it's from this society which governments stem. Even if they are not elected.It does get a little hairier when another nation invades you if THEY don't like your government. In that case, THAT nation and its citizens may be considered equally (or more) responsible, and it is THEIR DUTY to rebel against tyranny.

Good for them for doing so.

Magajy

22 Sep 2006, 11:47 PM

Excuse me? When did you participate in that thread? You didn't utter a single word!Okay, I mixed it up with the one that gave birth to the one you quoted. Same stuff.

Besides I don't believe Madrigal was ranting about Quranic discussions in the Philosophy and Spirituality subforum.But this is rants and raves and not spirituality stuff.

I posted that link in order to avoid a prolonged Quran discussion in this thread. Can't I even post a link which is directly relevant to Arioch's claim?Good to know, you are avoiding a discussion on th Qur'an, progress, I see.

demagogic_schizoid

22 Sep 2006, 11:52 PM

It does get a little hairier when another nation invades you if THEY don't like your government. In that case, THAT nation and its citizens may be considered equally (or more) responsible, and it is THEIR DUTY to rebel against tyranny.

Good for them for doing so.

You wouldn't be talking about Iraq by any chance would you?:rolleyes:

Yeah, good (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/14/sprj.irq.police/index.html) for them, they have committed (http://english.pravda.ru/photo/report/97) some really admirable ("http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2006/09/mil-060918-voa04.htm) acts.

INTrePid

22 Sep 2006, 11:54 PM

Qu'ran or Qur'an are both better ways to spell it. It is a holy book, not a side dish that one orders together with kun pow chicken
Moslems. Tofu, not chicken.

Magajy

22 Sep 2006, 11:57 PM

Moslems. Tofu, not chicken.

and what exactly is your point, if any.

Which word comes next?

meshou

23 Sep 2006, 12:00 AM

You wouldn't be talking about Iraq by any chance would you?:rolleyes: Iraq. Large parts of South America. Iran. Viet Nam. Korea.

The American Revolution can be legitimately portrayed as a series of terrorist acts. Same with nearly any war post WWII, depending whose side you're on. Guerilla warfare is now the norm, and has been the technique a weak force uses against a stronger force since the French and Indian wars.

This is modern warfare. It's ugly.

demagogic_schizoid

23 Sep 2006, 12:15 AM

Iraq. Large parts of South America. Iran. Viet Nam. Korea.

Yawn. This has already been dealt with on this thread - I even made a specific post about Korea. Here's a tip - consider if you would rather live in the south or the north, and then ask yourself if American imperialism really is such a threat to humanity.

The American Revolution can be legitimately portrayed as a series of terrorist acts.

On a par with blowing up school buses?

Same with nearly any war post WWII, depending whose side you're on.

I'd rather be on the side of the 68% who risked their lives to vote than on the side of the minority whot ry to impose their will by terrorising civilians.

This is modern warfare. It's ugly.

You don't say. But you condemn America for taking part in this process (even though their tactics are not morally equivalent to those of the insurgents), but you do not condemn the insurgents for doing so. You say "good for them". So effectively, you argue against America from the point of view of a pacifist, therefore ruling out listening to an argument in favour of the ideas which they fight for by simply pointing to their methods and walking away, but you then change your stripes when faced with the crimes of the insurgency, simply brushing off their actions as "modern warfare" and then going on to defend their reasoning. You apply double standards. It's a clever trick, granted, but over a period of time you will get caught out.

So if you want to accept modern warfare for what it is, I challenge you to put aside your distatse for the Allies methods, just as you put aside your distatse for the insurgents methods (which I maintain are on a different scale), and consider the respective merits of the IDEAS which both sides represent.

meshou

23 Sep 2006, 12:28 AM

You don't say. But you condemn America for taking part in this process (even though their tactics are not morally equivalent to those of the insurgents), but you do not condemn the insurgents for doing so.No, I am arguing against the fucking idiots who do the exact fucking opposite. We are JUST as culpible because we fucking set up the situation.

On top of that, of course if you go up against a weaker enemy there will be guerilla warfare. We did NOT go in expecting that. We did NOT have an insurgency plan until less than a year ago, and that's killed quite a few of our soldiers. That's because our government is full of fucking morons.

You say "good for them". So effectively, you argue against America from the point of view of a pacifist, therefore ruling out listening to an argument in favour of the ideas which they fight for by simply pointing to their methods and walking away, but you then change your stripes when faced with the crimes of the insurgency, simply brushing off their actions as "modern warfare"If we walk into a modern war, we should not be SHOCKED and OUTRAGED at the opposite side trying to win really really hard. We should be prepared. We weren't!

and then going on to defend their reasoning. You apply double standards. It's a clever trick, granted, but over a period of time you will get caught out.I don't apply a double standard. I have not at all claimed to be presenting a Unified Theory of What Ought To Be Done. I've been pointing out where we've fucked up because maybe if America wasn't treated as having handled this fucking prefectly, we could learn from our mistakes. But that's not the American way, is it?

If you don't think we've fucked up many, many times, you're an idiot.

So if you want to accept modern warfare for what it is, I challenge you to put aside your distatse for the Allies methods, just as you put aside your distatse for the insurgents methods (which I maintain are on a different scale), and consider the respective merits of the IDEAS which both sides represent.I can't DO anything about insurgent methods. It'd be futile for me to treat them as anything but the reality of the situation.

As an American voter, I CAN hold my government's nuts to the grindstone over OUR fuckups. It is my right and duty as a citizen.

demagogic_schizoid

23 Sep 2006, 12:45 AM

No, I am arguing against the fucking idiots who do the exact fucking opposite. We are JUST as culpible because we fucking set up the situation.

I don't know about that, what I do know is that it's pointless trying to look back and blame people. What matters now is that there is an Iraqi government which the people elected, and there is a great effort being made by many brave Iraqis to build a secure, prosperous, liberal democracy which will offer some hope to it's future generations. Then there is the Islamist view for the nation, which involves stamping out any democracy, human rights, rights for women, homosexuals, scientific advance, social justice etc. Then there are the nationalist movements which want to subvert other tribes for the advancement of their own. I know which Iraq I would like to see in the future, and I don't see how worrying about whether were right to start the war will change that. What matters is how it ends.

O
n top of that, of course if you go up against a weaker enemy there will be guerilla warfare. We did NOT go in expecting that. We did NOT have an insurgency plan until less than a year ago, and that's killed quite a few of our soldiers. That's because our government is full of fucking morons.

I would imagine a lot of them are very clever people. However, you are right in that they didn't plan well enough for post-Saddam Iraq. I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

If we walk into a modern war, we should not be SHOCKED and OUTRAGED at the opposite side trying to win really really hard. We should be prepared. We weren't!

I really do think we should be outraged (maybe not surprised) that people deliberately seek to kill maximum numbers of civilians on a daily basis, in order to impose either a religous fundamentalist or a nationalistic Saddam-style regime. I see no reason not to be disgusted by such people. Maybe many also deserve sympathy for the situation they have come from. But my view is that if they win, in the future there will be a lot more Iraqis who need our sympathy than if the elected government and the pr-western movement wins.

I don't apply a double standard.

Well you did say "good for them" regarding the Iraqi insurgents. Quite sickening really.

I have not at all claimed to be presenting a Unified Theory of What Ought To Be Done.

Neither do I, but you take it to the extreme of moral relativism. I do believe there is such a thing as right and wrong.

I've been pointing out where we've fucked up because maybe if America wasn't treated as having handled this fucking prefectly, we could learn from our mistakes.

But you've never offered a constructive solution about how, now that we are involved in Iraq, we can turn it to the mutal advantage of both the west and the Iraqi people. Your claim to be interested in helping us all learn would be more credible if you actually looked to the future occassionally.

But that's not the American way, is it?

Well it seems to me that you and I are both lucky in that we live in countries where it very much is the way things are done for people to be allowed to criticise their own government and not be tortured or stuck in jail for it.

If you don't think we've fucked up many, many times, you're an idiot.

Of course we have, but like I said, why constantly dwell on mistakes? everyone makes them, all we can do is learn and try to make up for them. If we can help turn Iraq a better country than it was before, which I believe we will do if we stick at it, because I know the Iraqi people are determined, then I believe it will have been worth our while.

I can't DO anything about insurgent methods. It'd be futile for me to treat them as anything but the reality of the situation.

It's also futile for you to celebrate their actions. But you have done on this very thread.

As an American voter, I CAN hold my government's nuts to the grindstone over OUR fuckups. It is my right and duty as a citizen.

Well it is my right and duty as a citizen of the world to look beyond my own boundaries and to be above blaming my own government for everything, and instead to look for global solutions to global problems.

meshou

23 Sep 2006, 01:02 AM

I don't know about that, what I do know is that it's pointless trying to look back and blame people.It is not if we don't repeat the same fuckups over and over.

Well you did say "good for them" regarding the Iraqi insurgents. Quite sickening really.Yes, GOOD FOR THEM for rebelling. We ARE tyrants in international affairs, and have consistantly violated our own policy of self determination.

Do I condone how they do it? No. I don't like people killing other people. I think it's fucking bullshit to say THEIR methods aren't OK because they kill civillians, but OURS are despite killing civilians.

I am not a relativist, but I'm not willing to sit here and split hairs over whether OUR evil actions are OK becaise THEIR actions are evil-er. We should be fucking abstaining from doing evil.

But you've never offered a constructive solution about how, now that we are involved in Iraq, we can turn it to the mutal advantage of both the west and the Iraqi people. Your claim to be interested in helping us all learn would be more credible if you actually looked to the future occassionally.Talk to me in twenty years when the next wave of suicide bombings in America are the six year olds that watched us bomb their city.

Well it seems to me that you and I are both lucky in that we live in countries where it very much is the way things are done for people to be allowed to criticise their own government and not be tortured or stuck in jail for it.No, we just keep it a secret when we do.

