Never Forget!


    SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Share

    Poll

    Is The Walking Dead Garbage?

    [ 1 ]
    33% [33%] 
    [ 1 ]
    33% [33%] 
    [ 1 ]
    33% [33%] 

    Total Votes: 3
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Sat Apr 18, 2015 11:30 pm

    Jec wrote:Spare me from the diluted philosophical strain of moral relativism...

    Not only does our government commit its own violence internationally, but it is also complicit in the violence of others.

    jec wrote:Raif was condemed for insulting Islam. Massive international outrage saved him, at least for now, from punishment. The actions of one man, that decided to speak out liberal reforms put the kingdom in the spotlight. Imagine if the conversations were far more widespread... Saudi Arabia can't behead a fifth of their citizens, I'm certain even conservative muslims would protest.

    While the outcry has been good to see he is still imprisoned. Hopefully it will lead to his release. However, the Wahhabists there are more conservative than their government is so its doubtful that it will bring about anything other than cosmetic change. The US and other countries would not tolerate the toppling of the Saudi royal family either. This cannot be overstated.

    Jet wrote:That would never happen because that would make the public aware of our involvement in the ME and our relationship with the gulf states, which are upholding the petrodollar. To begin to discuss these things would also paint us in a very negative light. Not much of a chance the mainstream media is going to undermine its nations own interests either.

    jec wrote:True, but some of the things keeping it from happening comes from people too. Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Hirsi Ali (Victim of FGM) tries to make this a conversation, but audience is limited, and it's discouraged from speaking about it due to a frenzy of liberals attacking , painting them in negative light, calling them bigots, racists... the only publicity it gets is that Bill and company are islamophobes, bigots, etc.

    Its also partly their own fault. One of the reasons they get called that is because they say things like "We must crush Islam under the heel of the west" or... "If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion." That is needlessly sensational and like we've already established counterproductive if your goal really is ideological reform. The reason for that is because you drive away the very reformers that are necessary for it to happen.

    Jet wrote:
    Look Jec......the point of me pointing towards the Vice documentary was not to say this can easily be summed up as Western countries, by themselves, are entirely responsible for radicalizing generations. Rather, what I am saying is if you are going to have such a simplistic reaction to the recruitment videos you see on the mainstream news and reply "Look they are saying they are doing this because of religion, believe them!" Then by the same standard apply that to the documentary, where instead a journalist actually went to a region of turmoil and asked of the motivation for terrorist attacks, directly from the people affected by it. Not only from the head of an extremist group, but also a broad spectrum of people who deal with the fallout. If I apply the same reductionist metric that you are then I can easily say "Look its all western imperialism they are saying it, believe them!". So if you are going to be so one dimensional at least be consistent.

    jec wrote:It's not reductionist Jet, you just still don't get control and treatment groups.

    It is exceptionally reductionist. Your obsession over religion and refusal to see other outside factors blinds you to this. Apply the same standard or stop with the "if they say its X then the motivation is always X". Any further attempt to deny this will be just like when you said you did not expect sanity from a soldier yet go on expecting rationality from a civilian whos experienced loss in an occupied country. A double and unequal standard.

    jec wrote:If terrorists were not convinced they were going to be rewarded after death for their brutal actions, they simply wouldn't do it.

    If there was no religion there would be no terrorism? Ridiculous... You act as if people wouldn't kill each other for another cause, only religion.

    jec wrote:They are the only group in human history that has reacted in such a way despite there being many other groups of people historically that have received brutal treatment. This is conclusion based on observation and analysis.

    A conclusion is not a reduction of the problem....

    It is reductionist and not to mention incredibly hypocritical. If you are gonna take them at their word when they say their motivation is religion then also take them at their word when they mention their motivations come from true grievances brought from losing their families. Otherwise you are only hearing what you want to hear.

    Jet wrote:
    ...What?....I was refuting the statement you made, that we stopped intervening. Giving weapons to these groups enable them to kill the people we want dead. Oh, and also innocents. These are proxy wars. We are just as responsible for the deaths there. Its not like we dont know what they are going to use those weapons for.

    jec wrote:Yes, but not all intervention should logically lead to the rise of religious extremist sentiment.

    I didn't say that specific type of intervention does. There are other factors obviously. People aren't robots they dont only process one emotion....nor are they limited to a singular motivation.

    jec wrote:If Al Asaad's forces were the ones beheading and burning pilots alive your point would make sense.

    ....This is what I am talking about. Because you associate beheadings and burning pilots alive with Islam it is a worse thing. EVEN though US drone strikes essentially burn their targets as well. So by this twisted bias chemical weapon use (that is against international law) is somehow better.....spare me from your skewed moral barometer

    http://m.hrw.org/news/2015/04/13/syria-chemicals-used-idlib-attacks

    Bad actors all around wrote:The UN commissioner's statement, reported from Geneva, coincided with the publication of a new death toll of 125,835 for the last 33 months. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), based in the UK, said the dead included 44,381 civilians, including 6,627 children and 4,454 women. The SOHR said at least 27,746 opposition fighters had been killed, among them just over 19,000 civilians who took up arms to fight the Assad regime. The opposition toll also included 2,221 army defectors and 6,261 non-Syrians who joined the rebels.

    The UN commission has repeatedly accused the Syrian government, which is supported by Russia and Iran, of crimes against humanity and war crimes. It has said the rebels, who are backed by both western and Arab countries, are also guilty of committing war crimes.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/02/syrian-officials-involved-war-crimes-bashar-al-assad-un-investigators

    This cannot simply be attributed to religion wrote:
    In May 2007, a presidential finding revealed that Bush had authorised CIA operations against Iran. Anti-Syria operations were also in full swing around this time as part of this covert programme, according to Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. A range of US government and intelligence sources told him that the Bush administration had "cooperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations" intended to weaken the Shi'ite Hezbollah in Lebanon. "The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria," wrote Hersh, "a byproduct" of which is "the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups" hostile to the United States and "sympathetic to al-Qaeda." He noted that "the Saudi government, with Washington's approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria," with a view to pressure him to be "more conciliatory and open to negotiations" with Israel. One faction receiving covert US "political and financial support" through the Saudis was the exiled Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.

    According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: "I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business", he told French television:

    "I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria."

    The 2011 uprisings, it would seem - triggered by a confluence of domestic energy shortages and climate-induced droughts which led to massive food price hikes - came at an opportune moment that was quickly exploited. Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."

    So what was this unfolding strategy to undermine Syria and Iran all about? According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.

    Much of the strategy currently at play was candidly described in a 2008 US Army-funded RAND report, Unfolding the Future of the Long War (pdf). The report noted that "the economies of the industrialized states will continue to rely heavily on oil, thus making it a strategically important resource." As most oil will be produced in the Middle East, the US has "motive for maintaining stability in and good relations with Middle Eastern states":

    "The geographic area of proven oil reserves coincides with the power base of much of the Salafi-jihadist network. This creates a linkage between oil supplies and the long war that is not easily broken or simply characterized... For the foreseeable future, world oil production growth and total output will be dominated by Persian Gulf resources... The region will therefore remain a strategic priority, and this priority will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war."

    In this context, the report identified several potential trajectories for regional policy focused on protecting access to Gulf oil supplies, among which the following are most salient:

    "Divide and Rule focuses on exploiting fault lines between the various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts. This strategy relies heavily on covert action, information operations (IO), unconventional warfare, and support to indigenous security forces... the United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch proxy IO campaigns to discredit the transnational jihadists in the eyes of the local populace... US leaders could also choose to capitalize on the 'Sustained Shia-Sunni Conflict' trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world.... possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran."

    Exploring different scenarios for this trajectory, the report speculated that the US may concentrate "on shoring up the traditional Sunni regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan as a way of containing Iranian power and influence in the Middle East and Persian Gulf." Noting that this could actually empower al-Qaeda jihadists, the report concluded that doing so might work in western interests by bogging down jihadi activity with internal sectarian rivalry rather than targeting the US:

    "One of the oddities of this long war trajectory is that it may actually reduce the al-Qaeda threat to US interests in the short term. The upsurge in Shia identity and confidence seen here would certainly cause serious concern in the Salafi-jihadist community in the Muslim world, including the senior leadership of al-Qaeda. As a result, it is very likely that al-Qaeda might focus its efforts on targeting Iranian interests throughout the Middle East and Persian Gulf while simultaneously cutting back on anti-American and anti-Western operations."

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

    As I keep saying...there are interests here that obviously involve religion....but its deeper than that.

    jec wrote:It doesn't make sense to blame that intervention of selling arms for igniting extremism on the forces that would become ISIS. The more logical source of the radicalization, in this cases is clearly the sectarian government hypothesis rather than the intervention one.

    .....Like I said above and previously the distribution of arms point was me refuting your notion that we have stopped intervening in the region. That was false and you were wrong to raise it.

    Jet wrote:
    Thats one part of it. But you're forgetting the US and the gulf states created ISIS too. SA uses them, and other groups like them to diminish shia influence as well.

    jec wrote:Just like Iran uses the Houthi to diminish Sunni influence. It's all religious...

    Its not ALL religious. You're ignoring the role of both western and eastern countries in creating these groups, the motivations behind them....and in continuing to fund and arm them so they maintain regional dominance. There's more than just religion driving whats happening now in the world. By continuing to ignore this you are only furthering the narrative that ensures the cyclical nature of this conflict remains so.

    Jet wrote:
    No it isn't. Ideology by itself is nothing but bad ideas until they are acted upon. We act for our economic benefit all the time which contributes to the instability in the region. This goes on to set off a chain of events that subsequently result in the furthering of extreme ideologies - and actions. The scope of this is greater than a few, the impact matters.

    jec wrote:An ideology can also lead to inaction, which is just as bad or worse. The Arab countries can't seem to fully unite against ISIS because in the end, they kinda (almost fully who are we kidding) agree with their core beliefs. The ideology of the many legitimize the actions of the few, making the incentives to intervene almost non existent. The middle east has the military prowess to crush Isis militarily in a couple of weeks, yet they refuse to put boots on the ground. The only reason the Saudis are pushing is because they threaten the rule of the monarchy.

    Ugh...no, it isnt merely religious. There are other financial, regional, and fear based reasons for them not intervening

    Al Abadi says: "The only contribution the American forces or the international coalition is going to help us with is from the sky," al-Abadi said. "We are not giving any blank check to the international coalition to hit any target in Iraq."

    Regional Tensions

    Finally, the potential for domestic blowback concerns regional leaders. Most ISIS fighters appear to be Iraqi or Syrian, yet the top three states of origin for foreign fighters joining ISIS are Tunisia and Saudi Arabia, followed closely by Jordan. ISIS’s continued advance threatens neighboring states, and returning fighters could destabilize regional governments, but with many citizens distrustful of U.S. policy in the region further participation in the coalition could spark domestic protest as well.

    Theres also the factor of "why do it yourself when the US will do it for free"

    jec wrote:I know that part, it's called Christian Zionism.

    Good.

    jec wrote:I meant the role of Christianity on this conflict. I've been debating religion and seen its poison from early on and I know you'll see that Islam is in fact the most poisonous of them all, at least currently (Honor killings, apostaty, FGM, suicide bombings, repression of knowledge, gender inequality, medieval punishments, beheading, stoning, theocracies, etc). What's dumbing down the debate is the failed premise of moral relativism. There are some religions that clearly harm more than others and this is a fact. Morality has biological and socio-psychological objectivity and there's loads of literature to back this up.

    I can only reiterate how you're still missing the bigger picture when your focus is on which religion is "more poisonous" than another. The debate will just keep being dumbed down as you pursue a simplistic conclusion to justify your inherent bias. That's what the people who are actually profiting from these wars want.

    Jet wrote:
    No, not quite a contradiction. Yes "western violence" is partly religious, just like it is for "islamic violence". Western intervention, and the rise of fundamentalists both stem from the same belief in unbridled capitalism. From this ideal is derived the worst aspects of human nature that were mentioned earlier - greed and willful ignorance. This is what creates the conditions necessary for the continuation of violence and misery. Whether it be invasions, funding of terrorism, the spreading of arms, or the millions spent to influence and corrupt governments. All of these and many other actions work in conjunction to uphold this belief, which only ever seeks more money, power and control, a representation of our most basic primal instincts.

    jec wrote:Greed and willful ignorance has been part of human society long before the rise of capitalism (around 300 years ago).

    I agree. Those attributes are part of human nature, ideology only justifies it but conflict would happen regardless. Unbridled capitalism has just incentivized the continuation of violence for power and resources. The advent of technology has only made it easier for leaders to wage war on this reason. By making the rewards for that greater than ever before it allows the elites on all sides to manipulate their populations in any way they see fit, as they act on their worst impulses.

    jec wrote:If there's anything to blame the rise of loving willful ignorance is the Abrahamic religions.

    Religion can be used to promote willful ignorance yes but its not exclusive to it. Many ppl continue to do things that are proven to be detrimental yet ignore this and continue to do so. Drone killings create more terrorists than they stop yet the identities of the targets are witheld and still they continue. The mass incarceration of the US population continue despite how flawed and racist the sentencing and pardoning can be. We hold 5% of the population yet 25% of the worlds prisoners, people in power remain willfully ignorant of this because of how profitable this system is. Mass surveillance has proven to be ineffective in stopping terrorist attacks yet civil liberties are ever increasingly diminished. In fact counterterrorism bills have begun to be proposed in other countries as well, despite the proven ineffectiveness in the US. The war on drugs itself is a failure based on the premise that addiction is itself a moral failing. Theres evidence supporting otherwise, as well as communities that have proven legalization can work. Republican states have begun to adopt voter ID laws to restrict the power of minority communities, yet they allow voting with an NRA card. There's also video of a politician campaigning for Mitt Romney saying this tactic will allow him to win the state. Campaign finance deregulation which favors the speech rights of the rich...I could go on. Religion can be a problem, but so can the over the top focus on it to the excusion of all nuance and context of the broader and more systemic issues that it goes to support.

    These are all examples employed by political leaders and their constitutients. Despite having been proven either at best impractical examples of willful ignorance or at worst(and increasingly blatant) examples of greed they continue. Whether it be for more power or more money the problems in the world extend farther than religion.




    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 25

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Sun Apr 19, 2015 9:14 am

    Jet wrote:

    Its also partly their own fault. One of the reasons they get called that is because they say things like "We must crush Islam under the heel of the west" or... "If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion." That is needlessly sensational and like we've already established counterproductive if your goal really is ideological reform. The reason for that is because you drive away the very reformers that are necessary for it to happen.

    It's counter productive to censor people. Even with the harsh words (which are often taken out of context), dissent among muslims, even in extremists nations is rising, yet most of the western media loves ignoring it, out of "cultural respect".

    The fastest way to spread extremism is through censorship. Most western governments have taken measures to stop the spread of Islamic extremism by censoring extremist media, extremists discourses in public spaces, etc. I do not like this approach because the Debate is kept in secret and gives westeners, mostly liberals, the false idea that it's only a few bad apples.

    History thus confirms that what will best counter “Islamic extremism” – if that is even the role of the state – is open engagement, debate and more and more sunlight. If you look at what actually worked in history, you would not be arresting people for “Muslim extremist” thought or antisemitic cartoons, however unpleasant: you would be holding well-covered, widely translated public debates between moderate Muslim critics of extremism and extremist voices, or between Muslim extremist religious advocates and western rabbis or secularists – and tweeting, Facebooking, televising, and commenting on the debate in real time.

    Article

    Jet wrote:
    It is exceptionally reductionist. Your obsession over religion and refusal to see other outside factors blinds you to this. Apply the same standard or stop with the "if they say its X then the motivation is always X".

    Who says I'm ignoring other factors? I see you still don't understand not only the concepts of control and treatment but the concept of a conclusion either...
    I've taken the other factors and compared them with the factors of similar cases and drawing conclusions based on the heterogeneity arising these nearly homogeneous conditions. Perhaps if Vice documentaries showed more regions beside the middle east like South America (I live here, we were hating the US before you were even born...), sub saharan africa, south east Asia you'd get this point better.

    I think it's wonderful to learn about a region and all, but it's a mistake to look for causal effects while ignoring other regions as well, just by studying one region via Vice Documentaries, while you are learning some truths, if gives you a bias and it doesn't allow you to see the bigger picture.

    Think how medication is tested. You have one control group and a treatment group. You give the treatment group the medication and you give the control group some placebos or simply nothing. Carefully studying the treatment group is not enough if you do not have a comparison. Carefully studying Muslims without taking into account other people who have suffered similarly in the XX century is not going to give you reasonable conclusions, that is what your analysis is lacking.

    Jet wrote:
    If there was no religion there would be no terrorism? Ridiculous... You act as if people wouldn't kill each other for another cause, only religion.

    I never said there would be no terrorism...Terrorism is not only reduced to killing others. Most acts of terrorism are acts of civil disorder to topple regimes, these acts do not always end in suicidal bloodbaths.

    Jet wrote:

    It is reductionist and not to mention incredibly hypocritical. If you are gonna take them at their word when they say their motivation is religion then also take them at their word when they mention their motivations come from true grievances brought from losing their families. Otherwise you are only hearing what you want to hear.

    Refer to my former point in this. Look for the heterogeneity between groups of people to look for you causal effect.

    Jet wrote:
    ....This is what I am talking about. Because you associate beheadings and burning pilots alive with Islam it is a worse thing. EVEN though US drone strikes essentially burn their targets as well. So by this twisted bias chemical weapon use (that is against international law) is somehow better.....spare me from your skewed moral barometer

    That is not consequential with my point. Perhaps you wanted to quote something else?
    My point with Assad was that if he were the one to be burning the pilots alive and tossing gays off buildings then the point of the US intervention making religious nuts to act the way they act would be consistent.

