The big problem – Another View
-
peterchen wrote: Peter me? Don't mind the cynic I was just trying to point out those who would be recognised as having a different view point. There is no right or wrong here, just until we agree on how seperate our views are, it is hopeless to expect to find a solution short of blowing each other up (or the equivalent.) peterchen wrote: Open your eyes, and turn your head. My eyes are open and I have turned by head. We need to stop making cute remarks. peterchen wrote: P.S. Clickety has a nice history on the number of casualities avoided with Hiroshima. And those casualies are a fraction of what was expected by an invasion of Japan. It took the A bomb to show the war was hopeless. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
I just wasn't sure that you meant me - and indeed I was in a very cynic mood when I posted. I didn't intend the "open your eyes.." as "cute remark", but I admit that it reads like hell of one. Sorry for that. I was thinking about where my opinion comes from - and all I can say is: The things I've seen, the things I lived through. I'm not a full-blood pacifist, as last resort I would be willing to kill for the things I fight in. But what sickens me, makes me mad, is this people being convinced it's a good idea to drop bombs at places they know shit about. I don't know about you personally, but I guess you haven't been to Iraq, seen how people lived there, and all. I haven't been there either, but the places rich and poor I've been to where populated with people that did laugh and cry and love and hate, and that would be happy with just being left alone. War is dirty business, and besides all glory, wars waged by the US are no exception. So go in it only if there's no other way out. Hiroshima: It's not which number is higher - but this: can you accept the possibility that there might have been another option than killing 130.000 randomly selected people immediately, and mutilating many many more - even though they are not born yet?
A smile for Kristy and Tom :)
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I do not think Londo meant this as just echoing party line dogma. No, I'm pretty sure he meant: "Any opinion that disagrees with my party line dogma is party line dogma". Everyone believes that their opinion is uniquely free of 'party line' thinking, regardless of how dogmatic it actually is. Personally, I am dogmatic, and proud of it. :) Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Do not forget the IRAN regime we supported not that long ago. I wish the Iranians could understand the paranoia we had with the Soviets and felt we needed the bases to protect ourselves. Our support was not really support for Shaw but a need to protect ourselves from communism. But how do we now share that. I doubt that even those in the US who are in there 20's appreciate this. I'm sure the Islamic world has many legitimate beefs with U.S. foreign policy over the last several decades. Hell, we are not perfect. But it is very difficult for me to understand how any sane civilization could think that any thing we have done could warrent such violence. I do not believe that the source of Islamic rage is based upon mere disagreements over Cold War policies, anti-communism, the Shah (sp?), or Israel (which is of mere symbolic importance to Islam). The problem is not how we fought the cold war, the problem is that we won it and are now unchallanged in the world. The problem is that the core of Islamic political and social culture feels threated by us culturally. They don't want to live in a world where women have rights, where people live amongst one another as equals, where everyone has a equal opportunity to pursue happiness. *That* is what they hate, and serves as the source of their rage. This is in every way a clash of cultures and should not be viewed as some sort of legitimate uprising of the oppressed and downtrodden masses. This source of this violence is the rich and the middle class of that region who want to ensure that people stay in ther proper, traditional place. I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
Reverend Stan wrote: No, I'm pretty sure he meant: "Any opinion that disagrees with my party line dogma is party line dogma". Everyone believes that their opinion is uniquely free of 'party line' thinking, regardless of how dogmatic it actually is. Personally, I am dogmatic, and proud of it. Actually, that is *not* what I meant. What I *did* mean is that you should think for yourself, and not let the party/government/church/socialist organisation/boy scouts/imaginary friend do it for you. The world is full of people who accept what they hear from leader without question. Hell, the world is full of people who accept what they hear on tv, or in newspapers without question. I don't care what your opinion is, as long as it's *your* opinion. Carl Sagan made a statement once. "The greatest commandment of science is to question statements by authority" (or something along those lines). As for my opinion, well, I think some of what you say is true. I also think that there are probably some other factors that come into play. BTW, I'm not a marxist or socialist, though I do believe in social responsibility.