Of course we have, but like I said, why constantly dwell on mistakes?Because other people have to suffer with the concequences, and because we don't learn from them if we don't think once in a while.
everyone makes them, all we can do is learn and try to make up for them.But we don't.
If we can help turn Iraq a better country than it was before,We may not be able to.
which I believe we will do if we stick at it,Or it could just as easily be another Viet Nam. We've already been there longer than we were involved in World War II.
because I know the Iraqi people are determined, then I believe it will have been worth our while.If you say so.

It's also futile for you to celebrate their actions. But you have done on this very thread.Kiss my ass.
Well it is my right and duty as a citizen of the world to look beyond my own boundaries and to be above blaming my own government for everything,Yes, lack of accountability for all!
and instead to look for global solutions to global problems.WORLD POLICE, LET'S GO.

demagogic_schizoid

23 Sep 2006, 01:14 AM

Whatever meshou. If you want to see only the negative side of everything then that is your choice. You ignored the rather important part of my posts about the difference between the IDEAS of the Americans and the ideas of the insurgents, you aren't interested in the efforst of the Iraqis who are co-operating with the Americans to dfeat the insurgency and try to create a country where they enjoy the same rights and hopefully one day the same prosperity that we do - in short, you are a glass half empty kind of girl who will go out of her way to stay that way. Sit around whining all you want, plenty of people from the west and from Iraq are going to invest a lot of time and effort into making sure neither the stone age fundamentalists nor the nostalgic Baathists ever manage to take control of Iraq through bombs and mortar. The people have spoken through the ballot box and will continue to do so, time will march on and people will look to the future, regardless of people like you who will constantly seek to settle old grudges. this is a battle for the future of our world, I choose to be on the side of western liberal democracy, if you don't fine, but don't expect me to limit myself to only thinking in terms of how evil George Bush is. This issue goes way beyond domestic American politics, and if you can't look beyond such things then you will only be cheating yourself.

meshou

23 Sep 2006, 01:30 AM

Whatever meshou. If you want to see only the negative side of everything then that is your choice.I'd be stupid to give my government a hearty pat on the back for the few things they DO do right if I think there is major wrong going on.

You ignored the rather important part of my posts about the difference between the IDEAS of the Americans and the ideas of the insurgents, you aren't interested in the efforst of the Iraqis who are co-operating with the Americans to dfeat the insurgency and try to create a country where they enjoy the same rights and hopefully one day the same prosperity that we do -That's because I'm not interested in splitting the argument.
in short, you are a glass half empty kind of girl who will go out of her way to stay that way.You want me to ignore the horrible things that happen in the world? You're right, I don't have faith they'll just go away if I ignore them.

Sit around whining all you want,Oh, believe me, I'll also be VOTING about it. I actually demand the changes I espouse.
plenty of people from the west and from Iraq are going to invest a lot of time and effort into making sure neither the stone age fundamentalists nor the nostalgic Baathists ever manage to take control of Iraq through bombs and mortar.If they were able to, we'd be gone now, wouldn't we?

I'll have faith in the Iraqi people's determination and strength when my own government does.
The people have spoken through the ballot box and will continue to do so, time will march on and people will look to the future, regardless of people like you who will constantly seek to settle old grudges.It's not an "old grudge" if it happened within living memory, and effects our daily lives.

I fucking dare you to tell a war widow to her face not to be angry at her government for not having an insugency plan that could have saved her husband's life, and that she should not demand change.
this is a battle for the future of our world, I choose to be on the side of western liberal democracy, if you don't fine, but don't expect me to limit myself to only thinking in terms of how evil George Bush is.I have not mentioned him once, and *gasp!* don't blame him for representing the majority of our country, even if I find that representation loathsome!

Idiot.
This issue goes way beyond domestic American politics, and if you can't look beyond such things then you will only be cheating yourself.My critcism of America's foreign policy has nothing to do with world politics? Are you retarded?

Madrigal

23 Sep 2006, 01:37 AM

Unfortunately, that just shows your ignorance of how capitalism works. It doesn't even make a bit of sense, since you can't expand by destroying resources.

Hon, don't tell me you don't know what a World War is now. It's the establishment of a new constallation of dominant powers at the expense of burrying others and destroying their cities and economies. If you don't understand that, we gotta go back to the ABC's of political economy here. It is when that balance of power is agonizing, when a new global force is struggling to emerge, that a new World War is required to crush the old system.

Oh, I agree the US government has placed all kinds of puppet governments in power around the world, and meddled in all sorts of things it shouldn't have. However, these usually reflect the particular political circumstances and incentives acting upon those in power, not an overarching goal.

Your view of history is anarchic, because you view the string of governments in power as acting on individual whims of the moment, on pure tacticism and improvisation, without acknowledging the fact that every empire inherits a legacy. This legacy is composed of victories and defeats, conquered positions that need to be preserved, and opportunities waiting to be taken advantage of. Try as you will, you cannot simply escind a government from its past - not unless a lot of blood is shed and a lot of interests are threatened. Your analysis remains counter-intuitive.

Just look at the governments themselves, who often vehemently disagree with each other (often most vigorously on foreign policy), publically deride one another and have very different concepts about how society works, yet we are also to suppose they are part of a wider conspiracy to impose American Hegemony on the world?

A ruling class is composed of many factions, and they'll fight each other like cats in a bag while they can afford it. But when it really matters, they show a united front. Take Latin American dictatorships as an example. Everyone knows that bourgeois interests are best pursued in the framework of Democracy. But if they need to band together to support fascism to save Capitalism from the Revolution, they won't think twice. So yes, while they'll show disagreement on partial matters, their fundamental class interests are one and the same.

Unfortunately, none of that tirade impacts upon my point, which is the asymmetry between the opposing sides. If Islamic Extremists could wield a state with the power of America, then you'd find out what a real empire looks like. Thing is, nobody can weild the power of America like that, since the very policital institutions and processes, as well as individual freedom conspire to prevent sure an ability in the hands of anyone.

Frankly, I don't care how an Islamic world would look like, because that's not the situation and it doesn't threaten to become one. Just what are we going to prove by sterile futurism about what an Islamic planet would look like? Nothing, that's what. The only thing it indicates is the delerious view that it could possibly be on the horizon. And that speaks of a political inclination.

Edit: I don't think it is beyond almost any American policitian to be as ruthless, violent and xenophobic as their Islamic Extremist counterparts, the main diffrence is the circumstances they are operating in.

Exactly, I prefer to speak about reality.

demagogic_schizoid

23 Sep 2006, 01:47 AM

That's because I'm not interested in splitting the argument.You want me to ignore the horrible things that happen in the world? You're right, I don't have faith they'll just go away if I ignore them.

You already do:

I can't DO anything about insurgent methods. It'd be futile for me to treat them as anything but the reality of the situation.

Oh, believe me, I'll also be VOTING about it.

Good, that's your right. Why deny the Iraqis that right?

If they were able to, we'd be gone now, wouldn't we?I'll have faith in the Iraqi people's determination and strength when my own government does.It's not an "old grudge" if it happened within living memory, and effects our daily lives.

That's like saying that because the Americans helped Britain defeat the Germans in WW2, they did not have faith in the British people. The Iraqis are being terrorised by well-organised, bloodthristy, determined and very able guerilla warriors, who consider no methods to be too low to stoop to. Of course they will need help defeating this threat. Acknowledging this doesn't imply a lack of faith in their determination or intentions. Also, why are we still there? The liberation only occurred 3 years ago, that's not a very long time. This battle could go on for 5, 10, 20 years - in historic terms,, that's not a very long time and definitely worth the effort if it means creating a freer, safer world for the next generation, whether they be Arabs, westeners, Africans, whatever. We should fight this battle now, while we are still stronger than our enemy.

I fucking dare you to tell a war widow to her face not to be angry at her government for not having an insugency plan that could have saved her husband's life, and that she should not demand change.

That doesn't make the war itself morally wrong, that is a question regarding the planning of the war.

I have not mentioned him once, and *gasp!* don't blame him for representing the majority of our country, even if I find that representation loathsome!

Well he does represent your country, as Head of State.

Idiot.My critcism of America's foreign policy has nothing to do with world politics?

Again:

I can't DO anything about insurgent methods. It'd be futile for me to treat them as anything but the reality of the situation.

As an American voter, I CAN hold my government's nuts to the grindstone over OUR fuckups. It is my right and duty as a citizen.

You only identify America as the source of the problem, rather than thinking about humanity as a whole and what would be better for all people in the long run. It seems to me that you are motivated by guilt about having been born into a rich powerful country, and self-flagelation matters more to you than practical solutions to help the people you proffess to care about. This is really nothing more than inverted nationalism, and an extremely parochial view of the world indeed.

Madrigal

23 Sep 2006, 01:47 AM

There's a difference between holding the banner of Marxism on high and viewing and analysing the world from a Marxist perspective. The Marxist method of cultural criticism is actually one of the old guy's more successful ideas.

Shhh, I didn't want to get into that. ;)

Madrigal

23 Sep 2006, 02:01 AM

It isn't worth it, meshou. You've been gone a while, but here is something DS said to Hustler after arguing a point he knew nothing about:

NB the following refers only to my debate with Hustler over the UAE. when it comes to my argument with Blanche, I was 100% correct and then some.

Reading through the UK-Argentina relations thread, I have just realised how bad I sounded. The truth is I knew from the start that I didn't have a clue about UAE, but rather than educate myself, I chose to drag the debate down to my level - it's lawyer/politician-like instinct I possess, and I must say I am fairly adept at it. However, it's not something I'm proud of. In effect, over the internet I am no longer an introvert, so at times I am like an ENTP - and an ENTP at their worst. Read a description of an ENTP when they are behaving badly, and that was me on that thread. All I cared about was smearing everyone else and venting my aggression, I cared very little about the actual topic, and at times forgot about it entirely. Clearly, my behaviour was shameful.