    Jet wrote:
    .....Like I said above and previously the distribution of arms point was me refuting your notion that we have stopped intervening in the region. That was false and you were wrong to raise it.

    That still doesn't justify the rise of a religious extremists organization that rises in Iraq and the government we tried to topple is now a government we are working with....

    Jet wrote:
    There's more than just religion driving whats happening now in the world. By continuing to ignore this you are only furthering the narrative that ensures the cyclical nature of this conflict remains so.

    If by "The World" you mean the entire world, then yes. There are some insurgents in other regions of the world who rise up against the state and carry out guerrilla style warfare that don't quote religious texts to justify their actions, or attack civilians just to instill terror. Ignoring this heterogeneity is what allows the religious extremists groups to continue recruiting because there has been no drastic reform in Islam.

    Jet wrote:
    Ugh...no, it isnt merely religious. There are other financial, regional, and fear based reasons for them not intervening

    Really? I would think that having extremists who have already stated that they would love toppling all other Arab regimes in the region, and who are getting close to dominating oil fields in Iraq and Syria giving them increased resources to arm themselves would be motivation enough. Fear is usually a motivator to act, not the other way around.


    Jet wrote:Theres also the factor of "why do it yourself when the US will do it for free"

    And that's the problem... they hate US intervention yet they're just gonna wait until the US decides to step in. The only arab Nation fighting ISIS like all others should is Iran, most likely because their ideology is on the other spectrum of Islam...

    jec wrote:
    I can only reiterate how you're still missing the bigger picture when your focus is on which religion is "more poisonous" than another. The debate will just keep being dumbed down as you pursue a simplistic conclusion to justify your inherent bias. That's what the people who are actually profiting from these wars want.

    Right... because the anti theistic discourse has been the dominating discourse in recent history. Have you forgotten that the most reviled and distrusted "religious" groups int he world are Atheists and Agnostics? I don't understand why you act like this discourse is the one to blame for what is happening and will happen considering your discourse is the dominating one.

    It's like Christians blaming lack of faith for causing all of the world's ills ignoring the fact that non believers are minority and hold almost no consequential positions of power.

    Jet wrote:
    Religion can be used to promote willful ignorance yes but its not exclusive to it. Many ppl continue to do things that are proven to be detrimental yet ignore this and continue to do so. Drone killings create more terrorists than they stop yet the identities of the targets are witheld and still they continue. The mass incarceration of the US population continue despite how flawed and racist the sentencing and pardoning can be. We hold 5% of the population yet 25% of the worlds prisoners, people in power remain willfully ignorant of this because of how profitable this system is. Mass surveillance has proven to be ineffective in stopping terrorist attacks yet civil liberties are ever increasingly diminished. In fact counterterrorism bills have begun to be proposed in other countries as well, despite the proven ineffectiveness in the US. The war on drugs itself is a failure based on the premise that addiction is itself a moral failing. Theres evidence supporting otherwise, as well as communities that have proven legalization can work. Republican states have begun to adopt voter ID laws to restrict the power of minority communities, yet they allow voting with an NRA card. There's also video of a politician campaigning for Mitt Romney saying this tactic will allow him to win the state. Campaign finance deregulation which favors the speech rights of the rich...I could go on. Religion can be a problem, but so can the over the top focus on it to the excusion of all nuance and context of the broader and more systemic issues that it goes to support.
    These are all examples employed by political leaders and their constitutients. Despite having been proven either at best impractical examples of willful ignorance or at worst(and increasingly blatant) examples of greed they continue. Whether it be for more power or more money the problems in the world extend farther than religion.

    Those are not examples of willful ignorance. Those are examples of powerful bastards (who are not ignorant, just greedy)manipulating the public to keep them in he dark. Willful ignorance stems from knowing the facts yet choosing to ignore them.
    For example, Christians denying Climate Change as a danger because they ingeniously believe Jesus won't let that happen to them. Or Muslims also denying it because of Allah's grace, or Christinas, despite knowing the horrors of the Israeli-Palestianian conflict decide to stick with Israel because their bible tells them to do so...

    How can I not single out the followers of the God of Abraham considering he is:

    "the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - RD

    If you tell the average Joe of the horrors their government commits in their name with evidence to back it up, most of the will change their positions. Probably just as you have in the past.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:48 pm

    jec wrote:It's counter productive to censor people.

    I was making this point months ago.

    jec wrote:The fastest way to spread extremism is through censorship.

    No, Id say directly funding extremist groups and supporting despots does a more effective job of that. It gives them something to point against. Censorship is nonetheless a significant factor in the surge of extremism, specially through imprisonment where these ideologies fester

    Jet wrote:
    It is exceptionally reductionist. Your obsession over religion and refusal to see other outside factors blinds you to this. Apply the same standard or stop with the "if they say its X then the motivation is always X".

    jec wrote:Who says I'm ignoring other factors?

    What you've written does. Again "if they say the motivation is x, then its x" is a weak metric to apply if you dont apply it when the opposite proves true. What this means is either be consistent with it, or stop using it as an argument. This is not me saying religion is unrelated, rather its hypocritical to not use the same standard, because its weak.

    jec wrote:Think how medication is tested. You have one control group and a treatment group. You give the treatment group the medication and you give the control group some placebos or simply nothing. Carefully studying the treatment group is not enough if you do not have a comparison. Carefully studying Muslims without taking into account other people who have suffered similarly in the XX century is not going to give you reasonable conclusions, that is what your analysis is lacking

    I understand it just fine, thanks. Youre assuming...AGAIN, that I am discounting religion as a factor. Needless to say you are wrong once more.

    Jet wrote:It is reductionist and not to mention incredibly hypocritical. If you are gonna take them at their word when they say their motivation is religion then also take them at their word when they mention their motivations come from true grievances brought from losing their families. Otherwise you are only hearing what you want to hear.

    jec wrote:Refer to my former point in this. Look for the heterogeneity between groups of people to look for you causal effect.

    Refer to my multiple statements on the fact that I do not discount religion as a factor, and of you repeatedly ignoring this.

    Jet wrote:....This is what I am talking about. Because you associate beheadings and burning pilots alive with Islam it is a worse thing. EVEN though US drone strikes essentially burn their targets as well. So by this twisted bias chemical weapon use (that is against international law) is somehow better.....spare me from your skewed moral barometer

    jec wrote:My point with Assad was that if he were the one to be burning the pilots alive and tossing gays off buildings then the point of the US intervention making religious nuts to act the way they act would be consistent.

    I dont know where youre pulling that from. The link I posted about armaments was refuting your claim that we stopped intervening in the region. We did not.

    Jet wrote:.....Like I said above and previously the distribution of arms point was me refuting your notion that we have stopped intervening in the region. That was false and you were wrong to raise it.

    jec wrote:That still doesn't justify the rise of a religious extremists organization that rises in Iraq and the government we tried to topple is now a government we are working with....

    Lol no arming these groups doesnt justify their ideological rise, who said that? We certainly are complicit in their violence however. Read the articles I posted above. Our intervention in syria was planned long before 2011.

    Jet wrote:
    There's more than just religion driving whats happening now in the world. By continuing to ignore this you are only furthering the narrative that ensures the cyclical nature of this conflict remains so.

    jec wrote:If by "The World" you mean the entire world, then yes. There are some insurgents in other regions of the world who rise up against the state and carry out guerrilla style warfare that don't quote religious texts to justify their actions, or attack civilians just to instill terror. Ignoring this heterogeneity is what allows the religious extremists groups to continue recruiting because there has been no drastic reform in Islam.

    Lol our government does not ignore the role religion plays either. It makes use of the sunni shia divide and gets them to fight each other, just like they do on their own as well. Supporting the regimes which advance their ideological radicalization are what enable extremist groups to continue recruitment.

    Jet wrote:
    Ugh...no, it isnt merely religious. There are other financial, regional, and fear based reasons for them not intervening

    jec wrote:Really? I would think that having extremists who have already stated that they would love toppling all other Arab regimes in the region, and who are getting close to dominating oil fields in Iraq and Syria giving them increased resources to arm themselves would be motivation enough. Fear is usually a motivator to act, not the other way around.

    Perhaps if you were more informed on how these regimes see these groups as a threat to their rule and pay them so they will conduct their mayhem away from their countries you wouldnt be so surprised.

    Jet wrote:Theres also the factor of "why do it yourself when the US will do it for free"

    jec wrote:And that's the problem... they hate US intervention yet they're just gonna wait until the US decides to step in.

    Yes for reasons that are regional, financial, and for fear of blowback. Not just religious reasons.

    jec wrote:
    I can only reiterate how you're still missing the bigger picture when your focus is on which religion is "more poisonous" than another. The debate will just keep being dumbed down as you pursue a simplistic conclusion to justify your inherent bias. That's what the people who are actually profiting from these wars want.

    jec wrote:Right... because the anti theistic discourse has been the dominating discourse in recent history. Have you forgotten that the most reviled and distrusted "religious" groups int he world are Atheists and Agnostics? I don't understand why you act like this discourse is the one to blame for what is happening and will happen considering your discourse is the dominating one.

    No, "my discourse" is not the dominant one in the media, far from it. If you haven't already understood from what I've been writing it acknowledges the role of religion, but heavily criticizes the power of nations and private interests for perpetuating the continuation of these conflicts. The mainstream media does not hold this view, as with few exceptions, it plays to, and is courted by power. My issue with the new atheist is the fact that the rhetoric put forward by them is counter productive and sensationalist, encouraging distrust, ridicule and persecution. I don't think that the average NA is primarily responsible for the actions of our government, but the ignorance of those actions intentional or not, does defend them.

    Jet wrote:
    Religion can be used to promote willful ignorance yes but its not exclusive to it. Many ppl continue to do things that are proven to be detrimental yet ignore this and continue to do so. Drone killings create more terrorists than they stop yet the identities of the targets are witheld and still they continue. The mass incarceration of the US population continue despite how flawed and racist the sentencing and pardoning can be. We hold 5% of the population yet 25% of the worlds prisoners, people in power remain willfully ignorant of this because of how profitable this system is. Mass surveillance has proven to be ineffective in stopping terrorist attacks yet civil liberties are ever increasingly diminished. In fact counterterrorism bills have begun to be proposed in other countries as well, despite the proven ineffectiveness in the US. The war on drugs itself is a failure based on the premise that addiction is itself a moral failing. Theres evidence supporting otherwise, as well as communities that have proven legalization can work. Republican states have begun to adopt voter ID laws to restrict the power of minority communities, yet they allow voting with an NRA card. There's also video of a politician campaigning for Mitt Romney saying this tactic will allow him to win the state. Campaign finance deregulation which favors the speech rights of the rich...I could go on. Religion can be a problem, but so can the over the top focus on it to the excusion of all nuance and context of the broader and more systemic issues that it goes to support.
    These are all examples employed by political leaders and their constitutients. Despite having been proven either at best impractical examples of willful ignorance or at worst(and increasingly blatant) examples of greed they continue. Whether it be for more power or more money the problems in the world extend farther than religion.

    jec wrote:Those are not examples of willful ignorance. Those are examples of powerful bastards (who are not ignorant, just greedy)manipulating the public to keep them in he dark. Willful ignorance stems from knowing the facts yet choosing to ignore them.

    jet wrote:These are all examples employed by political leaders and their constitutients. Despite having been proven either at best impractical examples of willful ignorance or at worst(and increasingly blatant) examples of greed they continue. Whether it be for more power or more money the problems in the world extend farther than religion.

    No they are examples of willful ignorance on the part of constituents because they keep reelecting politicians who hold these positions. This information is out there, even talked about on the main channels. Like I said, at worst they are examples of greed which is just as bad, if not worse because they realize the consequences and continue it anyway.

    jec wrote:For example, Christians denying Climate Change as a danger because they ingeniously believe Jesus won't let that happen to them. Or Muslims also denying it because of Allah's grace, or Christinas, despite knowing the horrors of the Israeli-Palestianian conflict decide to stick with Israel because their bible tells them to do so...

    Yup that too. The climate change point in particular I was also going to make but I had already listed a lot. Thats whats going to cause the most damage worldwide and affect us all. Making my point once again, also driven by greed....




    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 25

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Wed Apr 22, 2015 8:38 am

    Jet wrote:
    I was making this point months ago.

    Yeah... So? If you are referring to the Charlie Hebdo thing where they censored a muslim comedian, then you might recall that might point was that he was directly violating French law so it wasn't hypocritical to punish him in that context, which was the point of many during that time. This does not mean I supported that position.

    Jet wrote:

    No, Id say directly funding extremist groups and supporting despots does a more effective job of that. It gives them something to point against. Censorship is nonetheless a significant factor in the surge of extremism, specially through imprisonment where these ideologies fester

    Well, history disagrees with you.

    Jet wrote:

    What you've written does. Again "if they say the motivation is x, then its x" is a weak metric to apply if you dont apply it when the opposite proves true. What this means is either be consistent with it, or stop using it as an argument. This is not me saying religion is unrelated, rather its hypocritical to not use the same standard, because its weak.

    Again, you ignore the role of control groups. My conclusion comes from taking those other motivations into account and comparing them with historical and present similar cases.

    Jet wrote:

    I understand it just fine, thanks. Youre assuming...AGAIN, that I am discounting religion as a factor. Needless to say you are wrong once more.

    I didn't say you don't take them into account, but your lack of comparison with other regions clearly indicates that you don't take it into account enough.


    Jet wrote:Lol no arming these groups doesnt justify their ideological rise, who said that? We certainly are complicit in their violence however. Read the articles I posted above. Our intervention in syria was planned long before 2011.

    Complicity only means we've given them the tools to fight, that however is not the catalyst to their behavior. The US has also given weapons to far right paramilitary groups in Colombia and other regions of LA, they don't attack gays and apostates based on extreme christian ideology.

    Jet wrote:
    Lol our government does not ignore the role religion plays either. It makes use of the sunni shia divide and gets them to fight each other, just like they do on their own as well. Supporting the regimes which advance their ideological radicalization are what enable extremist groups to continue recruitment.

    Like sunni dictators, legislating in favor of sunni muslims but still causing sunni extremism to rise? Most violence in ME is Sunni vs Sunni not Sunni vs Shiia. I'm not gonna deny the Wests role in using them to further their interests but now imagine the panorama if they were a bunch of Buhhdist rather than muslims...

    Take for example the Houthis, which are a Shiia group (Not considered terrorists) operating in the current civil war. The Sunni government in Yemen, backed by the US and SA had governed in favor of Sunnis and detriment of Shiias causing them to rise and fight. The interesting part of this is that the Houthis are not religious extremists and in fact very different motivations and goals from islamic terrorists:

    In an interview with Yemen Times, Hussein Al-Bukhari, a Houthi insider said that Houthis' preferable political system is a republic with elections where women can also hold political positions, and that they do not seek to form a cleric-led government after the model of Islamic Republic of Iran

    This is a case, inside the middle east of a US backed regime causing violence yet their Modus Operandi is completely different from other cases in the ME clearly indicating the importance of ideology in causing terrorist behavior. Same treatment, different outcomes, this is the part when one must give more importance to the differences, most noticeably, Shiia isn't as crazy as Sunni...

    Jet wrote:
    Perhaps if you were more informed on how these regimes see these groups as a threat to their rule and pay them so they will conduct their mayhem away from their countries you wouldnt be so surprised.

    Who's rule? They are attacking all other arab nations considering them fake muslims. Muslims, the main victims of islamic terrorism...


    Jet wrote:

    No, "my discourse" is not the dominant one in the media, far from it. If you haven't already understood from what I've been writing it acknowledges the role of religion, but heavily criticizes the power of nations and private interests for perpetuating the continuation of these conflicts. The mainstream media does not hold this view, as with few exceptions, it plays to, and is courted by power. My issue with the new atheist is the fact that the rhetoric put forward by them is  counter productive and sensationalist, encouraging distrust, ridicule and persecution. I don't think that the average NA is primarily responsible for the actions of our government, but the ignorance of those actions intentional or not, does defend them.

    Encouraging distrust, ridicule and persecution? What? If you'd actually followed New Atheists and their work outside of the sensationalist far left headlines painting them as bad guys, you would know that their main area of action is encouraging change by speaking to moderate religious people, skeptics, people who have suffered from extremism to truly begin an honest conversation on the matter. Just now Sam Harris is looking to interview victims of the "Heaven's Gate" group to narrate their experience and hopefully make people see the consequences of extremist ideology.

    Before you quote Arsi Ali, she was a victim of FGM so she probably has more hostility to Islam than most...

    At least we agree on the fact that NA's discourse is not the dominating one.

    Jet wrote:
    No they are examples of willful ignorance on the part of constituents because they keep reelecting politicians who hold these positions. This information is out there, even talked about on the main channels. Like I said, at worst they are examples of greed which is just as bad, if not worse because they realize the consequences and continue it anyway.

    Well I disagree. Most people don't reach out for that information because they simply don't care or have the time to look into every detail so they are stuck with hearing what's one the biased local radio so to speak. If confronted and they decide to ignore or deny it without reasonable evidence, then that is what I would consider willful ignorance. In fact, worse than willful ignorance is probably the illusion of knowledge.

    Jet wrote:
    Yup that too. The climate change point in particular I was also going to make but I had already listed a lot. Thats whats going to cause the most damage worldwide and affect us all. Making my point once again, also driven by greed....