-
On a different line: peterchen wrote: I am deeply suspicous of painting someone as "bad". I agree, From my end that is all I have ever seen from your posts. The US is wrong and must change is the only option I read from your posts. I hope I am not correct in this, because a one way answer is not going to happen. (Short of war that is.):(( To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: The US is wrong Not necessarily wrong, just too much convinced it's always right and will never fail :cool: Don't get me wrong, it's not "The US" I don't like, I've been there for almost half a year, and virtually all US americans I met were nice people (and - in the beginning - even easier to get along with than my local germans over here..hehe). What I dislike is a) the US international politics - reminding me of an arrogant schoolyard bully, and b) the people with an "being bully is cool after all" attitude. I don't claim my gov is better, but at least they go around dropping bombs on peoples heads. :rose:
a smile for Kristy and Tom :)
-
Personally I do not think the real root problem has been discussed. That is acceptance of information. My belief is the sources that Peter or Imran (for example) would accept as objective and truthful I would dismiss as propaganda and they would likely say the same thing about any source I would say are trustworthy. Now I do not believe either side (citizens) want a world war, but I also believe the US will react at some time, especially if more attacks occur with thousands of US civilian deaths (and likely any western nation) occur. I write the following based on what I feel the typical US opinion is (I do live in Texas, Understand?) So to me a more important issue to prevent a war (if possible) would be what efforts are being done by all to stop this killing by stopping terrorists. My perception is most Arabic countries are doing almost nothing and nations like Iraq are openly supporting terrorists. Please look up the word perception. It does not have to be true! So what needs to be done to change my perception? If it does not change and more incidences like 9/11 occurs the US will respond, justified in “your” opinion or not. This is making all of us guilty to some degree of “wanting war” by doing nothing. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
Personally I do not think the real root problem has been discussed. That is acceptance of information. My belief is the sources that Peter or Imran (for example) would accept as objective and truthful I would dismiss as propaganda and they would likely say the same thing about any source I would say are trustworthy. What I've noticed is that the desire to believe one thing or another colors what we accept. When I read Muslim newspapers and opinions, I am always struck by the degree to which they see things as a Muslim vs Non-Muslim issue. It seems that Muslims always give other Muslims the benefit of the doubt - unless there is extremely good evidence to the contrary. Sometimes, though, it seems that no amount of evidence is ever enough. I'm personally stunned by the number of Muslims who believe that Osama Bin Ladin couldn't have been involved in 9/11 - some of them even argue that, as a Muslim, he would not do this. They totally ignore the multiple, consistent statements he makes on videos saying things like, "It is the duty of every Muslim to kill Jews and Americans" Statements which he never refutes as American propaganda in other videos. It reminds me of a parent who simply won't believe their child was involved in a crime -- no matter how much evidence there is against them. But, this certainly isn't just a Muslim issue. People always feel the need to protect the group to which they belong and like. When presented with evidence that the group does things that they would disapprove of, they refuse to accept the idea. Even Americans feel a desire to refute things that the US has done in the past (e.g. supporting Pinochet in Chile), and initially deny that it could've happened. (Why would an American immediately refuse to accept the facts when they have no evidence to the contrary? Because of the desire to protect the group which they like, belong to, and relate to.) There are obviously different degrees to which a group will deny facts in light of obvious evidence. I don't think the Americans are as guilty of this as Muslim sources that I've seen. And I think African-Americans fall in-between the two groups. (As evidenced by the huge support O.J. Simpson, R Kelly, or Mumia Abu-Jamal get when they are in court - simply because they are Black.) I could go on and on with examples, but I won't. There is also a desire to believe bad things about people you don