Tim

Perhaps he'd never admit the same to you or me, because it would be too humiliating to be proven wrong by a left-leaning woman. But you get the idea. :)

meshou

23 Sep 2006, 02:05 AM

You already do:There is a difference between applying pressure to the most effective spot and ignoring that problem all together.[/quote]

Good, that's your right. Why deny the Iraqis that right?You caught me, I am 100% against Iraqis voting.

That's like saying that because the Americans helped Britain defeat the Germans in WW2, they did not have faith in the British people.We didn't! That is exactly why we joined in!

The Iraqis are being terrorised by well-organised, bloodthristy, determined and very able guerilla warriors, who consider no methods to be too low to stoop to. Of course they will need help defeating this threat."Help" does not usually imply a near-perminant occupying army.

Acknowledging this doesn't imply a lack of faith in their determination or intentions.Those can easily contribute to a lack of faith in their ability.
Also, why are we still there? The liberation only occurred 3 years ago, that's not a very long time.It is a very, very long time for a liberated country to be without an effective independant infastructure, though.
This battle could go on for 5, 10, 20 years - in historic terms,, that's not a very long timeIt is very long for modern warfare.
and definitely worth the effort if it means creating a freer, safer world for the next generation, whether they be Arabs, westeners, Africans, whatever. We should fight this battle now, while we are still stronger than our enemy.No one has yet to show this will be the effect of us being there. It has not been in similar situations in the past.

That doesn't make the war itself morally wrong, that is a question regarding the planning of the war.If we were not competent to handle the task, we should not have taken it on. If competency was within our graps and we did not take it, then we have still done evil.

Part of our incompetence is our complete lack of consideration for recent history.

Well he does represent your country, as Head of State.Yep. But if it wasn't him, it'd be some other fucker doing similar.

You only identify America as the source of the problem,No, I only identify America's ROLE in curent problems because those are the only things I can directly effect in the cleanest manner possible.
rather than thinking about humanity as a whole and what would be better for all people in the long run.You know exactly what actions lead to the best possible results in the long run?

I say the best we can do is abstain from doing evil now, so it won't create new evils later.

I also say that if we do evil intentionally OR through incompetence, the result is the same. If we think we are the world's only hope, and are willing to wage wars on a scale where the slightest fuckup effects the entire world, WE MAY NOT MAKE MISTAKES.

It seems to me that you are motivated by guilt about having been born into a rich powerful country,I am motivated by the responsibility of it.
and self-flagelation matters more to you than practical solutions to help the people you proffess to care about.It's not mere self flagelation if I demand change.
This is really nothing more than inverted nationalism,I've espoused the philosophies my country was founded on more closely than you have. Don't you fucking dare question my patriotism.
and an extremely parochial view of the world indeed.Coming from you? That's great.

demagogic_schizoid

23 Sep 2006, 02:05 AM

I've already told you that that post was meaningless. I was trying to hold out an olive branch to keep the peace. People do that - say they were wrong when they weren't in the hope that the other person will do likewise and there will be no more grudge. But it didn't happen like that, so I regret making that post and blaming myself when I was not to blame. I made mistakes, but my intentions were not bad - I was just pretending they were in order to make myself look like I had been in control, when really I had been manipulated. If you are interested in psychology, this should not be hard to understand.

I'm glad you have something to help you "win" arguments without having to resort to actually dealing with the posts people make though. I suppose all that matters is insulting the other person rather than dealing with the issues.

demagogic_schizoid

23 Sep 2006, 02:12 AM

We didn't! That is exactly why we joined in!

And then left the country to become independent once it no longer needed you.

If we were not competent to handle the task, we should not have taken it on. If competency was within our graps and we did not take it, then we have still done evil.

If the task can be completed, but it is not done so through lack of will, THEN you will have done evil.

And also, I fail to see why the presence of coallition troops would neccessarily be at the expense of Iraq's national infrastructure.

I also say that if we do evil intentionally OR through incompetence, the result is the same. If we think we are the world's only hope, and are willing to wage wars on a scale where the slightest fuckup effects the entire world, WE MAY NOT MAKE MISTAKES.

Yes, because the world was so much better before the war in Iraq, wasn't it?

Don't you fucking dare question my patriotism.

There is no need to be threatening. If that's how you do politics, no wonder you sympathise with the terrorist thugs in Iraq (ie when you said "good for them")

meshou

23 Sep 2006, 02:17 AM

I've already told you that that post was meaningless. I was trying to hold out an olive branch to keep the peace.Bullshit.
People do that - say they were wrong when they weren't in the hope that the other person will do likewise and there will be no more grudge.You didn't actually do that.
But it didn't happen like that, so I regret making that post and blaming myself when I was not to blame.Your self-blame sounds exactly like your finger-pointing.
I made mistakes, but my intentions were not bad -But mine are, what with me being a pessimist with parochial ideas.
I was just pretending they were in order to make myself look like I had been in control, when really I had been manipulated. If you are interested in psychology, this should not be hard to understand.I have not manipulated you in the slightest, nor lead you on.

I'm glad you have something to help you "win" arguemtns without having to resort to actually dealing with the posts people make though. I suppose all that matters is insulting the other person rather than dealing with the issued.I have dealt with the issues I wanted to address, and responded to exactly those issues in your posts. If I don't want to discuss points I feel are irrelevant, I won't.

I am the one who pointed out that you can't change the minds of the PARTICIPANTS in an argument, but instead your goal is the hearts and minds of the undecided. As such, agreeing to disagree after a public argument are not things people DO well in public.

As evidenced by the fact you were not at all clearly attempting to reconcile, and there was no trace of apology or recognition of my intent. I DO believe you want good things for the future of the world. You write a post telling me I do not, and then feel manipulated when I tell you to go fuck yourself.

If you want to extend an olive branch, do it in private and without insulting me. I am not opposed to it.

demagogic_schizoid

23 Sep 2006, 02:21 AM

Bullshit. You didn't actually do that. Your self-blame sounds exactly like your finger-pointing.But mine are, what with me being a pessimist with parochial ideas. I have not manipulated you in the slightest, nor lead you on.

I have dealt with the issues I wanted to address, and responded to exactly those issues in your posts. If I don't want to discuss points I feel are irrelevant, I won't.

I am the one who pointed out that you can't change the minds of the PARTICIPANTS in an argument, but instead your goal is the hearts and minds of the undecided. As such, agreeing to disagree after a public argument are not things people DO well in public.

As evidenced by the fact you were not at all clearly attempting to reconcile, and there was no trace of apology or recognition of my intent. I DO believe you want good things for the future of the world. You write a post telling me I do not, and then feel manipulated when I tell you to go fuck yourself.

If you want to extend an olive branch, do it in private and without insulting me. I am not opposed to it.

Sorry. That post of mine was aimed at Madrigals post. It was my fault for not quoting.

meshou

23 Sep 2006, 02:25 AM

And then left the country to become independent once it no longer needed you.We have other countries we support without occupying them, and other countries we do occupy. The fact remains, we occupy the ones we have no faith in. Therefore, I do not have faith in Iraq's ability to govern itself, especially if it is really going up against a minority of people.

If the task can be completed, but it is not done so through lack of will, THEN you will have done evil.If the task is not completed because we were not well equiped to take it on in the first place, or were but fucked it up, it's just as evil.

And also, I fail to see why the presence of coallition troops would neccessarily be at the expense of Iraq's national infrastructure.It's not. They don't have an effective one to speak of whether we're there or not.

Yes, because the world was so much better before the war in Iraq, wasn't it?So far, it is a wash.

There is no need to be threatening. If that's how you do politics, no wonder you sympathise with the terrorist thugs in Iraq (ie when you said "good for them")Is it hard to type with Blair's cock in your ear?

Madrigal

23 Sep 2006, 02:26 AM

First of all I'm glad to see this thread is finally where it deserves to be.

Because you love posting things where they belong, right? Hilarious.

the sole purpose behind this thread was to make herself feel better by personally attacking other forum users. She might argue that no names were mentioned but I trust that INTPc users are smart enough not to fall for her pathetic, silly, childish little word games.

So full of yourself. It wasn't personal against you. I hardly notice who it is that brings up Quoran-justified-rape in every Middle East thread. Only your volunteering yourself as a culprit clarified that. So thank you.

As for Islam, I will continue to bring it up in whichever thread, in whichever subforum, I feel would be relevant.

And when you do, I hope you keep a few suggestions in mind:

Collect everything that you think is caused by the Quran and put it in one thread for those interested otherwise it's just derailing.

Amen -- as it were. :whistle: Citing the Quran in that context assumes that Muslims actually follow the Quran to the letter, which is giving them a lot more credit than we give most Christians.

Pay less attention to what people say and pay more attention to what people do.

Well, I agree with Madrigal in part and I'm on the other side of her political views. I don't think it has anything to do with 'Marxism' or anything else.

Islam is part of the picture, but right now the threads tend to get bogged down in "Islam bad religion! Source of all evil! Nothing else had an influence". If that is the case, take it to a seperate thread to argue your point. Specific topics and interpretations in the holy books of religion should have their own discussion, rather than intrude into other threads.

Some leeway is, of course, given considering how involved religion is right now... but it should never consume threads the way it has been lately.

Getting back the original point of the rant:

I have noticed this tendency on occassion.

There's some crazy shit in the Qu'ran just like there is some crazy shit in the bible (old testament stuff). I'm not sure going through interpretations of the words with a fine tooth comb adds much to the big picture.

If someone wants to make a point that there are more Qu'ran literalists than there are bible literalists due to differences in Islamic culture (for example) I can see the relevance.

