The all purpose global 'Terror' attack topic.

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

@Merckx Index. I don't think we should consider South America and the Middle East in the same vein. For one thing, the present Middle East (as a post-colonial construct) has resulted from the effects of mostly British orientalism, however the term might be unsatisfactory, a failed Zionism and reckless US militarism. By contrast, South America resulted from the same European colonialism that begot the US, but composed of peasants that latched onto Marxism in various degrees during the Cold War. In any case the South Americans participated in the same ideologies that drove the West in the 20th century.

What the West is confronting in the Middle East, however, is the very negation of "progressivism," as such, because the Muslim states have had no (or very contained) process of secularization. The goal is theocracy tout court. For this reason, Erdogan has been challenged by that military that fears a loss of standing, should Turkey be transformed into a Caliphate.

At this point religiousity is the key.

...because Lebanon is the same as Saudi Arabia is the same as Iran is the same as Turkey.

I can't share your faith in reason.

Let us not kid ourselves, the Muslim world was the fower if civilization in the ninth through twelfth centuries, but since then regression. On the other hand, the Judeo-Christian West invented the atomic bomb and financial anarchy. So I did but "progressivism" in quotation marks, at least give me some credit for intellectual honesty now.

 

[kwikki]

It's a complex situation.

This is why The Hitch, aphronesis and Rhubroma are all making points that I agree with. Even Merckx is saying some stuff that I think is true, although much of it I disagree with.

Aphronesis is right because he says "it doesn't happen in a vacuum". This is not really about Islam, despite the absolute assurances from ISIS and all the other swivel-eyed loons that it is. This is about power, and Islam is the vehicle used to unite people.

It's not exactly a novel idea, using religion in power games. Western history is littered with it. Holy Roman Empire anyone?

The Hitch is also spot on when he says that it is muslims who make up the biggest casualties. This is because the fight for actual power is taking place in their lands, not ours.

As tragic as the Nice event is, it is actually a sideshow. It's theatre. Its both a PR job, and an act of terrorism in its purest sense. It is also insignificant when compared to the similarly sized atrocities that are taking place in Iraq on an almost weekly basis, but merit little coverage. I say that with absolutely no disrespect.

The political context was supplied by the US invasion, with the help of their British lackeys, intervening in a country who's ethnic groupings were held together by a repressive strongman. In the ensuing chaos, and total dismantling of society and culture is it any wonder that people grasped whatever strong structure they could to bring order?

There is nothing new to this. The Taliban were a product of the brutalised environment created by the Soviets in Afghanistan. As extreme as they were, they brought order to chaos. They were the only people there solving the problems of the people at the time. They might be a savage, medieval bunch of bast***s but for a proportion of the local population they were the right answer at that time......which is why they are still there, 15 years after the western invasion. It's not black and white, good versus evil. It is far nuanced.

 

[Starstruck]

Re: Re:

@Merckx Index. I don't think we should consider South America and the Middle East in the same vein. For one thing, the present Middle East (as a post-colonial construct) has resulted from the effects of mostly British orientalism, however the term might be unsatisfactory, a failed Zionism and reckless US militarism. By contrast, South America resulted from the same European colonialism that begot the US, but composed of peasants that latched onto Marxism in various degrees during the Cold War. In any case the South Americans participated in the same ideologies that drove the West in the 20th century.

What the West is confronting in the Middle East, however, is the very negation of "progressivism," as such, because the Muslim states have had no (or very contained) process of secularization. The goal is theocracy tout court. For this reason, Erdogan has been challenged by that military that fears a loss of standing, should Turkey be transformed into a Caliphate.

At this point religiousity is the key.

...because Lebanon is the same as Saudi Arabia is the same as Iran is the same as Turkey.

I can't share your faith in reason.

Let us not kid ourselves, the Muslim world was the fower if civilization in the ninth through twelfth centuries, but since then regression. On the other hand, the Judeo-Christian West invented the atomic bomb and financial anarchy. So I did but "progressivism" in quotation marks, at least give me some credit for intellectual honesty now.

Fair enough; credit due. I was going to retort with nukes and any other number of crazy but I'm happy you beat me to it.

I don't think the regression of Islam can be stated as monolithic. Senegal sounds interesting and of all the countries in the M.E. I'd love to visit Iran despite it all (we know how that happened). Even Afghanistan was flirting with modernization in the '50 & '60's during a rare period of stability.