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: The US is wrong Not necessarily wrong, just too much convinced it's always right and will never fail :cool: Don't get me wrong, it's not "The US" I don't like, I've been there for almost half a year, and virtually all US americans I met were nice people (and - in the beginning - even easier to get along with than my local germans over here..hehe). What I dislike is a) the US international politics - reminding me of an arrogant schoolyard bully, and b) the people with an "being bully is cool after all" attitude. I don't claim my gov is better, but at least they go around dropping bombs on peoples heads. :rose:
a smile for Kristy and Tom :)
My apologies for the statement that I only saw you blaming the US as allways wrong. peterchen wrote: b) the people with an "being bully is cool after all" attitude. We really agree with this not matter where you are from. So we have a starting point.:) As for a) US international politics. I agree the US has made some very bad choices, I also believe that the motives were not bad. (at least for the general citizen) Your nation has suffered a lot from bad choices of earlier governments (I hope I said that alright.) You have learned from that. May be you can share some examples. Thanks for not being offened by my comments and the smile for Kristy and Tom:) To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
I just wasn't sure that you meant me - and indeed I was in a very cynic mood when I posted. I didn't intend the "open your eyes.." as "cute remark", but I admit that it reads like hell of one. Sorry for that. I was thinking about where my opinion comes from - and all I can say is: The things I've seen, the things I lived through. I'm not a full-blood pacifist, as last resort I would be willing to kill for the things I fight in. But what sickens me, makes me mad, is this people being convinced it's a good idea to drop bombs at places they know shit about. I don't know about you personally, but I guess you haven't been to Iraq, seen how people lived there, and all. I haven't been there either, but the places rich and poor I've been to where populated with people that did laugh and cry and love and hate, and that would be happy with just being left alone. War is dirty business, and besides all glory, wars waged by the US are no exception. So go in it only if there's no other way out. Hiroshima: It's not which number is higher - but this: can you accept the possibility that there might have been another option than killing 130.000 randomly selected people immediately, and mutilating many many more - even though they are not born yet?
A smile for Kristy and Tom :)
peterchen wrote: War is dirty business, and besides all glory, wars waged by the US are no exception. So go in it only if there's no other way out. Agree! peterchen wrote: Hiroshima: It's not which number is higher - but this: can you accept the possibility that there might have been another option than killing 130.000 randomly selected people immediately, and mutilating many many more - even though they are not born yet? I will say yes to your question but I believe another solution is remote. This has been studied many times since then and 99% of the time the same conclusion has been reached. Take a look that the bombings of both Germany and Japan during WWII. Planned attacks to create Fire Storms, that although took many bombs and days to create killed many more. As you say war stinks.:(( peterchen wrote: I guess you haven't been to Iraq, True statement. But I have many (10+) friends that have lived in Pakistan and Egypt for several years. My brother’s wife was a refugee from Kazakhstan and my wife’s brother’s wife (did I say that right?) was born and raised in the PRC. I have talked and think I have listened to them. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
Reverend Stan wrote: No, I'm pretty sure he meant: "Any opinion that disagrees with my party line dogma is party line dogma". Everyone believes that their opinion is uniquely free of 'party line' thinking, regardless of how dogmatic it actually is. Personally, I am dogmatic, and proud of it. Actually, that is *not* what I meant. What I *did* mean is that you should think for yourself, and not let the party/government/church/socialist organisation/boy scouts/imaginary friend do it for you. The world is full of people who accept what they hear from leader without question. Hell, the world is full of people who accept what they hear on tv, or in newspapers without question. I don't care what your opinion is, as long as it's *your* opinion. Carl Sagan made a statement once. "The greatest commandment of science is to question statements by authority" (or something along those lines). As for my opinion, well, I think some of what you say is true. I also think that there are probably some other factors that come into play. BTW, I'm not a marxist or socialist, though I do believe in social responsibility.