However, in general, I suspect throwing Qu'ran quotes around in an Islamic argument is about as useful as throwing bible quotes around in a Christian argument. Which, in my experience, is not very.

Okay?

Today I was discussing Ahmadinejad with my colleagues at work. They sincerely believe that Allah is on his side (...) They hate America (...) What other reason could there be for a Moroccan to hate America with such passion and get behind a Persian leader (non-Arab) half the world away (...)Even my most liberal friends use the word "Allah" in every other fucking sentence in their speech. Allah this, Allah that. (...) if Islam were to be taken away from their lives, they would have a brand new positive perspective on life. (...) They will no longer see any sort of western influence as "Satanic". (...)

Have mercy.

demagogic_schizoid

23 Sep 2006, 02:31 AM

all that proves is that western liberals can't understand the importance of Islam to muslims and are unable to consider any motives other than materialistic ones.

meshou

23 Sep 2006, 02:38 AM

It isn't worth it, meshou. You've been gone a while, but here is something DS said to Hustler after arguing a point he knew nothing about: I see.

I can no longer respect someone who would insult my patriotism enough to continue paying any attention to them. I love my country and my world too much to excuse any and every action we take in it, or to accept good intention and shoddy results. If anyone says I am not a patriot, he is a liar.

I believe every man and country in this world wants the best for it, and does what is in his power to obtain it. Ignorance, fear, and incompetence are the source of all pain in the world, and I will defend the good intent of all men, even while refusing to excuse the pain they cause obtaining them. I will hold those who answer to me responsible for their actions, and trust the rest of humanity to do the same for those who are responsible to them.

If I have failed to effectively do this in a consistant manner in this argument, it is my duty to bow out of the argument.

If anyone who deserves my respect has a problem with my reasoning, I will, of course, reconsider.

demagogic_schizoid

23 Sep 2006, 02:41 AM

I see.

I can no longer respect someone who would insult my patriotism enough to continue paying any attention to them. I love my country and my world too much to excuse any and every action we take in it, or to accept good intention and shoddy results. If anyone says I am not a patriot, he is a liar.

I believe every man and country in this world wants the best for it, and does what is in his power to obtain it. Ignorance, fear, and incompetence are the source of all pain in the world, and I will defend the good intent of all men, even while refusing to excuse the pain they cause obtaining them. I will hold those who answer to me responsible for their actions, and trust the rest of humanity to do the same for those who are responsible to them.

If I have failed to effectively do this in a consistant manner in this argument, it is my duty to bow out of the argument.

well anyway, THAT'S the post I was talking about with the olive branch and the manipulation. Not your post. If you scroll you see me apolgise for not quoting. So now you know.

Huston

23 Sep 2006, 02:44 AM

Quoted for truth.

Actually the truth, or well according to what has been observed (since there is no such thing as truth) is ..

How about the wordwide consequences of any political and military intervention? Has any politcal syste/country/empire/etc not been conquering the world for decades already? They have been interfering, invading sovereign countries, supporting dictators, meddling in weaker countrys' national economic policies, and all the while we're supposed to be fearing the coming Invasion of its enemy-du-jour.

Madrigal

23 Sep 2006, 02:50 AM

If I have failed to effectively do this in a consistant manner in this argument, it is my duty to bow out of the argument.

It certainly isn't you. I think that people need to first have the intellectual integrity to recognize when they are wrong, instead of resorting to dishonest debate tactics. I'm not sure if it's a question of maturity and world experience as much as it is intelligence, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Til he proves to have changed, I won't engage in useless discussion with him.

demagogic_schizoid

23 Sep 2006, 02:57 AM

That is just bullshit Madrigal, I have not used any dishonest tactics, and you can't give me ONE example of me doing so. If you can, put it up here for everyone to see.

and no, that UAE debate doesn't count. I had just joined the forum, and if I recall correctly there was an argument about the Falklands.Malvinas. I came in and gave my opinion, and also made an offhand comment to Ferrus (I believe) that Argentina is a "great country". This was punced on, and to behonest I had never experienced people arguing with things like this before, so I got pissed off and made heated statements. I was wrong to do that, obviosuly, but a lot of people took advantage of that to keep on playing me and picking up on details of things I said to make me look bad, when really they were doing the same thing, but were more clever about it. I still remember Hustler saying "everyone knows Mexicans>Argentinians" but I didn't see anyone jump down HIS throat for being racist or a bigot, because I was the new, unknown person and people just wanted to have a go at the easy target. I am prepared to let it go, but you keep bringing it up. All that happened was that I got pissed off with people putting down Argentina (and yes, I can identify with whoever or wahtever I want, you can't know my reasons, but they aren't the ones I stated or the ones you think). So yeah, I misjudged the tone of the thread, I misjudged the tone of the forum, and I was STUPID. But this is the one thing I couldn't admit, so I tried to make out like I had done it on purpose, anything to look like I hadn't been well and truly played. But I was never deliberately dishonest or calculating, and never have been

Hustler

23 Sep 2006, 03:14 AM

Can't you people leave me out of this thread? I don't deserve to have my good name dragged through the mud here.

charred_heart

23 Sep 2006, 05:22 AM

and no, that UAE debate doesn't count.http://www.orlyowl.com/orly4.jpg

Nemesis

23 Sep 2006, 05:23 AM

http://www.orlyowl.com/orly4.jpg
:rofl:

I remember when he tried to make the UAE look as evil as Iran to Hustler. God that was a funny debate to watch.

charred_heart

23 Sep 2006, 05:33 AM

:rofl:

I remember when he tried to make the UAE look as evil as Iran to Hustler. God that was a funny debate to watch.should we not put a link for the benefit of the newer members?

PenguinHunter

23 Sep 2006, 05:37 AM

should we not put a link for the benefit of the newer members?

Heh, definitely do. I had somehow missed it until now. Goodtimes.

Nemesis

23 Sep 2006, 05:37 AM

should we not put a link for the benefit of the newer members?
We should :)

(You'll have to do it, I forget where it is lol)

charred_heart

23 Sep 2006, 05:53 AM

here it is ladies and gentlemen! (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=330693&postcount=218)

since ncen is down, here are the pics that were originally linked - to get the effect of d_s's post:

http://www.mbarabi.com/UAEZ/BURJ.jpg

http://www.mbarabi.com/UAEZ/CORNICHE.jpg

http://www.mbarabi.com/UAEZ/CREEK.jpg

http://www.mbarabi.com/UAEZ/RESORT.jpg

http://www.mbarabi.com/UAEZ/SUNSET.jpg

http://www.mbarabi.com/UAEZ/ROAD.jpg

Hustler played his cards right that time! :lol:

ptGatsby

23 Sep 2006, 06:05 AM

Hmmm, I have to point out the irony of mentioning dishonest debate tatics now, you know...

Nemesis

23 Sep 2006, 06:37 AM

charred_heart

23 Sep 2006, 06:51 AM

Even my most liberal friends use the word "Allah" in every other fucking sentence in their speech. Allah this, Allah that. Even I find myself forced to do that, or else I'd come across as some sort of freak.I sense psychological trauma. I mean it seriously, if it has come to the point where you can't stand to hear the word Allah in a muslim society you have serious issues.

charred_heart

23 Sep 2006, 06:53 AM

I'm particularly a fan of the part where he starts to show his racist side. Wouldn't you agree?this quote is my favourite:

scizoid--shut the fuck up. you're even stupider than nemesis and hustler have described; I think they went easy on you.

Scott:rofl:

Ferrus

23 Sep 2006, 09:31 AM

You know, a lot of people don't seem to realize something. There has never been a state in the history of the world that operated solely on the Qu'ran. There has enver even been a state that worked fully on the Quran and Hadith. dar-al-Islam, the Islamic Empire in the days of yore had laws that were based more on practicality then anything else. There was for example the practice that if a place had certain laws that did not go against any divine laws it was kept, simply because it worked.
Medina under Mohammed was fairly close, so I hear.

BerberElla

23 Sep 2006, 09:44 AM

And I found this funny

I agree, which is why I am not sitting around waiting to be blown up by someone who does take the quran literally. (and there are so many of them)
There is no mention of bombs in the Qur'an, so they couldn't have read it literally

And that reply in itself is so funny, as if the quran is the one and only book that muslims follow.

charred_heart

23 Sep 2006, 09:57 AM

And that reply in itself is so funny, as if the quran is the one and only book that muslims follow.generalisation is never a good thing

Heleuiski

23 Sep 2006, 10:21 AM

DS comes across as a right wing meathead.
Hopefully underneath all that bravado lies a heart of pure candy.

;)

Heleuiski

23 Sep 2006, 10:25 AM

Holy christ CH I didn't see this!

"The fact that no Arab country, or indeed any Islamic society, has come anywhere our levels of human rights or economic development (in the sense of a large, self-sufficient middle class, complete lack of material poverty among even the poorest in society) is not, for me, simply a fact that can be changed when an Arab country shows signs of progress."

What a steaming pile of BS.

But he is right about the friends bit in the UK.
I only have a few and most of them aren't British.

Stoned_Rider

23 Sep 2006, 11:42 AM

But this is rants and raves and not spirituality stuff.
which is exactly why I linked to a thread in Philosophy and Spirituality. However it seems that you are not interested in taking the discussion there, here, or anywhere. Not that I have any problems with that, I just advise you not to make any claims that you are unable to defend.
You only decided to come out of your hiding when you saw that there is some pressure building up against me, blaming me for driving you out of INTPc!

What a cunning Islamic tactic - ignore all your adversary's arguments, come back victimizing yourself, make yourself look oppressed and persecuted hoping that there are enough western "useful idiots" out there who will get behind you! :lol:

Good to know, you are avoiding a discussion on th Qur'an, progress, I see.

Oh what an excellent rebuttal!

Because you love posting things where they belong, right? Hilarious.
Your thread was moved, none of my posts or threads about Islam were. I rest my case.

