Should the civilized world unite against Barbarians?

[amicus]

Civilized world unite against Barbarians?



In the wake of yet another terrorist attack against innocent people, is it not time to consider wider options?

Is it not time to face the real enemy?

The world has been slow to react to threats in the past. The Japanese and the Germans during the 1930’s gave clear indication of intent.

International Communism from the Soviet Union left no doubt that world domination was the intent as expressed in Eastern Europe and Asia.

The core of contemporary terrorism lies in oppressive Theocracies in the Middle East and Africa and is spreading through Asia.

Support, training, funding and protection, have been provided to export terror from the Middle East into all parts of the world.

During world war two, German nationals were not welcomed in the civilized world. In America, Japanese nationals were interned and under suspicion. During the cold war, Russians were scrutinized and placed under surveillance in suspicion of espionage and sabotage.

The outcry that Arabs and Muslims should not be discriminated against rings forward across the world; yet as we have been reminded once again, in the midst of civilized people, barbaric acts are planned and carried out.

Religious training of Muslims in the heart of western democracies continues to advocate Jihad, oppression of women and intolerance for other faiths.

It may appear to be immoral to look upon those of Arab culture with a jaundiced eye; but just how long, just how many more innocent lives are to be lost as civilized people are tolerant of Muslim atrocities?

Will it continue until a fictional, ‘Dirty War’ occurs in reality? Will it take a biological attack and the loss of tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives before the reality of the threat is recognized?

If world leaders are not considering isolation and quarantine of all Muslim communities within their borders; they should be.

If world leaders are not considering a pre-emptive neutralization of Iran and Syria and perhaps more; they should be.


The sympathies of the civilized world flood out to the unwitting, innocent men, women and children who were murdered in London, England this day.

This so called war on terror must become just that, a war.

The concern shown by the people on this forum, searching for news of the well being of those in London, brought tears to my eyes as I read the posts.

I suggest it is time we stopped thinking like victims and decide to think and act in our own self defense.

Amicus

 

[Dar~]

True muslims, ( not exttremist muslims) don't believe that the killing of others in the name of Allah is corrrect. in truth it is a very peaceful religion fundamentally. If we react to terror by doing things like camps for muslims, and embargo of muslim nations, we are only feeding into the terror, not curing it. we would be causing sepratism instead of promoting the acceptance of faiths other than our own. This would only further the hate between races and religions, not cure it or cause the terrorism to stop.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I agree. The Amicuses of the world should be stopped.

 

[erise]

This is the kind of mentality that I just tried to empasise on another thread that I do not support.

Amicus should need a long talk with the local imam where I live before he talks in such extreme terms about Islam in general. I've never met a more peaceful, tolerant man and bigger humanist than him.

 

[amicus]

Dar~ I am certain you and many others view your position as moral and tolerant and correct.

I think it must be said, over and over again, that all religions repress and oppress the rights of people to live as they choose.

You may be comfortable with a theocratic government controlling your life, wearing a Burka, having no rights at all as a woman, as it is in those countries now.

You may accept the right of clerics to teach terrorism to the young.

But most are not.


amicus

 

[elsol]

*burp*

I doubt this has anything to do with religion; so saying 'Muslim quarantine' will only beget more violence. Does religion help, sure just like Christian Fundamentalism is causing problems here.

What helped more is the failure of the US leadership to make Al-Queida a death sentence -- 'Hey look an Al-queida ter.... Er, sorry, there's a corpse.'

Bush started it right; 'No port, a safe harbor.' , but then he fucking decided Iraq was more important than producing an Osama Bin Laden corpse.

Every day Osama breathed after 9/11 gained him more and more of the faithful because every day after was a victory.

You do not negotiate with murderers; you make them dead and move on with your day. It might not be the most popular of beliefs but we didn't become civilized by being civilized.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Dhalgren150]

Barbarians? that is what they think of us also... no right no wrong...

more people have been wasted over religious differences than any war...

the key is to live and let live.... not to inflict a groups beliefs on others that causes resistance... and then violence...

I solationism.. and harm only when harmed...

care for our own.. first then others if and only if asked to do so.

this is how I see it for what it amounts to...

my humble meaningless thoughts.

