Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
juanpe

Madrid, 11-m

Recommended Posts

As you know, the most important trial in my country has started last week: 29 islamic terrorists are being charged of the 191 killings and almost 2000 wounded people in the terrorist attacks in the trains that exploded 3 years ago...

 

... a very hard moment for all those families (a close friend from the University where I am working) who have to remember again those terrible, sad and unfair moments...

 

there is a very good special report on this site:

 

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/madrid.trial/

 

My memory and my thoughts and my heart for all of them

 

juanpe

post-23-1171921633.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real tragedy in all of this is that not enough people are willing to place Islam on trial for these murders. We are again witnessing another instance in which the moderate world is passing the blame to the perpetrators instead of the religion that directly inspires and literally demands they they commit these acts. insofar as everyone continues to ignore the root of the problem, these attacks will continue. These people weren't psychopaths, or uneducated, they were ISLAMISTS. And their actions were predicated on their religous belief that they were serving god and that they would get 72 virgins in heaven. They believed that. It's hard for us to accept this because most north americans are closet something-or-others - they couldn't possibly have believed they were being martyrs - but this is exactly the case.

 

my condolences to you and yours juanpe.

Edited by heyrabbit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to derail the thread or anything, but what are you saying we should do? Kill anyone who is Islamic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not to derail the thread or anything, but what are you saying we should do? Kill anyone who is Islamic?

I'm saying that we should challenge religious beliefs in the same way that we challenge all other similar beliefs in our discourse. e.g. if I were to say that I had transformed my cereal into the body of elvis, you would laugh at me. Why? Because these beliefs are synonymous with craziness. But if one talks about transubstantiation - the transformation of christ into crackers and wine - it's considered completely normal and acceptable in society.(I should note that I stole this analogy from a sam harris lecture). So we have to acknowledge the beliefs that are considered normal when lots of people believe them, but that are insane when believed in isolation.

 

The best thing you can do is not contribute to the taboo surrounding religion in discussion.

 

We shouldn't be surprised that, when we willingly ignore religious belief, it comes back to bite us in the ass.

Edited by heyrabbit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The real tragedy in all of this is that not enough people are willing to place Islam on trial for these murders. We are again witnessing another instance in which the moderate world is passing the blame to the perpetrators instead of the religion that directly inspires and literally demands they they commit these acts. insofar as everyone continues to ignore the root of the problem, these attacks will continue. These people weren't psychopaths, or uneducated, they were ISLAMISTS. And their actions were predicated on their religous belief that they were serving god and that they would get 72 virgins in heaven. They believed that. It's hard for us to accept this because most north americans are closet something-or-others - they couldn't possibly have believed they were being martyrs - but this is exactly the case.

Although I agree that we ought to challenge illogical beliefs, I would only support such notions if we put all beliefs in that challenge. If it were Islam itself on trial, I would have a real problem with it, simply because it would appear and quite probably manifest into something tyrannical. I do not mind people believing in what they want; I think people should have the freedom to do so, whether they call for the destruction of this land or that. If we were to ban or put on trial every book that said:

Edited by supercanuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The real tragedy in all of this is that not enough people are willing to place Islam on trial for these murders. We are again witnessing another instance in which the moderate world is passing the blame to the perpetrators instead of the religion that directly inspires and literally demands they they commit these acts. insofar as everyone continues to ignore the root of the problem, these attacks will continue. These people weren't psychopaths, or uneducated, they were ISLAMISTS. And their actions were predicated on their religous belief that they were serving god and that they would get 72 virgins in heaven. They believed that. It's hard for us to accept this because most north americans are closet something-or-others - they couldn't possibly have believed they were being martyrs - but this is exactly the case.

 

my condolences to you and yours juanpe.

So how exactly are the moderates to blame? I mean, suppose I like democracy, but I'm not so extreme about that I'd be in favor of going overseas and killing people in its name, it would be my fault that there are those who do? Would I just be using a cheap cop-out excuse if I was to say that not all people who like democracy do these things? Suppose you hate eating cream cheese, but not the point where you'd wanna beat up people who like it, is it your fault if there is someone out there who is somehow ardent enough to give a beat-down to people who like it? Would it be just a rationalization if you think "Well, I also hate cream cheese, but I definitely don't think it's right to attack people who like it."? Or would you have to abandon what you think just because someone else exists who believes some of the same things except it is to the point that they behave violently?