    Driven by the greed of a few but only maintained through religion. If people stopped believing in jebus, they would have probably already skinned oil execs in the public square.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Thu Apr 23, 2015 11:00 pm

    jec wrote:Yeah... So? If you are referring to the Charlie Hebdo thing where they censored a muslim comedian, then you might recall that might point was that he was directly violating French law so it wasn't hypocritical to punish him in that context, which was the point of many during that time. This does not mean I supported that position.

    It was hypocritical. As it was for the rest of leaders to stand with tyrants like the representatives for nations like Saudi arabia. A regime which commits many atrocities yet is praised by our politicians because we get something out of it.

    jec wrote:Well, history disagrees with you.

    No, you're wrong

    jec wrote:Again, you ignore the role of control groups. My conclusion comes from taking those other motivations into account and comparing them with historical and present similar cases.

    Im not ignoring the latin american comparison. You are explicitly saying we should take the words of terrorists as facts, yet when we apply that same logic we find they have more than one motivation for their actions. In the case I listed(an interview) it was mentioned to be because of being bombed on an ongoing basis. So youre saying is "take them by their word, but only when it benefits my claim." Focus on the metric im talking about, the one you constantly brought up.

    jec wrote:I didn't say you don't take them into account, but your lack of comparison with other regions clearly indicates that you don't take it into account enough.

    Youre not taking into account who created these groups....and we still make use of them to meet our interests. You're the one discounting factors here.

    jec wrote:Complicity only means we've given them the tools to fight, that however is not the catalyst to their behavior. The US has also given weapons to far right paramilitary groups in Colombia and other regions of LA, they don't attack gays and apostates based on extreme christian ideology.

    Complicity means the weapons they use to fight are acquired by our funding or coordination. Whenever they kill someone with those tools, it means we are also responsible for allowing that to happen. The consequences of which have ripple effects with each successive capture, regime change, etc. We are also responsible for stoking this ideology in the first place, but thats a separate conversation.

    Jet wrote:
    Lol our government does not ignore the role religion plays either. It makes use of the sunni shia divide and gets them to fight each other, just like they do on their own as well. Supporting the regimes which advance their ideological radicalization are what enable extremist groups to continue recruitment.

    jec wrote:Like sunni dictators, legislating in favor of sunni muslims but still causing sunni extremism to rise? Most violence in ME is Sunni vs Sunni not Sunni vs Shiia. I'm not gonna deny the Wests role in using them to further their interests but now imagine the panorama if they were a bunch of Buhhdist rather than muslims...

    Or imagine if they were muslims who were never radicalized by both western hands or their respective religious leaders in the first place. Or how about protests not being subverted by both parties and subsequently hijacked into becoming one of the many proxy wars that are now playing out, like currently in Syria.

    jec wrote:Take for example the Houthis, which are a Shiia group (Not considered terrorists) operating in the current civil war. The Sunni government in Yemen, backed by the US and SA had governed in favor of Sunnis and detriment of Shiias causing them to rise and fight. The interesting part of this is that the Houthis are not religious extremists and in fact very different motivations and goals from islamic terrorists:

    In an interview with Yemen Times, Hussein Al-Bukhari, a Houthi insider said that Houthis' preferable political system is a republic with elections where women can also hold political positions, and that they do not seek to form a cleric-led government after the model of Islamic Republic of Iran

    This is a case, inside the middle east of a US backed regime causing violence yet their Modus Operandi is completely different from other cases in the ME clearly indicating the importance of ideology in causing terrorist behavior. Same treatment, different outcomes, this is the part when one must give more importance to the differences, most noticeably, Shiia isn't as crazy as Sunni...

    Our government considers males over the age of 12 a militant combatant. They also don't know who they are killing a lot of the times, like we saw this morning. So the point about not being considered terrorist is moot when youre still killing them.

    I notice you make no mention of the atrocities commited by Saudi Arabia with US weapon and logistical support. They are also trying to reinstall another puppet ruler....again discounting this fact as a lead to radicalization is facile. So as Ive already mentioned the role religion can play in dividing peoples time to add perspective

    Supporting Dictators who crush democracy wrote:As a Saudi-led military coalition continues to pound rebel targets in Yemen, the country is plunging into a humanitarian crisis. Civilian casualties are mounting.

    With U.S. logistical support, the Saudis are attempting to re-instate the country’s exiled government — which enjoys the backing of the West and the Sunni Gulf monarchies — in the face of a military offensive by Houthi rebels from northern Yemen.

    None of this had to be.

    Not long ago — at the height of the Arab Spring in 2011 — a broad-based, nonviolent, pro-democracy movement in Yemen rose up against the U.S.-backed government of dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh. If Washington and Saudi Arabia had allowed this coalition to come to power, the tragic events unfolding in Yemen could have been prevented.

    The movement had forged an impressive degree of unity among the various tribal, regional, sectarian, and ideological groups that took part in the pro-democracy protests, which included mass marches, sit-ins, and many other forms of nonviolent civil resistance. Leaders of prominent tribal coalitions — as well as the Houthis now rebelling against the government — publicly supported the popular insurrection, prompting waves of tribesmen to leave their guns at home and head to the capital to take part in the movement.

    These tribesmen, along with the hundreds of thousands of city dwellers on the streets, were encouraged to maintain nonviolent discipline, even in the face of government snipers and other provocations that led to the deaths of hundreds of unarmed protesters.

    The Obama administration, however, was more concerned about maintaining stability in the face of growing Al-Qaeda influence in rural areas. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates acknowledged that Washington had not planned for an era without Saleh, who had ruled the country for more than three and a half decades. As one former ambassador to Yemen put it in March 2011, “For right now, he’s our guy.”

    “That’s How It Is”

    Though the pro-democracy movement largely maintained a remarkably rigorous nonviolent discipline in its protests, some opposition tribes and rebel army officers added an armed component to the resistance movement. An assassination attempt against Saleh that June forced the severely wounded president to leave for Saudi Arabia for extended medical treatments.

    John Brennan, Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser and future CIA director, visited Saleh in a Saudi hospital in July and encouraged him to sign a deal transferring power. Not only was the mission unsuccessful in convincing Saleh to resign, however, the regime — in a continuation of its efforts to use Saleh’s close relationship with the United States to reinforce his standing — broadcast images of the surprisingly healthy-looking president and emphasized his statesmanlike demeanor in meeting with a top U.S. official as a signal of continued U.S. support for the regime.

    As the pro-democracy struggle tried desperately to keep the movement nonviolent in the aftermath of the assassination attempt and a growing armed rebellion, the United States escalated its own violence by launching unprecedented air strikes in Yemen, ostensibly targeting Al-Qaeda cells. The Pentagon acknowledged, however, that Al-Qaeda operatives often intermingled with other anti-government rebels.

    Indeed, U.S. policy allowed the CIA to target individuals for drone strikes without verifying their identity, resulting in some armed Yemeni tribes and others allied with pro-democracy forces apparently being attacked under the mistaken impression they were al-Qaeda. This scenario was made all the more likely by U.S. reliance on the Yemeni regime for much of its intelligence in determining targets. Complicating the situation still further during this critical period of ongoing protests, teams of U.S. military and intelligence operatives were continuing to operate out of a command post in the Yemeni capital.

    It’s entirely possible, then, that the Yemeni government may have used the pretext of al-Qaeda to convince the U.S. government to take out its rivals.

    U.S. officials insisted that the violence between the pro- and anti-regime elements of the Yemeni armed forces did not involve U.S.-trained Yemeni special operations forces, and Brennan initially maintained that the unrest had not affected U.S.-Yemeni security cooperation. By the end of the year, however, he acknowledged that the “political tumult” had led these U.S.-trained units “to be focused on their positioning for internal political purposes as opposed to doing all they can against AQAP.”

    That meant that Yemeni forces trained by the United States for the purpose of fight al-Qaeda were instead directly participating in the squelching of a democratic uprising. “Rather than fighting AQAP,” an exposé in The Nation noted, “these U.S.-backed units — created and funded with the explicit intent to be used only for counterterrorism operations — redeployed to Sanaa to protect the collapsing regime from its own people.”

    According to the well-connected Yemeni political analyst Abdul Ghani al-Iryani, these U.S.-backed units exist “mostly for the defense of the regime.” For example, rather than fighting a key battle against Al-Qaida forces in Abyan, al-Iryani told reporter Jeremy Scahill, “They are still here [in Sanaa], protecting the palace. That’s how it is.”

    “Keeping Enough of the Regime Intact”

    At the end of July 2011, despite the ongoing repression of pro-democracy forces, a congressional committee approved more than $120 million in aid to the Yemeni government, primarily in military and related security assistance. The aid was conditional on the State Department certifying that the Yemeni government was cooperating sufficiently in fighting terrorism, but there were no conditions regarding democracy or human rights.

    As the repression increased, U.S. officials praised the Yemeni regime’s cooperation with U.S.-led war efforts, with Brennan declaring in September, “I can say today the counterterrorism cooperation with Yemen is better than it’s been during my whole tenure.”

    Meanwhile, the United States and Saudi Arabia, joined by the other monarchies of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), presented a plan whereby Saleh would step down. According to the deal, he and other top officials in the regime would be granted immunity from prosecution, and a plebiscite would be held within 60 days to ratify the transfer of power to Saleh’s vice-president, Major General Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi.

    Pro-democracy protesters largely rejected this U.S.-Saudi mandate for Hadi. It soon became apparent that despite occasional calls for Saleh to step down — such as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice’s strong statement in early August — the Obama administration was deferring to its autocratic GCC allies on the peninsula to oversee a political transition.

    In mid-August, opposition activists formed a National Council, which they hoped would form a provisional government until multiparty elections could be held. It consisted of 143 members representing a broad coalition of protest leaders, tribal sheiks, South Yemen separatists, opposition military commanders, former members of the governing party, and the Houthi militia representing the Zaydi minority in the north.

    The Saudis and the U.S. government, however, kept pushing for Saleh to transfer power to his vice president. Supporters of the National Council denounced these foreign efforts as “only a plot to foil the revolution.”

    Following a meeting with Hadi in September, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman said, “We continue to believe that an immediate, peaceful, and orderly transition is in the best interest of the Yemeni people. …We urge all sides to engage in dialogue that peacefully moves Yemen forward.” Pro-democracy protesters pushed ahead in their campaign of civil resistance, insisting that the National Council representing a broad array Yemenis not be circumvented.

    Shortly thereafter, government security forces fired into crowds during a massive pro-democracy protest in Sanaa. Dozens of protesters were killed and hundreds more wounded.

    The U.S. embassy, however, appeared to blame both sides for the killings, saying the United States “regrets the deaths and injuries of many people” and calling “upon all parties to exercise restraint. In particular, we call on the parties to refrain from actions that provoke further violence.” Similarly, U.S. ambassador Gerald Feierstein criticized a peaceful pro-democracy march from Taiz to Sanaa in December as “provocative.”

    Soon afterwards, 13 more pro-democracy demonstrators were killed by government security forces, leading many activists to accuse the ambassador of preemptively giving Saleh permission to shoot civilians. Time magazine, summarizing the view of pro-democracy activists, noted, “The early intercession of foreign powers with a transition plan distracted attention from popular demands, they say, and allowed the president to cite ongoing talks in delaying his resignation. Many Yemenis believe the key interest guiding the U.S. has been keeping enough of the regime intact to combat al-Qaeda, and that this has distorted the outcome.”

    “This Revolution Has Been Stabbed in the Back”

    Eventually, U.S. officials bowed to international concerns and put forward a threat of United Nations sanctions against the regime, which finally forced Saleh to formally resign.

    In January 2012, the Obama administration allowed Saleh into the United States for medical treatment, rejecting calls for his prosecution. U.S. officials believed that doing so was the best way of finally forcing him to step down as president and finally make a peaceful transition of power possible.

    Pro-democracy activists in Yemen were outraged.

    Protest leader Tawakkol Karman, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize the previous month, called on the United States to “hold Saleh accountable.” She also observed, “There shouldn’t be any place for tyrants in the free world. This is against all international agreements, laws, and covenants. The entry of Ali Saleh into America is an insult to the values of the American people. This was a mistake by the administration, and I am confident he will be met with wide disapproval in America. This will tarnish the reputation of America among all those who support the Arab Spring revolutions.”

    Saleh returned to Yemen the following month to oversee the transfer of power to his vice-president and has remained the country ever since. Now, he’s making a bid to retake control, having formed an alliance with his former Houthi adversaries and, with the support of some allied army units, playing a critical role in their rise to power.

    This has greatly angered the pro-democracy movement, whose leaders twice petitioned the Obama administration for support but were rejected in favor of negotiations led by the Saudi regime and other autocratic GCC monarchies. This greatly set back the hopes for a genuine democratic revolution and alienated the very liberal youth who would otherwise be the West’s most likely Yemeni allies.

    As Francisco Martin-Royal, an expert on counter-radicalization in the region, wrote at that time, “The lack of U.S. support means that these young men and women, who effectively ousted Saleh and continue to call for democratic institutions, have broadly failed to have a voice in the formation of Yemen’s new government or have their legitimate concerns be taken seriously.”

    He continued, “Yemen’s pro-democracy activists largely blame the U.S. for failing to live up to its rhetoric — a disillusionment that potentially makes them vulnerable to recruitment by other well-organized forces that are against the existing regime, namely extremist groups like AQAP and separatist movements. From their perspective, the only real changes in Yemen — the establishment of a semi-autonomous region by the Houthis and the propagation of sharia law in various cities in southern Yemen by Ansar al-Sharia — have come through violence.”

    U.S. Ambassador Feierstein kept pushing the vague idea of a “national dialogue” among elites and criticized ongoing protests within the government institutions, particularly military units, on the grounds that “the problems have to be resolved through this process of dialogue and negotiations.” By contrast, he castigated the pro-democracy activists, saying “We’ve also been clear in saying we don’t believe that the demonstrations are the place where Yemen’s problems will be solved.”

    In February 2012, President Obama publicly endorsed Hadi, claiming — despite Hadi’s service as vice-president in a repressive regime and his distinction as the only candidate in the subsequent plebiscite — that his subsequent election was “a model for how peaceful transition in the Middle East can occur.”

    The pro-democracy movement thus largely gave up on the United States, with prominent young pro-democracy activist Khaled al-Anesi fuming, “This revolution has been stabbed in the back.”

    What Could Have Been?

    This marginalization of Yemeni civil society — which had struggled for so many months nonviolently for democracy — and Washington’s failure to accept the broad-based National Council to head an interim government created the conditions that led to the dramatic resurgence of the armed Houthi uprising, which until last year had only operated in the Zaydi heartland in the far northern part of the country.

    The Houthis were helped along by the Hadi government’s lack of credibility, ongoing corruption and ineptitude at all levels of government, a mass resignation of Yemen’s cabinet, and controversial proposals for constitutional change. They also received support from armed groups allied with the former Saleh dictatorship, which enabled the Houthis — who represent only a minority of Yemenis — to nevertheless emerge as the most powerful force in Yemen. They surprised the world by seizing the capital of Sanaa in August, consolidating power in January, and subsequently expanding southward.

    Most Yemenis strongly oppose the Houthi militia and, in Taiz and other parts of the country, have challenged their armed advance through massive civil resistance and other nonviolent means. Yet the Houthis have actually expanded their areas of control in some key regions, even where they’ve faced armed resistance and Saudi air strikes.

    It would be much too simplistic to blame the current crisis in Yemen entirely on the United States. However, one still has to wonder: If instead of allying with Saudi autocrats to install another strongman in the name of stability, Washington had supported that country’s nonviolent pro-democracy movement, what might have been

    http://fpif.org/how-the-u-s-contributed-to-yemens-crisis/

    Jet wrote:
    Perhaps if you were more informed on how these regimes see these groups as a threat to their rule and pay them so they will conduct their mayhem away from their countries you wouldnt be so surprised.

    jec wrote:Who's rule? They are attacking all other arab nations considering them fake muslims. Muslims, the main victims of islamic terrorism...

    The rule of the leaders of the gulf states for example: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the UAE, etc. Or any others who had a hand in crushing dissent that resulted from protests like the arab spring which wasn't perfect but which could have been a step forward. Dissent is not tolerated in any meaningful form by these regimes, which we support with weapons and funding thereby contributing to that repression.

    Jet wrote:

    No, "my discourse" is not the dominant one in the media, far from it. If you haven't already understood from what I've been writing it acknowledges the role of religion, but heavily criticizes the power of nations and private interests for perpetuating the continuation of these conflicts. The mainstream media does not hold this view, as with few exceptions, it plays to, and is courted by power. My issue with the new atheist is the fact that the rhetoric put forward by them is counter productive and sensationalist, encouraging distrust, ridicule and persecution. I don't think that the average NA is primarily responsible for the actions of our government, but the ignorance of those actions intentional or not, does defend them.

    jec wrote:Encouraging distrust, ridicule and persecution? What? If you'd actually followed New Atheists and their work outside of the sensationalist far left headlines painting them as bad guys

    Yes encouraging distrust, ridicule and persecution. The Sam Harris quote I found in an interview with the sun and Alis with Reason. Neither was particularly leftist(reason is liberatarian) or combative in any way.

    jec wrote:Before you quote Arsi Ali, she was a victim of FGM so she probably has more hostility to Islam than most...

    At least we agree on the fact that NA's discourse is not the dominating one.

    Not on mainstream media anyway, for what little that means. I'm aware of Alis history, that doesnt excuse her words. Specially given the fact that they are counterproductive to the cause she supposedly champions. NA discourse defends the dominant discourse, whether intentional or not.