 

[Op_Cit]

Civilized world unite against Barbarians?

Yes, but since I only know of one civilized person, how does one unite?

As for "contemporary terrorism", isn't that the IRS? (If you're going to try and draw a distinction between present day terrorism and that of the early twentieth century--which, as far as I know, is when the term "terrorism" came into use.)

If you're going to tie terrorism to religion then wouldn't the appropriate solution be elimination of religion? That is, if you see it as fanatical, blind faith as the driving factor and not other more basic causes, then wouldn't it be better to eliminate faith altogether?

"During world war two, German nationals were not welcomed in the civilized world. In America, Japanese nationals ..."

During WW2 troublesome people were exterminated in concentration camps... Why not use this method? Isn't forced extinction of the offending population a more better final solution?

What the heck, can we include the anti-gun nuts in your list of extremists? They've been a peeve of mine for a while.

 

[Liar]

You may be comfortable with a theocratic government controlling your life, wearing a Burka, having no rights at all as a woman, as it is in those countries now.

You may accept the right of clerics to teach terrorism to the young.

I can't see where she said that.

What is this? Gonzo debating?



Eep, I feel I somehow smeared the good Hunter S's name with that comparison.

 

[Dar~]

Dar~ I am certain you and many others view your position as moral and tolerant and correct.

I think it must be said, over and over again, that all religions repress and oppress the rights of people to live as they choose.

You may be comfortable with a theocratic government controlling your life, wearing a Burka, having no rights at all as a woman, as it is in those countries now.

You may accept the right of clerics to teach terrorism to the young.

But most are not.


amicus

Clerics do not teach hate. Extremists do. I am no tin a theocratic government, but those who are believe the ways of their people. There are muslim women here in the united states, many in the armed forces, who were the burka even though they aren't in a theocratic gov't. That is one of the teachings of islam. Modesty. the burka isn't a punishment to them, it is a way of serving their God. While I don't personally agree with that teaching, I am not islamic. If I were, I would choose, also, to follow the teachings of my religion. Right now, I do, I love. Even those who persecute me I love, and pray for. Things in this world will not get better by persecution. Look at the Holocaust. That wasn't a world solution, it was a senseless masacre of innocents. Hate only spreads Hate, it doesn't solve anything. Creating a sepratist world will only further the cause of terrorism and dislike.

 

[amicus]

BUUUUURRRRP!, ah, that felt good...


I personally think it has everything to do with religion. I offer wonder how those who show a facade of liberalism will easily tolerate the oppression of women in middle eastern theocracies.

But far be it from me to ever accuse a liberal of being consistent.

amicus...

 

[Op_Cit]

Clerics do not teach hate. Extremists do. I am no tin a theocratic government, but those who are believe the ways of their people. There are muslim women here in the united states, many in the armed forces, who were the burka even though they aren't in a theocratic gov't.

How are all governments not theocracies?

That is, when you take a step back, they all promote the religion of the state. Most have state schools which indoctrinate the young to the rightness/correctness of their ways. Those that disagree are singled out and or punished. (<--Can you identify one government in existance today for which that is not true?)

I have never seen a proper proof given on why this or that government is valid. And when you question the basis (of this or that or any government), the responses are pretty much identical to the responses that you get when you question the existence of God. (or 'dog' if you're syxledic.)

As for hate... just look around here. There's a whole lot of hate being slung back and forth by the lefties and the righties on this forum. Who's teaching that? Who's promoting it and perpetuating it?

Who on this board truly has an open mind?

 

[BlackShanglan]

A Modest Proposal

I've got a better idea. Just look at how overwhelming the representation of males in acts of terror is. Amicus has the right idea, but clearly the wrong population. Everyone with a 'Y' chromosome, please form an orderly line by the incinerators ...

 

[Dar~]

Who on this board truly has an open mind?