 

If moderates suddenly decide maybe religion isn't a logical thing to believe in at all, and they abandon it, why would the extremists cease to exist? If we were to use your earlier analogy of atheism being the negative and religious extremism is a positive, why would adding or subtracting a "zero" make any difference? What would be the benefit if only opposite extremes exist?

 

It's like saying WW1 would've been vastly different if Ecuador didn't exist.

Edited by HoboFactory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

supercanuk:

 

I was absolutely speaking in the abstract when I said we should "put Islam on trial". So I agree with you there. I'm definitely not suggesting that we should indiscriminately attack Islamic states - that would be the height of hypocrisy -although sadly that is actually one option that may one day become our best option. And it's completely possible that it could come to that.

 

I'm very much a libertarian so I agree fully that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want. However, don't be too quick to respect people on account of their beliefs.We should absolutely practice respecting humanity based on our morals, but we should NOT include feeling admonished to respect religious belief. You admit that religious belief is fantastically illogical and barbaric, and that it's a threat to our well being, yet it seems as though you have reservations about critiquing it out of an obligation to respect. We absolutely have to persuade people, as you said, but we can't expect to change everyone's mind so long as we treat their beliefs as though they are sacred, valid, and incontenstable. we should not be made to believe that ignoring a belief is equivalent to being respectful. In society it's considered taboo to even notice the differences between faiths, let alone the absurdities of them.

 

And let me tell you, Islamists do not respect you. You are the scum of the earth - a dirty infidel who'll be consigned to the fires hell by Allah himself. When terrorists go on T.V. and decapitate a reporter saying things like, "We love death more than you love life" we pass it off as a 'minority' of Islamists who, of course, do not represent the rest of Islam which is otherwise a peaceful religion, right? No. It does represent Islam. it represents its doctrine and the people who follow it. It's specifically a murderous religion of conquest and those actions are not only supported by the Quran, they are demanded by it.

 

When terrorists say they love death more than you love life, they actually mean it. We have a tendency to think, "oh they're a minority, nobody believes that". Yes they do. They believe they're going to a kindom with rivers of the purest milk and richest honey,and that 72 virgins await them in paradise.They believe this and it is a completely rational thing to believe given that they believe what every other Islamist believes. They might be the minority of people who do such things, but the majority believe that suicide bombings are justifiable. For every terrorist who blows himself up there is a mother who is proud that her son is going to paradise, and a neighbours who give praise to the family. Very few repudiate these actions becuase they believe in it themselves.

 

The terrorists really aren't a "select few". The scary thing is it is their beliefs which cause them to commit the acts, the same beliefs that every other Islamist has.

 

When I said we should put Islam on trial I meant that we should critisize the belief and marginalize its adherents just as you would to anyone who says they talk to aliens.The same goes for any incredible belief. And right now, the prevailing attitude is that we must repsect (ignore) all religious belief. It's completely immune to critisizm in all areas of our discourse. So long as that's the case, nobody should be surprised at the consequences.

 

With the proliferation of technology, in the next 50 years - maybe substantially less than that- just about any militant/radical group who so desires will have access to weapons of mass destruction. The middle east is almost literally 150 years behind in moral development. 14th century civilizations and 21st century weapons do not mix, for blatantly obvious reasons.

 

 

 

 

Hobofactory:

 

The moderates are to blame to the extent that their intellectual dishonesty creates a culture whereby these intrinsically dangerous beliefs are accepted. Extremist beliefs are really not extreme, their actions are extreme. It's not extreme to believe that blowing up a subway car will grant you access to paradise given that you have the requisite Islamist beliefs. Blowing up the car is extreme, not the belief.

 

 

Democracy as an ideology is not in the same realm as religion. It is a political ideology, not a spiritual one, and it does not purport to know anything specific about reality or the origin of life. Democracy is not a belief.

It's important to remember that beliefs are a representation of the state of the world. Hating cream cheese is not a belief either.

 

It's fair to say that extremists could exist despite a lack of religious moderates, but that says nothing about the influence religious moderation has on society. That is not to say that there wouldn't be considerably less extremists given that there were less moderates. And no, I cannot prove that, but I competely suspect that that's the case.

 

I don't understand what you mean about adding or subtracting a zero.What I meant about positive and negative is that belief in god is a positive whereas disbelief in something is a negative. i.e. it doesn't make sense to believe in something positive when there's no positive reason to do so. i.e. " I believe in god because the world is a mysterious place(I don't understand it)". religious extremism is not the antithesis of atheism, theism is. atheism and theism are opposites.

