[OT] - Interview with a former Jihadist

[Contra]

why dont we just dead this shit, as it seems we're just all going back and forth like a bunch of retarded ass little kids taking turns smacking each other with a bag of rocks......

peace in the middle east....

ha yea right.

[leisuremuffin]

That has been the great American experiment in self rule and, although not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, we've done a lot within our country to try to reach those ideals over the last 230+ years. Is that worth protecting?

Yes.

Is it worth hoping that others can live a life based on those principles?

Yes.

Is it worth fighting against those who would eliminate those gains we've made and wish to share?

Yes.

The question is HOW? I'd love to hear what you think about that.

rob.

i'm going to quit fucking around with everything preceding this because it is clear that you don't hear what i'm saying and i'll just address these points.

1. Yes, of course it is worth protecting. However, i don't believe that is what we are doing in Iraq.


2. This i don't understand. Why do you assume that every culture in the world wants to be like ours. If you say, "it's clearly better and they'll thank us after we turn their county into rubble so that it can have mcdonalds when it's rebuilt" then i don't see where your attitude differs from the extremist muslims. ALSO, if that's what this is all about, then i think we have a few other countries in the world that need some "improvement" as well....


3. How? Well, lets start with "how not" and in particular, how about not dragging out an unpopular war in a place that had nothing to do with protecting our security issues and had everything to do with a small group of people's financial concerns.

Do you sincerly belive that we couldn't have Osama Bin Laden's head on a stick with the amount of money we spent in Iraq? He's not in Iraq, and Saddam had nothing to do with that cat or his organization.

Do you sincerly think that we couldn't be using that money that we're burning in Iraq to fund a global police effort rather than a military one? Have you forgotton that terroist organizations are *not* sovreign nations and cannot be countered with normal military campains??

How about spending that money on increasing security in our own borders in the many places where it's frightenly lacking? nuclear power plants, our ports, and mass trasit etc. etc...


the fact of the matter is that the decisions made clarify the point that this is not about protecting our interests as a nation. Nor is it about being the worlds "good guy". It is about protecting the financial interests of a few.



.lm.

[robtronik]

okay - we agree on the necessity of counteracting terrorist ideology.

But we can disagree on the methods and tact. That's cool. Probably many ways to peel an onion. There is no one correct way of accomplishing the goal.



rob.

[leisuremuffin]

riiiight, except i'm not talking about counteracting terrorist ideology, i think that's impossible. We're not going to change anybody's mind about being a terrorist, and certainly not through military might. As a matter of fact, i think the best way to counteract terrorist ideology is to represent an honorable ideology above the level of terrorism ourselves. That would involve, for starters, not being involved in unprovoked invasions of other nations, and not supporting renditions and subsequent torture, really supporting a free and open society with legal elections, etc.... Basically, the first thing we need to do is actually stand for the things we claim to stand for.



.lm.

[robtronik]

riiiight, except i'm not talking about counteracting terrorist ideology, i think that's impossible. We're not going to change anybody's mind about being a terrorist, and certainly not through military might. As a matter of fact, i think the best way to counteract terrorist ideology is to represent an honorable ideology above the level of terrorism ourselves. That would involve, for starters, not being involved in unprovoked invasions of other nations, and not supporting renditions and subsequent torture, really supporting a free and open society with legal elections, etc.... Basically, the first thing we need to do is actually stand for the things we claim to stand for.



.lm.

I agree with the above if it actually worked. But evidence to support that conclusion (by setting an example) is woefully lacking.

The example we set is based on values that they don't support (i.e. western interpretations of liberalism, democracy, equality, enfranchisement, etc.), so how would that work?

rob.

[Contra]

[Machinesworking]

I agree with the above if it actually worked. But evidence to support that conclusion (by setting an example) is woefully lacking.

The example we set is based on values that they don't support (i.e. western interpretations of liberalism, democracy, equality, enfranchisement, etc.), so how would that work?

We don't set an example.
To the middle eastern person who is not a terrorist, we seem like bullies. It's easy for the extremists to paint us that way because even if we 'say' we are for freedom, we support despots and kings (Saddam was our 'friend' when he gassed the Kurds, if you don't know) if it suits our needs. We do not walk the walk. You are right in the simple fact that no country has tried to play fair in foreign relations, it's all hawk like corporate strategy. We hate Iran, so Iraq is out ally....

Remember the book 1984?

[cbit]

So why can't we agree that there is a fundamental problem with their ideology and recognize that as the source of the problem? This isn't controversial, it is a fact (as the evidence is so readily available and willingly supplied to us).