Islam interpreted as a primitive survival instinct and hellbent on revenge has had plenty of help.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=bombed+out+city+Syria&espv=2&biw=1517&bih=741&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwil4Mmw1vjNAhVW4WMKHYgsAd0QsAQIGw&dpr=0.9

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

@Merckx Index. I don't think we should consider South America and the Middle East in the same vein. For one thing, the present Middle East (as a post-colonial construct) has resulted from the effects of mostly British orientalism, however the term might be unsatisfactory, a failed Zionism and reckless US militarism. By contrast, South America resulted from the same European colonialism that begot the US, but composed of peasants that latched onto Marxism in various degrees during the Cold War. In any case the South Americans participated in the same ideologies that drove the West in the 20th century.

What the West is confronting in the Middle East, however, is the very negation of "progressivism," as such, because the Muslim states have had no (or very contained) process of secularization. The goal is theocracy tout court. For this reason, Erdogan has been challenged by that military that fears a loss of standing, should Turkey be transformed into a Caliphate.

At this point religiousity is the key.

...because Lebanon is the same as Saudi Arabia is the same as Iran is the same as Turkey.

I can't share your faith in reason.

Let us not kid ourselves, the Muslim world was the fower if civilization in the ninth through twelfth centuries, but since then regression. On the other hand, the Judeo-Christian West invented the atomic bomb and financial anarchy. So I did but "progressivism" in quotation marks, at least give me some credit for intellectual honesty now.

Fair enough; credit due. I was going to retort with nukes and any other number of crazy but I'm happy you beat me to it.

I don't think the regression of Islam can be stated as monolithic. Senegal sounds interesting and of all the countries in the M.E. I'd love to visit Iran despite it all (we know how that happened). Even Afghanistan was flirting with modernization in the '50 & '60's during a rare period of stability.

Islam interpreted as a primitive survival instinct and hellbent on revenge has had plenty of help.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=bombed+out+city+Syria&espv=2&biw=1517&bih=741&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwil4Mmw1vjNAhVW4WMKHYgsAd0QsAQIGw&dpr=0.9

Unfortunately, homo homoni lupus, notwithstanding the niceties of "evolved" civilization.

I've recently begun to ask myself: all the means of destruction we've created (we've underlined), where does this bring us along the iter of so-called progress?

And I say this now given the fact that the hegmonic order has been challenged by a certain religious calling, armed with the same force we used to destroy it.

 

[Starstruck]

Re: Re:

@Merckx Index. I don't think we should consider South America and the Middle East in the same vein. For one thing, the present Middle East (as a post-colonial construct) has resulted from the effects of mostly British orientalism, however the term might be unsatisfactory, a failed Zionism and reckless US militarism. By contrast, South America resulted from the same European colonialism that begot the US, but composed of peasants that latched onto Marxism in various degrees during the Cold War. In any case the South Americans participated in the same ideologies that drove the West in the 20th century.

What the West is confronting in the Middle East, however, is the very negation of "progressivism," as such, because the Muslim states have had no (or very contained) process of secularization. The goal is theocracy tout court. For this reason, Erdogan has been challenged by that military that fears a loss of standing, should Turkey be transformed into a Caliphate.

At this point religiousity is the key.

...because Lebanon is the same as Saudi Arabia is the same as Iran is the same as Turkey.

I can't share your faith in reason.

Let us not kid ourselves, the Muslim world was the fower if civilization in the ninth through twelfth centuries, but since then regression. On the other hand, the Judeo-Christian West invented the atomic bomb and financial anarchy. So I did but "progressivism" in quotation marks, at least give me some credit for intellectual honesty now.

Fair enough; credit due. I was going to retort with nukes and any other number of crazy but I'm happy you beat me to it.

I don't think the regression of Islam can be stated as monolithic. Senegal sounds interesting and of all the countries in the M.E. I'd love to visit Iran despite it all (we know how that happened). Even Afghanistan was flirting with modernization in the '50 & '60's during a rare period of stability.

Islam interpreted as a primitive survival instinct and hellbent on revenge has had plenty of help.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=bombed+out+city+Syria&espv=2&biw=1517&bih=741&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwil4Mmw1vjNAhVW4WMKHYgsAd0QsAQIGw&dpr=0.9

Unfortunately, homo homoni lupus, notwithstanding the niceties of "evolved" civilization.

I've recently begun to ask myself: all the means of destruction we've created (we've underlined), where does this bring us along the iter of so-called progress.

We've created much technological progress for better and for worse but we're still the same animal from 50 000 yrs. ago. Unfortunately many of our basic, hard wired needs aren't being met and we're all going crazy. Progress is our driving myth. Exponential curves and entropy do their work quietly in the background and the effects are explosive.

Have you seen what the city of UR looked like in the 20th century? I imagine it looks much the same today. :Neutral:

edit, time isn't as linear as we like to pretend it is.

