Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

You think Lebanom is stable?

[Leafsnail]

America has something of a cultural mandate for violence in second amendment related stuff.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You think Lebanon is stable?

In relative terms. These are the most stable of the MENA nations. Even Turkey is well below European/North American levels of stability.

[Yoink]

I generally don't read this thread, I just popped in to read the last few posts or so after hearing about that attack on the US Consulate. I'm not too knowledgable on these things, but I think what is meant by 'cultural mandate for violence' is, basically, this:

In such a country, someone who murders a person for disagreeing with their political beliefs would be touted as a hero by a large part of the population, protected by sympathetic parties and probably hailed as a 'martyr' should they eventually be brought to justice.

In America, someone who murders a person for disagreeing with their political beliefs would be outcast and hated by the majority of the populace, unable to make purchases etc without their every move being traced, and before long either shot by police or thrown into prison to be buttraped to death.

[FearfulJesuit]

I hate to come across as a Freeper, but there's a reason the American franchise was restricted to property owners before Jackson came along

Bad.  Very very bad.  Stop it.

Oh, I'm not saying that it was all things considered a good thing, because it wasn't.

But it's worth recognizing that areas with large populations of people who cannot get into the system, have no stake in it, or are systematically kept out of it tend to produce demagogues rather than democracy.

Getting rid of the property ownership clause in the States never bred any real problems because (except in the South; but the South was an oligarchy in all but name anyhow) it didn't have any class issues to work through. Nobody was keeping you from moving into Illinois, and you didn't have a situation like the Phillippines where a small minority of people (the Phillippine Chinese) run most of the country's advanced economy.

If there are entrenched elites who are benefiting from laissez-faire capitalism, or even capitalism without too much regulation, opposed to a mass of people with little education and few opportunities, democracy will create demagogues, not statesmen. The solution, of course, isn't to restrict the franchise to property owners, it's to make everyone a member of the bourgeoisie.

[ChairmanPoo]

In America, someone who murders a person for disagreeing with their political beliefs would be outcast and hated by the majority of the populace,

unless the victim and the aggressor had the right labels, that is.

[scriver]

Torture people for little to no reason.

There's generally a reason even if it is wrong, and this is an action purported by the government.

Invade whatever country they like.

You do realize that this is also an action purported by the government, right?

Kill all civilians they want.

Firstly, if we killed all the civilians we could there would be no one left alive in Iraq or Afghanistan. Civilian casualties from warfare are at a historic low. Secondly, government again.

Commit whatever war crimes they want.

Government.

Overthrow whatever governments they want.

Government.

Fund and/or create whatever terrorist groups they want.

Government.

All in the name of Freedom and the American Way.

All in the name of geopolitical power and getting re-elected. You clearly are not getting what I'm saying.

The government doing bad things is not the same as having a cultural mandate for violence amongst the populace.

1. The American government are the American people. They represent you. You are all guilty for what they do. That comes with being a democracy.

2. If the American people did not consent to those actions, Bush and Obama would both be in Haag, awaiting punishment for their crimes. But they aren't, because when America does violence it's all right. Because in American's minds, they are the Good Guys, and the Good Guys can kill how many Bad Guys they want without ever being questioned. The Good Guys have mandate to commit whatever violence they want.

3. Torture is everywhere doesn't matter if we do it or not, no country has ever denied torturing either their foes or their own citizens.

4. While i do note we invaded everyone we liked too it has cause alot of outrage from the world community and people were pissed that we invaded Iraq for bullshit reasons so its not without consequences

5. Kill all civilians they want. Excuse me? When the fuck did we started mowing down innocents?

6. commit whatever war crimes they want. Please explain this more as we haven't been carpet bombing or using chemical warfare for a while now.

Overthrow what governments they want. once again countries playing dirty

Fund and/or create whatever terrorist groups they want. Once again countries playing dirty.

3. In other words, it's okay for America to do it. Mandate of violence.

4. Yeah, some consequences. People got pissed. Did anyone get punished? No.

5. You never stopped. This is a famous example.

6. Because those are the only kinds of war crimes. And that article isn't even counting the use of cluster bombs and other such weapons.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

1. The American government are the American people. They represent you. You are all guilty for what they do. That comes with being a democracy.

Good to know. Tell me where you're from so I can make wild accusations of you doing horrific things you don't support and had no hand in.

