Print

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

[SalmonGod]

Yeah, bad things will happen.  It's hard to accept when other people do things that you believe are wrong.  But if effecting change is your true purpose, then you have to think about how your actions reflect on the beliefs that you hold from the perspective of those you wish to influence.

I bet you wouldn't be so passive if this was about a more domestic issue. "Let the intelligence agencies and corporations have their way, they'll come around"? Are you seriously arguing that religious fundamentalists are just going to let it drop and spontaneously agree with human rights after....how long, exactly? Because I know they never really stopped in the US, they just had no avenue for their will to be enforced, as it should be.

Screw humility. If you aren't willing to stand up for what you want you will be trampled by those with a stronger will, and if there's anything good to say about religious fundamentalists it is that they have a very strong will.

First, the problems here are of a different nature.  They're not ideological.  They're about pure dominance for its own sake.  The powers that be in the U.S. don't victimize others over ideas, they do it for their own luxury.  It's a pure predator/prey situation, and the only option when you're prey is to fight back.

Second, I don't expect existing fundamentalists to change, but not everyone in a religious culture that includes fundamentalists is going to be one of them.  But when you attack a culture because of some fundamentalist element, it has an effect on the more moderate population as well.  They see everything they know and care about hurt, and are naturally going to be less likely to want to understand their aggressors.

Screw humility. If you aren't willing to stand up for what you want you will be trampled by those with a stronger will, and if there's anything good to say about religious fundamentalists it is that they have a very strong will.

I have no admiration for people with what you call a strong will, but I call bullheadedness.  All those people do is fight with each other.  They cannot be dissuaded, and catch everyone else, who would otherwise be capable of working out their problems in other ways, up in the middle of their violence.  I cannot call it a good quality, when the world would be better off if no one had it.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

So, puppet government. I thought you wanted the dictators away, not support them. Because well, that's exactly what the West tried to do with supporting Kadaffi and co. Only this time with "rigged" elections*.

Not a puppet government, just one controlled by people who can work with the West. From the initial point the basic law can be set up by secularists, effectively shutting Islamists out indefinitely. After the first election we should leave them to stand on their own since the basic problem has been dealt with.

Violence provokes violence. Yes, leave the groups alone. Focus on the actual problems, maybe attempt to talk with the more moderate factions. The Fundamentalist groups are only held together by the threat of a mutual enemy. Remove the enemy, and they will eventually collapse(or at least decline in popularity).

They are held together by their mutual belief in a vindictive all-powerful deity. They aren't going to just stop.

First, the problems here are of a different nature.  They're not ideological.  They're about pure dominance for its own sake.  The powers that be in the U.S. don't victimize others over ideas, they do it for their own luxury.  It's a pure predator/prey situation, and the only option when you're prey is to fight back.

Of course they're ideological! The intelligence agencies need to know everything about everyone so they can stop The Terrorists (TM), the corporations need to be allowed to do whatever they can to Create Jobs. It's all ideological.

Second, I don't expect existing fundamentalists to change, but not everyone in a religious culture that includes fundamentalists is going to be one of them.  But when you attack a culture because of some fundamentalist element, it has an effect on the more moderate population as well.  They see everything they know and care about hurt, and are naturally going to be less likely to want to understand their aggressors.

The fundamentalists can stay. They just need to stay in their mosques and out of the statehouse.

I have no admiration for people with what you call a strong will, but I call bullheadedness.  All those people do is fight with each other.  They cannot be dissuaded, and catch everyone else, who would otherwise be capable of working out their problems in other ways, up in the middle of their violence.  I cannot call it a good quality, when the world would be better off if no one had it.

Aren't you the one who was all "stand up and shout" during Occupy?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

So, puppet government. I thought you wanted the dictators away, not support them. Because well, that's exactly what the West tried to do with supporting Kadaffi and co. Only this time with "rigged" elections*.

Not a puppet government, just one controlled by people who can work with the West. From the initial point the basic law can be set up by secularists, effectively shutting Islamists out indefinitely. After the first election we should leave them to stand on their own since the basic problem has been dealt with.

With, or for?

Because you don't need a puppet government for them to be forced into working with the west.

With. A mutual partnership is a desirable outcome.

[10ebbor10]

So, puppet government. I thought you wanted the dictators away, not support them. Because well, that's exactly what the West tried to do with supporting Kadaffi and co. Only this time with "rigged" elections*.

Not a puppet government, just one controlled by people who can work with the West. From the initial point the basic law can be set up by secularists, effectively shutting Islamists out indefinitely. After the first election we should leave them to stand on their own since the basic problem has been dealt with.

