|
Post by What Hat on Jan 25, 2015 11:35:51 GMT -5
I read that as a very defensive reaction. Why do you want to defend "the West" so badly? You seem to think that everyone who criticizes Western governments is in league together. Critique isn't all "stupid conspiracy theories".
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 25, 2015 11:44:49 GMT -5
Sounds like they are actually following all the OT laws. Right out of the handbook of the likes of Stalin , Mao and countless others. If you don't agree with me or or if you disobey the laws I made, - off with your head. Alvin A very good point, Alvin. We are not immune to tyranny. Tyrants live among us; let's work to keep them out of power. Why is it though, that when we see those kinds of horrible effects in other races, ethnicities or religions, those effects re-inforce our prejudice against the entire group. e.g. "This is how Muslims treat their neighbours". When those effects occur in our own race or religion, we hold only the individual(s) accountable.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 25, 2015 12:01:07 GMT -5
First of all, I meant to say that "those ideas apply only in the West". They are, of course, universally applicable ideas. There are obstacles to their implementation in other countries, that sometimes are not well understood. For example, representative democratic models do not work in countries like Iraq where there are strong factions that vote almost 100% along ethnic lines. Proportional models have been used and work well in multi-ethnic countries like Malaysia. But this is quibbling; the main point is that Western ideas on human rights, government structure, democracy and rule of law have been proven over centuries of time. What I meant by my comment is that those ideas are inhibited by active interference, as you indicate, but not by the countries in question, by the West. The West does promote these values, generally speaking, but the spread of those values is actively inhibited by economic interests. For example, we repeatedly make arms and economic deals with despotic governments for the sake of maintaining our economic interests. Nigeria provides a textbook example. In Iraq, after the invasion the USA suppressed the Sunni's in a fashion that went against every democratic ideal of equal opportunity and "one person, one vote". The USA installed the Iraqi prime minister al-Maliki, and acted surprised when he suppressed Sunni's once the USA had left the field. (Patraeus had achieved a level of rapprochement with the Sunni's which was the key element in the success of the Surge.) We don't consistently do the wrong thing, depending on who is in power, and depending on how badly our economic interests may suffer. The problem isn't in the people so much, I feel, as it is in the nature of capitalist behaviour. When corporate interests encounter a valuable resource within a weak country, history shows that the people there will suffer. They will become less democratic, not more, and they will be actively suppressed by their leadership and suffer abuse. That is the pattern. That is a strong and provocative rebuttal, whathat. I find your observation,"When corporate interests encounter a valuable resource within a weak country, history shows that the people there will suffer", to be of greatest concern. Your observation prompts many questions, foremost . . . . . whereto from here? I believe that one could sit with a sheet of paper with a line down the middle and objectively list positive and negative attributes for corporations spawned by the predominant Western economic system. I don't believe that either side of the ledger would be a null set if the lists were constructed without ideological bias. At or near the top of the negative list would have to be the observation you made regarding the behavior of corporations when they encounter valuable resources in a weak country. But it seems to me that there is another exercise that is even more important and that is to sit with another piece of paper and begin to objectively list the global societal costs and societal benefits of Western culture and the Western economic system in the world as it actually exists today. The difficulty I encounter is that I can't find a way to execute that task without ideological bias. It is critically important to identify the faults and failures of the systems in place, but wouldn't you share the opinion that it is at least equally if not more important to rationally discuss pathways for improvement. Is the only or the preferred course of action (because entrenched systems are intransigent) to foster revolution? Has the world adequate empirical evidence of efficacy that we should abandon "market economies" and move directly to a "planned economy"? I am asking how would you transition from that which you find deficient and unresponsive to human values to a system that cherished and nurtured humanity? The closest thing I have seen are the efforts being made in Bhutan (Gross National Happiness (GNH) instead of Gross National Product (GNP)). Regretfully, I fear that as the global population approaches the carrying capacity of the planet, GNH will be unable to stem the tide of human nature. I recall "The Rome Club" back in the 60s cautioning that unlimited growth is unsustainable and that the system will return to equilibrium. We can make the rational and difficult choices necessary to bring our species into equilibrium in a controlled fashion or we can choose to await the catastrophic alternatives. I have no answers, only questions.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 25, 2015 13:04:52 GMT -5
