Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 08-24-2005, 07:33 AM
Felix_Nietsche Felix_Nietsche is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 208
Default Be Quiet Fool! I will NEVER submit to the 2+2 Forum Fascists!

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08-24-2005, 07:54 AM
mackthefork mackthefork is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 82
Default Re: H.U.A.C. fan

[ QUOTE ]
>>To condemn terrorism as an exercise in ethical behaviour or in a college term paper make sense. It is after all "uncivilized" (whatever that means) behaviour.<<

My condemnation of terrorism is extremely practical and pragmatic, because it will (especially in the virulent form manifested by 21st century islamic terror) result in death, misery, and economic strain for everyone involved both directly and peripherally. It's hard to believe how any reasonable person could not understand this.

>>Instead of condemning (a wholly negative exercise) it is far better to understand the causes of the terrorist reaction.<<

The 'cause' is the belief on the part of some people that they can address whatever grievances they have - real, imagined, exaggerated, or misplaced - through committing violence upon others, then believing that they are justified in that belief.

Condemning terrorism is not a "negative exercise" - what is negative is trying to come up with rationalizations, justifications, and excuses for terror. For that is to miss the point, assuming that one begins with the premise that all people are human, and that all life is valuable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it safe for me to assume that this nonsense isn't satire? How is terrorism any different to militarism, is it because they are non uniformed combatants? The mind honestly boggles. I guess it's okay for the US to kill whoever they like, for whatever convoluted reasons they can manufacture, then to wholly condemn anyone who takes pre-emptive measures to defend themselves against this aggression. As we speak, Blair is having new rules written up to stop me objecting to the madness he has got me and my country involved in.

Mack
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08-24-2005, 10:52 AM
zipo zipo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 194
Default Re: A man for all seasons

Well, it's easy to see where you have gone wrong with your thinking. It will be much tougher to educate you to the point where you can understand your errors, as that will require a great deal of intellectual and emotional growth on your part.

Suffice to say that in order to understand this situation (palestinians vs israelis, islamicists vs the West, etc. - which are in fact exemplars in microcosm of age old human conflicts), you have to be able to abandon partisanship and the need to be "right", and see the conflict from a different standpoint.

This requires what might be called 'metacognition' - that is, developing a mental model encompassing the issue systemically, rather than being stuck in a provincial model. This requires intelligence, but it also requires objectivity - that is, you must develop enough emotional mastery to be able to tolerate abandoning (even temporarily) your own narrow viewpoint and passions and prejudices.

You should try this. Obviously, it will not be easy for you as you are quite inflexible and emotionally committed to your position. However, if you make the effort, over time (if you are sincere and diligent) you will find that you are more objective, clearheaded, and rational. You may also find yourself developing the qualities of empathy and compassion. Here's a hint - it's not true empathy or compassion if you experience this only towards those who you perceive to be on your "side".

Good luck in your journey of personal growth - I'm looking forward to following your progress.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08-24-2005, 11:15 AM
zipo zipo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 194
Default Re: H.U.A.C. fan

>>Is it safe for me to assume that this nonsense isn't satire?<<

Mack, I'm disappointed. After our exchange of pm's I thought were were beyond this tone.

>>How is terrorism any different to militarism<<

This requires another thread, but that would be extremely tedious as it has been done to death. Let's just say that if you're talking about 21st century US/Brit 'militarism' vs. 21st century islamic terrorism, many reasonable and intelligent people can (and have) presented extemely cogent arguments that these two phenomena are *extremely* different. My point is that they are mutually reinforcing.

>> I guess it's okay for the US to kill whoever they like, for whatever convoluted reasons they can manufacture, then to wholly condemn anyone who takes pre-emptive measures to defend themselves against this aggression.<<

This is of course a loaded statement on many levels. And I hope you're not referring to 9/11 as a "pre-emptive" measure - if so, I really don't see any point in discussing the issue with you further. I honestly hope you will reflect on this and reconsider.

>>As we speak, Blair is having new rules written up to stop me objecting to the madness he has got me and my country involved in.<<

This recent response by the British government is supporting the major theme I've presented in these discussion, as these laws are a direct response to the London subway mass murders by islamic terrorists. Should there be another mass terror attack in the West, the counterresponses will only escalate.

In order to interrupt this cycle, terror must be unequivocally condemned without reservation. By making excuses and rationalizations for terror, by justifying terror, one gives legitimacy to terrorists and their supporters, feeding their delusion that what they are doing is "right". Sympathy for terrorism creates more terror because it helps remove one of the internal 'checks' (i.e. conscience, guilt) that keep people from moving from terrorist fantasies to terrorist acts.

Look at the IRA - when popular support for terror dried up, the terror slowed down - and *all* those involved (Irish protestants and Irish catholics, Republican and Northern Irish) are *much* better off today. OTOH, the palestinians pioneered terror (remember the Munich olympics) and never looked back. The fact that they enjoyed popular support in many circles for their terrorism (in the Arab world and in Western Europe) only fueled that terrorism. Look at where the Palestinian people are today. Look at how that conflict has fueled other conflicts around the world today. Pointing fingers at the israelis just doesn't cut it - if one doesn't acknowledge the role of palestinian terrorism in the deterioration of this situation, then one just isn't being objective.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.