Turkey had a Secular government for fifty years. First election, AKP wins massive amounts of votes. Just staying for one election won't work.

Besides, Orthodox muslims can work with the West. See, the Libyan oil deals or well, Turkey. That's going fairly well for more than a decade (As opposed to Turkey's previous secular government, which was strongly isolationist). And Iran**'s doing fine in it's relations with Russia.(*) The West doesn't equal America, after all.

*And was in fact, one of the first to criticize the Taliban rule of Afghanistan. (See, you got different flavours of fundamentalism)
**On a side note, what has this one done wrong to deserve all the sanctions. Sure, they're developing nuclear weapons without permission, but so did India.  And it's not like they're the most islamistic government in existence. That would be Saudi Arabia, which is an US ally.

Violence provokes violence. Yes, leave the groups alone. Focus on the actual problems, maybe attempt to talk with the more moderate factions. The Fundamentalist groups are only held together by the threat of a mutual enemy. Remove the enemy, and they will eventually collapse(or at least decline in popularity).

They are held together by their mutual belief in a vindictive all-powerful deity. They aren't going to just stop.

A Vindictive, all-powerful deity who doesn't do anything. Fundamentalists aren't dumb. They believe God send them to battle the great enemy. Without enemy, the organization will fall apart.

First, the problems here are of a different nature.  They're not ideological.  They're about pure dominance for its own sake.  The powers that be in the U.S. don't victimize others over ideas, they do it for their own luxury.  It's a pure predator/prey situation, and the only option when you're prey is to fight back.

Of course they're ideological! The intelligence agencies need to know everything about everyone so they can stop The Terrorists (TM), the corporations need to be allowed to do whatever they can to Create Jobs. It's all ideological.

Second, I don't expect existing fundamentalists to change, but not everyone in a religious culture that includes fundamentalists is going to be one of them.  But when you attack a culture because of some fundamentalist element, it has an effect on the more moderate population as well.  They see everything they know and care about hurt, and are naturally going to be less likely to want to understand their aggressors.

The fundamentalists can stay. They just need to stay in their mosques and out of the statehouse.

Not going to solve any problems that way. When the fundamentalists will find that the legal way to address their concern is blocked, they will try it in other ways.

As for examples of this happens. High ranking religious teachers in Iran of all places are proposing secularization. There were some steps going in that direction, but they're being lost in Iran's economical crisis. Sanctions are hard, after all.

I have no admiration for people with what you call a strong will, but I call bullheadedness.  All those people do is fight with each other.  They cannot be dissuaded, and catch everyone else, who would otherwise be capable of working out their problems in other ways, up in the middle of their violence.  I cannot call it a good quality, when the world would be better off if no one had it.

Aren't you the one who was all "stand up and shout" during Occupy?

There's a difference between standing up for rights, and refusing to even listen what others say based  on your own prejudice.

Also, a difference between peacefull shouting and military intervention and seizing control of another state.

[SalmonGod]

First, the problems here are of a different nature.  They're not ideological.  They're about pure dominance for its own sake.  The powers that be in the U.S. don't victimize others over ideas, they do it for their own luxury.  It's a pure predator/prey situation, and the only option when you're prey is to fight back.

Of course they're ideological! The intelligence agencies need to know everything about everyone so they can stop The Terrorists (TM), the corporations need to be allowed to do whatever they can to Create Jobs. It's all ideological.

It's ideological only so far as the ideology serves to secure their luxurious lifestyles.  They say those things because they're convenient to the purpose of maintaining their ability to exploit others for their own material gain, not because they actually believe them the way a religious fundamentalist believes in holy word.

I have no admiration for people with what you call a strong will, but I call bullheadedness.  All those people do is fight with each other.  They cannot be dissuaded, and catch everyone else, who would otherwise be capable of working out their problems in other ways, up in the middle of their violence.  I cannot call it a good quality, when the world would be better off if no one had it.

Aren't you the one who was all "stand up and shout" during Occupy?

Not the same.  See above.  Different circumstances.  Different actions.  Different goals.  Occupy has from the beginning been about reaching out openly to raise awareness and spread ideas.  I also support direct action activism when strategically practical, for the sake of self-defense.  What you're talking about is aggression to force what you believe is right on others regardless of the practicality of doing so, for the sake of your own sense of moral righteousness.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's ideological only so far as the ideology serves to secure their luxurious lifestyles.  They say those things because they're convenient to the purpose of maintaining their ability to exploit others for their own material gain, not because they actually believe them the way a religious fundamentalist believes in holy word.

I find that doubtful, but as mind reading technology does not exist there is no way to prove or disprove what you are saying.