In Iraq, after the invasion the USA suppressed the Sunni's in a fashion that went against every democratic ideal of equal opportunity and "one person, one vote". The USA installed the Iraqi prime minister al-Maliki, and acted surprised when he suppressed Sunni's once the USA had left the field. (Patraeus had achieved a level of rapprochement with the Sunni's which was the key element in the success of the Surge.) False accusation. The coalition of about 40 countries that liberated Iraq from Saddam's brutal domination held free elections as soon as they could. It could be argued that elections were held before the Iraqis were ready for democracy, but the coalition wanted to get the country stabilised and get out of there as soon as they could. Sunni factions fought the coalition because they lost their position of power and privilege over the Shiites that they enjoyed under Saddam. Maliki was elected by the Iraqi people - to say he was installed by the Americans is a gross distortion of the facts.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 25, 2015 13:10:11 GMT -5
We don't consistently do the wrong thing, depending on who is in power, and depending on how badly our economic interests may suffer. The problem isn't in the people so much, I feel, as it is in the nature of capitalist behaviour. When corporate interests encounter a valuable resource within a weak country, history shows that the people there will suffer. They will become less democratic, not more, and they will be actively suppressed by their leadership and suffer abuse. That is the pattern. History shows that countries make real progress once they understand the need for foreign capital and make it welcome.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 25, 2015 13:13:23 GMT -5
Whathat, I have now finished reading all of your responses. I agree with many of the points you make and, as you must expect, some of your perspectives I do not share. I am not sure there will be much value in pushing the conversation further into the weeds here on this thread but I do hope we can explore some of the ideas in greater depth at some other time, probably ought to be over coffee.
One paragraph you wrote leaves me saddened:
"As far as what would be a "better system". What would make a better system would be for Americans to stop clinging to the ideology that everything done in and by the USA is perfect, and nothing wrong with it. The system does not need to be changed, but there does need to be transparency and interest in foreign policy to limit or stop the damage, and create better relations."
I know that many outside the USA view our country in the monochromatic fashion you describe and that this narrative is both fashionable and useful beyond our borders. What saddens me is that, in fact, the citizens of this country engage the many and varied ideologies of human experience as fervently as any society and more so than most and we engage these varied ideologies with unparalleled passion. For sure we make a hodge-podge mess of it and we don't have the nuanced sophistication of the more enlightened. But when the chips are down we care as much (if not more), we give as much (if not more) and we adapt as quickly (if not faster) to the compassionate needs of our fellow as the social evolution of our species permits. Perhaps as importantly, we acknowledge and work toward rectifying our mistakes as we go along. Though often lectured, few know our deficiencies better than we do.
As long as the monochromatic trope persists it will be difficult to work toward common benefit. No society, rich or poor, can contribute constructively when viewed through lenses designed to minimize.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 25, 2015 13:25:21 GMT -5
Whathat, I have now finished reading all of your responses. I agree with many of the points you make and, as you must expect, some of your perspectives I do not share. I am not sure there will be much value in pushing the conversation further into the weeds here on this thread but I do hope we can explore some of the ideas in greater depth at some other time, probably ought to be over coffee. One paragraph you wrote leaves me saddened: "As far as what would be a "better system". What would make a better system would be for Americans to stop clinging to the ideology that everything done in and by the USA is perfect, and nothing wrong with it. The system does not need to be changed, but there does need to be transparency and interest in foreign policy to limit or stop the damage, and create better relations." I know that many outside the USA view our country in the monochromatic fashion you describe and that this narrative is both fashionable and useful beyond our borders. What saddens me is that, in fact, the citizens of this country engage the many and varied ideologies of human experience as fervently as any society and more so than most and we engage these varied ideologies with unparalleled passion. For sure we make a hodge-podge mess of it and we don't have the nuanced sophistication of the more enlightened. But when the chips are down we care as much (if not more), we give as much (if not more) and we adapt as quickly (if not faster) to the compassionate needs of our fellow as the social evolution of our species