Provide a path to clarity for those who have low ambiguity tolerance. — Bitter Crank
The DIY approach using the means at hand leads to clear results. The goal of terrorism is NOT to attack our deepest, dearest values (like Liberté, égalité, fraternité). That's too big, too complex. Rather, it's to instill a sense of vulnerability, instability, insecurity. It's a way to "bring the war back home". "You too should suffer." It works. — Bitter Crank
Ideas? — Bitter Crank
I find these acts morally indefensible ... — Bitter Crank
It is not that hard to understand the state of mind that sees the world to be run by a tyrannical, exploitative, monstrous cabal equivalent to the Nazis, against which every and any means of resistance is morally defensible. — unenlightened
In what way is this state of mind which
a. sees the world run by a tyrannical, exploitative, monstrous cabal
b. sees any means of resistance as morally defensible
not itself rather like the Nazis? And where is the "within" wherein the poisonous regime might be dismantled? — Bitter Crank
Count up the innocent deaths, and you will find that we are way ahead in the race to barbarism. I find all this outrage highly inappropriate; "How could they?" "How can they be stopped?" are the wrong questions. Replace 'they' with 'we'. — unenlightened
Hmm, so, for instance, Osama bin Laden attacked the United States because we bombed Saudi Arabia? — Arkady
...some foolish, kumbaya nonsense... — Arkady
The idea of Putin and Trump making joint decisions gives me pause but Clinton and Putin making joint decisions stops my heart.The next step, presumably, although neither leader was specific, will probably include the sending of ground troops to fight in Syria and Iraq in addition to the bombing campaigns now being mounted by both countries and Russia. This is an extension and intensification of current policy rather than a new venture, and, to judge by the Russian experience in Afghanistan and ours in Afghanistan and Iraq, the chances for destroying ISIS are small. Those chances will be lessened if we also attempt to “regime change” in Syria. — Saphsin
Nobody bombed Saudi Arabia. I say each person is responsible for his or her own actions. Reject that and the dominos fall back to the Original Sin and nobody is to blame for anything. — Mongrel
I say that each person is responsible for each other's actions. I hit you, I am responsible for you hitting me back, or you hitting another. I refuse your need, I am responsible for your despair. — unenlightened
How exactly did any of the 84 dead in Nice (to say nothing of other terrorist attacks) "hit" the attacker? How did Boston "hit" the Tsarnaevs? By admitting them to their country and giving them a better life than they could even have dreamt of back home? If that's "hitting," then the West should be hitting a great many more people.
If Muslims (in the West or anywhere else) despair, they can place the vast bulk of the blame for that despair at the feet of their religion, their corrupt and authoritarian political regimes, and the religiously-inspired turn away from reason which has so degraded their society and left it behind in the middle ages. — Arkady
Either your "hitting" comment pertained to the discussion at hand, in which case my response was a propos, or it didn't pertain to the discussion, in which case I'd question its relevance.Why do you bother to make up shit I'm not saying and then ridicule it? — unenlightened
Last week. Keep your fingers crossed: I'm hoping to keep my streak going this time.And when did you stop beating your wife?
↪Mongrel I say that each person is responsible for each other's actions. I hit you, I am responsible for you hitting me back, or you hitting another. I refuse your need, I am responsible for your despair. — unenlightened
I say that each person is responsible for each other's actions. I hit you, I am responsible for you hitting me back, or you hitting another. I refuse your need, I am responsible for your despair. — unenlightened
So now the question is: what is the appropriate social response? More drones and Hellfire missiles? Nukes over Fallujah? Boots and Robots on the ground? Bombs, bombs, bombs? Or something completely different? Clever infiltration? Better propaganda? Systematic hacking of propaganda systems? Totally unexpected actions? — Bitter Crank
Vinay Lal says watch out for the hidden imperialism there. If you are responsible for my terrorist actions, then you have the qualities of an adult (responsible and able to choose), while I am like a toddler (lashing out reflexively, too immature to be held accountable.) Lal says adult/child is one way dominion is expressed and justified. — Mongrel
Of course the dominant economic and military power (formerly my country, currently yours) bears the dominant responsibility for the consequences of its interventions in foreign parts. No power, no responsibility. That's not hard to understand is it? I'm not saying that the US is entirely or solely responsible for anything or everything. Nevertheless the greater responsibility in general lies with the greater power. — unenlightened
It is a matter of the purest pragmatism and not requiring my lily-livered morality to observe that a man with nothing left to lose is the most dangerous of men. And therefore, as a matter of pragmatic, hard-headed policy, both domestic and foreign, it makes sense to ensure that everyone has something more than their mere existence to lose. — unenlightened
It’s what I call the racism of low expectations: to lower those standards when looking at a brown person if a brown person happens to express a level of misogyny, chauvinism, bigotry, or anti-Semitism, and yet hold other white people to universal liberal standards. The real victim of that double standard are the minority communities themselves because by doing so we limit their horizons; we limit their own ceiling and expectations as to what they aspire to be; we’re judging them as somehow that their culture is inherently less civilized; and, of course, we are tolerating bigotry within communities, and the first victims of that bigotry happen to be those who are weakest from among those communities. — Maajid Nawaz
...we could pick any number of formerly impoverished lumpenproletariat — jamalrob
I think one can oppose Western militarism and oppose Islamism and Jihadism at the same time (and incidentally I don't think the latter are a reaction to the former). One can seek to ensure that people have something to lose without at the same time treating Jihadist or Jihadist-inspired murders as inevitable, and without indulging the ideas of self-appointed conservative representatives of Muslim communities. — jamalrob
I largely concur, but I seem to recollect that the radicalisation of Islam was nourished and promoted by Laurence of Arabia, back in the day, and thereafter supported by the West as part of the cold war in Afghanistan and elsewhere. — unenlightened
...perhaps you could explain who the "we" refers to in being "way ahead in the race to barbarism," by tallying innocent deaths. I thought "we" referred to the West and its allies, implying that, say, the U.S. and French militaries were more barbaric than, for instance, ISIS and al Qaeda. It also seemed as if you were taking an apologetic stance towards the Nice terrorist's actions, by suggesting it is we who are at fault for trying to help him out of his despair.It really isn't difficult. Stop bombing my country, and perhaps I will stop driving trucks into your parades. To stop a desperate man, help him out of his despair instead of making it greater. First let's take the hatred and violence out of our eyes, and then we will see better how to remove it from IS.
Count up the innocent deaths, and you will find that we are way ahead in the race to barbarism. I find all this outrage highly inappropriate; "How could they?" "How can they be stopped?" are the wrong questions. Replace 'they' with 'we'. — unenlightened
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.