Londo wrote: Hell, the world is full of people who accept what they hear on tv, or in newspapers without question. I have actually met very few who do so as a matter of habit. But then I live in the heartland of the U.S. where people are naturally skeptical ("Show Me", as they say in Missouri). None of us live in an intellectual vacume, and none of us are born with the beliefs we have. We acquire them from various sources and accept those which make sense to us given our life experience. Just becuase someone might accept something they hear on tv, does not mean they are not thinking, it just means they are evaluating information from a perspective different from your own. Londo wrote: I also think that there are probably some other factors that come into play. A multitude, I'm certain. Londo wrote: BTW, I'm not a marxist or socialist, though I do believe in social responsibility. I think the heart and soul of Marxist idealogies pervade modern political discourse. The name has been changed, but its the same old worn out b.s. We all belive in 'social responsibility' we just have differnet notions of how best to implement it. I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I do not think Londo meant this as just echoing party line dogma. No, I'm pretty sure he meant: "Any opinion that disagrees with my party line dogma is party line dogma". Everyone believes that their opinion is uniquely free of 'party line' thinking, regardless of how dogmatic it actually is. Personally, I am dogmatic, and proud of it. :) Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Do not forget the IRAN regime we supported not that long ago. I wish the Iranians could understand the paranoia we had with the Soviets and felt we needed the bases to protect ourselves. Our support was not really support for Shaw but a need to protect ourselves from communism. But how do we now share that. I doubt that even those in the US who are in there 20's appreciate this. I'm sure the Islamic world has many legitimate beefs with U.S. foreign policy over the last several decades. Hell, we are not perfect. But it is very difficult for me to understand how any sane civilization could think that any thing we have done could warrent such violence. I do not believe that the source of Islamic rage is based upon mere disagreements over Cold War policies, anti-communism, the Shah (sp?), or Israel (which is of mere symbolic importance to Islam). The problem is not how we fought the cold war, the problem is that we won it and are now unchallanged in the world. The problem is that the core of Islamic political and social culture feels threated by us culturally. They don't want to live in a world where women have rights, where people live amongst one another as equals, where everyone has a equal opportunity to pursue happiness. *That* is what they hate, and serves as the source of their rage. This is in every way a clash of cultures and should not be viewed as some sort of legitimate uprising of the oppressed and downtrodden masses. This source of this violence is the rich and the middle class of that region who want to ensure that people stay in ther proper, traditional place. I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
Reverend Stan wrote: No, I'm pretty sure he meant: "Any opinion that disagrees with my party line dogma is party line dogma". I think that whatever he meant with the words is his to say. You can't be 'pretty sure', you can only 'think' or 'believe'. Reverend Stan wrote: Everyone believes that their opinion is uniquely free of 'party line' thinking, regardless of how dogmatic it actually is. How many people do you know closely? 100? 1000? 10000? how many people are alive right now? do you think that the percent of people you 'know for sure' is enough to support such a claim? Excuse me, but I think it is a bit childish to arrive to such a 'definite' result except if it was supported by a fairly solid 'information' base. Also, I am quite curious about your sources and your 'education' about Islam. I am a muslim, in particular, I am a Palestinian. Let me start out by making the following statements: 1- If I knew were bin laden was, I would go shoot him myself. 2- I really believe what they do is wrong, absolutly wrong, though I do sympathize with their reasons. At least our suicidals, which come out of a situation I know very well. Reverend Stan wrote: But it is very difficult for me to understand how any sane civilization could think that any thing we have done could warrent such violence. The way you put it, it seems the whole islamic world (or should I say more specifically, the Arab World) prepared for this 'violence'. Bin Laden is no civilization. period. Reverend Stan wrote: I do not believe that the source of Islamic rage is based upon mere disagreements over Cold War policies, anti-communism, the Shah (sp?), or Israel (which is of mere symbolic importance to Islam). The real issue is not 'islamic' rage, although rage is an issue. It is more of a 'popular' rage. The people are angry. Sadly, some people are using this rage along with a distorted Islam to gain power, money, or both. Why there is rage, however, the reasons vary. Palestinians, for example, are quite angry that USA is always siding with Israel, something which we believe is not fair. And BTW, Israel is not of mere sybolic importance to Islam. Again I am curious about your sources on Islam. The importance is summed in two words: Palestine and Al-Quds (Jerusalem), and I don't think these words are considered 'merely symbolic', at least not with more than 4 million refugees scattered around the region