permits. Perhaps as importantly, we acknowledge and work toward rectifying our mistakes as we go along. Though often lectured, few know our deficiencies better than we do. As long as the monochromatic trope persists it will be difficult to work toward common benefit. No society, rich or poor, can contribute constructively when viewed through lenses designed to minimize. I definitely meant 'some' Americans, but unfortunately the "ugly Americans" do have a considerable amount of power and influence. I am going to have to curtail my responses for today, but I will get back at this during the week. The dialogue has opened out from a specific incident to consider more general and broad-based underlying questions. I appreciate everyone's willingness to keep coming back to tangle with questions that can be very divisive. Much of my concern here is simply with views that I do not hold. Because I criticise totalising views of the Muslims, for example, does not mean I don't share some of the concerns voiced. I find that people often project what my views are based on my criticisms of their views. For example, I defend Christianity when debating with atheists, and then criticising it when I debate Christians. And that's just on TMB.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 25, 2015 13:42:33 GMT -5
I read that as a very defensive reaction. Why do you want to defend "the West" so badly? You seem to think that everyone who criticizes Western governments is in league together. Critique isn't all "stupid conspiracy theories". Of course "the West" has made mistakes and should be open to criticism. Mostly I'm correcting false assertions made on this thread. The main reason for poverty in the world is poor governance and economic policy that has been proven to not work. One obvious problem in the world is that governments are paying citizens to burn fuel.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 25, 2015 13:54:36 GMT -5
In Iraq, after the invasion the USA suppressed the Sunni's in a fashion that went against every democratic ideal of equal opportunity and "one person, one vote". The USA installed the Iraqi prime minister al-Maliki, and acted surprised when he suppressed Sunni's once the USA had left the field. (Patraeus had achieved a level of rapprochement with the Sunni's which was the key element in the success of the Surge.) False accusation. The coalition of about 40 countries that liberated Iraq from Saddam's brutal domination held free elections as soon as they could. It could be argued that elections were held before the Iraqis were ready for democracy, but the coalition wanted to get the country stabilised and get out of there as soon as they could. Sunni factions fought the coalition because they lost their position of power and privilege over the Shiites that they enjoyed under Saddam. Maliki was elected by the Iraqi people - to say he was installed by the Americans is a gross distortion of the facts. The Sunni's did not vote in the election. They were allowed to vote, but boycotted because they had been so maligned by the USA. That is, immediately after the invasion, the US decreed that Sunni's were to be removed from all government jobs including teachers and government employees. The effect of this was to turn Iraqi optimism at the time of the invasion into despair, and the insurgency followed in rapid order. The US was heavily involved in installing Maliki. Ibrahim al-Jafaari won the election, but the US could not work with him. The CIA endorsed Maliki because he was a dissident and a Shi-ite, but had no ties to Iran. Finally, the "40 countries" is a facade based on a bit of research I made after your original post. I was interested in why Holland participated in the Invasion. A huge investigation and report was completed by the Dutch government on their involvement, an involvement which was considered illegal under international law, and chagrined many Dutch citizens. The Dutch govt of the day believed there were WMD that were an imminent threat against Europe. The evidence of the WMD came from Blair and from US general Tommy Franks. The Netherlands' own investigation turned up no such evidence but the govt of the day went ahead in any case. Also noted, the Dutch military was not involved in any fighting, and this was a condition of their involvement. I suspect that you'd find similar among the other of the 40 nations with the possible exception of the two soldiers from Tonga. Source - www.rnw.org/archive/saddam-war-decision-backfires-dutch-governmentRNW is a Dutch government agency. The Americans meant well, but they simply should not have even been there.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 25, 2015 14:58:37 GMT -5