So full of yourself. It wasn't personal against you. I hardly notice who it is that brings up Quoran-justified-rape in every Middle East thread. Only your volunteering yourself as a culprit clarified that. So thank you.

The only other thread I can think of (off the top of my head of course, I could be wrong), besides "This is a rave about Islam", in which rape was brought up was a thread started by you titled "Fucking Zionist Media". It was in the Rants and Raves section, not The World forum. The whole thing was initiated on page 22 by, surprise surprise, charred_heart!
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=13245&p=382596

If you can think of any other instances in which you think quoting the Quran was totally irrelevant then please provide links. I will happily issue an apology right here if you're right. I will even put it in my signature for a while.

And when you do, I hope you keep a few suggestions in mind...
Sure, I always take people's suggestions into consideration. I hope you do as well:

Maybe it is done a bit much, but it is relevant, even if it draws the focus away from the issues you'd like to focus on. Like it or not there are so many relevant issues here, all of them worthy of years of debate / conflict. Because that is what it is going to take to put all this to (a certain amount of) rest.

Stoned - you can post whatever you want wherever you want as long as it's within the rules. If other people don't like that is there problem, and them flaming you is a reflection of their own inability to deal with what you are saying and anger that although they would like to they do not have the authority to silence you - ignore them.

The Qu'ran is the major ideological text for most of the Middle-East, and therefore the words contained in the Qu'ran have a major influence over the economy, politics, wealth, power and oppression in that region and relations with the wider world.

Despite Madrigal's wishes, it is not possible to disentangle the words in the Qu'ran and the various interpretations from the economic, social and political conditions in the Middle East and the relations to the wider world. This is largely because the vast majority of people and leaders in the Middle East make their economic, social and political decisions based upon (at least in part) their interpretation of the Qu'ran.

Islam isn't just a religion, it is also a political system, and a legal system. When discussing the middle-east it is impossible to discuss politics without Islam. Don't expect me to agree with some marxist drivel about what causes terrorism and stagnation in Islamic countries.

We aint discussing people that sit within your paradigm, Madrigal, you do not know what there motivations are, you merely hope they are what they pretened they are...

to a Muslim Islam is not merely a religion in the sense that it is called that in the West, but it is a complete way of life that affects everything, including politics and economics. Do (sic) ignore the utmost importance of Islam in the analysis of events in the Middle East is utter folly - one that reveals the hidden arrogance of many Marxists about non-Western cultures that can be as supercillious as the most exploitative capitalist.

given that most people in the Middle East believe that the Qu'ran is God's words (not Muhammed's or any other mortals) they are of tantamount importance to them and how they act. Indeed they consider themselves God's slaves. I find it incredible that some people here believe that economics or nationalism or whatever influences them more than what they consider the immutable, timeless words of God. Economics, nationalism, oppression or whatever will motivate those who primarily are focused on the transient world of earth but the real fire of Islamic culture (and they have an elan that is completely lacking in the oft effete West) is that they act because they believe their actions grant them merit in the eyes of God. This doesn't mean they wantonly commit terrorism or that they act independantly of the oppression: it does mean that their motives for fighting such things are rather different than most in the secular West.

And finally...

Could you actually argue logically rather than making "witty" and innane ripostes? Kthx

meshou

23 Sep 2006, 11:56 AM

And finally...Why on God's green earth should anyone pay any attention to what Ferrus thinks?

demagogic_schizoid

23 Sep 2006, 12:35 PM

charred_heart

23 Sep 2006, 12:39 PM

demagogic_schizoid

23 Sep 2006, 12:43 PM

sure. and hopefully they will realise the magnitude of your mediocrity.

Stoned_Rider

23 Sep 2006, 12:45 PM

charred heart, all I will say is that you worry about me a lot more than I worry about you. I could arely recall a single post you have made. Like I've admitted on here, I was wrong in that thread and I have explained the reasons why - but that said, I'm glad I offended you.

I remember charred_heart talking about how important it is to be honourable. CH, where do you see the honour in continuously bringing up something DS said, which he admitted to be wrong on more than one occasion? Were you never wrong? Do you want me to bring up all the instances in which I proved you wrong? You don't see me doing that because you admitted you were wrong yourself and therefore the honourable thing to do is to move on.

I sense psychological trauma. I mean it seriously, if it has come to the point where you can't stand to hear the word Allah in a muslim society you have serious issues.
I did not say that I can't stand to hear it, I was just pointing out the fact. Fortunately as an INTP I learn to adapt.

Magajy

23 Sep 2006, 12:46 PM

which is exactly why I linked to a thread in Philosophy and Spirituality. However it seems that you are not interested in taking the discussion there, here, or anywhere. Not that I have any problems with that, I just advise you not to make any claims that you are unable to defend.by defend you mean convince a guy that threives on anything anti islamic, what for, what good can possibly come out of it, you're stuck; and I'm not the kind of person that sticks with debates that just cycle around and around. Agree you differ, and move on.

You only decided to come out of your hiding when you saw that there is some pressure building up against me, blaming me for driving you out of INTPc!what makes you think it all about you, GOD! You need help. I said i shuned INTPc, how could I have known what was happening without coming back first.

What a cunning Islamic tactic - ignore all your adversary's arguments, come back victimizing yourself, Suppposedly out of the qur'an, he? I cant remember which thread but I am sure I once told you I think you hate Islam, so I am not suprised what you can say to make Islam look evil. The simple random action of one guy is suddenly islamic? Get help. A guy that cannot stand the word Allah, in everyday conversation in a muslims country, is certainly having issues, in my language there in no word for "please"; people say "for the sake of Allah" do this or do that. I suggest you move to a non-Allah based culture before you loose it.

make yourself look oppressed and persecuted hoping that there are enough western "useful idiots" out there who will get behind you! :lol:Opressed? Persecuted? What the heck r u talking about? GEt some help man, the world is not all about u.

charred_heart

23 Sep 2006, 12:52 PM

I remember charred_heart talking about how important it is to be honourable. CH, where do you see the honour in continuously bringing up something DS said, which he admitted to be wrong on more than one occasion? Were you never wrong? Do you want me to bring up all the instances in which I proved you wrong? You don't see me doing that because you admitted you were wrong yourself and therefore the honourable thing to do is to move on. it's the way he was wrong that's distinct here. He has no problem believing in stereotypes, and does not clarify that what he is saying is out of assumptions rather than knowledge. It's more important for me to expose that than to forget about a mistake.

Stoned_Rider

23 Sep 2006, 12:52 PM

Sorry Magajy, I forgot that your lack of Intuitiveness would make you unable to grasp the full meaning of what I said. Please ignore my words.

demagogic_schizoid

23 Sep 2006, 12:56 PM

it's the way he was wrong that's distinct here. He has no problem believing in stereotypes, and does not clarify that what he is saying is out of assumptions rather than knowledge. It's more important for me to expose that than to forget about a mistake.

Well if you can't forget, then that is your problem, because I doubt that anybody who didn't already care about it is going to start caring now. If you can't get over one thread which I admitted I was wrong in on various occassions and have TWICE explained why on this very thread, then you are truly pathetic.

Stoned_Rider

23 Sep 2006, 12:59 PM

it's the way he was wrong that's distinct here. He has no problem believing in stereotypes, and does not clarify that what he is saying is out of assumptions rather than knowledge. It's more important for me to expose that than to forget about a mistake.

But dude, people evolve. People grow. People learn. I used to believe in all kinds of stereotypes about Jews, westerners etc.. and I have no problem whatsoever in openly admitting that. That does not mean that I should be condemnded for the rest of my life and that it is impossible for me to gain credibility!

meshou

23 Sep 2006, 01:00 PM

Sorry Magajy, I forgot that your lack of Intuitiveness would make you unable to grasp the full meaning of what I said. Please ignore my words.Shut the fuck up. DS may be ignorant, but you're absolutely disgusting.

You're on my ignore list.

charred_heart

23 Sep 2006, 01:01 PM

But dude, people evolve. People grow. People learn. I used to believe in all kinds of stereotypes about Jews, westerners etc.. and I have no problem whatsoever in openly admitting that. That does not mean that I should be condemnded for the rest of my life and that it is impossible for me to gain credibility!I fail to see any changes in d_s. He still holds to his stereotypes, except that now he's wise enough to stay away from saying anything about the UAE.

BerberElla

23 Sep 2006, 01:03 PM

Shut the fuck up. DS may be ignorant, but you're absolutely disgusting.

You're on my ignore list.

You heard that saying "When intellect is spent, insult is vent"?

Stoned_Rider

23 Sep 2006, 01:03 PM

I fail to see any changes in d_s. He still holds to his stereotypes, except that now he's wise enough to stay away from saying anything about the UAE.

Then you should point out and debate exactly which stereotypes you think he still holds on to, instead of bringing up ancient history.

demagogic_schizoid

23 Sep 2006, 01:04 PM

The point I tried to make earlier is that I did not believe in the things I was saying even then. I was just pissed off because Hustler had found my weak spot and exploited it very well, and I felt like this was completely unjustified and had come out of nowhere, so in my annoyance I posted all sorts of things to try and insult others equally as badly as I felt they had insulted me. I couldn't have cared less about the UAE, my beef was purely personal. I already apologised for this and admitted I was wrong, and since then I have not let personal feelings get in the way. I don't see what the relevance of that thread is now, other than to annoy me. In which case I will not give charred_heart the privelidge of doing so, and would rather walk away.

Magajy

23 Sep 2006, 01:04 PM

Sorry Magajy, I forgot that your lack of Intuitiveness would make you unable to grasp the full meaning of what I said. Please ignore my words.

Thanks for the complement.

demagogic_schizoid

23 Sep 2006, 01:05 PM

Shut the fuck up. DS may be ignorant, but you're absolutely disgusting.