I like to believe I do. I don't persecute people based on the actions of others only the actions they themselves committed to. I have no fear or dislike for those who are a different sex, religion, or sexual preference then myself. an open mind does not mean one has to agree with the perspectives of everyone around them, only that there is no hate spewed forth because of those beliefs. I readily accept that people have other beliefs than my own. Thats fine its all Jim Dandy. I don't have to believe them or practice them, merely exihibit tolerance and acceptance for those who hold beliefs in opposition to my own.

 

[BlackShanglan]

That is, when you take a step back, they all promote the religion of the state. Most have state schools which indoctrinate the young to the rightness/correctness of their ways. Those that disagree are singled out and or punished. (<--Can you identify one government in existance today for which that is not true?)

By God, he's right! And families, too! They persist in teaching children that there are "right" and "wrong" behaviors. And crossing guards! Heartless bastards and advance troops for the theocratic revolution, trying to stifle our natural right to choose to cross against the lights.

Yes, all schools teach children that there are right and wrong actions. This is because we all have to live in a world inhabited by a great many other human beings, and we've found that that works best when everyone learns to govern their behaviors in accordance with some simple rules. This is in order to maximize the liberties of all by instilling an awareness that one's rights and privileges are constantly in tension with those of others, and that not everyone can do everything that comes to mind at the same moment. This is infinitely preferable to teaching people that there are neither boundaries nor consequences to their actions. The whole "noble savage" method of education went out with Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Shanglan

 

[Dar~]

By God, he's right! And families, too! They persist in teaching children that there are "right" and "wrong" behaviors. And crossing guards! Heartless bastards and advance troops for the theocratic revolution, trying to stifle our natural right to choose to cross against the lights.
Shanglan

Shang, I You. and I applaud you.

 

[BooMerengue]

*burp*

I doubt this has anything to do with religion; so saying 'Muslim quarantine' will only beget more violence. Does religion help, sure just like Christian Fundamentalism is causing problems here.

What helped more is the failure of the US leadership to make Al-Queida a death sentence -- 'Hey look an Al-queida ter.... Er, sorry, there's a corpse.'

Bush started it right; 'No port, a safe harbor.' , but then he fucking decided Iraq was more important than producing an Osama Bin Laden corpse.

Every day Osama breathed after 9/11 gained him more and more of the faithful because every day after was a victory.

You do not negotiate with murderers; you make them dead and move on with your day. It might not be the most popular of beliefs but we didn't become civilized by being civilized.Sincerely,
ElSol

May I use this quote? I love it!

 

[amicus]

OP Cit.....you said, in part: "...If you're going to tie terrorism to religion then wouldn't the appropriate solution be elimination of religion? That is, if you see it as fanatical, blind faith as the driving factor and not other more basic causes, then wouldn't it be better to eliminate faith altogether?..."

I think even a cursory study of human history will tie not just terrorism, but every form of human degradation directly to religion in general.

Fanatical, blind faith, to use your words, is slowly being replaced by reason and rationality; so yes, the sooner religion is but a page in history, the better it will be.

Got interrupted by a phone call...so I will leave it here...


amicus...

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I personally think it has everything to do with religion. I offer wonder how those who show a facade of liberalism will easily tolerate the oppression of women in middle eastern theocracies.

Perhaps some of us know that if women have any rights at all in the western world, we have the Muslims to thank. In Classical Islam, women may not have had freedom, but they had respect - which was something that no western society at the time would even consider. Women were quite simply sub-human.

All that began to change because of Islam's positive influence over Europe, not because they crushed the West, as they could probably very well have done, if they wanted to.

With people like you roaming freely in our midst, making political and military decisions, it makes me wonder who the Barbarians are.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I think even a cursory study of human history will tie not just terrorism, but every form of human degradation directly to religion in general.

Other than that awkward Holocaust business. Oh, and slavery in the American south. Oh, yes, and there was that nasty business about World War One. And the colonization of America and Africa and Australia. And third world sweatshopping and worker exploitation. I think that's about the - no, wait, there's industrial pollution and the Red Scare too, aren't there?

Tell you what, I'll try to get back to you with a complete list. But I may be some time.

Shanglan

 

[Op_Cit]

By God, he's right!... This is because we all have to live in a world inhabited by a great many other human beings,...

Yes, precisely so. You have provided an excellent example of the religious reply.