False accusation. The coalition of about 40 countries that liberated Iraq from Saddam's brutal domination held free elections as soon as they could. It could be argued that elections were held before the Iraqis were ready for democracy, but the coalition wanted to get the country stabilised and get out of there as soon as they could. Sunni factions fought the coalition because they lost their position of power and privilege over the Shiites that they enjoyed under Saddam. Maliki was elected by the Iraqi people - to say he was installed by the Americans is a gross distortion of the facts. The Sunni's did not vote in the election. They were allowed to vote, but boycotted because they had been so maligned by the USA. That is, immediately after the invasion, the US decreed that Sunni's were to be removed from all government jobs including teachers and government employees. The effect of this was to turn Iraqi optimism at the time of the invasion into despair, and the insurgency followed in rapid order. The US was heavily involved in installing Maliki. Ibrahim al-Jafaari won the election, but the US could not work with him. The CIA endorsed Maliki because he was a dissident and a Shi-ite, but had no ties to Iran. Finally, the "40 countries" is a facade based on a bit of research I made after your original post. I was interested in why Holland participated in the Invasion. A huge investigation and report was completed by the Dutch government on their involvement, an involvement which was considered illegal under international law, and chagrined many Dutch citizens. The Dutch govt of the day believed there were WMD that were an imminent threat against Europe. The evidence of the WMD came from Blair and from US general Tommy Franks. The Netherlands' own investigation turned up no such evidence but the govt of the day went ahead in any case. Also noted, the Dutch military was not involved in any fighting, and this was a condition of their involvement. I suspect that you'd find similar among the other of the 40 nations with the possible exception of the two soldiers from Tonga. Source - www.rnw.org/archive/saddam-war-decision-backfires-dutch-governmentRNW is a Dutch government agency. The Americans meant well, but they simply should not have even been there. The Sunnis were removed from their positions of privilege as part of the De-Ba'athification process. As it turned out the coalition got little thanks from the Shiite majority for trying to share the power more evenly amongst the religious/ethnic groups. If the coalition had left the Sunnis in power they would have been blamed for favouring a minority over the majority. The Sunnis boycotting free elections was foolish. Do you think Saddam was the government the Iraqis deserved? Probably the biggest mistake the coalition made was in thinking the Arabs would embrace democracy if given the opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 25, 2015 16:32:15 GMT -5
Right out of the handbook of the likes of Stalin , Mao and countless others. If you don't agree with me or or if you disobey the laws I made, - off with your head. Alvin A very good point, Alvin. We are not immune to tyranny. Tyrants live among us; let's work to keep them out of power. Why is it though, that when we see those kinds of horrible effects in other races, ethnicities or religions, those effects re-inforce our prejudice against the entire group. e.g. "This is how Muslims treat their neighbours". When those effects occur in our own race or religion, we hold only the individual(s) accountable. Many people we consider as being prejudiced are often only living with misconception. Great to be able to have opportunities to be informed and rectify our misconceptions. IF a person has misconceptions, and as a result prejudice, about any group, religious, nonreliguous, ethnic , etc. etc., probably one of the best anecdotes would be to get to KNOW a person of that group personally , as a friend. Yes, there will be individuals within ANY group, and maybe even MANY, we are prejudiced against, that would reinforce our prejudice, but it will become impossible, with integrity, to condemn the whole group and paint them with one big black brush, if we know one or some in that group that do not "fit" our prejudice. Alvin "If a person is capable of rectifying his erroneous judgments in the light of new evidence he is not prejudiced. Prejudgments becom e prejudices only if they are reversible when exposed to new knowledge. A prejudice, unlike a simple misconception, is actively resistant to all evidence that would unseat it. We tend to grow emotional when a prejudice is threatened with contradiction. Thus the difference between ordinary prejudgments and prejudice is that one can discuss and rectify a prejudgment without emotional resistance"
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 25, 2015 17:15:35 GMT -5
Right out of the handbook of the likes of Stalin , Mao and countless others. If you don't agree with me or or if you disobey the laws I made, - off with your head. Alvin A very good point, Alvin. We are not immune to tyranny. Tyrants live among us; let's work to keep them out of power. Why is it though, that when we see those kinds of horrible effects in other races, ethnicities or religions, those effects re-inforce our prejudice against the entire group. e.g. "This is how Muslims treat their neighbours". When those effects occur in our own race or religion, we hold only the individual(s) accountable. You are right - that wasn't a nice thing to say about Muslims. I deleted my post a few minutes after writing that. I do respect moderates in the Islamic faith as I respect moderates everywhere. However radical Islam is at war with modern secular civilisation. It's not that we want war, but we've been in denial for too long already. We called it "the war on terror" but all along it has been Islamic jihad against secular freedom. It's forced upon us and we have no choice. Appeasement will not work for long. Yes, we could curtail our freedoms by banning Mohammad cartoons but would it make any more difference to world peace than banning Hitler cartoons 80 years ago? "It isn't Islamophobia when they really are trying to kill you."