 

To your WW1 analogy, I don't know what you're getting at. It would make sense to me if you said that Britain waged war becuaes it didn't know that Germany was attacking France. See, doing something positive for a negative reason.

Edited by heyrabbit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But extreme beliefs and extreme actions are tied to one another, no? People believe things for a variety of reasons, be it because of experience, evidence, popular opinion, or blind faith... but naturally people behave according to their beliefs. In that sense, an extreme belief is required in order to carry out an extreme action, because moderate belief would only result in "moderate" actions whatever those may be.

 

It doesn't matter that democracy or whatever isn't a belief, the way it is approached becomes a belief. Democracy is an idealogy, but for example, the idea that "democracy is the best system of government" or "democracy is worth killing for" is a belief. All that a belief really is, is basically an opinion that people are reasonably confident is true... regardless of whether or not it is in actuality. In that sense, just about anything can be a belief, and when such a belief becomes extreme, the problems come about.

 

To explain the WW1 example... well as you pointed out about the moderates, that they try to take the middle ground between religious fundamentalism and logical common sense... in that they don't fully belief atheists are absolutely right, but nor do they think the fundamentists are completely correct either. So they can be called "neutral"... and as with the WW1 example, if you remove what is essentially a neutral country, you still have the opposing sides, and nothing changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Juanpe, my condolences to you & your countrymen. This could very easily have happened in Canada so i totally empathize with your people.

 

I can't blame Islam for this, at least not the entire religion. I keep hearing most Islamists denouncing what these terrorists are doing, that they are extremists & that Islam does not support violence or suicide. But obviously some part of Islam is teaching these people something different.

 

At the very least we must try to understand/empathize with these terrorists & figure out exactly WHY they are doing what they're doing, instead of just simply marching into their homelands & start the carpet-bombings.

 

I saw a recent documentary made jointly made by PBS "Frontline" & the CBC's "The Fifth Estate" about the terrorists that were stopped here in Ontario, Canada a year or so ago. The RCMP planted a mole inside the training camps, & he was a Muslim. This guy said that he could have very well been involved with the terrorist activity rather than trying to help stop it if he had simply hung around with the wrong crowd. Scary stuff. These young muslims grow up entirely in Canada yet their loyalties lie with their Muslim people back in the middle-east rather than with the country they were raised in.

 

Makes u wonder how many muslims we should be letting into western democratic countries in the 1st place? Its a shame because it ruins everything for all te good muslims out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But extreme beliefs and extreme actions are tied to one another, no?  People believe things for a variety of reasons, be it because of experience, evidence, popular opinion, or blind faith... but naturally people behave according to their beliefs.  In that sense, an extreme belief is required in order to carry out an extreme action, because moderate belief would only result in "moderate" actions whatever those may be. 

 

It doesn't matter that democracy or whatever isn't a belief, the way it is approached becomes a belief.  Democracy is an idealogy, but for example, the idea that "democracy is the best system of government" or  "democracy is worth killing for" is a belief.  All that a belief really is, is basically an opinion that people are reasonably confident is true... regardless of whether or not it is in actuality.  In that sense, just about anything can be a belief, and when such a belief becomes extreme, the problems come about. 

 

To explain the WW1 example... well as you pointed out about the moderates, that they try to take the middle ground between religious fundamentalism and logical common sense... in that they don't fully belief atheists are absolutely right, but nor do they think the fundamentists are completely correct either.  So they can be called "neutral"... and as with the WW1 example, if you remove what is essentially a neutral country, you still have the opposing sides, and  nothing changes.

 

Well, the process for forming beliefs is not yet understood at the level of the brain. We really don't know all the ins and outs of how a person develops a belief and what affects that the process. It's possible to be so well educated that you can operate a 747, yet still believe that you'll get the 72 virgins in heaven. It's possible to be so intelligent that you can become a neurosurgeon, operate on the brains of others, and yet still believe that god will descend from the heavens in less than 50 years. Clearly, there occurs some partitioning of the mind which we do not yet understand.

 

What I think is that our mind could be like a binary system. We could have a series of beliefs which collectively dictates our actions. Sometimes we might believe in the possibility of something. And there's a massive difference between kind of believing something and believing in the possibility of something. That's just something I've thought about but haven't read into very much. Beliefs are positive, not negative, in other words, you either have them or you don't. You can hope that you've won the lottery but it's not until you've actually won that the flood-gates of emotion are opened and your mental state is drastically altered, affecting your future actions.(paraphrased sam harris). So I don't think beliefs should be measured in "kind of's" and "sort of's" - we likely have thousands and millions of individual beliefs that shape our opinion as a whole.