You're on my ignore list.

What even though your good friend Madrigal has said the same thing to people on this very thread and patronised Stoned Rider for being one of the "masses"?

HYPOCRITE.

file cabinet

23 Sep 2006, 01:05 PM

walk away.

I think that'd be easiest for everybody to do since I don't know what this thread is about anymore.

charred_heart

23 Sep 2006, 01:05 PM

Well if you can't forget, then that is your problem, because I doubt that anybody who didn't already care about it is going to start caring now. If you can't get over one thread which I admitted I was wrong in on various occassions and have TWICE explained why on this very thread, then you are truly pathetic.I really like the way you apologise:

Reading through the UK-Argentina relations thread, I have just realised how bad I sounded. The truth is I knew from the start that I didn't have a clue about UAE, but rather than educate myself, I chose to drag the debate down to my level - it's lawyer/politician-like instinct I possess, and I must say I am fairly adept at it...

and some other nonsense about you beeing personally attacked by Hustler, which provoked you into saying a lot of racist crap about the middle east.

there's a difference between "I made a mistake" and "I pull words out of my ass and string them together because I'm good at it"

people have to know, if only to save their time and energy.

Brad324

23 Sep 2006, 01:07 PM

All I will say is this. Islam is a very bad religion.

And to whoever asked "why do people follow their religious text to every letter?"

You haven't really thought this through have you? Perhaps they believe in their religion? As a former christian, I know I believed every word the Bible said. Where's the logic in picking and choosing what's true and what's not in a book of truth? "Hmm... I think this part of the text is from God, but that part is kinda bullshit - this part's a little politically incorrect, so we won't follow that." If anything, people who don't follow their holy texts to the last letter are not good followers. That - is why we get Islamic terrorist bombers. The Quran. Live with it or deal with it.

charred_heart

23 Sep 2006, 01:07 PM

Then you should point out and debate exactly which stereotypes you think he still holds on to, instead of bringing up ancient history.I remember he said something about Morrocco, which you said was even more liberal than the UAE. Look it up.

charred_heart

23 Sep 2006, 01:08 PM

Stoned_Rider

23 Sep 2006, 01:11 PM

I remember he said something about Morrocco, which you said was even more liberal than the UAE. Look it up.
IIRC it was more aimed at Moroccan society in general and the Muslims' mentality than Moroccan politics.

demagogic_schizoid

23 Sep 2006, 01:12 PM

I really like the way you apologise:

and some other nonsense about you beeing personally attacked by Hustler, which provoked you into saying a lot of racist crap about the middle east.

there's a difference between "I made a mistake" and "I pull words out of my ass and string them together because I'm good at it"

people have to know, if only to save their time and energy.

You're an idiot. That apology which Madrigal quoted was NOT on this thread, it was the same day as the UAE thread, and I have explained on here what was wrong with it. Go back a few pages, it's all there.

And btw, why is Hustler's statement that "Everybody knows Mexicans>Argentinians" NOT racist? At least I have apologised and taken back my statements. You are a fucking hypocrite for just picking on posts by someone who was new to the forum and angry in the moment because you are too scared to criticise a moderator for doing the exact same thing. I can't stand people like you who jump on bandwagons and kick a man when everyone else is doing exaclty the same - I apologised for that post and took it back so you should get over it. I'm human and I made a mistake, so does everyone, and I admitted mine and moved on.

meshou

23 Sep 2006, 01:13 PM

You heard that saying "When intellect is spent, insult is vent"?In response to a disgusting sentiment, I expressed disgust. Forgive me for being unable to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

MBTI is not designed as justification for your own intellectual masturbation.

demagogic_schizoid

23 Sep 2006, 01:14 PM

In response to a disgusting sentiment, I expressed disgust. Forgive me for being unable to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

MBTI is not designed as justification for your own intellectual masturbation.

Except when Madrigal does it (see her post to Lee) - then you don't mind.

meshou

23 Sep 2006, 01:16 PM

What even though your good friend Madrigal has said the same thing to people on this very thread and patronised Stoned Rider for being one of the "masses"?

HYPOCRITE.I wasn't under the impression I was responsible for Madrigal's actions.

Since your Fe is obviously inferior at the moment, I suppose you've eared a spot on the ignore list as well.

Edit--- Aaaand she said his viewpoint is "anti-intuitive." Bitch, please. That's hardly the same thing as saying he couldn't possibly comprehend her point.

Stoned_Rider

23 Sep 2006, 01:16 PM

Thanks for the complement.

I'm sorry that my statement made some people put me on their ignore list. I genuinely, honestly, sincerely believe that you are not to be taken seriously and you can't blame me for that.

charred_heart

23 Sep 2006, 01:17 PM

IIRC it was more aimed at Moroccan society in general and the Muslims' mentality than Moroccan politics.so he was talking about something he had no idea about again? who could've guessed?

demagogic_schizoid

23 Sep 2006, 01:18 PM

I wasn't under the impression I was responsible for Madrigal's actions.

Since your Fe is obviously inferior at the moment, I suppose you've eared a spot on the ignore list as well.

LOL ignore people when they point out your errors.

You aren't responsible for Madrigal, but on this thread you praise her and criticise Stoned Rider, yet she did the exact same thing as him. And anyway, you should toughen up, see some of the things people have said to me, I never ignored any of them.

charred_heart

23 Sep 2006, 01:18 PM

I'm sorry that my statement made some people put me on their ignore list. I genuinely, honestly, sincerely believe that you are not to be taken seriously and you can't blame me for that.seriously, the S remark ain't funny when it's an insult. When you start to discriminate, one wonders why you complain about discrimination in the first place.

demagogic_schizoid

23 Sep 2006, 01:22 PM

so he was talking about something he had no idea about again? who could've guessed?

I shouldn't have done that. But look at the context of the argument, how can you condemn me for what I said and NOT condemn Hustler for his "Mexicans>Argentinians" comment. Did it ever occur to you that this offended me just as deeply as my comments about Arabs offended you? Did it never occur to you that at that moment in time I was not thinkign rationally because I was very pissed off by this comment, and therefore said things which I did not believe in simply to try and fight fire with fire? I managed to get over all the insults thrown at me and at argentina, so why can't you just get over my mistakes which I apologised for and took back?

Stoned_Rider

23 Sep 2006, 01:23 PM

seriously, the S remark ain't funny when it's an insult. When you start to discriminate, one wonders why you complain about discrimination in the first place.

I remember reading that people can acquire the various MBTI traits. Education, environment etc.. are all determining factors. I don't think an ISTP is stuck being an ISTP all of his life. If am wrong, however, I apologize and take back what I said.

I find it revealing, though, that you did not say the same thing to Madrigal. Talk about honour :rolleyes:

demagogic_schizoid

23 Sep 2006, 01:23 PM

seriously, the S remark ain't funny when it's an insult. When you start to discriminate, one wonders why you complain about discrimination in the first place.

And when you lie about your location, one wonders how you can criticise other people for being dishonest. But I just let it go - something you should learn to do.

demagogic_schizoid

23 Sep 2006, 01:24 PM

I remember reading that people can acquire the various MBTI traits. Education, environment etc.. are all determining factors. I don't think an ISTP is stuck being an ISTP all of his life. If am wrong, however, I apologize and take back what I said.

I find it revealing, though, that you did not say the same thing to Madrigal. Talk about honour :rolleyes:

See what I mean. This guy is such a sneaky little hypocrite, and he only jumps in at someone when everyone else is.

demagogic_schizoid

23 Sep 2006, 01:25 PM

I wasn't under the impression I was responsible for Madrigal's actions.

Since your Fe is obviously inferior at the moment, I suppose you've eared a spot on the ignore list as well.

Edit--- Aaaand she said his viewpoint is "anti-intuitive." Bitch, please. That's hardly the same thing as saying he couldn't possibly comprehend her point.

What about calling Stoned Rider one of the "masses"? Isn't that patronising and offensive?

meshou

23 Sep 2006, 01:26 PM

LOL ignore people when they point out your errors.

You aren't responsible for Madrigal, but on this thread you praise her and criticise Stoned Rider, yet she did the exact same thing as him.You're totally unable to tell the difference between calling a viewpoint anti-intuitive and totally insulting a person's intilligence based on their personality. Absurd.

And anyway, you should toughen up, see some of the things people have said to me, I never ignored any of them.Self control is not your strong point, I have noticed.

What about calling Stoned Rider one of the "masses"? Isn't that patronising and offensive?It's not at all a comment on his MBTI type, and I can't disagree with finding him loathsome. He's near rabid.

Magajy

23 Sep 2006, 01:26 PM

I'm sorry that my statement made some people put me on their ignore list. I genuinely, honestly, sincerely believe that you are not to be taken seriously and you can't blame me for that.

Frankly speaking, I couldn't care less what you think of me, or what I say.

Of course I cannot blame you for the way you think, can I? It's a product of your brain and the state of your mind, so it couldn't be you, its your head.

demagogic_schizoid

23 Sep 2006, 01:28 PM

You're totally unable to tell the difference between calling a viewpoint anti-intuitive and totally insulting a person's intilligence based on their personality. Absurd.

Self control is not your strong point, I have notices.

Like you would know. When it matters I have more self control than you could imagine.

charred_heart

23 Sep 2006, 01:29 PM

I shouldn't have done that. But look at the context of the argument, how can you condemn me for what I said and NOT condemn Hustler for his "Mexicans>Argentinians" comment. Did it ever occur to you that this offended me just as deeply as my comments about Arabs offended you? Did it never occur to you that at that moment in time I was not thinkign rationally because I was very pissed off by this comment, and therefore said things which I did not believe in simply to try and fight fire with fire? I managed to get over all the insults thrown at me and at argentina, so why can't you just get over my mistakes which I apologised for and took back?this is not about insults or getting hurt. You have a problem of basing your opinions on little or no facts. That is a big problem in this forum, especially when we only want to talk about facts. You also seem to have a problem with understanding comments said in jest, especially from someone like Hustler. You insult others as a way to defend yourself? What did the Mexicans do to you? That was in very poor taste.