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 25, 2015 17:27:58 GMT -5
Mr Chaudary understands something that many Westerners have yet to grasp: Islam is a political ideology:
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 25, 2015 19:35:06 GMT -5
I appreciate and understand your concerns , fixit. Radical islam is a serious threat and danger, I believe, but what percent of Islam would be considered "radical"? When we were in Turkey a while ago, a sincere Muslim girl was telling us that she was AGAINST sharia law, and desired to live in a moderate Muslim society. The country is about 96 percent Muslim, and she believed that it was about 50-50 in favour of "conservative" Muslim. She , herself, with "fire" in her eyes, told us she was willing to die for their "cause" against "radical" Islam, so if any consolation, there are MANY MANY Muslims that would support moderation. I don't know what percentage worldwide, of the Muslim population , would be considered "moderate" and not a threat or danger? I was kinda surprised though, that a number of young graduates from career school and university in Palestine and Jordan, did consider that Sharia law was a desirable thing. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 25, 2015 19:47:48 GMT -5
I appreciate and understand your concerns , fixit. Radical islam is a serious threat and danger, I believe, but what percent of Islam would be considered "radical"? When we were in Turkey a while ago, a sincere Muslim girl was telling us that she was AGAINST sharia law, and desired to live in a moderate Muslim society. The country is about 96 percent Muslim, and she believed that it was about 50-50 in favour of "conservative" Muslim. She , herself, with "fire" in her eyes, told us she was willing to die for their "cause" against "radical" Islam, so if any consolation, there are MANY MANY Muslims that would support moderation. I don't know what percentage worldwide, of the Muslim population , would be considered "moderate" and not a threat or danger? I was kinda surprised though, that a number of young graduates from career school and university in Palestine and Jordan, did consider that Sharia law was a desirable thing. Alvin Of course radical Islamists are the dudes who make the most noise and do the damage. I do feel sorry for non-aggressive Muslims.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 25, 2015 19:51:39 GMT -5
Yes, Islam is dying for their cause whatever they perceive it to be. It is not just the radicals who believe that. Killing a Jew is an honour, even to the most moderate Muslim, just that it has consequences in our society, is what stops them.
Islam is about killing those who do not accept your belief again. Islam spread by the sword and it is what ISIS are trying to do. Honour killing is acceptable in their religion even in moderate Islamic countries but then they are now jailed but still supported by the people.