 

The terms "Extreme belief" and "moderate belief" are entirely tautological in nature. The belief that your soul will ascend directly to paradise after you've blown up a discotheque full of innocents, for instance, is not an extreme belief. It's an entirely rational belief given that you believe in the validity of the Quran. The belief that homosexuals are sinners is not an extreme belief if you're a Christian. It might be extremely different from other beliefs - and that may be the case in some instances - but it's not in the case of Islam. How are these beliefs any more "extreme" than believing jesus was born of a virgin? We've placed connotations on these words and we've assigned them to the beliefs that we decide are bad. There is really nothing extreme about those beliefs apart from the labels we've placed on them. We might say that one belief is more dangerous than the other, but I'm arguing that they're all religious belief is dangerous because the "moderate" beliefs, however you define them, allow the "extreme" beliefs to exist.

 

There's an irony in "moderate" religion. The more you try to pacify the forces of reason, and the more "middle ground" you take, your world-view becomes more and more irrational. Fundamentalists at least offer reasons for their beliefs. If you ask a suicide bomber - while he's alive of course- what his reasons are for his actions, he will tell you exactly what the reasons are. They are not good reasons, but they are reasons. Moderates will just babble casuistry. The more reasonable they try to be the less reasonable their faith becomes.

 

When will people realize that fundamentalism isn't the problem, it's the fundamentals of certain religions that are the problem. The world would be a better place if everyone in the middle east were fundamental Jainists.

 

At the very least we must try to understand/empathize with these terrorists & figure out exactly WHY they are doing what they're doing, instead of just simply marching into their homelands & start the carpet-bombings.

 

Those Islamists are most likely from North America. And there is a huge difference between the two cultures. You've got it the other way around. Anyone who says that suicides and murder is not apart of Islam, they've either never read the Quran or they're lying. The Quran explicitly and repeatedly calls for murder and suicide. There are dozens of quotes encouraging these actions and only one ambiguous quote which could be construed as a denouncement of these actions. The suicide bombers have got the doctrine on their side. You don't need to try to figure why they're doing it. THEY TELL US! They're doing it for god's sake. But everyone keeps ignoring it. "Why, why are they doing this, surely not for god". Yes, they're not stupid. they're economically oppressed. They're Islamists. tell us over and over and we ignore them.

Edited by heyrabbit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At the very least we must try to understand/empathize with these terrorists & figure out exactly WHY they are doing what they're doing, instead of just simply marching into their homelands & start the carpet-bombings.

heyrabbit:

Great reply, and I think we are generally in agreeance on these types of topics anyways but of course there are the minor disagreements.

 

The terrorists really aren't a "select few". The scary thing is it is their beliefs which cause them to commit the acts, the same beliefs that every other Islamist has.

 

I agree with this statement to a point, yes people take the word of Islam literally, Muslims believe its the direct word of god, which if true, would mean god is a fucking asshole. But, I still have a hard time with the issue of what to do with this other then persuade people. I think that it takes a certain individual to blow himself or herself up, and I don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually didn't know the trial had begun. it amazes me that with something like this trial going on, CNN still seems so focused on Britney and her new look.. shows you how much the rest of the world matters to US media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the very least we must try to understand/empathize with these terrorists & figure out exactly WHY they are doing what they're doing, instead of just simply marching into their homelands & start the carpet-bombings.

heyrabbit:

Great reply, and I think we are generally in agreeance on these types of topics anyways but of course there are the minor disagreements.

 

The terrorists really aren't a "select few". The scary thing is it is their beliefs which cause them to commit the acts, the same beliefs that every other Islamist has.

 

I agree with this statement to a point, yes people take the word of Islam literally, Muslims believe its the direct word of god, which if true, would mean god is a fucking asshole. But, I still have a hard time with the issue of what to do with this other then persuade people. I think that it takes a certain individual to blow himself or herself up, and I don

Edited by heyrabbit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But extreme beliefs and extreme actions are tied to one another, no?  People believe things for a variety of reasons, be it because of experience, evidence, popular opinion, or blind faith... but naturally people behave according to their beliefs.  In that sense, an extreme belief is required in order to carry out an extreme action, because moderate belief would only result in "moderate" actions whatever those may be. 