    Jet wrote:
    No they are examples of willful ignorance on the part of constituents because they keep reelecting politicians who hold these positions. This information is out there, even talked about on the main channels. Like I said, at worst they are examples of greed which is just as bad, if not worse because they realize the consequences and continue it anyway.

    jec wrote:Well I disagree. Most people don't reach out for that information because they simply don't care or have the time to look into every detail so they are stuck with hearing what's one the biased local radio so to speak. If confronted and they decide to ignore or deny it without reasonable evidence, then that is what I would consider willful ignorance. In fact, worse than willful ignorance is probably the illusion of knowledge.

    That doesn't absolve them of responsibility for the actions commited by the government in our name. Like I said, at worst they are examples of greed which is just as bad, if not worse because they realize the consequences of their actions and continue it anyway.

    jec wrote:Driven by the greed of a few but only maintained through religion. If people stopped believing in jebus, they would have probably already skinned oil execs in the public square.

    Driven by the greed of the powerful, and maintained by our weapons, money, and resources. The rest is just speculation


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 25

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Fri Apr 24, 2015 8:34 am

    Jet wrote:
    It was hypocritical. As it was for the rest of leaders to stand with tyrants like the representatives for nations like Saudi arabia. A regime which commits many atrocities yet is praised by our politicians because we get something out of it.

    You're deviating from the point. I'm talking from a legal, constitutional point of view. The 'tyranical' leader's point or weather is just as bad has nothing to do with this.

    Jet wrote:

    No, you're wrong

    So... historians are wrong yet you are right?

    Jet wrote:

    Im not ignoring the latin american comparison. You are explicitly saying we should take the words of terrorists as facts, yet when we apply that same logic we find they have more than one motivation for their actions. In the case I listed(an interview) it was mentioned to be because of being bombed on an ongoing basis. So youre saying is "take them by their word, but only when it benefits my claim." Focus on the metric im talking about, the one you constantly brought up.

    So....I guess control groups comparison is still something you can't see...
    There's a reason why researchers hate self reporting, there will always be bias. It's up to the researcher to determine which part of the self reporting applies and which part does not.

    Jet wrote:

    Youre not taking into account who created these groups....and we still make use of them to meet our interests. You're the one discounting factors here.

    Even if the US created these groups or not, that doesn't justify their behavior, their MO. That's my point here.

    Jet wrote:

    Complicity means the weapons they use to fight are acquired by our funding or coordination. Whenever they kill someone with those tools, it means we are also responsible for allowing that to happen. The consequences of which have ripple effects with each successive capture, regime change, etc. We are also responsible for stoking this ideology in the first place, but thats a separate conversation.

    Jihad and violent expansion has been a doctrine of Islam since it was founded... Jihad isn't a 20th century term...

    Jet wrote:
    Or imagine if they were muslims who were never radicalized by both western hands or their respective religious leaders in the first place. Or how about protests not being subverted by both parties and subsequently hijacked into becoming one of the many proxy wars that are now playing out, like currently in Syria.

    You mean like the shit that has happened all over the world yet we see a different reaction from a certain group of people? Control and treatment group... Control and treatment group...

    Jet wrote:
    Our government considers males over the age of 12 a militant combatant. They also don't know who they are killing a lot of the times, like we saw this morning. So the point about not being considered terrorist is moot when youre still killing them.

    I'm arguing the MO and definition of terrorism, not moral relativism.

    Jet wrote:

    Saudi - Yemen quote


    What's your point? Yes, the US and SA have interveined in Yemen, that's precisely my point as well. The consequences are different though, the Houthis do not operate as Islamic terrorists but as an insurgency, the Houthi's MO and goals are completely different from other fighters in the region that have been instigated by the same reasons. This shows that ideology plays a much more meaningful role that foreign intervention...

    Let A be "US intervention (and everything it implies)" and B be "Creation of religious extremists groups", you and most left media argues A implies B. By conventional logic, every time A happens B MUST happen. this case B didn't happen thus A does not imply B. Simple as that.

    Nice book to read on the matter

    Jet wrote:
    The rule of the leaders of the gulf states for example: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the UAE, etc. Or any others who had a hand in crushing dissent that resulted from protests like the arab spring which wasn't perfect but which could have been a step forward. Dissent is not tolerated in any meaningful form by these regimes, which we support with weapons and funding thereby contributing to that repression.[/url]

    The Arab Spring? The spring that revoked secular tyrants (Egypt and Lybia) in favor of religious tyrants, that do the same exact thing their predecessors did only with the added brutality of religious law?

    Jet wrote:
    Yes encouraging distrust, ridicule and persecution. The Sam Harris quote I found in an interview with the sun and Alis with Reason. Neither was particularly leftist(reason is liberatarian) or combative in any way.

    You're gonna have to be more specific with the Harris one, I can't find what you are implying. I think it's a great interview that highlights the heterogeneity of religions...

    Jet wrote:Not on mainstream media anyway, for what little that means. I'm aware of Alis history, that doesnt excuse her words. Specially given the fact that they are counterproductive to the cause she supposedly champions. NA discourse defends the dominant discourse, whether intentional or not.

    So, you justify the angry words that call to violence from a muslim victim of US harm but not the words of a victim of islamic brutality? If you would go beyond interviews and see how many muslim skeptics and non believer these people have motivated to speak up even in their dangerous communities you would see that this is not counter productive.

    If NA's discourse defended the mainstream dominant (your) discourse, there wouldn't be a ton of backlash and hate towards every single word people like Harris, Maher, Dawkins say on the matter. Reza Aslan and Greenwald are the ones called to the main media outlets to give interviews on the matter not representatives of NA.

    Why don't they debate quotes like this instead?

    Sam Harris wrote:Religious moderation is the direct result of taking scripture less and less seriously. So why not take it less seriously still? Why not admit the the Bible is merely a collection of imperfect books written by highly fallible human beings.
    Letter to a Christian Nation (2006)

    Jet wrote:
    That doesn't absolve them of responsibility for the actions commited by the government in our name. Like I said, at worst they are examples of greed which is just as bad, if not worse because they realize the consequences of their actions and continue it anyway.

    Alright I agree, so by that logic, moderate non extremists Muslims are also not absolved from responsibility by the actions committed by extremists who act on their name and their religion since they refuse to denounce the violence incited by their own religious doctrine.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Mon Apr 27, 2015 11:08 pm

    Jet wrote:
    It was hypocritical. As it was for the rest of leaders to stand with tyrants like the representatives for nations like Saudi arabia. A regime which commits many atrocities yet is praised by our politicians because we get something out of it.

    jec wrote:You're deviating from the point. I'm talking from a legal, constitutional point of view. The 'tyranical' leader's point or weather is just as bad has nothing to do with this.

    Nah, Jon Stewart put it better



    jec wrote:So... historians are wrong yet you are right?

    No, history is right. Your interpretation of it isnt.

    Jet wrote:

    Im not ignoring the latin american comparison. You are explicitly saying we should take the words of terrorists as facts, yet when we apply that same logic we find they have more than one motivation for their actions. In the case I listed(an interview) it was mentioned to be because of being bombed on an ongoing basis. So youre saying is "take them by their word, but only when it benefits my claim." Focus on the metric im talking about, the one you constantly brought up.

    So....I guess control groups comparison is still something you can't see...
    There's a reason why researchers hate self reporting, there will always be bias. It's up to the researcher to determine which part of the self reporting applies and which part does not.

    Hahaha spare me the hypocrisy, you yourself admitted you were biased so thats laughable coming from you.

    Again im going to reiterate...I. am. NOT saying you can attribute the violence in the middle east ONLY to western intervention. But if you are going to apply the simplistic logic "listen to the words of these groups when they say it" As if they see no benefit in that (such as for recruitment purposes) then have some integrity and apply it when it also does not hold to be true. What I am saying here is not "Look the terrorists are saying its because of the US crimes it must ONLY be the US!" Rather, what I am saying is: that specific metric you are using to determine the motive for killing is flawed, just as it would be when applied to say western intervention being the sole cause.

    jec wrote:Even if the US created these groups or not, that doesn't justify their behavior, their MO. That's my point here.

    Obviously it doesn't justify their behavior. Neither does an autocrats desire to remain in power justify their human rights violations. Nor does the desire for regional and economical dominance justify the actions that result from machinations by western elites.

    Jet wrote:

    Complicity means the weapons they use to fight are acquired by our funding or coordination. Whenever they kill someone with those tools, it means we are also responsible for allowing that to happen. The consequences of which have ripple effects with each successive capture, regime change, etc. We are also responsible for stoking this ideology in the first place, but thats a separate conversation.

    jec wrote:Jihad and violent expansion has been a doctrine of Islam since it was founded... Jihad isn't a 20th century term...

    It has. Just as other atrocities have been commited by a number of other groups for a multitude of other reasons.

    Jet wrote:
    Or imagine if they were muslims who were never radicalized by both western hands or their respective religious leaders in the first place. Or how about protests not being subverted by both parties and subsequently hijacked into becoming one of the many proxy wars that are now playing out, like currently in Syria.

    jec wrote:You mean like the shit that has happened all over the world yet we see a different reaction from a certain group of people? Control and treatment group... Control and treatment group...

    Again.....religion obviously plays a role in these type of conflicts. Like Ive said multiple times Bush mentioned how god commanded him to invade. The "Clash of civilizations" rhetoric and "Exceptional American" propaganda bleeds into the common soldiers. Theocracies and extremist groups also consolidate their power under the banners of religion. But thats not the most important factor. The prolonging of these struggles is ultimately upheld by private interest groups who profit from its continuation, Muslim leaders who use western resources to retain their rule, export radicalization outside of their borders, and western politicians who campaign to uphold the status quo in order to also remain in power.

    Jet wrote:
    Our government considers males over the age of 12 a militant combatant. They also don't know who they are killing a lot of the times, like we saw this morning. So the point about not being considered terrorist is moot when youre still killing them.

    jec wrote:I'm arguing the MO and definition of terrorism, not moral relativism.

    Theres a double standard on the application of the term "terrorism". Our violence would never be considered that. That would be unheard of.

    jec wrote:What's your point? Yes, the US and SA have interveined in Yemen, that's precisely my point as well. The consequences are different though, the Houthis do not operate as Islamic terrorists but as an insurgency, the Houthi's MO and goals are completely different from other fighters in the region that have been instigated by the same reasons. This shows that ideology plays a much more meaningful role that foreign intervention...

    Let A be "US intervention (and everything it implies)" and B be "Creation of religious extremists groups", you and most left media argues A implies B. By conventional logic, every time A happens B MUST happen. this case B didn't happen thus A does not imply B.

    Wrong again. Watch from 17mins on



    To say "A causes B" is not to say "A is the ONLY cause of B"

    Jet wrote:
    The rule of the leaders of the gulf states for example: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the UAE, etc. Or any others who had a hand in crushing dissent that resulted from protests like the arab spring which wasn't perfect but which could have been a step forward. Dissent is not tolerated in any meaningful form by these regimes, which we support with weapons and funding thereby contributing to that repression.

    jec wrote:The Arab Spring? The spring that revoked secular tyrants (Egypt and Lybia) in favor of religious tyrants, that do the same exact thing their predecessors did only with the added brutality of religious law?

    Did you miss where I said it obviously wasn't perfect? When governments are overthrown it usually isnt peaches and rainbows hate to break that fact to you. Specially after decades of western installed oppressive despots. Nonetheless the arab spring offered us a chance to disengage from the region. To allow the native populations to eventually overthrow tyrants they themselves brought to office, of their own free will. In time even exercise autonomy and self determination, like some countries already did before our intervention. But thats clearly what western governments, and the regional authoritarian regimes they support do not want to see. The possibility that independent governments could rise and threaten their own tyrannical allies (who commit human rights atrocities themselves, yet we are conveniently uncritical of) along with their own financial interests.

    jec wrote:You're gonna have to be more specific with the Harris one, I can't find what you are implying. I think it's a great interview that highlights the heterogeneity of religions...

    The links were not from a far left website, like you claimed they were. As for the sensationalism, Harris admits to it himself in the interview though I dont see how someone could honestly claim that wasn't sensational.

    Jet wrote:Not on mainstream media anyway, for what little that means. I'm aware of Alis history, that doesnt excuse her words. Specially given the fact that they are counterproductive to the cause she supposedly champions. NA discourse defends the dominant discourse, whether intentional or not.

    jec wrote:So, you justify the angry words that call to violence from a muslim victim of US harm

    Now im justifying acts of violence? What an idiotic statement.

    jec wrote:If NA's discourse defended the mainstream dominant (your) discourse

    Wrong again. My discourse points to the greater structures that contribute to this system. If anything yours is the discourse thats gotten more play in the media. No need to wonder why. It does a nice job at masking the motives of governments and their institutions by distracting the wider public from acknowledging these truths and engaging them. Instead it focuses on division through petty tribalism and broad generalizations. In effect offering easy answers for a complex problem.

    Jet wrote:
    That doesn't absolve them of responsibility for the actions commited by the government in our name. Like I said, at worst they are examples of greed which is just as bad, if not worse because they realize the consequences of their actions and continue it anyway.

    jec wrote:Alright I agree, so by that logic, moderate non extremists Muslims are also not absolved from responsibility by the actions committed by extremists who act on their name and their religion since they refuse to denounce the violence incited by their own religious doctrine.

    Now you are equating the acts of individuals to the acts sanctioned by nations.....Again not every religious person takes the same values from their religion. Of the muslims who hold the bad beliefs illustrated by the pewpoll, most certainly do not act on them. As I have showed previously groups like ISIS have been condemned by muslims. Just because you arent listening doesnt mean it isnt happening. The ultimate point is the acts commited under greed are ultimately done so on a greater scale than religious, and have a greater impact. Religious violence is only one factor that is intensified as a result of it.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 25

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Fri May 01, 2015 8:21 am

    Jet wrote:

    Nah, Jon Stewart put it better


    Well that's your opinion, I'm taking the stance of legality.

    Jet wrote:

    No, history is right. Your interpretation of it isnt.

    It's not my interpretation, its historian's interpretation.

    Jet wrote:
    Hahaha spare me the hypocrisy, you yourself admitted you were biased so thats laughable coming from you.

    Because I'm the one leading the NA discourse...right


    Jet wrote:Obviously it doesn't justify their behavior. Neither does an autocrats desire to remain in power justify their human rights violations. Nor does the desire for regional and economical dominance justify the actions that result from machinations by western elites.

    I. DON'T. CARE. This is the problem, you're taking a stance of moral relativism, the faux pas motion that everyone is just as good and everything is just as bad. This stance keeps people from seeing things for what they are and stagnates any real tools to act on it. Being able to ordinaly organize things does not mean you will ignore or are in agreement with the other.

    Jet wrote:

    It has. Just as other atrocities have been commited by a number of other groups for a multitude of other reasons.

    Same as above.

    Jet wrote:
    Theres a double standard on the application of the term "terrorism". Our violence would never be considered that. That would be unheard of.

    Because the west's violence, even though they cause harm to non combatants, they are not their goal. Most non combatants end up being collateral, not main target.

    Jet wrote:

    Wrong again. Watch from 17mins on


    ? That just pretty much proves my point. The Houthis are a insurgent group that rejects american interventionism yet don't operate through terror. The Houthi's are very close in their MO to Colombia's FARC.
    ... Also, as someone who has lived 15+ years in a war torn country for over 50 years... Don't rely on Vice's Gonzo Journalism... by definition... it becomes completely anecdotal...

    Jet wrote:
    To say "A causes B" is not to say "A is the ONLY cause of B"

    Yes, but if A happens... B MUST happen.

    A, C, D, E can cause B, but if any of them happen, B must happen...

    In logical transposition, this is called a NECESSARY CONDITION.

    Premise (1): If P, then Q
    Premise (2): not Q
    Conclusion: Therefore, not P

    But in this case since P happened (American interventionism) but Q (Religious extremism) did, the premise P, then Q is false.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_%28logic%29


    Jet wrote:
    The links were not from a far left website, like you claimed they were. As for the sensationalism, Harris admits to it himself in the interview though I dont see how someone could honestly claim that wasn't sensational.

    I'm still not seeing it.... the rape thing?

    Jet wrote:

    Now im justifying acts of violence? What an idiotic statement.

    You bash Ali for having violent rethoric after being a victim yet you don't do the same with muslim extremists...

    Jet wrote:
    Wrong again. My discourse points to the greater structures that contribute to this system. If anything yours is the discourse thats gotten more play in the media. No need to wonder why. It does a nice job at masking the motives of governments and their institutions by distracting the wider public from acknowledging these truths and engaging them. Instead it focuses on division through petty tribalism and broad generalizations. In effect offering easy answers for a complex problem.

    Your discourse? You mean the left's discourse. Don't forget most of the US's media is left biased and this is a fact.

    Jet wrote:
    Now you are equating the acts of individuals to the acts sanctioned by nations.....Again not every religious person takes the same values from their religion. Of the muslims who hold the bad beliefs illustrated by the pewpoll, most certainly do not act on them. As I have showed previously groups like ISIS have been condemned by muslims. Just because you arent listening doesnt mean it isnt happening. The ultimate point is the acts commited under greed are ultimately done so on a greater scale than religious, and have a greater impact. Religious violence is only one factor that is intensified as a result of it.

    They condemn ISIS and while most wouldn't get their hands dirty by killing people... They agree with the killing of people. If most muslims have these bad and radical ideas in their head, they can easily be nudged into the path of violence. This will only keep happening until they reform their faith.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Sat May 02, 2015 1:53 am

    Jet wrote:

    Nah, Jon Stewart put it better


    jec wrote:Well that's your opinion, I'm taking the stance of legality.

    Laws cant be hypocritical?

    Jet wrote:

    No, history is right. Your interpretation of it isnt.

    jec wrote:It's not my interpretation, its historian's interpretation.