Since you still exhibit these tendencies, what you said about the UAE is still relevant in the context of your style of debate.

charred_heart

23 Sep 2006, 01:30 PM

charred_heart

23 Sep 2006, 01:31 PM

And when you lie about your location, one wonders how you can criticise other people for being dishonest. But I just let it go - something you should learn to do.that is very weak, since I mention that I live in the UAE practically every other month or so and whenever anyone asks me

Stoned_Rider

23 Sep 2006, 01:34 PM

what? she said INTPs suck? :blink:

Something along the lines of "I guess it's too much to ask you to use your Intuition". Granted, she did not imply that I do not have Intuition but she suggested Intuition is the key factor to understanding what she said (i.e. anyone without Intuition will not grasp what she said), which is exactly what I said to Magajy.

demagogic_schizoid

23 Sep 2006, 01:39 PM

this is not about insults or getting hurt. You have a problem of basing your opinions on little or no facts. That is a big problem in this forum, especially when we only want to talk about facts. You also seem to have a problem with understanding comments said in jest, especially from someone like Hustler. You insult others as a way to defend yourself? What did the Mexicans do to you? That was in very poor taste.

Since you still exhibit these tendencies, what you said about the UAE is still relevant in the context of your style of debate.

What indication was there that the comment was in jest? I take people on their word, unless they specifically take back that comment. And WTF does the name "Hustler" mean to me? I will just judge a post as it comes and not on who wrote it.

And yes, I did insult others to defend myself on that occassion, and yes it was in poor taste, which is why I apologised for doing so twice on this thread. You must be a little slow on the uptake if you hadn't grasped this yet.

And no, I do not exhibit those tendencies, which is why you only ever go on about the UAE thread and not my posts since then - if you could argue with what I was saying now you wouldn't still be smearing me with one error I made a long time ago and subsequently admitted and apologised for.

that is very weak, since I mention that I live in the UAE practically every other month or so and whenever anyone asks me

You do? Forgive me if I don't seek out your posts. For all I knew, your location was Sudan, because that's what you told everyone on your profile. You lied to me, basically. But I got over it. Learn to do the same.

demagogic_schizoid

23 Sep 2006, 01:43 PM

Something along the lines of "I guess it's too much to ask you to use your Intuition". Granted, she did not imply that I do not have Intuition but she suggested Intuition is the key factor to understanding what she said (i.e. anyone without Intuition will not grasp what she said), which is exactly what I said to Magajy.

Madrigal slyly questions people's intuition on a regular basis. You insult someone about it once in the heat of the moment - someone who was specifically looking for an argument with you - and Charred Heart and Meshou jump down your throat. This only speaks about their lack of intuition for not realising when she does it, or their lack of honour for hounding one person for doing something and then being best buddies with another who does the same thing.

Stoned_Rider

23 Sep 2006, 01:49 PM

All types develop over time - and in a pretty predictable and logical fashion. We all begin to unconsciously develop and strengthen the less developed parts of our personality starting at around mid-life.
http://www.personalitytype.com/faq.html#1

Hmm, it seems to me that there is nothing wrong in urging someone to develop and strengthen their Intuitiveness in that case. It is definitely not like telling a homosexual to "stop being so homosexual" or a black person to "stop being so black". Add to that MBTI is still not approved by the scientific community. Shall we start a thread about this?

Hustler

23 Sep 2006, 01:50 PM

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/57f491257c7b5470f525e6753e0511cfOverTheLine_1_.gif

This thread is getting ridiculous. The last four pages have been filled with personal attacks, ad hominem, the dredging up of old, irrelevant arguments, and downright shitty debate. If you elect to continue posting in this thread, be sure you cut the crap.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

LongSilence

23 Sep 2006, 01:53 PM

But we were just getting some proper 'factions' going...

Madrigal

23 Sep 2006, 11:33 PM

Clarifying:

Calling someone a part of the masses has never been an insult to me, nor will it ever be.

Saying that Lee's argument was counter-intuitive wasn't an insult either.

I :wub: Lee

He's one of the greatest people I've met on this board, and if I can tease him by implying he isn't using his Intuition, it's only because I know he won't be offended, and is perfectly capable of discussing it on his own without you guys clutching onto him.

This thread was started because I noticed a tendency. Believe it or not, Stoned Rider, I have never really noticed you much. Only the content of your posts and those of your like-minded mates. It wasn't targeting you.

I posted demagogue's apology because he continues to employ the same approach as when he first arrived here. He was doing it again, on this thread. Call it dishonest, call it ancient history, but I've never gotten him to address a single one of the posts I've ever made without dodging.

The last straw. (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=334450&postcount=310) Your response to my request for a reply, was:

You wrote about it at excrutiating length, and it was a pile of bullshit.

So don't expect patience from me now.

You want to keep talking about the Qu'ran's relevance over politics, economy and occupation? Be my guest, that's what this thread was meant to be about. That's why it was about a World Issue. But I don't want to address those above points again. You want to flame me? There's a subforum for that, start a thread, and I may or may not see you there.

Ferrus

23 Sep 2006, 11:39 PM

You want to keep talking about the Qu'ran's relevance over politics, economy and occupation? Be my guest, that's what this thread was meant to be about. That's why it was about a World Issue. But I don't want to address those above points again. You want to flame me? There's a subforum for that, start a thread, and I may or may not see you there.
[/LIST]
The Qu'ran has relevance to the reaction of these political and economic events: not to mention the internal politics and economics of the Middle East. To ignore it would be like analysing the West without understanding Christianity, liberalism and conservatism, or to analyse the Soviet Union without knowledge of Marxist-Leninism.

Politics and economics don't occure in a vacuum, they occur among thinking sentient beings whose reactions and views of the world are intimately connected to their socialisation, which in turn is deeply influenced by the ideological paradigm within the society that they are born.

Madrigal

23 Sep 2006, 11:41 PM

meshou

23 Sep 2006, 11:44 PM

The Qu'ran has relevance to the reaction of these political and economic events: not to mention the internal politics and economics of the Middle East. To ignore it would be like analysing the West without understanding Christianity, liberalism and conservatism, or to analyse the Soviet Union without knowledge of Marxist-Leninism.But arguing the opposing side must know what color boxers Marx wore on his fifty-sixth birthday, with cites, sources THEY'LL believe (because his wife was obviously biased), and multiple refrences (and a Master's in German linguistics, because we must know them in the original German) in every thread on Soviet Russia ever in order to have an informed opinion would get really fucking old.

Ferrus

23 Sep 2006, 11:48 PM

As I say, the Qu'ran does not underpin everything that happens in the Middle East. Reality after all has the habit of destroying idylls envisioned by ideologies and religions - as Muslims well know from the destruction of the first empire by reaving Mongols. And clearly oil has had more impact on life in the Middle East in the last century than any Surrah. But to understand the mind, the psychology of the Middle Easterner, and so in turn the politics, the worry and concerns and attitudes of the region - that is the calculus by which such oppressions have been measured in the region - must have some reference to a book genuinely held by the majority of people in region to be the word of God.

Madrigal

23 Sep 2006, 11:55 PM

Disclaimer: Haven't read any of your posts yet, Ferrus. :D Just sayin'.

demagogic_schizoid

23 Sep 2006, 11:56 PM

Madrigal:

You might not think calling someone part of the masses is an insult, but clearly when you did so the implication was that you are NOT one of the "masses", that Stoned Rider is, and that he somehow he needs saving by you. I don't think it's hard to see why this is insulting, at least no more so than telling someone they are not intuititive enough to understand the argument in question.

Say what you want about how much you like Lee, you do it to other people, and why should posts be judged differently depending on who said what to who? I stand by my point that if it is "disgusting" in one case, it is disgusting in all cases.

I'm not asking for patience, you aren't doing me a favour by replying - just don't expect me to stop asking awkward questions simply because you don't want to answer them. If you do, I will consider that you are unable to do so.

Last point: I was a little rude, so what? You and other people have said worse than that to me, look at meshou's abuse of me on this post. I don't see how this is dishonest or a calculated tactic, and you still haven't given an example of me using dirty tactics. And I told you that the UAE apology was me trying to pretend I had been in control when really I got played around with like a football - I am flattered that you think that I'm clever enough to have single-handedly manipulated a whole thread of experienced posters (I really am flattered) but even at the time I knew I couldn't do that.

So please, example of dishonest tactics on this thread, or stop saying it.

Madrigal

23 Sep 2006, 11:59 PM

I am flattered that you think that I'm clever enough to have single-handedly manipulated a whole thread of experienced posters (I really am flattered)

You aren't.

And I've said what I have to say. Flamewars awaits you, if you need to carry on.

demagogic_schizoid

24 Sep 2006, 12:06 AM

I don't feel the need to carry on, but know that if you say things I disagree with I will argue if I feel like it, just like I would with any other poster, regardless of your decision to ignore me.

meshou

24 Sep 2006, 12:21 AM

...I agree. Then it's only a measure of how much is appropriate to any given issue. I (obviously) feel that it's a little overstated in each thread.

Most religons, including Islam, cherry-pick what they do and do not want to follow-- subserviant wives, but without property ownership rights; go after gays, but fine with a nice catfish dinner.

So, I am more inclined to say "this is how ALL cultures come at religion, let's see what's different?" Theocracy certainly is, but I think these theocracies may correspond more neatly in spirit to Nationalism than anything else, and the faith aspects end up being expressed in HOW they are dangerous, not why.