-
Reverend Stan wrote: No, I'm pretty sure he meant: "Any opinion that disagrees with my party line dogma is party line dogma". I think that whatever he meant with the words is his to say. You can't be 'pretty sure', you can only 'think' or 'believe'. Reverend Stan wrote: Everyone believes that their opinion is uniquely free of 'party line' thinking, regardless of how dogmatic it actually is. How many people do you know closely? 100? 1000? 10000? how many people are alive right now? do you think that the percent of people you 'know for sure' is enough to support such a claim? Excuse me, but I think it is a bit childish to arrive to such a 'definite' result except if it was supported by a fairly solid 'information' base. Also, I am quite curious about your sources and your 'education' about Islam. I am a muslim, in particular, I am a Palestinian. Let me start out by making the following statements: 1- If I knew were bin laden was, I would go shoot him myself. 2- I really believe what they do is wrong, absolutly wrong, though I do sympathize with their reasons. At least our suicidals, which come out of a situation I know very well. Reverend Stan wrote: But it is very difficult for me to understand how any sane civilization could think that any thing we have done could warrent such violence. The way you put it, it seems the whole islamic world (or should I say more specifically, the Arab World) prepared for this 'violence'. Bin Laden is no civilization. period. Reverend Stan wrote: I do not believe that the source of Islamic rage is based upon mere disagreements over Cold War policies, anti-communism, the Shah (sp?), or Israel (which is of mere symbolic importance to Islam). The real issue is not 'islamic' rage, although rage is an issue. It is more of a 'popular' rage. The people are angry. Sadly, some people are using this rage along with a distorted Islam to gain power, money, or both. Why there is rage, however, the reasons vary. Palestinians, for example, are quite angry that USA is always siding with Israel, something which we believe is not fair. And BTW, Israel is not of mere sybolic importance to Islam. Again I am curious about your sources on Islam. The importance is summed in two words: Palestine and Al-Quds (Jerusalem), and I don't think these words are considered 'merely symbolic', at least not with more than 4 million refugees scattered around the region
For what it is worth, I am no friend of Israel. I think the most stupid thing the U.N., and the U.S., ever did was to support the establishment of a Jewish state. If it disappeared tomorrow I would shed no tears. However, I have to disagree with you. If Israel gave in to every Arab demand, it would solve nothing. Hell, if they bowed gracefully and floated away on the Mediterranian it would solve nothing, and you know it. The Palestinians would still be as poor and hungry and crowded as they are now. Your Arab brothers would happily stand and watch you starve. Nothing would be different, nothing would be gained, so what the hell are you fighting for? The Palestinians are being played for saps by the rest of the Arab world. You guys are being used to keep the entire Arab world in aggitation against the west. Your real enemies are your own leaders, and they don't want to give you the opportunity to stop for a moment and think about that. Your blood keeps them in power. They use Israel to keep things stirred up. Without Israel, the Islamic leadership of the Middle East would be doomed, you guys would turn on them and rip their throats out. Which is what they are afraid of, and so richly deserve. You need to wake up and realize that. What is my source of information on the Arab world? I admit I am no student of Islam. I try to stay well read on world news, and I try to make sense of things in my own way. I read many different sources. It is obvious that terrorist operate openly through out that entire region, they derive support from the wealthy and the common people alike. Something has gone horribly wrong in your culture, and it is not about Israel or the U.S. It can't be. You guys need to take a long hard look at yourselves and back off from this insanity before it is too late. There is absolutely no reason for any of this crap. MSH_ILC wrote: A question : Doesn't the Right Of Vito contradict with the principles of Democracy? that Everbody is equal => Everybody has equal vote ? It is not a right for the USA alone but I am 20 years old I don't recall hearing about anybody using it except the USA. The U.S. is *not* a democracy, and we never have been, we are a Constitutional Republic. The power to veto is granted by our Constitution. MSH_ILC wrote: Please, if you think anything in my post offends you, or assaults you in anyway, I apologize. I only want to comunicate what I think, of the situation and of your opinion, and