 

It doesn't matter that democracy or whatever isn't a belief, the way it is approached becomes a belief.  Democracy is an idealogy, but for example, the idea that "democracy is the best system of government" or  "democracy is worth killing for" is a belief.  All that a belief really is, is basically an opinion that people are reasonably confident is true... regardless of whether or not it is in actuality.  In that sense, just about anything can be a belief, and when such a belief becomes extreme, the problems come about. 

 

To explain the WW1 example... well as you pointed out about the moderates, that they try to take the middle ground between religious fundamentalism and logical common sense... in that they don't fully belief atheists are absolutely right, but nor do they think the fundamentists are completely correct either.  So they can be called "neutral"... and as with the WW1 example, if you remove what is essentially a neutral country, you still have the opposing sides, and  nothing changes.

 

Well, the process for forming beliefs is not yet understood at the level of the brain. We really don't know all the ins and outs of how a person develops a belief and what affects that the process. It's possible to be so well educated that you can operate a 747, yet still believe that you'll get the 72 virgins in heaven. It's possible to be so intelligent that you can become a neurosurgeon, operate on the brains of others, and yet still believe that god will descend from the heavens in less than 50 years. Clearly, there occurs some partitioning of the mind which we do not yet understand.

 

What I think is that our mind could be like a binary system. We could have a series of beliefs which collectively dictates our actions. Sometimes we might believe in the possibility of something. And there's a massive difference between kind of believing something and believing in the possibility of something. That's just something I've thought about but haven't read into very much. Beliefs are positive, not negative, in other words, you either have them or you don't. You can hope that you've won the lottery but it's not until you've actually won that the flood-gates of emotion are opened and your mental state is drastically altered, affecting your future actions.(paraphrased sam harris). So I don't think beliefs should be measured in "kind of's" and "sort of's" - we likely have thousands and millions of individual beliefs that shape our opinion as a whole.

 

The terms "Extreme belief" and "moderate belief" are entirely tautological in nature. The belief that your soul will ascend directly to paradise after you've blown up a discotheque full of innocents, for instance, is not an extreme belief. It's an entirely rational belief given that you believe in the validity of the Quran. The belief that homosexuals are sinners is not an extreme belief if you're a Christian. It might be extremely different from other beliefs - and that may be the case in some instances - but it's not in the case of Islam. How are these beliefs any more "extreme" than believing jesus was born of a virgin? We've placed connotations on these words and we've assigned them to the beliefs that we decide are bad. There is really nothing extreme about those beliefs apart from the labels we've placed on them. We might say that one belief is more dangerous than the other, but I'm arguing that they're all religious belief is dangerous because the "moderate" beliefs, however you define them, allow the "extreme" beliefs to exist.

 

There's an irony in "moderate" religion. The more you try to pacify the forces of reason, and the more "middle ground" you take, your world-view becomes more and more irrational. Fundamentalists at least offer reasons for their beliefs. If you ask a suicide bomber - while he's alive of course- what his reasons are for his actions, he will tell you exactly what the reasons are. They are not good reasons, but they are reasons. Moderates will just babble casuistry. The more reasonable they try to be the less reasonable their faith becomes.

 

When will people realize that fundamentalism isn't the problem, it's the fundamentals of certain religions that are the problem. The world would be a better place if everyone in the middle east were fundamental Jainists.

 

At the very least we must try to understand/empathize with these terrorists & figure out exactly WHY they are doing what they're doing, instead of just simply marching into their homelands & start the carpet-bombings.

 

Those Islamists are most likely from North America. And there is a huge difference between the two cultures. You've got it the other way around. Anyone who says that suicides and murder is not apart of Islam, they've either never read the Quran or they're lying. The Quran explicitly and repeatedly calls for murder and suicide. There are dozens of quotes encouraging these actions and only one ambiguous quote which could be construed as a denouncement of these actions. The suicide bombers have got the doctrine on their side. You don't need to try to figure why they're doing it. THEY TELL US! They're doing it for god's sake. But everyone keeps ignoring it. "Why, why are they doing this, surely not for god". Yes, they're not stupid. they're economically oppressed. They're Islamists. tell us over and over and we ignore them.