Or if you choose not to be religious: What proof do you offer that government works best for living together? The mere existence of it is not proof. The mafia exists. Nazis existed. Religious extremists exist.

You say, "we've found..." but I have reached no such conclusion, and I had much of the same indoctrination as you.

How about another aproach, the quasi-socratic...

Suppose your child comes home and tells you that he did a good thing today at school: Some kids were ganging up to tease and rough up the class geek, and he refused to take part in it. When you ask "why?", which of these two answers would you prefer to hear:

1) I did not participate because I would not have wanted that done to me had I been in his (the geek's) shoes
or
2) I did not participate because I knew you would punish me severely if you ever found out. (or perhaps, "I didn't because I knew you'd pat me on the head.")

What good comes from teaching by means of (artificial) reward/punishment?

Which most likely leads to greater wisdom, reward/punishment or nature's cause and effect?

(Isn't this the basis of Christianity? Don't do bad because I said so, and if you obey you will be rewarded and if you no not you will be punished? What kind of God desires blind obedience over true wisdom?)

 

[BlackShanglan]

Perhaps some of us know that if women have any rights at all in the western world, we have the Muslims to thank. In Classical Islam, women may not have had freedom, but they had respect - which was something that no western society at the time would even consider. Women were quite simply sub-human.

I beg your pardon, but this is not accurate. I can only bring in-depth knowledge of one western pre-Christian culture strongly to bear, but women in pre-Christian Irish culture were not treated as "sub-human." In fact in mnay tribes they had the right to divorce, and if they brought a specific set of goods to the marriage with them, they were entitled to half of all marital assets on divorce. Naming of children was commonly matrilinear and evidence exists both of women who fought in battle and of queens who led individual tribes. Their goddesses were not confined to the hearth, either; the Morrigu, a sort of fate/wyrd/battle goddess, was powerful and feared, and many tribes also worshipped a female deity of poetry, which was central to the culture and considered to have supernatural powers. It's true that some women taken as battle booty were treated as slaves, but this was also true of men taken in similar circumstances. The dividing line was warrior/peasant, not male/female.

Shanglan

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I beg your pardon, but this is not accurate. I can only bring in-depth knowledge of one western pre-Christian culture strongly to bear, but women in pre-Christian Irish culture were not treated as "sub-human." In fact in mnay tribes they had the right to divorce, and if they brought a specific set of goods to the marriage with them, they were entitled to half of all marital assets on divorce. Naming of children was commonly matrilinear and evidence exists both of women who fought in battle and of queens who led individual tribes. Their goddesses were not confined to the hearth, either; the Morrigu, a sort of fate/wyrd/battle goddess, was powerful and feared, and many tribes also worshipped a female deity of poetry, which was central to the culture and considered to have supernatural powers. It's true that some women taken as battle booty were treated as slaves, but this was also true of men taken in similar circumstances. The dividing line was warrior/peasant, not male/female.

Shanglan

You're quite right, I should have been more specific. But how many pre-Christian Irish cultures subsisted at the time of Islam's appearance?

 

[TxRad]

With people like you roaming freely in our midst, making political and military decisions, it makes me wonder who the Barbarians are.

My first thought on reading the start of this was: Who gets to pick the Barbarians and Barbarians by who's standards. Religion is not the problem here, power crazy nuts are the problem and religion is the cover as usual. It makes a great cover as it allows people (See Power Crazy Nuts) to use blind faith and sometimes not so blind faith to incite large groups quickly.

All religions teach peace and brotherhood until someone needs a quick army and then its Jihad or a crusade... nope, go after the nuts and leave the peaceful people alone... and if you can't tell the difference then you are part of the problem and not part of the solution...

 

[oggbashan]

I've got a better idea. Just look at how overwhelming the representation of males in acts of terror is. Amicus has the right idea, but clearly the wrong population. Everyone with a 'Y' chromosome, please form an orderly line by the incinerators ...

The Russians might quibble about this. The Chechen 'Black Widows' are as capable of being suicide bombers as their men.

Perhaps everyone who has at least one 'X' chromosome should be in the line...

Og