-
For what it is worth, I am no friend of Israel. I think the most stupid thing the U.N., and the U.S., ever did was to support the establishment of a Jewish state. If it disappeared tomorrow I would shed no tears. However, I have to disagree with you. If Israel gave in to every Arab demand, it would solve nothing. Hell, if they bowed gracefully and floated away on the Mediterranian it would solve nothing, and you know it. The Palestinians would still be as poor and hungry and crowded as they are now. Your Arab brothers would happily stand and watch you starve. Nothing would be different, nothing would be gained, so what the hell are you fighting for? The Palestinians are being played for saps by the rest of the Arab world. You guys are being used to keep the entire Arab world in aggitation against the west. Your real enemies are your own leaders, and they don't want to give you the opportunity to stop for a moment and think about that. Your blood keeps them in power. They use Israel to keep things stirred up. Without Israel, the Islamic leadership of the Middle East would be doomed, you guys would turn on them and rip their throats out. Which is what they are afraid of, and so richly deserve. You need to wake up and realize that. What is my source of information on the Arab world? I admit I am no student of Islam. I try to stay well read on world news, and I try to make sense of things in my own way. I read many different sources. It is obvious that terrorist operate openly through out that entire region, they derive support from the wealthy and the common people alike. Something has gone horribly wrong in your culture, and it is not about Israel or the U.S. It can't be. You guys need to take a long hard look at yourselves and back off from this insanity before it is too late. There is absolutely no reason for any of this crap. MSH_ILC wrote: A question : Doesn't the Right Of Vito contradict with the principles of Democracy? that Everbody is equal => Everybody has equal vote ? It is not a right for the USA alone but I am 20 years old I don't recall hearing about anybody using it except the USA. The U.S. is *not* a democracy, and we never have been, we are a Constitutional Republic. The power to veto is granted by our Constitution. MSH_ILC wrote: Please, if you think anything in my post offends you, or assaults you in anyway, I apologize. I only want to comunicate what I think, of the situation and of your opinion, and
There are a couple of points I'd like to make clear. When I asked about your sources I meant Islam and not arab world, for your sources about arab world were fairly correct in general. For example what you said about arab leaders I admit is quite right. To talk about the 'arab world' means talking about two kinds of people; The Leaders, and The Rest. The Leaders have money and power, The Rest havn't. Yes, the arab leaders are abusing the palestinian cause for personal profit, or a as a cartoon that appeared in one of our newspapers said, "We are quite prepared to fight Israel until the last palestinian blood-drop" and sometimes "~ the last palestinian child". Terrorism has been unfairly linked to Islam and the Arabs. Well yes, we do have our criminals and wackos, and I also admit we have more than a fair share of terrorists. Where do these come from? This is a painful subject, at least to me. Sadly, most arab-based terrorist groups are Islam-based, or should I say claim they are Islam-based and that they are doing the will of God. That really hurt the picture of Islam. Moreover, some of our own cultural flows are linked to Islam as an excuse to avoid discussion about their 'wrong'ness or 'right'ness. This has resulted in a quite distorted and blurry picture of Islam. Some people use this picture to further their own agendas in the name of Islam. Terrorists, leaders and the like. About terrorists claiming the act in the name of God and by the directions of Islam. I won't go much into this. I think it is enough to tell you some of the directions the prophet Mohammad always gave to his soldiers before battle. It goes like this: "A man who is in his house is under protection. A man who drops his weapon is under protection. Do not kill the women. Do not kill the children. Do not kill the old. If you go into a room and find someone praying, leave him be. Do not burn houses, and do not take what is not yours. Do not burn trees, and do not kill animals, unless it was needed for food. ...". Any resemblance to what BinLaden's plane jockeys did? What I wanted to point out was the wrong picture of Islam everybody is being given. Most of it, sadly, comes from muslims. Muslims who fell under the guidance of demons in the guise of priests. What they are doing is not Islam. People in the arab world support these? Unwillingly. An opposed opinion is called a Heretic. And sadly we don't enjoy the freedom of opinion you have. Some people do protest, but they are silenced and kicked aside by the Leadership, which is rea