 

[Starstruck]

btw, I view all the absurd biases displayed by many in this thread to exhibit the expression of our basic hard wired needs that aren't being fulfilled. The "humans are at their best (and worst) when things are at the worst" syndrome. We're tribal, no way around it. It's amazing how quickly all subtlety and nuance fly out the window when "we" are under threat. The same goes for "them". Who is under more threat?

I know my best experiences with groups of people on this planet have been when I've been working in common cause with other human beings and felt connected. The common cause usually involved a certain amount of duress.

 

[Jspear]

The problem is people. People are broken and sinful. Different people express this to greater degrees than others, but it all comes from the same source. It's the antithesis of "loving the Lord your God and your neighbor as yourself." People will use different things to justify this. Adherents to extreme Islam believe they are properly interpreting the Quran. Anyone (western or Muslim) who lives outside of their standard of Islam deserves to die. They would continue to kill people regardless of any western presence in the middle east. It's not going to get any better.

 

[Starstruck]

Re:

The problem is people. People are broken and sinful. Different people express this to greater degrees than others, but it all comes from the same source. It's the antithesis of "loving the Lord your God and your neighbor as yourself." People will use different things to justify this. Adherents to extreme Islam believe they are properly interpreting the Quran. Anyone (western or Muslim) who lives outside of their standard of Islam deserves to die. They would continue to kill people regardless of any western presence in the middle east. It's not going to get any better.

That's impossible to say with any authority. Who knows how Islam would have developed without 100 + yrs. of western intervention for material gains? We have to deal with what has been and is.

We can know where more western violence leads though.

 

[Jspear]

Re: Re:

The problem is people. People are broken and sinful. Different people express this to greater degrees than others, but it all comes from the same source. It's the antithesis of "loving the Lord your God and your neighbor as yourself." People will use different things to justify this. Adherents to extreme Islam believe they are properly interpreting the Quran. Anyone (western or Muslim) who lives outside of their standard of Islam deserves to die. They would continue to kill people regardless of any western presence in the middle east. It's not going to get any better.

That's impossible to say with any authority. Who knows how Islam would have developed without 100 + yrs. of western intervention for material gains? We have to deal with what has been and is.

We can know where more western violence leads though.

Extreme Islamic terrorism has been around since before America. Granted it's become worse in recent decades, but the ideologies they hold aren't new. We can know how it would unfold because their sources of authority (granting them the "right" to commit these atrocities) have been around for hundreds of years.

 

[Starstruck]

Re: Re:

The problem is people. People are broken and sinful. Different people express this to greater degrees than others, but it all comes from the same source. It's the antithesis of "loving the Lord your God and your neighbor as yourself." People will use different things to justify this. Adherents to extreme Islam believe they are properly interpreting the Quran. Anyone (western or Muslim) who lives outside of their standard of Islam deserves to die. They would continue to kill people regardless of any western presence in the middle east. It's not going to get any better.

That's impossible to say with any authority. Who knows how Islam would have developed without 100 + yrs. of western intervention for material gains? We have to deal with what has been and is.

We can know where more western violence leads though.

Extreme Islamic terrorism has been around since before America. Granted it's become worse in recent decades, but the ideologies they hold aren't new. We can know how it would unfold because their sources of authority (granting them the "right" to commit these atrocities) have been around for hundreds of years.

Extreme human terrorism has been around forever. It became much worse with the development of civilization. Industrial civilization took it to a whole new level. What was your point?

 

[Jspear]

Re: Re:

The problem is people. People are broken and sinful. Different people express this to greater degrees than others, but it all comes from the same source. It's the antithesis of "loving the Lord your God and your neighbor as yourself." People will use different things to justify this. Adherents to extreme Islam believe they are properly interpreting the Quran. Anyone (western or Muslim) who lives outside of their standard of Islam deserves to die. They would continue to kill people regardless of any western presence in the middle east. It's not going to get any better.

That's impossible to say with any authority. Who knows how Islam would have developed without 100 + yrs. of western intervention for material gains? We have to deal with what has been and is.

We can know where more western violence leads though.

Extreme Islamic terrorism has been around since before America. Granted it's become worse in recent decades, but the ideologies they hold aren't new. We can know how it would unfold because their sources of authority (granting them the "right" to commit these atrocities) have been around for hundreds of years.

Extreme human terrorism has been around forever. It became much worse with the development of civilization. Industrial civilization took it to a whole new level. What was your point?