In the same way I think it would be a gross error to say that the Nazis became powerful primarily because of racist sentiment (instead of paying any attention to how the Germans lived in probably the worst conditions of anyone in the developed world before or since shortly before his rise to power), it would be an error to blame the evils of theocracies on the nastier teachings in the Quran.

Does that excuse the Holocaust? No! But it does say that imposing evils on a society creates an evil society.

I am a great fan of Maslow's heiarchy of needs. I think that taking people down to the lowest levels of desperation for extended periods of time creates future monsters out of potentially good people. Therefore, since war is bar none nastier than everyday life, even in a tyranical state, and since we'd only be going to war if they were pretty close to rock bottom already, it should be as quick and clean as humanly possible or delayed until it can be.

Anyway, I am babbling.

demagogic_schizoid

24 Sep 2006, 12:31 AM

Does that excuse the Holocaust? No! But it does say that imposing evils on a society creates an evil society.

So why did the evils which the Germans imposed on the British between 1939 and 1945 not create an evil society?

Ferrus

24 Sep 2006, 12:39 AM

I agree. Then it's only a measure of how much is appropriate to any given issue. I (obviously) feel that it's a little overstated in each thread.
Possibly, as I say for geopolitics and internation economics it is largely irrelevant. But I think it is sumpremely relevant in other situations: such as assessing Islamic society.

Most quotations of the Qu'ran here and in most political debates in the West are fatuous and often accompined with ignorance about Islam as a whole. What is needed instead in my opinion is not to ignore the Qu'ran but rather to listen to Muslims and understand what it means to them, how their interpret its meaning and how they argue it influences politics and their world view. This includes honestly asking them why they feel Islamic culture and morality is superior to the West and understanding the philosophical structure of their world view - which means being receptive to alternative view points.

Most religons, including Islam, cherry-pick what they do and do not want to follow-- subserviant wives, but without property ownership rights; go after gays, but fine with a nice catfish dinner.
Very true, and none of those things are inherently Islamic but rely upon traditions of interpretation, based on loose principles espoused in the Qu'ran. However what I would say is this: Islam, unlike Christanity, has a holy book that is remarkably philosophically coherent and holistically constructed. It is much harder to cherry pick from the Qu'ran because it contains far less contradictions than the Bible and states an explicit moral code that does not need further elucidation from theologians and philosophers. Hence Islam has avoided the theological rents that Christianity has been plauged with since it's inception.

Too many in political debates wish to pronounce polemic without first understanding and learning. What I ultimately believe - beyond the caustic and stylised affectations I adopt in political debates both to jest and to spite - is that we should first seek to understand, then not to judge but provide tenuous analysis that can be commented upon and rigorously questions so that the process of understanding and learning can continue.

meshou

24 Sep 2006, 12:42 AM

So why did the evils which the Germans imposed on the British between 1939 and 1945 not create an evil society?Because the English were at about level two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs) for six years in that instance and quickly thereafter were back to normal.

The Germans were at level zero (NO basic needs at level one met for most of the population) for about a decade. They starved to death en masse pointlessly.

Keep in mind this theory was concocted by a an American-born german Jew as a response to the holocaust and his own personal experience, and is based on otherwise pretty solid theory.

Ferrus

24 Sep 2006, 12:48 AM

In the same way I think it would be a gross error to say that the Nazis became powerful primarily because of racist sentiment (instead of paying any attention to how the Germans lived in probably the worst conditions of anyone in the developed world before or since shortly before his rise to power), it would be an error to blame the evils of theocracies on the nastier teachings in the Quran.
Personally I feel history is a complex tapistry of causes and events.

Racist sentiment - or at least anti-Jewish sentiment - played a part. As did anti-Communist hysteria, as did the percieved injustice of Versailles, as did the middle classes insecurity after the hyperinflation of 1919-23, as did the penury experienced by many Germans after the Depression set in, as did the miscalculations of Germany's political elite, as did the fear of the Nazi's that set in after the dictatorship was instituted. Did the German's have the worst conditions? That is debatable - Spain and Italy weren't much better, Germany was still an economic powerhouse - and Western Europe (and the rest of the world bar the USSR) were in a pretty bad state during the Depression. However the perception that they were was prehaps a cause.

Which is a roundabout way of saying that the cause of Nazism is too complex to be explained in a simple statement or a single cause - it happened because the unpredictable strains of history collided in a certain way. That's not to say that history is the preserve of "great men" - but that even the great movements of society are infintely complex and move in unpredictable ways - though with an obvious inertia in hindsight.

demagogic_schizoid

24 Sep 2006, 12:51 AM

Because the English were at about level two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs) for six years in that instance and quickly thereafter were back to normal.

The Germans were at level zero (NO needs at level one met for most of the population) for about a decade. They starved to death en masse pointlessly.

Keep in mind this theory was concocted by a an American-born german Jew as a response to the holocaust and his own personal experience, and is based on otherwise pretty solid theory.

At the end of the day it is just a psychological theory, I don't think you can pretend it is scientific and say one society acts one way because they are at one "level", and another in another way because they happen to be at this "level". Human behaviour isn't that simple. And you said that if you impose evils on a society, it creates an evil society. Well speak to any people who were evcuated in WW2 and I think you will agree that what was imposed on them was evil. I know for a fact that my grandfather and his siblings suffered from malnutrition during the war and would have to fight the other kids in the Welsh mining village where they had been evacuated to in order to find raw potatos in the fields to dig up and eat that night. I do not believe that this is incomparable to the suffering of the Germans. Bear in mind that these childrens father had been sent to war, and that their mother was working in Woolwich arsenal with German planes flying overhead every night dropping bombs and killing civilians. Yet these people did not, in the vast majority of cases, turn out as fascists, because that sort of ideology simply does not have deep roots in Anglo-Saxon culture like it does in the much more romantic and sentimental Germanic culture. Part of this is because British national identity comes from being a mongrel race bound by common experience, while the Germans have a sense of national identity which stems from their ethnicity and the ties of their people to their soil.

So you see, while of course the Germans situation pushed them towards Nazism, the roots were there in a way that they never were in Britain.

meshou

24 Sep 2006, 12:52 AM

Not really. None of my posts on this thread broke the rules, and I don't believe that any administrator is going to ban a poster who has not broken any rules. Also, you haven't shown how I am to blame for the nature of this thread, or any other.If they decide you've been trolling, they could ban you.

They could make a pretty good case for it too. You, in the past, have flamed other posters and argued only for the same of arguing about topics you later admitted you knew nothing about. Assuming past behavior is the strongest predictor of future behavior, since your level of venom has remained constant with ANYONE you don't agree with (but those you argue against fluctuates depending on who is disagreeing with them), it would be well within modly powers to ban you for disrupting the board.

They have made such calls in the past as well.

meshou

24 Sep 2006, 12:54 AM

...Wow! My stock in you's gone up a bit. :wub:

I have no objections. Well put.

demagogic_schizoid

24 Sep 2006, 12:57 AM

If they decide you've been trolling, they could ban you.

But I know I haven't.

They could make a pretty good case for it too.
You, in the past, have flamed other posters and argued only for the same of arguing about topics you later admitted you knew nothing about.

Once, because I was annoyed in the heat of the moment.

Assuming past behavior is the strongest predictor of future behavior, since your level of venom has remained constant with ANYONE you don't agree with (but those you argue against fluctuates depending on who is disagreeing with them), it would be well within modly powers to ban you for disrupting the board.

What are you talking about. You have been much more venomous than me, I'm not the one who riddles my posts with swear words for a start, and I'm generally unemotional and answer objectively, trying to ignore the insults I get thrown at me by various people who can't contain themselves.

They have made such calls in the past as well.

I've not ruined this threas - when I have engaged in off-topic flaming it has been as a response to off-topic flaming directed at me or others who I feel are being unjustly treated.

meshou

24 Sep 2006, 01:07 AM

But I know I haven't.

They could make a pretty good case for it too.The rules can't take into account intent, only behavior. If what you DO looks like trolling and has the same results, it still has the same effects.

I once had to ban a young lady who kept posting child porn at an old board of mine. She was litterally crazy, and couldn't really be held personally accountable. We still had to ban her for the good of the board.

Once, because I was annoyed in the heat of the moment.They're mods, not psychics. If your behavior looks the same, they wouldn't be wrong to treat it similarly.

What are you talking about. You have been much more venomous than me, I'm not the one who riddles my posts with swear words for a start, and I'm generally unemotional and answer objectively, trying to ignore the insults I get thrown at me by various people who can't contain themselves.

I've not ruined this threas - when I have engaged in off-topic flaming it has been as a response to off-topic flaming directed at me or others who I feel are being unjustly treated.And yet every discussion you have participated in thusfar has turned into a flamewar, whereas you can't say the same of nearly any of your opponants.

I am not advocating you be banned, I am trying to point out how you come across to someone who has been on the board a very long time, and has seen posters like you gone because of the exact same behavior. You can argue banning you would not be fair, but you can't argue you're at zero risk for it happening.

demagogic_schizoid

24 Sep 2006, 01:21 AM

The rules can't take into account intent, only behavior. If what you DO looks like trolling and has the same results, it still has the same effects.

I once had to ban a young lady who kept posting child porn at an old board of mine. She was litterally crazy, and couldn't really be held personally accountable. We still had to ban her for the good of the board.

They're mods, not psychics. If your behavior looks the same, they wouldn't be wrong to treat it similarly.

And yet every discussion you have participated in thusfar has turned into a flamewar, whereas you can't say the same of nearly any of your opponants.

I am not advocating you be banned, I am trying to point out how you come across to someone who has been on the board a very long time, and has seen posters like you gone because of the exact same behavior. You can argue banning you would not be fair, but you can't argue you're at zero risk for it happening.

How about a reply to my post about why Britain did not turn into an evil society as a result of the evils imposed on it by Nazi Germany?