    Its your lack of knowledge of it

    Jet wrote:
    Hahaha spare me the hypocrisy, you yourself admitted you were biased so thats laughable coming from you.

    jec wrote:Because I'm the one leading the NA discourse...right

    No but you agree with it, and are arguing with me about it. Bias affects arguments.


    Jet wrote:Obviously it doesn't justify their behavior. Neither does an autocrats desire to remain in power justify their human rights violations. Nor does the desire for regional and economical dominance justify the actions that result from machinations by western elites.

    jec wrote:I. DON'T. CARE. This is the problem, you're taking a stance of moral relativism, the faux pas motion that everyone is just as good and everything is just as bad. This stance keeps people from seeing things for what they are and stagnates any real tools to act on it. Being able to ordinaly organize things does not mean you will ignore or are in agreement with the other.

    The fact that you dont care is the problem. This failure to recognize the extent of our involvement despite the fact that its responsible for creating and sustaining these conditions.

    Jet wrote:

    It has. Just as other atrocities have been commited by a number of other groups for a multitude of other reasons.

    jec wrote:Same as above.

    As above, so below.

    Jet wrote:
    Theres a double standard on the application of the term "terrorism". Our violence would never be considered that. That would be unheard of.

    jec wrote:Because the west's violence, even though they cause harm to non combatants, they are not their goal. Most non combatants end up being collateral, not main target.

    That's incredibly naive. Yes our dear leaders have the best of intentions, just like they've shown in past wars.

    Jet wrote:

    Wrong again. Watch from 17mins on


    jec wrote:? That just pretty much proves my point.

    No it proves the exact opposite.

    jec wrote:... Also, as someone who has lived 15+ years in a war torn country for over 50 years... Don't rely on Vice's Gonzo Journalism... by definition... it becomes completely anecdotal...

    Lol......right, so im supposed to believe Vice news is anecdotal but listening to your experience wouldnt be?....

    Jet wrote:
    To say "A causes B" is not to say "A is the ONLY cause of B"

    jec wrote:Yes, but if A happens... B MUST happen.

    The basis for radicalization is not limited to foreign policy adventurism. Western intervention throughout the majority of the middle east however, is the primary reason it is continued.

    Jet wrote:
    The links were not from a far left website, like you claimed they were. As for the sensationalism, Harris admits to it himself in the interview though I dont see how someone could honestly claim that wasn't sensational.

    jec wrote:I'm still not seeing it.... the rape thing?

    .....

    Obviously. I previously quoted it.

    Jet wrote:

    Now im justifying acts of violence? What an idiotic statement.

    jec wrote:You bash Ali for having violent rethoric after being a victim yet you don't do the same with muslim extremists...

    So you're saying im justifying the killing of innocents? Thats seriously what youre saying? Wow....is that really what you think?

    Jet wrote:
    Wrong again. My discourse points to the greater structures that contribute to this system. If anything yours is the discourse thats gotten more play in the media. No need to wonder why. It does a nice job at masking the motives of governments and their institutions by distracting the wider public from acknowledging these truths and engaging them. Instead it focuses on division through petty tribalism and broad generalizations. In effect offering easy answers for a complex problem.

    jec wrote:Your discourse? You mean the left's discourse. Don't forget most of the US's media is left biased and this is a fact.

    Maybe on social issues. As a whole MSM is corporate which means for the most part, is deferential to power. You keep painting everything in absolutes. Because I am a leftist CNN would share my views? Hardly. My discourse isnt what you try to paint it as sorry.

    Jet wrote:
    Now you are equating the acts of individuals to the acts sanctioned by nations.....Again not every religious person takes the same values from their religion. Of the muslims who hold the bad beliefs illustrated by the pewpoll, most certainly do not act on them. As I have showed previously groups like ISIS have been condemned by muslims. Just because you arent listening doesnt mean it isnt happening. The ultimate point is the acts commited under greed are ultimately done so on a greater scale than religious, and have a greater impact. Religious violence is only one factor that is intensified as a result of it.

    jec wrote:They condemn ISIS and while most wouldn't get their hands dirty by killing people... They agree with the killing of people. If most muslims have these bad and radical ideas in their head, they can easily be nudged into the path of violence. This will only keep happening until they reform their faith.

    There's a huge difference between bad beliefs, which are subject to change, and actions like the killing of someone. This will only keep happening as long as intervention is still supported for motives of greed. Which will undoubtedly continue as long as the population keeps thinking our killing is just, a majority of muslims are backward, and context keeps being derided in favor of sensationalism ruling the day.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 25

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Sat May 02, 2015 6:11 pm

    Jet wrote:

    Laws cant be hypocritical?

    Yes, except in the CH case, it wasn't. They were following the law based on the Declaration of rights passed in the french revolution from which their modern constitution is based. Ridiculizing something is not a crime in France, inciting violence and death to a group of people however, is not. There's nothing hypocritical on the case.

    Jet wrote:

    Its your lack of knowledge of it

    What? Censorship is the fastest way of spreading extremism, history clearly states this. Read on the consequences of the Obscene Publications Act of 1857, Irish Nationalism in the XIX and XX century, communist speech in the america's in the 50s and their consequences.

    Jet wrote:
    No but you agree with it, and are arguing with me about it. Bias affects arguments.

    So my bias affects the arguments of everyone else? Now I can only imagine you'll imply you are totally unbiased.


    Jet wrote:Obviously it doesn't justify their behavior. Neither does an autocrats desire to remain in power justify their human rights violations. Nor does the desire for regional and economical dominance justify the actions that result from machinations by western elites.

    Jet wrote:
    The fact that you dont care is the problem. This failure to recognize the extent of our involvement despite the fact that its responsible for creating and sustaining these conditions.

    Reread the second part of the paragraph.... "Being able to organize things does not mean you will ignore or are in agreement with the other", meaning, I do recognize the extent of american involvement, but it is inconsequential with the stance I'm taking which is precisely against moral equivalence. Both are bad, yes, yet considering them both as bad is ridiculous and counterproductive in hoping to correct any of it. It's like carrying groceries, you can't carry them all at the same time.

    In fact, here's a excerpt from a piece Sam Harris wrote

    Leftist Unreason and the Strange Case of Noam Chomsky wrote:
    Chomsky has been a persistent critic of U.S. foreign policy for over three decades. He has also managed to demonstrate a principal failing of the liberal critique of power. He appears to be an exquisitely moral man whose political views prevent him from making the most basic moral distinctions—between types of violence, and the variety of human purposes that give rise to them.
    In his book 9-11, with rubble of the World Trade Center still piled high and smoldering, Chomsky urged us not to forget that “the U.S. itself is a leading terrorist state.” In support of this claim he catalogs a number of American misdeeds, including the sanctions that the United States imposed upon Iraq, which led to the death of “maybe half a million children,” and the 1998 bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceuticals plant in Sudan, which may have set the stage for tens of thousands of innocent Sudanese to die of tuberculosis, malaria, and other treatable diseases. Chomsky does not hesitate to draw moral equivalences here: “For the first time in modern history, Europe and its offshoots were subjected, on home soil, to the kind of atrocity that they routinely have carried out elsewhere.”42
    Before pointing out just how wayward Chomsky’s thinking is on this subject, I would like to concede many of his points, since they have the virtue of being both generally important and irrelevant to the matter at hand. There is no doubt that the United States has much to atone for, both domestically and abroad. In this respect, we can more or less swallow Chomsky’s thesis whole. To produce this horrible confection at home, start with our genocidal treatment of the Native Americans, add a couple hundred years of slavery, along with our denial of entry to Jewish refugees fleeing the death camps of the Third Reich, stir in our collusion with a long list of modern despots and our subsequent disregard for their appalling human rights records, add our bombing of Cambodia and the Pentagon Papers to taste, and then top with our recent refusals to sign the Kyoto protocol for greenhouse emissions, to support any ban on land mines, and to submit ourselves to the rulings of the International Criminal Court. The result should smell of death, hypocrisy, and fresh brimstone.
    We have surely done some terrible things in the past. Undoubtedly, we are poised to do terrible things in the future. Nothing I have written in this book should be construed as a denial of these facts, or as defense of state practices that are manifestly abhorrent. There may be much that Western powers, and the United States in particular, should pay reparations for. And our failure to acknowledge our misdeeds over the years has undermined our credibility in the international community. We can concede all of this, and even share Chomsky’s acute sense of outrage, while recognizing that his analysis of our current situation in the world is a masterpiece of moral blindness.

    The harshest critics of Islam do not disregard the role of the US in the ME, we simply go beyond it. Even Bill Maher in his latest episode mentioned the role of the US and how we should simply stay out of it

    Jet wrote:
    That's incredibly naive. Yes our dear leaders have the best of intentions, just like they've shown in past wars.

    I'll give an example, taken from Harris-Chomsky private email exchange:

    SH wrote:
    1. Imagine that al-Qaeda is filled, not with God-intoxicated sociopaths intent upon creating a global caliphate, but genuine humanitarians. Based on their research, they believe that a deadly batch of vaccine has made it into the U.S. pharmaceutical supply. They have communicated their concerns to the FDA but were rebuffed. Acting rashly, with the intention of saving millions of lives, they unleash a computer virus, targeted to impede the release of this deadly vaccine. As it turns out, they are right about the vaccine but wrong about the consequences of their meddling—and they wind up destroying half the pharmaceuticals in the U.S.

    What would I say? I would say that this was a very unfortunate event—but these are people we want on our team. I would find the FDA highly culpable for not having effectively communicated with them. These people are our friends, and we were all very unlucky.

    2. al-Qaeda is precisely as terrible a group as it is, and it destroys our pharmaceuticals intentionally, for the purpose of harming millions of innocent people.

    What would I say? We should imprison or kill these people at the first opportunity.

    While the body count might be the same, these are totally different scenarios. Ethically speaking, intention is (nearly) the whole story. The difference between intending to harm someone and accidentally harming them is enormous—if for no other reason than that the presence of harmful intent tells us a lot about what a person or group is likely to do in the future.

    Jet wrote:


    No it proves the exact opposite.

    I'll just post my own words then:

    Jec wrote:Take for example the Houthis, which are a Shiia group (Not considered terrorists) operating in the current civil war. The Sunni government in Yemen, backed by the US and SA had governed in favor of Sunnis and detriment of Shiias causing them to rise and fight. The interesting part of this is that the Houthis are not religious extremists and in fact very different motivations and goals from islamic terrorists:

    In an interview with Yemen Times, Hussein Al-Bukhari, a Houthi insider said that Houthis' preferable political system is a republic with elections where women can also hold political positions, and that they do not seek to form a cleric-led government after the model of Islamic Republic of Iran

    This is a case, inside the middle east of a US backed regime causing violence yet their Modus Operandi is completely different from other cases in the ME clearly indicating the importance of ideology in causing terrorist behavior. Same treatment, different outcomes, this is the part when one must give more importance to the differences, most noticeably, Shiia isn't as crazy as Sunni...

    The Vice video does not contradict anything I stated and implying it is intellectually dishonest. They are a group that rises opposing SA intervention (influenced by US doctrine) as an insurgency and they do not attack or operate like terrorists groups they fight...

    Jet wrote:
    Lol......right, so im supposed to believe Vice news is anecdotal but listening to your experience wouldnt be?....

    I never said my point wasn't anecdotal. Unlike Vice, I don't blog about it and sell it as truth. Remember:

    "The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

    Jet wrote:

    The basis for radicalization is not limited to foreign policy adventurism. Western intervention throughout the majority of the middle east however, is the primary reason it is continued.

    That's not how necessary conditions work. This is not my law, it's the rules of logic we have applied since ancient Greece.

    But in essence, I agree, it is a combination of factors, however, given comparative evidence from other parts of the world and other time epochs, ideology still seems the most logical "primary" reason for radicalization to happen and continue.

    Jet wrote:

    jec wrote:I'm still not seeing it.... the rape thing?

    .....

    Obviously.  I previously quoted it.

    Still don't see where you're going with this. If his intention was to be inflammatory, then he would have been even more inflammatory as he states in the interview.

    Jet wrote:
    So you're saying im justifying the killing of innocents? Thats seriously what youre saying? Wow....is that really what you think?

    You're a moral relativist aren't you? Two wrongs make a right doesn't it?

    Jet wrote:

    Maybe on social issues. As a whole MSM is corporate which means for the most part, is deferential to power. You keep painting everything in absolutes. Because I am a leftist CNN would share my views? Hardly. My discourse isnt what you try to paint it as sorry.

    CNN and other MSM outlets have given your discourse enough air time (You even have a show (VICE) dedicated to that). Aslan, Greenwald, Chomsky, muslim leaders, anti stateists get plenty of air time on MSM outlets and have painted the view of "It's all the West's fault" for years. I'll buy your "NA's speech is MSM speech" when I start seeing Harris, Ali and many other "New Atheists" (A bullshit term created by apologists) get their own air time. If their discourse was shared by the majority of people, they wouldn't be victims of such social backlash. Must I remind you that in the United States, muslims are more tolerated and accepted than atheists?

    Jet wrote:

    There's a huge difference between bad beliefs, which are subject to change, and actions like the killing of someone. This will only keep happening as long as intervention is still supported for motives of greed. Which will undoubtedly continue as long as the population keeps thinking our killing is just, a majority of muslims are backward, and context keeps being derided in favor of sensationalism ruling the day.

    And Islamic extremism will continue to propagate as long as the bulk of Muslim population believes their actions are just or in agreement with them. What better way to stop it than by disarming them ideologically.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 25

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Sun May 03, 2015 9:48 pm

    What? That Episode 5 preview for GOT... Why did they kill off Ser Barristan?


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 25

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Mon May 04, 2015 9:03 pm

    SJW's React to Texas Shooting - Radical Islam Apologism at its Worst



    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Mon May 04, 2015 10:41 pm

    jec wrote:Yes, except in the CH case, it wasn't. They were following the law based on the Declaration of rights passed in the french revolution from which their modern constitution is based. Ridiculizing something is not a crime in France, inciting violence and death to a group of people however, is not. There's nothing hypocritical on the case

    France wasn't the only representative marching in solidarity on the principles of free speech. David Cameron ordered The Guardian to smash with a hammer the hard drives that stored the files of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Blasphemy is considered a crime in Ireland. You had multiple African and Arab leaders whose own countries right now have scores of journalists in prison. Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in Israel has targeted for killing numerous journalists who have reported on the Palestinian side, have kidnapped, abducted, jailed journalists.

    jec wrote:What? Censorship is the fastest way of spreading extremism, history clearly states this. Read on the consequences of the Obscene Publications Act of 1857, Irish Nationalism in the XIX and XX century, communist speech in the america's in the 50s and their consequences.

    Oh I understand the role censorship plays in hardening ideologies. Ive made the point previously myself. Though the spread of Wahabism and the intervention that came with and after it has been the primary cause in this case

    jec wrote:So my bias affects the arguments of everyone else?


    Your bias against religion generally and Islam specifically keeps you from a clear view of the greater significance of outside factors in these conflicts.

    jec wrote:The harshest critics of Islam do not disregard the role of the US in the ME, we simply go beyond it. Even Bill Maher in his latest episode mentioned the role of the US and how we should simply stay out of it

    You minimize the various factors that contribute to these conflicts and attribute it primarily to religion. To the extent that you do acknowledge the role of western countries it is downplayed and portrayed as a secondary concern. Bill is right when he says we should leave the region but underestimates the enormity of its impact as well. Its not even a consideration for our government, we've been involved there for decades, and not just in that region, but all over the world. That must end, along with our alliances with oppressive regimes which together lead to the creation of more extremist forces.

    Jet wrote:
    That's incredibly naive. Yes our dear leaders have the best of intentions, just like they've shown in past wars.

    jec wrote:I'll give an example, taken from Harris-Chomsky private email exchange:

    Yes I read the email correspondence before. Chomsky put it brilliantly:
    Noam Chomsky wrote: I am sorry you are unwilling to retract your false claim that I “ignore the moral significance of intentions.” Of course I did, as you know. Also, I gave the appropriate answer, which applies accurately to you in the al-Shifa case, the very case in question.

    If you had read further before launching your accusations, the usual procedure in work intended to be serious, you would have discovered that I also reviewed the substantial evidence about the very sincere intentions of Japanese fascists while they were devastating China, Hitler in the Sudetenland and Poland, etc. There is at least as much reason to suppose that they were sincere as Clinton was when he bombed al-Shifa. Much more so in fact. Therefore, if you believe what you are saying, you should be justifying their actions as well. I also reviewed other cases, pointing out that professing benign intentions is the norm for those who carry out atrocities and crimes, perhaps sincerely – and surely more plausibly than in this case. And that only the most abject apologists justify the actions on the grounds that perpetrators are adopting the normal stance of criminals.

    I am also sorry that you evade the fact that your charge of “moral equivalence” was flatly false, as you know.

    And in particular, I am sorry to see your total refusal to respond to the question raised at the outset of the piece you quoted. The scenario you describe here is, I’m afraid, so ludicrous as to be embarrassing. It hasn’t even the remotest relation to Clinton’s decision to bomb al-Shifa – not because they had suddenly discovered anything remotely like what you fantasize here, or for that matter any credible evidence at all, and by sheer coincidence, immediately after the Embassy bombings for which it was retaliation, as widely acknowledged. That is truly scandalous.

    And of course they knew that there would be major casualties. They are not imbeciles, but rather adopt a stance that is arguably even more immoral than purposeful killing, which at least recognizes the human status of the victims, not just killing ants while walking down the street, who cares?