My point was Islamic terrorism specifically has been around since before America. You said we can't know how Islam would have developed if there wasn't a western presence over there. You're right, we don't know EXACTLY how they would have developed, but we have a very good idea of how because of their writings. The Quran, the Hadith, and even later Muslim scholars. There's always going to be groups of people that disagree with their ideologies, hence there will always be people deserving death. If America wasn't around it would be another country, culture, group of people.

 

[Starstruck]

Re: Re:

The problem is people. People are broken and sinful. Different people express this to greater degrees than others, but it all comes from the same source. It's the antithesis of "loving the Lord your God and your neighbor as yourself." People will use different things to justify this. Adherents to extreme Islam believe they are properly interpreting the Quran. Anyone (western or Muslim) who lives outside of their standard of Islam deserves to die. They would continue to kill people regardless of any western presence in the middle east. It's not going to get any better.

That's impossible to say with any authority. Who knows how Islam would have developed without 100 + yrs. of western intervention for material gains? We have to deal with what has been and is.

We can know where more western violence leads though.

Extreme Islamic terrorism has been around since before America. Granted it's become worse in recent decades, but the ideologies they hold aren't new. We can know how it would unfold because their sources of authority (granting them the "right" to commit these atrocities) have been around for hundreds of years.

Extreme human terrorism has been around forever. It became much worse with the development of civilization. Industrial civilization took it to a whole new level. What was your point?

My point was Islamic terrorism specifically has been around since before America. You said we can't know how Islam would have developed if there wasn't a western presence over there. You're right, we don't know EXACTLY how they would have developed, but we have a very good idea of how because of their writings. The Quran, the Hadith, and even later Muslim scholars. There's always going to be groups of people that disagree with their ideologies, hence there will always be people deserving death. If America wasn't around it would be another country, culture, group of people.

...and the Native Americans were forever grateful of your Christian beneficence. Or the Irish, at the same time, of their English betters. Give me a break. Did I mention forever, perhaps I should have added everywhere?

All this thinly veiled innuendo to savages and barbarians is all the confirmation needed as to our lack of progress. What a bunch of tribalism.

 

[Jspear]

Re: Re:

...and the Native Americans were forever grateful of your Christian beneficence. Or the Irish, at the same time, of their English betters. Give me a break. Did I mention forever, perhaps I should have added everywhere?

All this thinly veiled innuendo to savages and barbarians is all the confirmation needed as to our lack of progress. What a bunch of tribalism.

Oh you were talking about Christianity....sorry, I thought we were talking about Islam.

 

[Starstruck]

Re: Re:

...and the Native Americans were forever grateful of your Christian beneficence. Or the Irish, at the same time, of their English betters. Give me a break. Did I mention forever, perhaps I should have added everywhere?

All this thinly veiled innuendo to savages and barbarians is all the confirmation needed as to our lack of progress. What a bunch of tribalism.

Oh you were talking about Christianity....sorry, I thought we were talking about Islam.

Human beings, I was talking about human beings. Story telling apes with made up ideologies that justify all manner of primitive instincts.

Hellfire incoming. They deserved it. We need the oil anyway. Ad hoc rationalizations rule.

 

[Jspear]

Re: Re:

...and the Native Americans were forever grateful of your Christian beneficence. Or the Irish, at the same time, of their English betters. Give me a break. Did I mention forever, perhaps I should have added everywhere?

All this thinly veiled innuendo to savages and barbarians is all the confirmation needed as to our lack of progress. What a bunch of tribalism.

Oh you were talking about Christianity....sorry, I thought we were talking about Islam.

Human beings, I was talking about human beings. Story telling apes with made up ideologies that justify all manner of primitive instincts.

Hellfire incoming. They deserved it. We need the oil anyway. Ad hoc rationalizations rule.

Okay. I was just confused because you quoted me and I was talking about Islam. You made a comment or two on Islam and then seemed to just change the subject. Whatever....

 

[Starstruck]

Re: Re:

...and the Native Americans were forever grateful of your Christian beneficence. Or the Irish, at the same time, of their English betters. Give me a break. Did I mention forever, perhaps I should have added everywhere?

All this thinly veiled innuendo to savages and barbarians is all the confirmation needed as to our lack of progress. What a bunch of tribalism.

Oh you were talking about Christianity....sorry, I thought we were talking about Islam.

Human beings, I was talking about human beings. Story telling apes with made up ideologies that justify all manner of primitive instincts.

Hellfire incoming. They deserved it. We need the oil anyway. Ad hoc rationalizations rule.

Okay. I was just confused because you quoted me and I was talking about Islam. You made a comment or two on Islam and then seemed to just change the subject. Whatever....

You aren't confused, you just choose to obfuscate when your tribe is implicated. As long as the focus is on the evil other you're fine. When the spotlight is turned on your tribe you get "confused".