What you're talking about is aggression to force what you believe is right on others regardless of the practicality of doing so, for the sake of your own sense of moral righteousness.

Moral righteousness isn't the core issue. Islamist regimes are not happy fun times. These are people who see women as either property or evil seductresses and anyone who doesn't just doesn't accept Islam, but their particular brand of Islam, as someone deserving of death. In other words, people who should never, ever, under any circumstances, be allowed to control a political division of any size, and certainly not a country.

[10ebbor10]

Moral righteousness isn't the core issue. Islamist regimes are not happy fun times. These are people who see women as either property or evil seductresses and anyone who doesn't just doesn't accept Islam, but their particular brand of Islam, as someone deserving of death. In other words, people who should never, ever, under any circumstances, be allowed to control a political division of any size, and certainly not a country.

A bit of overgeneralization here. Not every fundamentalist is a Taliban member.

Also conveniently ignores the hypocrisy of invading other nations to prevent them from Islam, and protecting Saudi Arabia as a Tier one US ally**. The only nation were women still aren't allowed to drive, where you need to be a muslim to enter*, and which fully supported the Taliban regime in Afghanistan (Iran denounced it, as did most Middle eastern states).

*Foreign experts doing construction and other useful things excepted.
**Well, you're not protecting them, but the US is.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

A bit of overgeneralization here. Not every fundamentalist is the Taliban.

Not every, but many. Enough that it is a legitimate possibility, and that's not even counting the less extreme but still extremely bad possibilities.

Also conveniently ignores the hypocrisy of invading other nations to prevent them from Islam, and protecting Saudi Arabia as a Tier one US ally. The nation were women still aren't allowed to drive, where you need to be a muslim to enter*, and which fully supported the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

*Foreign experts doing construction and other useful things excepted.

You are free to show me where I supported maintaining our positive ties with Saudi Arabia. I don't. It would also do a lot of good towards getting off of oil.

[10ebbor10]

That edit came in too late. But well, just illustrating the hypocritical situation the US finds itself in.

It's all about the oil, after all. There's also the point that without support of local nations, an invasion could spring of into a larger war.

[RedKing]

It's ideological only so far as the ideology serves to secure their luxurious lifestyles.  They say those things because they're convenient to the purpose of maintaining their ability to exploit others for their own material gain, not because they actually believe them the way a religious fundamentalist believes in holy word.

I find that doubtful, but as mind reading technology does not exist there is no way to prove or disprove what you are saying.

What you're talking about is aggression to force what you believe is right on others regardless of the practicality of doing so, for the sake of your own sense of moral righteousness.

Moral righteousness isn't the core issue. Islamist regimes are not happy fun times. These are people who see women as either property or evil seductresses and anyone who doesn't just doesn't accept Islam, but their particular brand of Islam, as someone deserving of death. In other words, people who should never, ever, under any circumstances, be allowed to control a political division of any size, and certainly not a country.

They said similar things of socialists/Marxists 50 years ago.
"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people." -- Kissinger talking about Chile electing Salvador Allende (apocryphal)

[GlyphGryph]

If we're opposed to dictatorships and support democracy, then it stands to reason we should be opposed to those who, should they be elected, would pursue a dictatorship and doing away with democracy.

Of course, the form that opposition should take is quite debatable.  But Hitler was a product of democracy, after all.

[RedKing]

If we're opposed to dictatorships and support democracy, then it stands to reason we should be opposed to those who, should they be elected, would pursue a dictatorship and doing away with democracy.

Of course, the form that opposition should take is quite debatable.  But Hitler was a product of democracy, after all.

That last part is debateable. I wouldn't classify the Weimar Republic as a functioning, robust democracy. It was little-removed from the Kaiserreich that authoritarian powergrabs and legislative coup d'etats weren't shocking.

[GlyphGryph]

Which is why I didn't use the word "functioning" or "robust". Many of the places where Islamism has a real chance of taking over aren't places I would say has a "functioning, robust" democracy either.

So the question is, should we allow the majority to purposely dismantle democracy? Are we okay with that? Or are we opposed to it? (Even if we decide that it's not worth actually involving ourselves in altering the result, a different question completely)

[10ebbor10]

The basis of democracy is the belief that more than half the people will take the right decision more than half of the time.

[misko27]

The basis of democracy is the belief that more than half the people will take the right decision more than half of the time.

Excellent Citations there me man. Reminds me of a quote someone I know likes saying

May the Force be in your favor, Mr. Potter.

Democracy is based around the concept that in a environment where all facts are known, they will always make the right choice. Founding Concept of Democracy

Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.

Alternatively:

VOTE, n. The instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country.