    In fact, as you would know if you deigned to read before launching accusations, they were informed at once by Kenneth Roth of HRW about the impending humanitarian catastrophe, already underway. And of course they had far more information available than HRW did.

    Your own moral stance is revealed even further by your complete lack of concern about the apparently huge casualties and the refusal even to investigate them.

    As for Clinton and associates being “genuine humanitarians,” perhaps that explains why they were imposing sanctions on Iraq so murderous that both of the highly respected international diplomats who administered the “Oil for food” program resigned in protest because they regarded them as “genocidal,” condemning Clinton for blocking testimony at the UN Security Council. Or why he poured arms into Turkey as it was carrying out a horrendous attack on its Kurdish population, one of the worst crimes of the ‘90s. Or why he shifted Turkey from leading recipient of arms worldwide (Israel-Egypt excepted) to Colombia, as soon as the Turkish atrocities achieved their goal and while Colombia was leading the hemisphere by far in atrocious human rights violations. Or why he authorized the Texaco Oil Company to provide oil to the murderous Haitian junta in violation of sanctions. And on, and on, as you could learn if you bothered to read before launching accusations and professing to talk about “ethics” and “morality.”

    I’ve seen apologetics for atrocities before, but rarely at this level – not to speak of the refusal to withdraw false charges, a minor fault in comparison.

    Since you profess to be concerned about “God-intoxicated sociopaths,” perhaps you can refer me to your condemnation of the perpetrator of by far the worst crime of this millennium because God had instructed him that he must smite the enemy.

    jec wrote:The Vice video does not contradict anything I stated and implying it is intellectually dishonest. They are a group that rises opp SA intervention (influenced by US doctrine) as an insurgency and they do not attack or operate like terrorists groups they fight...

    It does since it shows intervention is the greater cause for radicalization

    1. Radicalization is not limited to only religious extremism, it can take on a number of other forms, as Ive said countless times before. Among them it can also be political like in Latin America. Or it could be a mixture of both, include other factors. You're the one trying to narrow the argument by reducing it to religion, not me.

    2. Your response says I think Western intervention always leads to religious radicalization. It doesn't sound like something Id say. Please link me to where I said that intervention always leads to such, if its true I will amend it.

    Jec wrote:But in essence, I agree, it is a combination of factors, however, given comparative evidence from other parts of the world and other time epochs, ideology still seems the most logical "primary" reason for radicalization to happen and continue.

    Only if its looked at through a lack of context and limited worldview.

    jec wrote:Still don't see where you're going with this. If his intention was to be inflammatory, then he would have been even more inflammatory as he states in the interview.

    I wasn't asking about his intention. The fact is he was sensationalist, needlessly so. As is Hirsi Ali for that matter. Again, counterproductive to a cause supposedly championed.

    Jet wrote:
    So you're saying im justifying the killing of innocents? Thats seriously what youre saying? Wow....is that really what you think?

    jec wrote:You're a moral relativist aren't you? Two wrongs make a right doesn't it?

    So blind. Despite the fact that you are far more likely to fit the label of justifying violence I have not accussed you of such. I have condemned groups like ISIS, its incredibly easy to do so because it is such an obviously vile organization that it doesn't merit the doubt. The very fact that you question me on this says a lot about you. As for the subject of my focus Ill echo the words of Chomsky:

    Noam Chomsky wrote: "My own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by my own state, for two reasons. For one thing, because it happens to be the larger component of international violence. But also for a much more important reason than that; namely, I can do something about it. So even if the U.S. was responsible for 2 percent of the violence in the world instead of the majority of it, it would be that 2 percent I would be primarily responsible for. And that is a simple ethical judgment. That is, the ethical value of one’s actions depends on their anticipated and predictable consequences. It is very easy to denounce the atrocities of someone else. That has about as much ethical value as denouncing atrocities that took place in the 18th century."

    Jec wrote:CNN and other MSM outlets have given your discourse enough air time (You even have a show (VICE) dedicated to that). Aslan, Greenwald, Chomsky, muslim leaders, anti stateists get plenty of air time on MSM outlets and have painted the view of "It's all the West's fault" for years. I'll buy your "NA's speech is MSM speech" when I start seeing Harris, Ali and many other "New Atheists" (A bullshit term created by apologists) get their own air time. If their discourse was shared by the majority of people, they wouldn't be victims of such social backlash. Must I remind you that in the United States, muslims are more tolerated and accepted than atheists?

    I didnt say New Atheist discourse was the dominant discourse on MSM. I did say it defends the mainstream view however. That is to say diminish the importance of western foreign policy whenever possible and emphasize the role of Islam at all cost. Dont look for historical context or nuance. Anything to deflect from questioning the power and righteousness of the state. To say its a problem of those people, minimally critiquing the role of the west while boiling it down to one existential threat, the religion of the people we are occupying.

    And once again...you mistake my points. You still think my view is "its all the wests fault" so you are doomed from square one. This is why you keep being wrong, you keep misunderstanding what Ive been saying.

    Jet wrote:There's a huge difference between bad beliefs, which are subject to change, and actions like the killing of someone. This will only keep happening as long as intervention is still supported for motives of greed. Which will undoubtedly continue as long as the population keeps thinking our killing is just, a majority of muslims are backward, and context keeps being derided in favor of sensationalism ruling the day.

    jec wrote:And Islamic extremism will continue to propagate as long as the bulk of Muslim population believes their actions are just or in agreement with them. What better way to stop it than by disarming them ideologically.

    The strength of extremism comes primarily from our direct interference. It is upheld by the factors ive mentioned before. Moreover, ideology isn't ended by bombing civilians, killing innocent people through night raids, keeping oppressive regimes in power that crush dissent, backing extremist groups through funding, arming and training, then using them as proxies to topple regimes not allied with us. The leaders of the US, among others, are creating more terrorists than they are stopping, then use that as an excuse to get further involved. This should be extremely apparent by now to anyone with common sense.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 25

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Tue May 05, 2015 9:32 am

    Jet wrote:France wasn't the only representative marching in solidarity on the principles of free speech. David Cameron ordered The Guardian to smash with a hammer the hard drives that stored the files of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Blasphemy is considered a crime in Ireland. You had multiple African and Arab leaders whose own countries right now have scores of journalists in prison. Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in Israel has targeted for killing numerous journalists who have reported on the Palestinian side, have kidnapped, abducted, jailed journalists.

    You still don’t get it. France wasn’t being contradictory with the application of its laws. I’m not denying the blasphemy laws elsewhere or whatever, just stating that France’s actions were in accordance to its legal system. There’s no hypocrisy in this. If you want to debate the legal system as such that's another story.

    Jet wrote:
    Oh I understand the role censorship plays in hardening ideologies. Ive made the point previously myself. Though the spread of Wahabism and the intervention that came with and after it has been the primary cause in this case

    Not being able to have open discussions on the matter or allow any other ideology in the context (censoring others) is what’s spreading violence.

    [quote="Jet”]
    Your bias against religion generally and Islam specifically keeps you from a clear view of the greater significance of outside factors in these conflicts. [/quote]

    Right… the guy who refuses to acknowledge control groups comparison is the one with the broader view.

    Jet wrote:
    You minimize the various factors that contribute to these conflicts and attribute it primarily to religion. To the extent that you do acknowledge the role of western countries it is downplayed and portrayed as a secondary concern. Bill is right when he says we should leave the region but underestimates the enormity of its impact as well. Its not even a consideration for our government, we've been involved there for decades, and not just in that region, but all over the world. That must end, along with our alliances with oppressive regimes which together lead to the creation of more extremist forces.

    Because Religion stands out when comparing it to the rest of the world! When will you see this? You say it yourself, the US interferes everywhere else yet we only see religious extremism in that region with that religion. Drawing a conclusion is not minimizing the other factors, I’m simply drawing out the most noticeable and responsible for the atrocities in the region. I have shown evidence that the very people you criticize that “don’t take this factors into account” in reality do and have them in mind in their analysis. You on the other hand refuse to do comparative analysis with other regions to establish actual causality. Control and treatment groups.
    This does not imply I agree with US foreign policy nor do I wish their intervention continue or I’m ignoring the atrocities they commit, I’m simply being realistic on the actual reasons why religious extremism happens. You ignore the fact that religious extremism in Islam has existed since the 7th Century (see Khawarij and Jihadism) and still have the gall to imply the extremism is due to the US seeing that the religion has been extremist and violent since it was founded.

    Jet wrote:
    Yes I read the email correspondence before. Chomsky put it brilliantly:

    Well I can quote another part of the exchange until we run out of it… but I’ll pass.

    Jet wrote:
    It does since it shows intervention is the greater cause for radicalization

    1. Radicalization is not limited to only religious extremism, it can take on a number of other forms, as Ive said countless times before. Among them it can also be political like in Latin America. Or it could be a mixture of both, include other factors. You're the one trying to narrow the argument by reducing it to religion, not me.

    2. Your response says I think Western intervention always leads to religious radicalization. It doesn't sound like something Id say. Please link me to where I said that intervention always leads to such, if its true I will amend it.

    It doesn’t because:
    1. I’ve never implied radicalization was only limited to religious radicalization, if so, quote and I will amend. It doesn’t refute the claim that their violence is not religious violence, do not rely on terrorist attacks on the civilian population nor do they wish to establish a religious rule (and all it implies) in Yemen.
    2. That has pretty much been your disagreement with me. In fact, just look at the first sentence of your last reply on the last paragraph.
    Jet wrote:
    Only if its looked at through a lack of context and limited worldview.
    I hate to use the authority fallacy but you would accuse and economist and international negotiator who have taken courses on international policy and history to have a limited world view? That’s truly insulting.

    [quote="Jet”]
    I wasn't asking about his intention. The fact is he was sensationalist, needlessly so. As is Hirsi Ali for that matter. Again, counterproductive to a cause supposedly championed.[/quote]

    Sensationalism can be unintentional. Sensationalism is the feelings of others, one cannot speak his mind freely and not expect people to have hurt feelings.

    Jet wrote:
    So blind. Despite the fact that you are far more likely to fit the label of justifying violence I have not accussed you of such. I have condemned groups like ISIS, its incredibly easy to do so because it is such an obviously vile organization that it doesn't merit the doubt. The very fact that you question me on this says a lot about you. As for the subject of my focus Ill echo the words of Chomsky:

    Jet, a couple of pages ago you were fervently justifying the actions by saying they were reasonable reactions to the west’s actions. Despite the actions not hurting the west rather themselves more…

    Jet wrote:
    I didnt say New Atheist discourse was the dominant discourse on MSM. I did say it defends the mainstream view however. That is to say diminish the importance of western foreign policy whenever possible and emphasize the role of Islam at all cost. Dont look for historical context or nuance. Anything to deflect from questioning the power and righteousness of the state. To say its a problem of those people, minimally critiquing the role of the west while boiling it down to one existential threat, the religion of the people we are occupying.

    Give me examples of MSM that emphasizes the role of Islam at all cost (That isn’t Fox News)I’m only limited to CNN down here and from there I ca say that they don’t emphasize the role of Islam at all. Look at the Amazing Atheist’s video I posted bellow, MSM does not speak ill of Islam, the subject has become completely taboo. Harris might be a bit of a statist but don’t assume all NA share all the same views. One is not representative of all.
    Again, if what you were saying was true, NA wouldn’t be under so much fire form MSM…
    Jet wrote:
    And once again...you mistake my points. You still think my view is "its all the wests fault" so you are doomed from square one. This is why you keep being wrong, you keep misunderstanding what Ive been saying.
    I’ve never said you believe it’s “all the west’s fault”, I simply disagree with you on the main cause of religious extremism.

    Jet wrote:
    The strength of extremism comes primarily from our direct interference. It is upheld by the factors ive mentioned before. Moreover, ideology isn't ended by bombing civilians, killing innocent people through night raids, keeping oppressive regimes in power that crush dissent, backing extremist groups through funding, arming and training, then using them as proxies to topple regimes not allied with us. The leaders of the US, among others, are creating more terrorists than they are stopping, then use that as an excuse to get further involved. This should be extremely apparent by now to anyone with common sense.
    I won’t deny the role of the west in creating more terrorist than they kill, but the point still stands, without their religion, there wouldn’t be the religious terrorism and fundamentalism (which dates back to the 7th century) at all.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Sat May 09, 2015 1:13 am

    Jet wrote:France wasn't the only representative marching in solidarity on the principles of free speech. David Cameron ordered The Guardian to smash with a hammer the hard drives that stored the files of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Blasphemy is considered a crime in Ireland. You had multiple African and Arab leaders whose own countries right now have scores of journalists in prison. Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in Israel has targeted for killing numerous journalists who have reported on the Palestinian side, have kidnapped, abducted, jailed journalists.

    jec wrote:You still don’t get it. France wasn’t being contradictory with the application of its laws. I’m not denying the blasphemy laws elsewhere or whatever, just stating that France’s actions were in accordance to its legal system. There’s no hypocrisy in this. If you want to debate the legal system as such that's another story.

    They arent immune to laws which are hypocritical

    Jet wrote:Oh I understand the role censorship plays in hardening ideologies. Ive made the point previously myself. Though the spread of Wahabism and the intervention that came with and after it has been the primary cause in this case

    jec wrote:Not being able to have open discussions on the matter or allow any other ideology in the context (censoring others) is what’s spreading violence.

    No but its a contributor to the climate which leads to violence. Actual violence is spreading further violence. Everything else adds to it.

    [quote="Jet”]Your bias against religion generally and Islam specifically keeps you from a clear view of the greater significance of outside factors in these conflicts.[/quote]

    jec wrote:Right… the guy who refuses to acknowledge control groups comparison is the one with the broader view.

    Wrong. I did acknowledge the role of religion, multiple times in fact, youre just too stubborn to see it.

    Jet wrote:
    You minimize the various factors that contribute to these conflicts and attribute it primarily to religion. To the extent that you do acknowledge the role of western countries it is downplayed and portrayed as a secondary concern. Bill is right when he says we should leave the region but underestimates the enormity of its impact as well. Its not even a consideration for our government, we've been involved there for decades, and not just in that region, but all over the world. That must end, along with our alliances with oppressive regimes which together lead to the creation of more extremist forces.

    jec wrote:Because Religion stands out when comparing it to the rest of the world! When will you see this? You say it yourself, the US interferes everywhere else yet we only see religious extremism in that region with that religion. Drawing a conclusion is not minimizing the other factors, I’m simply drawing out the most noticeable and responsible for the atrocities in the region.

    The greatest responsible factor is not religion. Western leaders and their regional counterparts make use of sectarian conflicts just as much by pitting groups against each other. Arm them, train them, and fund them for short term gain. This obviously has a greater consequence when a regime is replaced, or a country is destabilized. Its 'divide and conquer' and it ensures national interests are served. That is why we are still there.

    Jet wrote:
    Yes I read the email correspondence before. Chomsky put it brilliantly:

    jec wrote:Well I can quote another part of the exchange until we run out of it… but I’ll pass.

    As can I.

    Jet wrote:
    It does since it shows intervention is the greater cause for radicalization

    1. Radicalization is not limited to only religious extremism, it can take on a number of other forms, as Ive said countless times before. Among them it can also be political like in Latin America. Or it could be a mixture of both, include other factors. You're the one trying to narrow the argument by reducing it to religion, not me.

    2. Your response says I think Western intervention always leads to religious radicalization. It doesn't sound like something Id say. Please link me to where I said that intervention always leads to such, if its true I will amend it.

    jec wrote:
    It doesn’t because:
    1. I’ve never implied radicalization was only limited to religious radicalization, if so, quote and I will amend. It doesn’t refute the claim that their violence is not religious violence, do not rely on terrorist attacks on the civilian population nor do they wish to establish a religious rule (and all it implies) in Yemen.
    2. That has pretty much been your disagreement with me. In fact, just look at the first sentence of your last reply on the last paragraph.

    It does.

    1. First you say take muslims at their word for the motivations of their actions....I then present you with a video where masses of people are screaming "Death to America, Death to Israel, Victory for Islam".....and your reply is now that this is not religious radicalization?

    jec wrote:seeing as the extremists say themselves its for Islam, well I say we better believe them...

    Stop with the hypocrisy please.

    2. Yes and? Where did I say western oppression always leads to religious violence in conflicts? Link me, if true, I will amend.

    Jet wrote:
    Only if its looked at through a lack of context and limited worldview.

    jec wrote:I hate to use the authority fallacy but you would accuse and economist and international negotiator who have taken courses on international policy and history to have a limited world view? That’s truly insulting.

    I would accuse an economist who "suffered too much at the hands of religious people" thus has a clear bias against it as looking at the situation impartially, yes.

    jet wrote:I wasn't asking about his intention. The fact is he was sensationalist, needlessly so. As is Hirsi Ali for that matter. Again, counterproductive to a cause supposedly championed.

    jec wrote:Sensationalism can be unintentional. Sensationalism is the feelings of others, one cannot speak his mind freely and not expect people to have hurt feelings.

    Its not about feelings. Its about ostracizing the very people necessary for potential reform with stupid or bigoted language.

    Jet wrote:
    So blind. Despite the fact that you are far more likely to fit the label of justifying violence I have not accussed you of such. I have condemned groups like ISIS, its incredibly easy to do so because it is such an obviously vile organization that it doesn't merit the doubt. The very fact that you question me on this says a lot about you. As for the subject of my focus Ill echo the words of Chomsky:

    jec wrote:Jet, a couple of pages ago you were fervently justifying the actions by saying they were reasonable reactions to the west’s actions. Despite the actions not hurting the west rather themselves more…

    No I wasn't. To reason motivations =/= justify. By the same token you do not believe western oppression should end until a reform somehow takes place. You fail to see how the regimes western intervention supports crush dissent and thus prevent this from beginning to take place.