 

[Melo]

Re: Re:

...and the Native Americans were forever grateful of your Christian beneficence. Or the Irish, at the same time, of their English betters. Give me a break. Did I mention forever, perhaps I should have added everywhere?

All this thinly veiled innuendo to savages and barbarians is all the confirmation needed as to our lack of progress. What a bunch of tribalism.

Oh you were talking about Christianity....sorry, I thought we were talking about Islam.

Human beings, I was talking about human beings. Story telling apes with made up ideologies that justify all manner of primitive instincts.

Hellfire incoming. They deserved it. We need the oil anyway. Ad hoc rationalizations rule.

Okay. I was just confused because you quoted me and I was talking about Islam. You made a comment or two on Islam and then seemed to just change the subject. Whatever....

You aren't confused, you just choose to obfuscate when your tribe is implicated. As long as the focus is on the evil other you're fine. When the spotlight is turned on your tribe you get "confused".

I'm agnostic, but I don't see Christians killing Muslims in the name of Jesus. On the other hand, those inbreds kill whosoever don't share their insane and utterly disgusting beliefs. So I say it's a major difference. The Islam ideology can't coexist with the Christian one, they're too distinct.

 

[Starstruck]

Profit, not prophet.

 

[sienna]

Islam is ***, but to be fair most other religions are as well.

 

[Jspear]

Re: Re:

...and the Native Americans were forever grateful of your Christian beneficence. Or the Irish, at the same time, of their English betters. Give me a break. Did I mention forever, perhaps I should have added everywhere?

All this thinly veiled innuendo to savages and barbarians is all the confirmation needed as to our lack of progress. What a bunch of tribalism.

Oh you were talking about Christianity....sorry, I thought we were talking about Islam.

Human beings, I was talking about human beings. Story telling apes with made up ideologies that justify all manner of primitive instincts.

Hellfire incoming. They deserved it. We need the oil anyway. Ad hoc rationalizations rule.

Okay. I was just confused because you quoted me and I was talking about Islam. You made a comment or two on Islam and then seemed to just change the subject. Whatever....

You aren't confused, you just choose to obfuscate when your tribe is implicated. As long as the focus is on the evil other you're fine. When the spotlight is turned on your tribe you get "confused".

My "tribe" wasn't implicated. The Christians I'm affiliated with have never murdered anyone. The term Christian is to broad these days. I don't affiliate myself with most "Christians".

I didn't bring up Muslims to pick on them. I'm very careful in distinguishing between peaceful Muslims and extremists. I'm brought them up specifically in light of recent events.

 

[Starstruck]

Islam is ****, but to be fair most other religions are as well.

...along with most other ape "thinking" and stories. There's a crack for the light of empathy and compassion to penetrate in but nah. I'm right and you're wrong.

 

[Jspear]

Re: Re:

I'm agnostic, but I don't see Christians killing Muslims in the name of Jesus. On the other hand, those inbreds kill whosoever don't share their insane and utterly disgusting beliefs. So I say it's a major difference. The Islam ideology can't coexist with the Christian one, they're to distinct.

The truth is you can't follow Jesus and murder people. The two can't coexist. It's pretty simple. Look at the teachings of Jesus.

 

[Starstruck]

Re: Re:

My "tribe" wasn't implicated. The Christians I'm affiliated with have never murdered anyone. The term Christian is to broad these days. I don't affiliate myself with most "Christians".

I didn't bring up Muslims to pick on them. I'm very careful in distinguishing between peaceful Muslims and extremists. I'm brought them up specifically in light of recent events.

Sure and of course.

 

[Starstruck]

Re: Re:

I'm agnostic, but I don't see Christians killing Muslims in the name of Jesus. On the other hand, those inbreds kill whosoever don't share their insane and utterly disgusting beliefs. So I say it's a major difference. The Islam ideology can't coexist with the Christian one, they're to distinct.

The truth is you can't follow Jesus and murder people. The two can't coexist. It's pretty simple. Look at the teachings of Jesus.

God bless America. Give me a break.

 

[sienna]

Re: Re:

I'm agnostic, but I don't see Christians killing Muslims in the name of Jesus. On the other hand, those inbreds kill whosoever don't share their insane and utterly disgusting beliefs. So I say it's a major difference. The Islam ideology can't coexist with the Christian one, they're to distinct.

The truth is you can't follow Jesus and murder people. The two can't coexist. It's pretty simple. Look at the teachings of Jesus.

That's ***. There's been millions of humans killed in the name of a Christian god over the centuries. Or is it that Christians who kill aren't really Christians?