The fact that moderate religion is illogical is beside the point... if moderate religion is a lack of full conviction in the teachings of a certain religion, how does it cause full conviction? How are moderates more responsible for "allowing extremists to exist" than anyone else? How is it more sensible to say, if moderate religion was gone, extremism would go away too as opposed to saying ...well... if extremism would go away, well then extremism would go away? In either case it's a totally unrealistic outlook, in that denying the right to exist for religion would make the denier just bad as the institutions they seek to destroy. But religion will probably never be any less popular on a global level, as I'm reasonably certain that many, if not most, religious groups do continue to grow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're absolutely right in that all we can do is try to pursuade people, but if that is to be the case we can't feel the need to spare anyone's religious feelings. We should absolutely repect people, but not their beliefs. If someone gets offended when I treat them as though they are drawing their ethics from Scooby Doo, well I'm sorry but they've left me no other fucking option because their religions are really that ridiculous. There's no effort required to make religion sound terrible which is why society has developed a taboo to prevent us from talking about it, and subsequently coming to the realization that it's barbarous and stupid. I'd rather offend someone at a dinner table than respect citizens who elect people into power who eventually do such things as block stem cell research, prohibit "sinful" vices, ignore global warming, go on crusades --basically run society in a stupid fucking dangerous way. If someone is offended, maybe that's a good thing -- maybe they'll start to wonder why is it their most sacred beliefs do not hold up the most reasonable of criticism.
If martyrdom is merely a result of oppression then where are the Tibetan suicide bombers?

Although you have a point about the suicide bombers, many Tibetan priests have taken their own life, in fact, set themselves on fire in protest to their oppression. That type of behavior occurs in extreme situations, and no their doctrine do not include any violence (that i have really seen)but their actions towards themselves are quite horrific and are a direct result of their doctrine.

 

I am not saying that this power, religious mix causes terrorism in every state, but it has to be included in the factors of terrorism. Religion plays a large role, but i still don't see how subjugation and oppression do not play a role. Which one has more influence? Well i am not sure, there are not easy distinctions to be made, thousands of religions have been created on this planet, some violent, some non-violent, and some feigning non-violence like Christianity. But when the Christians were being oppressed in the Roman days they committed acts of terrorism and sabotage as well (yes i realize i continue to reference Rome but i think is a decent example to use).

 

Why are the poor in the U.S. not prone to the same type of machinations(setting up roadbombs) as those in the Middle East?
I'd suggest because they are not being occupied, but they are being oppressed. And you do see acts of horrific nature in areas of desperate poverty in the U.S. People off themselves in record numbers in poor areas and they are following no doctrine, but they all are being economically marginalized and so as a result flashes of violence do occur.

 

Nobody oppresses the Middle East more than the Middle East.

The U.S. can be blamed in a number of ways, for example take Iran, when democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh wanted to nationalize his oil reserves so that his people WOULD reap the benefits of their own oil. The U.S. and the U.K. jointly overthrew the Iranian government under operation TP-AJAX, look it up, it was the first successful CIA operation which overthrew a foreign government. They then instituted the Shah and decades of repression ensued. OR let's to the example of Iraq where for sheer fun Hussein gassed his people that were rebelling against him, guess who supplied him those weapons, knew he was committing horrifying acts of terrorism and continued to support him until it was politically inconvenient?

Or, let's take the example of the U.S. maintaining Saudi royalty

Edited by supercanuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or, let's talk about the U.S. using Afghanistan as a proxy for their wars against Russia in the 80's, they supplied and trained terrorists and when the money stopped flowing to them the land became an area where terrorists would train to  fight the people who stopped the cash flow.

The list literally goes on and on of U.S. intervention in grassroots democracy movements in the Middle East and the instituting or maintaining of dictatorships.

as much as i dont want to get into this argument, or an argument with erik (online that is, where he pull so many facts out of nowhere to support is his argument, i am all for the ones at timmies) i will just point out this, the American's did the same this to Russia in Afghanistan as the Russians did to the American's in Korea and Vietnam.

Edited by garsk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or, let's talk about the U.S. using Afghanistan as a proxy for their wars against Russia in the 80's, they supplied and trained terrorists and when the money stopped flowing to them the land became an area where terrorists would train to  fight the people who stopped the cash flow.

The list literally goes on and on of U.S. intervention in grassroots democracy movements in the Middle East and the instituting or maintaining of dictatorships.

as much as i dont want to get into this argument, or an argument with erik (online that is, where he pull so many facts out of nowhere to support is his argument, i am all for the ones at timmies) i will just point out this, the American's did the same this to Russia in Afghanistan as the Russians did to the American's in Korea and Vietnam.