.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 25, 2015 20:03:36 GMT -5
Yes, Islam is dying for their cause whatever they perceive it to be. It is not just the radicals who believe that. Killing a Jew is an honour, even to the most moderate Muslim, just that it has consequences in our society, is what stops them. Islam is about killing those who do not accept your belief again. Islam spread by the sword and it is what ISIS are trying to do. Honour killing is acceptable in their religion even in moderate Islamic countries but then they are now jailed but still supported by the people. . Christianity also spread by the sword. More than just a few lost their heads or were burned at the stake by the spread of Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 25, 2015 20:08:37 GMT -5
Is that happening today? I live today. I was not here then. What concerns me is what is happening here today. The world that my kids and grandchildren will grow up in. AN excuse on your part to say Christians did it. So you disagree with people protesting again terrorism or trying to stop it because Christians did it at one time. An old excuse for what is happening today.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 25, 2015 20:11:06 GMT -5
Yes, Islam is dying for their cause whatever they perceive it to be. It is not just the radicals who believe that. Killing a Jew is an honour, even to the most moderate Muslim, just that it has consequences in our society, is what stops them. Islam is about killing those who do not accept your belief again. Islam spread by the sword and it is what ISIS are trying to do. Honour killing is acceptable in their religion even in moderate Islamic countries but then they are now jailed but still supported by the people. . Christianity also spread by the sword. More than just a few lost their heads or were burned at the stake by the spread of Christianity.That's true. What's happening in the 21st century is more of a concern though.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 25, 2015 20:13:44 GMT -5
Yes, Islam is dying for their cause whatever they perceive it to be. It is not just the radicals who believe that. Killing a Jew is an honour, even to the most moderate Muslim, just that it has consequences in our society, is what stops them. Islam is about killing those who do not accept your belief again. Islam spread by the sword and it is what ISIS are trying to do. Honour killing is acceptable in their religion even in moderate Islamic countries but then they are now jailed but still supported by the people. . The moderate Muslims that I have talked to are absolutely NOT being stopped by ANY law from killing Jews. That is nonsense. They have told us that some of their family's best friends are Jews, and how they have helped each other and value their friendship greatly. Where does the "information" come from that moderate Muslims are killing those who do not accept their beliefs. Our family would , for sure all be dead by now if that were the case, as they would have had lots of opportunity. Do you think that the Muslim boy who saved all those lives in Paris, JEWS , at that, was disobeying his "religion"? or the Muslim policeman that was killed at the Charlie Hebdo deal, was somehow on the side of the terrorists? hmmmmmmmmm Alvin
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 25, 2015 20:22:49 GMT -5
That is the fundamental belief of Muslims. It is clear in the Quran. Read it for yourself. Islam spread by the sword.
Live in a Muslim country and you will see for yourself. It is their fundamental belief. Another one of their beliefs is that Jesus is coming again to kill Christians and Jews. They believe that Jesus and all the prophets in the Old Testament were Muslim.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 25, 2015 20:54:28 GMT -5
There are non-aggressive Muslims.
The Muslim policeman who was guarding Charlie Hebdo was a hero I think. Shot in cold blood by a fellow Muslim.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 25, 2015 20:55:56 GMT -5
I have not read the quran, but have spent some time in Muslim countries and been around some Muslims, who treated me very very graciously, and I have discussed religouos beliefs with them, and it was very clear to them, we did not agree , but we shared a mutual love and respect. I have close family, who presently live in a Muslim country and who have lived with and dealt with Muslim people for years , and have repeatedly shared their mutual love and hospitality. One family member, because of his relationship and dealings with these people, is considered a son to some of them . ( Of course, it helps that he knows Arabic, and he has heard them arguing amongst themselves, that he was born "Arabic" , which is not at all the case.) This, with the full understanding that this family member is a Christian, and no "hope" of converting him to Muslim. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 25, 2015 21:11:29 GMT -5
Most Muslim people are very hospitable and enjoy showing their hospitality especially in their own country. I am talking about Egypt, Turkey and Jordan. They are the only countries I have lived in. Living in their homes with the people as one of the family, not just visiting them.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 25, 2015 21:19:05 GMT -5
Cool I'm happy to hear you had a good experience with them , as is normally the case with any moderates. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 25, 2015 21:48:28 GMT -5
They refer to people who become Muslim as reverting not converting. They believe everyone is born Muslim and convert to another religion or revert to Islam if become a Muslim. Interesting concept.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 25, 2015 21:57:19 GMT -5
Is that happening today? I live today. I was not here then. What concerns me is what is happening here today. The world that my kids and grandchildren will grow up in. AN excuse on your part to say Christians did it. So you disagree with people protesting again terrorism or trying to stop it because Christians did it at one time. An old excuse for what is happening today. Is this any different that your response in another thread excusing people from taking responsibility for their action/inaction because they were suffering from mind control. Isn't that an excuse on your part? Because 'back then' they would have suffered 're-victimization' if they reported the crime? When you hold the advantage you do not need to resort terrorism to further your point. What do you think christians will do if anti-christians gain the upper hand? I do not think they will "go gentle into that good night".
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 25, 2015 22:03:10 GMT -5
Exactly the point I am making. People did things differently back then. yes Christians would and do things differently these days. I don't believe Christians have the upper hand these days.
|
|