Well done, Succinctly put.

I believe the reason we can't (as a society) agree that there is a problem with muslim ideology is that it would necessitate an acknowledgment that religious faith itself is the root of the problem we're facing. Belief that has completely 'cut itself loose' from reason. Christian faith is just as pernicious, but thankfully in recent centuries it has been tempered by a healthy dose of 'Moderate' doubt.

[franknputer]

Geez, way to drag shit back from the dead...

Religious faith is not the problem. Most of the world holds views of faith, yet the majority of people are not trying to kill each other. And, liberal-minded atheists are just as capable of being stupid & hateful as anyone else.

The real problem is in thinking that you have all the answers, and everyone else is messing up the world.

[glu]

The heart of the problem is not terrorism, religion, or any other shitty excuse. Those are all tapestries hiding the fundamental issue with the clashing worlds. The "state" is a doomed settlement model. No state has survived very long. We can go to war for financial interests, religious convictions, cultural charity, or mythical nukes- it doesn't matter.


we are up shit stream without a paddle- It may not happen in our lifetimes, but our descendants will eventually face the brutal reality that history has illustrated (over and over) to the blind. It's too late, I'm afraid. We have gone too far to turn back now... too bad.

[MrTom]

I do not like you, humans ....

[M. Bréqs]

So why can't we agree that there is a fundamental problem with their ideology and recognize that as the source of the problem? This isn't controversial, it is a fact (as the evidence is so readily available and willingly supplied to us).

Well done, Succinctly put.

I believe the reason we can't (as a society) agree that there is a problem with muslim ideology is that it would necessitate an acknowledgment that religious faith itself is the root of the problem we're facing. Belief that has completely 'cut itself loose' from reason. Christian faith is just as pernicious, but thankfully in recent centuries it has been tempered by a healthy dose of 'Moderate' doubt.

I can see your point. However, there are many, many moderate religious people whose demand that we respect all beliefs actually shelters radical beliefs.

Think of it this way; Freedom of religion has morphed into freedom of religion to be free from legitimate criticism.

If you think that there is no viable alternative to state controlled economic systems, we're free to criticise your beliefs. But if you think that some lady got pregnant after being visited by an invisible man, or that the angry god makes thunder with his celestial hammer, or that your prophet packed his shit and flew to Jerusalem on a winged horse, or that the flying spaghetti monster created the world with his noodly appendage, then you shouldn't expect to have the right to be free from ridicule and criticism.

And that's the problem: Moderates inadvertantly defend radicalism by insisting that all criticism of belief is invalid. Fuck that. By declaring any criticism of ancient or wildly unprovable ideas as "discrimination" or "prejudice", radicals are protected from discourse that would either show themselves or the community around them what dimwits they are.

A radical religious core cannot exist without an exterior of moderates.

[yoshitosser]

Admittedly all news sources carry their own bias, obviously including the ones you or I turn to, but...

"jihadist rags like the Guardian, etc"

you're having a laugh, right?

And why are you so "proud"? It comes before a fall, you know.

[cbit]

I can see your point. However, there are many, many moderate religious people whose demand that we respect all beliefs actually shelters radical beliefs.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I agree that religious moderates are an enabler of fundamentalism in otherwise secular countries (like the UK) through their insistence that it's offensive and improper to seriously question the (absurd) tenets of religious belief.

There's a recurring idea in this thread and elsewhere that faith is not the problem. This implicitly creates the following strawman: 'critics of religion think that religion is "The Problem", and all the worlds ills would be cured if religion went away'. This is clearly not the case and this implication doesn't help the discussion.

While religious faith isn't the only problem, and certainly not the only cause of terrorism, in many instances it seems plain that without religious faith the act of terror would not have occurred.

I think Sam Harris expresses the difficulty we face the best:

The problem, as I see it, is that moderates don’t tend to know what it is like to be truly convinced that death is an illusion and that an eternity of happiness awaits the faithful beyond the grave. They have, as you say, “integrated doubt” into their faith. Another way of putting it is that they have less faith—and for good reason. The result, however, is that your fellow moderates tend to doubt that anybody ever really is motivated to sacrifice his life, or the lives of others, on the basis his heartfelt religious beliefs. Moderate doubt—which I agree is an improvement over fundamentalist certitude in most respects—often blinds its host to the reality and consequences of full-tilt religious lunacy. Such blindness is now particularly unhelpful, given the hideous collision with Islamic certainty that is unfolding all around us.

[guinee]

Let's Make Music, and Leave the Deconstruction to Derrida!;) PEACE!