    Jet wrote:
    I didnt say New Atheist discourse was the dominant discourse on MSM. I did say it defends the mainstream view however. That is to say diminish the importance of western foreign policy whenever possible and emphasize the role of Islam at all cost. Dont look for historical context or nuance. Anything to deflect from questioning the power and righteousness of the state. To say its a problem of those people, minimally critiquing the role of the west while boiling it down to one existential threat, the religion of the people we are occupying.

    jec wrote:Give me examples of MSM that emphasizes the role of Islam at all cost

    I was talking about NA rhetoric there, which emphasizes the role religion plays over all other factors. While MSM role is mainly to prevent discussion that challenges state power, NA rhetoric successfully aids it by deflecting from the bigger factors, mainly war.

    Jet wrote:
    And once again...you mistake my points. You still think my view is "its all the wests fault" so you are doomed from square one. This is why you keep being wrong, you keep misunderstanding what Ive been saying.

    jec wrote:I’ve never said you believe it’s “all the west’s fault”, I simply disagree with you on the main cause of religious extremism.

    You claim "my discourse" has gotten enough airtime, you then go on to say other writers who you claim hold "its all the wests fault" mentality have gotten enough airtime. You've consistently conflated my views with what you see as, the left.

    Jet wrote:
    The strength of extremism comes primarily from our direct interference. It is upheld by the factors ive mentioned before. Moreover, ideology isn't ended by bombing civilians, killing innocent people through night raids, keeping oppressive regimes in power that crush dissent, backing extremist groups through funding, arming and training, then using them as proxies to topple regimes not allied with us. The leaders of the US, among others, are creating more terrorists than they are stopping, then use that as an excuse to get further involved. This should be extremely apparent by now to anyone with common sense.

    jec wrote: I won’t deny the role of the west in creating more terrorist than they kill, but the point still stands, without their religion, there wouldn’t be the religious terrorism and fundamentalism (which dates back to the 7th century) at all.

    Violence would happen nonetheless. Without the sanctioning of actions commited under the name of greed (again not just western) it wouldn't be nearly as widespread.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 25

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Sun May 10, 2015 9:36 pm


    Ugh..... You still don't get it...It is not a debate of hypocrisy in the legal system. It's a debate of following the established law. If you consider France's laws on speech hypocritical then go ahead and try to do a referendum. This is precisely your problem, you're so normative (how things should be) that you completely ignore how things are...

    Jet wrote:
    Wrong. I did acknowledge the role of religion, multiple times in fact, youre just too stubborn to see it.

    Oh sure, but you still fail to understand the causal effect it has. Until then, you still fail to see the role of religion when doing a comparative analysis.

    Jet wrote:

    The greatest responsible factor is not religion. Western leaders and their regional counterparts make use of sectarian conflicts just as much by pitting groups against each other. Arm them, train them, and fund them for short term gain. This obviously has a greater consequence when a regime is replaced, or a country is destabilized. Its 'divide and conquer' and it ensures national interests are served. That is why we are still there.

    It baffles me how you selectively keep ignoring the fact that Islam has been extreme and violent since an era long before western intervention, which in turn just shows how you still don't understand how control and treatment lets you establish clear causality.


    Jet wrote:


    It does.

    1. First you say take muslims at their word for the motivations of their actions....I then present you with a video where masses of people are screaming "Death to America, Death to Israel, Victory for Islam".....and your reply is now that this is not religious radicalization?

    Except the Houthis don't say they began their shit for Islam. Besides, if you actually read what I posted, you'll realize my point is in thei Modus Operandi. They might say death to America, but they do not act like religious terrorist organizations, they do not bomb civilians just for the giggles, they do not want to establish a caliphate in Yemen, they do not want to impose Sharia law.

    So please, stop putting words in my mouth. Your Gonzo, biased, anecdotal documentary series does not refute my claim.

    Jet wrote:
    2. Yes and? Where did I say western oppression always leads to religious violence in conflicts? Link me, if true, I will amend.



    Alright...

    Jet wrote:Bill is right when he says we should leave the region but underestimates the enormity of its impact as well. Its not even a consideration for our government, we've been involved there for decades, and not just in that region, but all over the world. That must end, along with our alliances with oppressive regimes which together lead to the creation of more extremist forces.

    Jet wrote:The strength of extremism comes primarily from our direct interference.

    ^ And those are just from this page. Also found this gem a couple of pages back:

    Jec wrote:Historical persecutions mostly caused within themselves based on religious shism... Or are you also going to blame the west for the Iraq-Iran War, Kurdish Conflict, the Invasion of Kuwait, the Simko Shikak revolt, The Saudi-Yemeni war, the terrible legacy of the Ottomans or the entire history of Shia-Sunni schism?
    Jet wrote:Only for what accounts to modern history. One can certainly attribute the rise of extremism with the wests role in creating the conditions necessary for it to come to power.

    Jet wrote:
    I would accuse an economist who "suffered too much at the hands of religious people" thus has a clear bias against it as looking at the situation impartially, yes.

    My disdain for religion does not cloud my view. Everyone's a bit biased one way or another. One can dislike a subject but still be intellectually honest about it. If I did not find the comparative analysis and historical analysis so compelling I. and many others would not insist on it.

    I dislike religion, this I will not deny, but don't think of my knowledge as biased. For example, there is a negative correlation between religiosity and country development. Someone clouded would say, "Ha! see, religion is bad! Religion causes countries to be underdeveloped" while I would say correlation does not imply causation and that high religiosity could be the consequence of low development.

    jet wrote:
    Its not about feelings. Its about ostracizing the very people necessary for potential reform with stupid or bigoted language.

    It's precisely about feelings. Do you honestly believe moderate people are easy to offend? It's the fundamentalist that lash out over insults. Their language has no role in ostracizing the moderates, its the far left that likes to censor themselves that keep moderates from taking control of Islam because we are practically letting them have their way with their childishness. To quote the great Stephen Fry:





    Jet wrote:

    No I wasn't. To reason motivations =/= justify. By the same token you do not believe western oppression should end until a reform somehow takes place. You fail to see how the regimes western intervention supports crush dissent and thus prevent this from beginning to take place.

    When did I ever say I don't believe western oppression should end?

    Jet wrote:

    I was talking about NA rhetoric there, which emphasizes the role religion plays over all other factors. While MSM role is mainly to prevent discussion that challenges state power, NA rhetoric successfully aids it by deflecting from the bigger factors, mainly war.

    You assume this is the case because of one person? (Hirsi Ali). Maher, Dawkins, Harris, Neil de Grasse Tyson, Hemant Mehta and countless others (non famous ones) are against war. Deflecting the discussion? Aiding MSM? Really? You really think NA has enough foothold to change the discussion?

    You know what truly aids the fact that this is not discussed, far left liberals that lash out when some Christian refuses to bake a cake but blame the cartoonist for drawing Muhammed. Why does the media justify one act of religious idiocy but justify the other? But hey, I'm just biased...

    Jet wrote:
    You claim "my discourse" has gotten enough airtime, you then go on to say other writers who you claim hold "its all the wests fault" mentality have gotten enough airtime. You've consistently conflated my views with what you see as, the left.

    Well it has, and it aligns perfectly with the left. Every time there's a islamic attack, it's Aslan, Greenwald and a myriad of iman's on the air blaming the west and its failure to assimilate muslims... or as I like to put it, "Bow down to their whims"

    Jet wrote:
    Violence would happen nonetheless. Without the sanctioning of actions commited under the name of greed (again not just western) it wouldn't be nearly as widespread.

    Of course violence would happen nonetheless, but in total, violence would be less.

    Imagine the social utility function as a functions based on conflict, where more conflict lowers utility.

    U=a-x. Where a captures all other effects and x captures the effect of conflict. If religion did not exist, x would be lower, holding everything else stagnant, social utility would increase.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Sat May 16, 2015 10:57 pm


    jec wrote:Ugh..... You still don't get it...It is not a debate of hypocrisy in the legal system. It's a debate of following the established law. If you consider France's laws on speech hypocritical then go ahead and try to do a referendum. This is precisely your problem, you're so normative (how things should be) that you completely ignore how things are...

    Let me state it this way then: Theres no doubt they are following the laws they themselves crafted, but the selective application of the principle of free speech is the issue. The end result of which is hypocritical.

    Jet wrote:
    Wrong. I did acknowledge the role of religion, multiple times in fact, youre just too stubborn to see it.

    jec wrote:]Oh sure, but you still fail to understand the causal effect it has. Until then, you still fail to see the role of religion when doing a comparative analysis.

    You fail to see the greater role intervention plays in radicalization than religion.

    Jet wrote:The greatest responsible factor is not religion. Western leaders and their regional counterparts make use of sectarian conflicts just as much by pitting groups against each other. Arm them, train them, and fund them for short term gain. This obviously has a greater consequence when a regime is replaced, or a country is destabilized. Its 'divide and conquer' and it ensures national interests are served. That is why we are still there.

    jec wrote:It baffles me how you selectively keep ignoring the fact that Islam has been extreme and violent since an era long before western intervention, which in turn just shows how you still don't understand how control and treatment lets you establish clear causality.

    It baffles me how you keep missing the point of what im saying. Religion plays a factor, but it's not the most significant factor.


    Jet wrote:


    It does.

    1. First you say take muslims at their word for the motivations of their actions....I then present you with a video where masses of people are screaming "Death to America, Death to Israel, Victory for Islam".....and your reply is now that this is not religious radicalization?

    jec wrote:Except the Houthis don't say they began their shit for Islam.

    Hahahaha so now "Death to America, Death to Israel, Victory for Islam" is not indicative of radicalization? Youre contradicting your previous words. The point stands.

    jec wrote:So please, stop putting words in my mouth. Your Gonzo, biased, anecdotal documentary series does not refute my claim.

    Bullshit, where's your proof that piece was biased? Also the series absolutely refutes your claim. In fact those words you protest are of your own making, so im not putting anything in there that you didnt yourself already write.

    Jet wrote:
    2. Yes and? Where did I say western oppression always leads to religious violence in conflicts? Link me, if true, I will amend.

    jec wrote:

    Alright...

    Jet wrote:Bill is right when he says we should leave the region but underestimates the enormity of its impact as well. Its not even a consideration for our government, we've been involved there for decades, and not just in that region, but all over the world. That must end, along with our alliances with oppressive regimes which together lead to the creation of more extremist forces.

    Jet wrote:The strength of extremism comes primarily from our direct interference.

    jec wrote:^ And those are just from this page.

    Yes, radicalization is primarily a result of our own interference. Its true and thats been my claim the whole time. I never said exclusively or always, as you seem to be implying.

    Jec wrote: Also found this gem a couple of pages back:

    "Historical persecutions mostly caused within themselves based on religious shism... Or are you also going to blame the west for the Iraq-Iran War, Kurdish Conflict, the Invasion of Kuwait"

    Oh what a gem it was.

    Iran-Iran
    United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War, against post-revolutionary Iran, included several billion dollars' worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran. Support from the U.S. for Iraq was not a secret and was frequently discussed in open session of the Senate and House of Representatives. On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline that the "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq

    Kurds
    (1973) Richard Nixon makes a secret agreement with Shah of Iran to begin covert action against Saddam's government. The U.S. and Iran then begin funding the Kurds in their battle against the Iraqi regime for an autonomous Kurdistan. (See interview with James Akins.)

    (1973-1975) Working with Iran and Israel, the U.S. funds the Kurdish peshmerga (guerrilla army - rough translation: "those who do not fear death") and encourages them to fight Saddam's government. CIA and Israeli agents operate in Kurdistan. (See interviews with Akins, Othman, Talabani, and Abdul-Rahman)

    Kurdish officials visit Washington to meet secretly with CIA officials (Read interview with Othman, who made the visit. Also, Talabani discussing general relations with the U.S. at the time)

    (1975) Saddam Hussein makes surprise peace deal with the Shah of Iran at a meeting in Algiers. Within days, all U.S. support for the Kurds is stopped and Saddam begins to counterattack their forces. (See interviews with Akins, Abdul-Rahman, Talabani. )

    (March) Jalal Talabani, leader of the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP), breaks away from the KDP following the collapse of U.S. support for the Kurds. Talabani forms the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), and ever since, Iraq's Kurdish opposition has been riven with factionalism.

    (1975-1990) U.S. forbids American officials from having any open contact with Iraqi Kurdish groups. (See interview with Othman on being shunned by State Department.)

    At the same time, Iraq's government persecutes the Kurds. In 1988 Saddam Hussein uses chemical weapons against the Kurdish village of Halabja; thousands of men, women and children are killed.

    (1979) Legendary Kurdish leader Mustafa Barzani dies in Washington D.C. On his deathbed, he laments once having trusted the U.S. (See interview with Akins who knew Barzani well and was with him in his final days.)
    (1990) After Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, US officials begin to meet with Iraqi opposition figures for the first time in 15 years.
    (1991 March ) After Iraq's defeat in Kuwait, Shias in Southern Iraq launch a popular uprising against the Baghdad regime. Following the Shias' lead, the Kurds in the North also revolt. Within two weeks, 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces are free of government control. However, once it is clear that the U.S. will not support the rebellion, Saddam's forces crush the revolt throughout Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of Kurds flee into the mountains. In response to humanitarian pleas, U.S. troops move into Northern Iraq in "Operation Provide Comfort". No-fly zones are established over Kurdistan.


    Kuwait
    The Iraqi government justified its invasion by claiming that Kuwait was a natural part of Iraq carved off as a result of British imperialism. After signing the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913, the United Kingdom split Kuwait from the Ottoman territories into a separate sheikhdom. The Iraqi government also argued that the Kuwaiti Emir was a highly unpopular figure among the Kuwaiti populace. By overthrowing the Emir, Iraq claimed that it granted Kuwaitis greater economic and political freedom.

    Kuwait had been loosely under the authority of the Ottoman vilâyet of Basra, and although its ruling dynasty, the Al Sabah family, had concluded a protectorate agreement in 1899 that assigned responsibility for its foreign affairs to Britain, it did not make any attempt to secede from the Ottoman Empire. For this reason, its borders with the rest of Basra province were never clearly defined or mutually agreed. Furthermore, Iraq alleged that the British High Commissioner "drew lines that deliberately constricted Iraq's access to the oceans so that any future Iraqi government would be in no position to threaten Britain's domination of the Gulf".


    Lets also not forget your false claim that we had stopped intervening in Syria either, when in fact we had planned to invade it many years prior. I would have assumed an economist and international negotiator who has taken courses on international policy and history wouldn't be so foolish as to suggest the West bears no responsibility when it clearly did intervene (and continues to) in these conflicts. Thats the thing about gems from afar they may shimmer, appearing clearcut, but only upon closer inspection can one truly distinguish the value of a jewel from a fraud.

    Jet wrote:
    I would accuse an economist who "suffered too much at the hands of religious people" thus has a clear bias against it as looking at the situation impartially, yes.

    jec wrote:My disdain for religion does not cloud my view. Everyone's a bit biased one way or another. One can dislike a subject but still be intellectually honest about it. If I did not find the comparative analysis and historical analysis so compelling I. and many others would not insist on it.

    Thats a fair point nobody is 100% objective. But lets not pretend the extent of bias is always equal. On your part, certainly in this case, it is clearly affecting your viewpoint. Ultimately you believe the actions of western governments are more moral, which is why you so easily accept the propaganda being fed to you and then go on to echo it.

    jet wrote:
    Its not about feelings. Its about ostracizing the very people necessary for potential reform with stupid or bigoted language.

    jec wrote:It's precisely about feelings. Do you honestly believe moderate people are easy to offend? It's the fundamentalist that lash out over insults. Their language has no role in ostracizing the moderates, its the far left that likes to censor themselves that keep moderates from taking control of Islam because we are practically letting them have their way with their childishness.

    No it isnt. If you claim to be championing a liberal reformation but then go on to ostracize the very people necessary for it with stupid or bigoted language its very easy to see why people dont flock to your message.

    Jet wrote:

    No I wasn't. To reason motivations =/= justify. By the same token you do not believe western oppression should end until a reform somehow takes place. You fail to see how the regimes western intervention supports crush dissent and thus prevent this from beginning to take place.

    jec wrote:When did I ever say I don't believe western oppression should end?

    Finish the rest of the sentence. "Until some type of reformation takes place". You fail to recognize that the very governments we support kill and imprison the reformers you supposedly want to bring about

    jec wrote:I was talking about NA rhetoric there, which emphasizes the role religion plays over all other factors. While MSM role is mainly to prevent discussion that challenges state power, NA rhetoric successfully aids it by deflecting from the bigger factors, mainly war.

    jec wrote:You assume this is the case because of one person? (Hirsi Ali). Maher, Dawkins, Harris, Neil de Grasse Tyson, Hemant Mehta and countless others (non famous ones) are against war. Deflecting the discussion? Aiding MSM? Really? You really think NA has enough foothold to change the discussion?

    No I dont. Like Ive said before its the entire new atheist movement which dilutes the discussion from criticism of our governments actions, which are the greater cause for radicalization. That only emboldens the political right and makes it easier for them to gain power, the results of which we've already seen. Be honest the fact that the war on terror is perpetual is just accepted now, it isnt challenged in a substantial way. Sensationalist, hostile rhetoric, broad generalization and oversimplifications have been - and will continue to be used to help justify the continuation of war. War and that which supports its perpetuity is at the root of this. Religion is just one aspect of a myriad of greater factors which this movement carelessly diminishes as it seeks to portray Islam as an existential threat.