Quite true, Russia was supporting Vietnamese resistance movement and the proxy wars have a long and sordid history. Take Angola for example where Cuba was helping the independence movement shake off the U.S. supported powers. This stuff goes on and on, that wasn't so much my point, it was more that religions cause mass murder but so do, and i think more often, power situations which can lead to extreamists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, i didnt read all of your argument, i didnt have enought time too, or all of the thread, i just wanted to see what you posted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that moderate religion is illogical is beside the point... if moderate religion is a lack of full conviction in the teachings of a certain religion, how does it cause full conviction? How are moderates more responsible for "allowing extremists to exist" than anyone else? How is

The West kills millions of people (take Indonesia, Indochina in the 50's and 60's) and it has little or nothing at ALL to do with religions, it has to do with power and imperialistic agenda's.

 

An American electorate of 50% Atheists would not vote a president bush into power. That's why "moderates" are to blame.

 

 

Although you have a point about the suicide bombers, many Tibetan priests have taken their own life, in fact, set themselves on fire in protest to their oppression. That type of behavior occurs in extreme situations, and no their doctrine do not include any violence (that i have really seen)but their actions towards themselves are quite horrific and are a direct result of their doctrine.

 

I am not saying that this power, religious mix causes terrorism in every state, but it has to be included in the factors of terrorism. Religion plays a large role, but i still don't see how subjugation and oppression do not play a role. Which one has more influence? Well i am not sure, there are not easy distinctions to be made, thousands of religions have been created on this planet, some violent, some non-violent, and some feigning non-violence like Christianity. But when the Christians were being oppressed in the Roman days they committed acts of terrorism and sabotage as well (yes i realize i continue to reference Rome but i think is a decent example to use).

 

Yes, but the fact that they are non-violent is precisely the point. There is a direct correlation to be made between action and belief. I really don't think it's a trivial coincidence that Tibetans just happen to be largely non-violent and self-sacraficial - in response to oppressive situations- when the the prodiminant faith in their culture is just that. Muslims are militant and indiscriminately violent in similar circumstances. Priests setting themselves on fire just corroborates the connection between faith and action.

 

We have no way of knowing a persons intentions - unless they tell us, which they actually frequently do and we ignore it - but we can see exactly how they respond to certain situations. And their actions correspond eerily to their doctrines. Oppression obviously plays a role, but its significance in the matter is almost irrelevant to me. I don't believe for a second that, given similar circumstances to Iraq, Americans intentionally and frequently blow themselves up in the name of Jesus. It's just not a part of the culture. Tibet is all but proof that oppression is not the deciding factor.

 

 

The U.S. can be blamed in a number of ways, for example take Iran, when democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh wanted to nationalize his oil reserves so that his people WOULD reap the benefits of their own oil. The U.S. and the U.K. jointly overthrew the Iranian government under operation TP-AJAX, look it up, it was the first successful CIA operation which overthrew a foreign government. They then instituted the Shah and decades of repression ensued. OR let's to the example of Iraq where for sheer fun Hussein gassed his people that were rebelling against him, guess who supplied him those weapons, knew he was committing horrifying acts of terrorism and continued to support him until it was politically inconvenient?

Or, let's take the example of the U.S. maintaining Saudi royalty

Edited by heyrabbit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An American electorate of 50% Atheists would not vote a president bush into power. That's why "moderates" are to blame.

So you're saying only Christians voted for Bush, and Christians voted only for Bush?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those Islamists are most likely from North America. And there is a huge difference between the two cultures. You've got it the other way around. Anyone who says that suicides and murder is not apart of Islam, they've either never read the Quran or they're lying. The Quran explicitly and repeatedly calls for murder and suicide. There are dozens of quotes encouraging these actions and only one ambiguous quote which could be construed as a denouncement of these actions. The suicide bombers have got the doctrine on their side. You don't need to try to figure why they're doing it. THEY TELL US! They're doing it for god's sake.  But everyone keeps ignoring it. "Why, why are they doing this, surely not for god". Yes, they're not stupid. they're economically oppressed. They're Islamists. tell us over and over and we ignore them.

Yes we know the Islamists are killing in the name of Allah(God). We know that, all the terrorists say it. But i was saying we should ask "why" as in what are WE doing to provoke them to kill in the name of God. If we listen, we know why. Bin Laden said in interviews before 9/11 that he was planning attacks on the west because of the attacks & occupation the west had committed against Muslims in the middle-east.

 

I'm no expert of the Koran, but if it does say for Muslims to use violence then that is interesting, because you also here other Muslims claim that Islam is a peaceful religion & that suicide is condemned in their religion. These are the people they call Islamic fundamentalists, or "extremists". And from what i know Islamic fundamentalism is less widely accepted than Islamic philosophies/movements that take the Koran less literally.