2. If the American people did not consent to those actions, Bush and Obama would both be in Haag, awaiting punishment for their crimes. But they aren't, because when America does violence it's all right. Because in American's minds, they are the Good Guys, and the Good Guys can kill how many Bad Guys they want without ever being questioned. The Good Guys have mandate to commit whatever violence they want.

I suppose you can give me an example of heads of state being prosecuted for their actions leading a nation, then?

And furthermore, don't tell me how Americans feel about America. I live here. There are people who hate this country and there are people who love it, and every other way you could possibly feel towards a nation.

[cameron]

He isn't trying to say you are pro war crimes, just that in some part there are Americans who support analogous actions as the recent protesters and so it wouldn't be somehow inherent in culture or religion

[Frumple]

Scrive, just to try to pull this back a bit, #1: The US political system is currently a little fucked up, and you frankly can't really say that about it at the moment. It's been a bit hijacked by the rich (or more accurately, the nature of the system itself) putting up a barrier of entry to the political process, especially the higher levels of representation, that is completely insurmountable without either being them or being supported by them. Great swaths of our population did not actually consent to be represented by the individuals who did what they did.

We're working on a way to fix this (or at least trying to), but it's going to take a while to do without bloodshed (if it's possible) and in the meantime some fuckers are going to do shit we really don't like. Have an apology from the States; we're working on it, but it's slow.

MSH covered #2, though. That generally only happens to the losing side, if even then.

[Leafsnail]

In America, someone who murders a person for disagreeing with their political beliefs would be outcast and hated by the majority of the populace, unable to make purchases etc without their every move being traced, and before long either shot by police or thrown into prison to be buttraped to death.

"We have no cultural mandate for violence, but we do approve of serious sexual violence when directed at criminals".

[GlyphGryph]

MSH, to be honest, the only difference I see with the American populace and the Libyan one?

We've got a government that's much better at controlling our citizens.

We've still had our share of riots in which people got killed. Riots that were superficially over absolutely stupid things.

Were the people involved probably religious extremists? Probably! Might have been a number of generally angry people willing to hop in with a mob too (we also get those). Our mobs like to burn things down, too!

But these people aren't the country as a whole. You've got a country that just finished a freakin' civil war, full of violence and factionalism - its not fair to place the blame on people that weren't involved, anymore than protest groups should be blamed when some smaller group starts riling up violence.

Well, I guess there's some blame to deal out, but its usually along the lines of "get a better hold on your people".

That said:

Fuck these fuckers that did this. Fucking extremists and assholes. Argh.

[Zrk2]

No country has a 'cultural mandate for violence'. That might be the most offensive thing I've heard all week.

Then how do you explain why this keeps happening? This doesn't happen on even a semi-regular basis anywhere else, but if anyone in the West commits an act critical of Islam that gets well known, bam, violence. Every time.

I'm not saying this from nothing, you know. This is an evidence-based claim.

Because they're fucking hungry, MSH. That's most of the foundational cause. The situation is shit poor in the areas in question and the disenfranchised, hungry, poor, hopeless portions of the population (which are a considerably larger fraction compared to the comparatively well fed first world) get violent.

Do you see the same sort of violence coming with the same sort of frequency from followers of Islam in more stable areas?

I absolutely LOATH this (il)logic. Treat these people like fucking human beings. They have free will. They have brains. They have the capacity for critical thought. Saying their environment guarantees they will commit violence disregards their abilities completely. It makes them subhuman creature incapable of thought. These people know what the fuck they are doing and having a shitty life does not justify their actions.

[RedKing]

There's more than poverty going on here. If we looked at levels of religious violence versus GDP per capita in the Muslim world, neither viewpoint holds up entirely. Libya is actually the only country in North Africa with a GDP per capita above $10,000. It's actually got the same mark as Turkey ($16,555 in 2010). Of course, it's probably dropped some since the civil war, but there are certainly dirt-poor areas of the Muslim world that don't do this shit. Examples: Niger, Bangladesh, most of the Central Asian "-stans".

The difference? Niger is mostly Sufi (actually most of Islamic West Africa is dominated by Sufis), as is Bangladesh. Many of the 'flashpoints' are either some flavor of Shi'ite or one of the more inflexible branches of Sunni such as Ibadi, Wahhabi or Kharijite.

EDIT: Jeez...seriously ninja'd while fact-checking...

[GlyphGryph]

What does per capita have to do with poverty? Or at least how severe and widespread it is? I mean, there may be a correlation, but that's the most you can say...

But yeah, obviously poverty isn't /enough/ of a justification. There's lots of shit you need to add up to this.