 

There obviously must be contradictions in the Koran because if the actions of the west strongly call for a Holy War against us then you'd think most of the Muslim world would be taking up arms, instead of just a relatively small minority.

 

An American electorate of 50% Atheists would not vote a president bush into power. That's why "moderates" are to blame.

 

You are painting a very large group of people with one brush stroke, & one that is frankly incorrect IMO. I guess you would consider myself a relgious moderate, & i wanted Kerry to win in 2004. I know some friends in the U.S. who are Christian moderates & they also voted for Kerry. My sister is a Christian moderate who attends church every Sunday & she is a consistent supporter of the NDP.

 

Its very easily possible to believe in God/Jesus with a moderate view of the Bible, and also lean to the left on the political spectrum. In fact one could easily argue that socialism & communism are very Christian-like political philosophies.

 

You need to get off this "moderates are to blame for everything" kick. Fundamentalists flew into the WTC, fundamentalists orchestrated the invasion of Iraq, and fundamenalists sent 2000 Canadian troops into Afghanistan. I'm not saying fundies are the root of all evil either, but just re-examine your attitudes.

Edited by Moonlight_Graham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I definitely agree with you here, if you base your belief's off of a theology that does grant paradise after martyrdom, such as Christianity or Islam, there is a connection. I honestly am not schooled enough in psychology or culture to really come up with any points for this, but intuitively it makes sense.

Exactly, the point is that nobody is schooled enough in this area, and it is that way because - so long as we believe in god - there is really is no reason to search for the real answers behind the science of morals, ethics, and faith. What is good, what is bad, what is belief, what is happiness. NONE of these questions matter so long as religion previals because religion claims to have the answers. There is no "science of happiness" because we have god! Really, everyone's ultimate purpose in life is to be happy, but nobody pushes to learn about it. All we have is the "positivity" shpeal, which is a start but it's obviously not good enough.

 

There is real reason to believe that faith is actually a genetic disease which is passed down through the generations -- something that makes a person more susceptible to being gullible or credulous. i.e. when you're young you have to believe what your parents say is true regardless of evidence, or else you'll walk off a cliff or get eaten by a bear. This is really not a ridiculous concept so long as you subscribe to evolution because everything evolved ought to have survival value, and faith is no exception.

 

 

Is this a religious response or a human response? Or is it human because it is supported by religion which of course is man made? I am not really going to push this point because I honestly don't know the answers and can only put forward that it seems intuitively at least, to be a human response to oppression, and to me it seems that religion simply supports this. However, Christianity is not exempt from this, many right wing Christians want to bring on the apocalypse and do horrific actions in the name of Jesus. Excluding the Christian tyranny that was basically the middle ages (Jesuit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In as much as kerry is moderate compared to Bush, you shouldn't feel any better voting for Kerry than you should voting for someone who talks to aliens less frequently than someone else. Kerry is catholic, how devout I don't know, but you're just helping prove the point that people in our culture are, at the very least, accepting of or indifferent toward delusional beliefs.

 

I know it's a scary reality that people somehow reconcile, in thier minds, the contradictions of the bible and reason. But that doesn't make it at all reasonable.

 

Believing in God or Jesus is delusional only in your point of view. Most people disagree with you. I'm sure you'd argue that most people are then dillusional. There have been many brilliant, rational people who were are relgious. Einstein, Isaac Newton etc. I don't think believing in God makes one less capable of making rational decisions.

 

Ok i don't want to start this again. Just wondering if you've ever read the book or seen the movie 'Contact', written by Carl Sagan (an agnostic)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belief in god is delusional regardless of what I think or what anybody else thinks. it's delusional by the very definition of the word. However, this is not to say, by any means, that most people are unintelligent or delusional as a whole.

It's not much to say that Einstein,Newton, or anybody else was religious because if you look throughout history, everybody was religious. I don't think I need to point out why that's a poor argument. Most of those who knew the world was flat were religious. by the same token, those who knew the world was round were religious. But Einstein in particular was only religious in "Einsteinian sense".(tautology i know, but in reference to Dawkins). What it means is that scientists often use the word 'god' in a very loose way to say that the world is a "wondrous, complicated, mysterious place". Einstein really only ever used the word in metaphorical sense. You really only have to look at our government, or out neighbour's, to understand why people are compelled to make irrational decisions.

 

I've seen parts of Contact although I forget it. I remember that it's very metaphorical and romantic about the quest for knowledge. At least that's what I remember. Something to do with aliens? Maybe I'll download it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.