    Jet wrote:
    You claim "my discourse" has gotten enough airtime, you then go on to say other writers who you claim hold "its all the wests fault" mentality have gotten enough airtime. You've consistently conflated my views with what you see as, the left.

    jec wrote:Well it has, and it aligns perfectly with the left. Every time there's a islamic attack, it's Aslan, Greenwald and a myriad of iman's on the air blaming the west and its failure to assimilate muslims... or as I like to put it, "Bow down to their whims"

    If you still think my view is its all the wests fault then you are misinterpreting me yet still.

    Jet wrote:
    Violence would happen nonetheless. Without the sanctioning of actions commited under the name of greed (again not just western) it wouldn't be nearly as widespread.

    jec wrote:Of course violence would happen nonetheless, but in total, violence would be less.

    Actions performed for the sake of greed are far more harmful, greater in scale than religious and come at the expense of all common peoples throughout the entire world. I know despite that, you consider such acts morally superior to violence commited in the name of religion, but frankly that view is dangerous and morally reprehensible.



    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 25

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Mon May 18, 2015 10:20 am

    Jet wrote:

    Let me state it this way then: Theres no doubt they are following the laws they themselves crafted, but the selective application of the principle of free speech is the issue. The end result of which is hypocritical.

    What selective application of the principle of free speech are you talking about if the principle of free speech comes from that very law from the declaration of rights of the men and the citizen during the french revolution? Once again, you are stuck on how it should be (Or how you want it to be) rather than how it is...

    Jet wrote:
    You fail to see the greater role intervention plays in radicalization than religion.

    You still selectively ignore history and the naive belief that Islam has been radical for less than 100 years...

    Jet wrote:
    It baffles me how you keep missing the point of what im saying. Religion plays a factor, but it's not the most significant factor.

    Then what played a role in the past? Who radicalized Islam back in the 7th century? During the Caliphates of the middle age? Are you seriously going to try and find some other escape goat before acknowledging facts?


    Jet wrote:

    Hahahaha so now "Death to America, Death to Israel, Victory for Islam" is not indicative of radicalization? Youre contradicting your previous words. The point stands.

    No, my point was that if they act lke religious extremists (ie. car bombs on civilians, killings of gays and apostates, honor killings, stonings, etc) and they say it is done in the name of Islam, I say, believe them. The houthi revels while they might shout the traditional Anti American anti israel bullshit (Which also happens in other regions of the world) but do not opperate like a religious extremist group nor are their goals aligned with one.

    jec wrote:
    Bullshit, where's your proof that piece was biased? Also the series absolutely refutes your claim.

    I don't have specific proof for that piece, but I do know the dangers of generalizing a case or a series of cases to generalize something. It's called selective bias in statistics and it's something econometricians, marketing researchers, biologists, sociologists, etc have to watch out for every time they want to make statistical inference. Which explains my general disdain for gonzo journalism. Anectdotes should only be used once you have done a good job with big data and statistical inference to explain your results. Vice works backwards (On some subjects).

    Jet wrote:
    Yes, radicalization is primarily a result of our own interference. Its true and thats been my claim the whole time. I never said exclusively or always, as you seem to be implying.

    Alright, I see your claim, but you're still wrong though...

    Jet wrote:

    Oh what a gem it was.

    Iran-Iran

    That was support after the conflict had started. I'm not gonna deny the US are a bunch of assholes when protecting their interests...

    Jet wrote:Kurds

    *Implying Kurdish conflicts begins in the 20th century*

    Too bad Vice doesn't do any actual research, maybe they could improve their docs if they did.

    Jet wrote:
    Kuwait

    Funny, you site an alternative view on the conflict and you didn't even bother to look at the sources of that paragraph. Two of them don't work and one of them is a book...

    Jet wrote: I would have assumed an economist and international negotiator who has taken courses on international policy and history wouldn't be so foolish as to suggest the West bears no responsibility when it clearly did intervene (and continues to) in these conflicts. Thats the thing about gems from afar they may shimmer, appearing clearcut, but only upon closer inspection can one truly distinguish the value of a jewel from a fraud.

    Implying these conflicts in the region are new and only limited to the 20th century. Besides, I never said the west bears no responsibility, only that looking at historical heterogeneity, religion and cultural differences between themselves is clearly the most to blame.

    Jet wrote:

    Thats a fair point nobody is 100% objective. But lets not pretend the extent of bias is always equal. On your part, certainly in this case, it is clearly affecting your viewpoint. Ultimately you believe the actions of western governments are more moral, which is why you so easily accept the propaganda being fed to you and then go on to echo it.

    What propaganda? You honestly believe I agree with everything the west does? Who the hell do you take me for? To support western foreign policy considering I live in LA is ridiculous. Yes, the actions of the west are "more" moral because they make sense from a rational point of view. Their actions, while condemnable actually increase their net benefits, their utlity functions if you would have it. There's actually a winner in it. Religious extremism on the other hand do not bring benefits to the supposed community they say they fight for. Only misery, poverty and death. Just because I can rank evils doesn't mean I don't consider them evils.

    jet wrote:
    No it isnt. If you claim to be championing a liberal reformation but then go on to ostracize the very people necessary for it with stupid or bigoted language its very easy to see why people dont flock to your message.

    Then why are our numbers increasing faster than any other spiritual group in the west? Moderates are not offended easily, those are the ones we need. Most moderates chuckle or are willing to debate in the face of the "stupid" (Which is isn't) language.

    Jet wrote:

    Finish the rest of the sentence. "Until some type of reformation takes place". You fail to recognize that the very governments we support kill and imprison the reformers you supposedly want to bring about

    Alright, when did I say I don't believe western intervention shouldn't end until some type of reformation take place? My point was western intervention is not going to end because it's ridiculous to think the extremists are just gonna roll over and forget all of this happened.

    Jet wrote:

    No I dont. Like Ive said before its the entire new atheist movement which dilutes the discussion from criticism of our governments actions, which are the greater cause for radicalization. That only emboldens the political right and makes it easier for them to gain power, the results of which we've already seen. Be honest the fact that the war on terror is perpetual is just accepted now, it isnt challenged in a substantial way. Sensationalist, hostile rhetoric, broad generalization and oversimplifications have been - and will continue to be used to help justify the continuation of war. War and that which supports its perpetuity is at the root of this. Religion is just one aspect of a myriad of greater factors which this movement carelessly diminishes as it seeks to portray Islam as an existential threat.

    It's your opinion that government intervention is the greater cause for radicalization. You love to blame NA for diluting the conversation because they don't follow your ideas. You state war is the big threat and the root of everything yet you don't understand why NA would heavily criticize a religion (and Christianity as well) that through history and the present relish war and brutal expansion at all costs?

    Jet wrote:

    If you still think my view is its all the wests fault then you are misinterpreting me yet still.

    You might say that but your arguments do you now credit. Maybe if you acknowledge that Islam has been violent before western intervention I would believe you.

    Jet wrote:
    Actions performed for the sake of greed are far more harmful, greater in scale than religious and come at the expense of all common peoples throughout the entire world. I know despite that, you consider such acts morally superior to violence commited in the name of religion, but frankly that view is dangerous and morally reprehensible.

    *sighs* You imply once again that just because I can rank evils I don't consider them evils.

    Religions are built on greed. What is the finality of all religion? To expand, to gain power and influence through followers. Religions are greedy by definition and conflict makers by nature. No religion promotes tolerance and acceptance of other religions, just that they are right and others are wrong. This very principal is the potential source for many conflicts (latent conflict) and during the acts of violence, religion can easily be used to escalate matters. Religious differences between groups impedes peaceful world building and proper integration of humanity.

    A christian will always think they are more enlightened than a muslim, jew, buddhist , etc and vice versa. It's in the nature of religion to separate humanity into those who will be saved and those who are dammed. This separation of humanity is artificial, greed is human nature. I say those very evils we create and sustain are worse than those we have gained through evolution.

    Religion is so greedy and their actions so vile they can even cause brutal violence in a single home



    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Wed May 27, 2015 12:26 am

    Jet wrote:

    Let me state it this way then: Theres no doubt they are following the laws they themselves crafted, but the selective application of the principle of free speech is the issue. The end result of which is hypocritical.

    jec wrote:What selective application of the principle of free speech are you talking about if the principle of free speech comes from that very law from the declaration of rights of the men and the citizen during the french revolution? Once again, you are stuck on how it should be (Or how you want it to be) rather than how it is...

    Take for instance the law banning denial of the holocaust, while at the same time not applied to other genocides. When the principle is applied for only certain groups, it is hypocritical.

    Jet wrote:
    You fail to see the greater role intervention plays in radicalization than religion.

    jec wrote:You still selectively ignore history and the naive belief that Islam has been radical for less than 100 years...

    If anyone is guilty of that it is you. Moreover, it is naive to believe that government FP is well intentioned rather than self serving and beneficial to elites that support them with little care for the consequences that results in.

    Jet wrote:
    It baffles me how you keep missing the point of what im saying. Religion plays a factor, but it's not the most significant factor.

    jec wrote:Then what played a role in the past? Who radicalized Islam back in the 7th century? During the Caliphates of the middle age? Are you seriously going to try and find some other escape goat before acknowledging facts?

    Humans have been violent throughout history. They will always look for a reason to justify their atrocities, this is blatantly obvious and like Ive said before not exclusive to religion, much less to Islam. As societies evolve there is a decline in fundamentalism, societies do not evolve when they are prevented from doing so through the means ive previously discussed. Radicalization manifests itself as a response to real or perceived grievances. As such if you truly wanted to see its end youd target the greatest factor, which is the influence of superpowers in creating and sustaining these conditions, in all the ways that involves.

    Jet wrote:

    Hahahaha so now "Death to America, Death to Israel, Victory for Islam" is not indicative of radicalization? Youre contradicting your previous words. The point stands.

    jec wrote:No, my point was that if they act lke religious extremists (ie. car bombs on civilians, killings of gays and apostates, honor killings, stonings, etc) and they say it is done in the name of Islam, I say, believe them. The houthi revels while they might shout the traditional Anti American anti israel bullshit (Which also happens in other regions of the world) but do not opperate like a religious extremist group nor are their goals aligned with one.

    Dont bomb civilians you say?

    https://www.amnesty.org/en/articles/news/2015/05/yemen-eyewitness-accounts-indicate-huthis-attacked-civilians-and-medical-workers-in-aden/

    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0NR0QH20150506?irpc=932

    Couple that in with the chants and by your own simplistic metric that makes them religious radicals.


    jec wrote:
    Bullshit, where's your proof that piece was biased? Also the series absolutely refutes your claim.

    jec wrote:I don't have specific proof for that piece

    Thank You.

    Jet wrote:
    Yes, radicalization is primarily a result of our own interference. Its true and thats been my claim the whole time. I never said exclusively or always, as you seem to be implying.

    jec wrote:Alright, I see your claim, but you're still wrong though...

    It is you who is wrong.

    Jet wrote:

    Oh what a gem it was.

    Iran-Iran

    jec wrote:That was support after the conflict had started. I'm not gonna deny the US are a bunch of assholes when protecting their interests...

    Support=responsibility.

    Jet wrote:Kurds

    jec wrote:*Implying Kurdish conflicts begins in the 20th century*

    Too bad Vice doesn't do any actual research, maybe they could improve their docs if they did.

    That assumption on your part would be valid had I been making the point that these conflicts are solely a result of western intervention. Looks like you forgot once more that is not my claim. Im guessing you didn't even read the article.

    Jet wrote: I would have assumed an economist and international negotiator who has taken courses on international policy and history wouldn't be so foolish as to suggest the West bears no responsibility when it clearly did intervene (and continues to) in these conflicts. Thats the thing about gems from afar they may shimmer, appearing clearcut, but only upon closer inspection can one truly distinguish the value of a jewel from a fraud.

    jec wrote:Implying these conflicts in the region are new and only limited to the 20th century. Besides, I never said the west bears no responsibility, only that looking at historical heterogeneity, religion and cultural differences between themselves is clearly the most to blame.

    You were implying that they held no responsibility, which they did. I know conflicts in the region are not new. My arguments have been that humans by their nature are capable of great violence with or without religion. The most to blame are those responsible for sustaining the present conditions in the name of national/political interests(Which despite what apologists for state atrocities will argue does not make it a more moral endeavor)

    Jet wrote:

    Thats a fair point nobody is 100% objective. But lets not pretend the extent of bias is always equal. On your part, certainly in this case, it is clearly affecting your viewpoint. Ultimately you believe the actions of western governments are more moral, which is why you so easily accept the propaganda being fed to you and then go on to echo it.

    jec wrote:What propaganda? You honestly believe I agree with everything the west does? Who the hell do you take me for? To support western foreign policy considering I live in LA is ridiculous. Yes, the actions of the west are "more" moral because they make sense from a rational point of view. Their actions, while condemnable actually increase their net benefits, their utlity functions if you would have it. There's actually a winner in it. Religious extremism on the other hand do not bring benefits to the supposed community they say they fight for. Only misery, poverty and death. Just because I can rank evils doesn't mean I don't consider them evils.

    Think about what youre saying. You are defending the military industrial complex, a system which depends on continual warfare and conflicts for its own economic and political gain. The end result of which leads to a state of perpetual war, a cycle of extremism breeding furthering extremism. You dont realize you are upholding its continuation with these arguments, while claiming it is a more moral system, instead of seeing it as the purveyor of greater immorality that it clearly is. You may say you dont agree with it, but thats false, your own words betray you.

    jet wrote:
    No it isnt. If you claim to be championing a liberal reformation but then go on to ostracize the very people necessary for it with stupid or bigoted language its very easy to see why people dont flock to your message.

    jec wrote:Then why are our numbers increasing faster than any other spiritual group in the west? Moderates are not offended easily, those are the ones we need. Most moderates chuckle or are willing to debate in the face of the "stupid" (Which is isn't) language.

    The unaffiliated are rising in the west, yes. New atheism? I hope not. In any case moderates(including western ones) are the key to any regional transformation, who are ostracized by the stupid/bigoted language espoused by NAs. Not hard to see why one wont join a movement which paints them as monolithic as a means to villify them through broad generalizations.


    Jet wrote:

    Finish the rest of the sentence. "Until some type of reformation takes place". You fail to recognize that the very governments we support kill and imprison the reformers you supposedly want to bring about

    jec wrote:Alright, when did I say I don't believe western intervention shouldn't end until some type of reformation take place? My point was western intervention is not going to end because it's ridiculous to think the extremists are just gonna roll over and forget all of this happened.

    The US, like other powers, is not going to leave because it sees the middle east as vital to its interests. The only way to have any chance at curbing extremism is by leaving, stopping the support of dictators and making serious attempts to make amends. This is not something thats gonna happen because the war on terror, just like the war on drugs, is profitable for too many powerful people. To reshape the middle east into a democracy would be long term prospect anyway, not an immediate one, and it would need to be had by the people native to those countries. Not to say that the global superpowers are interested in such a thing if history is anything to go by. Trying to rationalize continued occupation yet expecting a different result from it is whats really ridiculous.

    Jet wrote:

    No I dont. Like Ive said before its the entire new atheist movement which dilutes the discussion from criticism of our governments actions, which are the greater cause for radicalization. That only emboldens the political right and makes it easier for them to gain power, the results of which we've already seen. Be honest the fact that the war on terror is perpetual is just accepted now, it isnt challenged in a substantial way. Sensationalist, hostile rhetoric, broad generalization and oversimplifications have been - and will continue to be used to help justify the continuation of war. War and that which supports its perpetuity is at the root of this. Religion is just one aspect of a myriad of greater factors which this movement carelessly diminishes as it seeks to portray Islam as an existential threat.

    jec wrote:It's your opinion that government intervention is the greater cause for radicalization. You love to blame NA for diluting the conversation because they don't follow your ideas. You state war is the big threat and the root of everything yet you don't understand why NA would heavily criticize a religion (and Christianity as well) that through history and the present relish war and brutal expansion at all costs?

    Its your opinion that religion is the greatest cause for radicalization. You love to blame liberals for not standing with warmongers because they dont follow your ideas. You state religion is the root of the issue yet you dont understand the level of collusion required on the part of world governments in creating the conditions necessary for radicalization to rise; and continuing to ferment it on a larger scale for their own purposes, through a wide variety of ways unavailable by ordinary means.
    Religion is only what one makes of it. It can be the pretext for atrocities commited in its name as I have mentioned multiple times, realize this. On the other hand, in modern times it is becoming easier and easier to see why war is waged and who benefits from its continuation. And as witnessed through this argument and many more like it, the rhetorical propaganda employed to justify it. "We are more moral, their tribe is worse than ours, we are fighting for human rights", the usual lies told to populations by leaders with hidden agendas.

    Noam Chomsky wrote:It is not difficult to elaborate. These few examples illustrate a very general principle that is observed with impressive dedication and consistency: The more we can blame some crimes on enemies, the greater the outrage; the greater our responsibility for crimes -- and hence the more we can do to end them -- the less the concern, tending to oblivion or even denial

    Jet wrote:

    If you still think my view is its all the wests fault then you are misinterpreting me yet still.

    jec wrote:You might say that but your arguments do you now credit. Maybe if you acknowledge that Islam has been violent before western intervention I would believe you.

    People have been violent long before any of this. Maybe if you acknowledged that violence is not unique to muslims youd have better judgment. Honestly, the lack of awareness on your part is astonishing.

    Jet wrote:
    Actions performed for the sake of greed are far more harmful, greater in scale than religious and come at the expense of all common peoples throughout the entire world. I know despite that, you consider such acts morally superior to violence commited in the name of religion, but frankly that view is dangerous and morally reprehensible.

    jec wrote:*sighs* You imply once again that just because I can rank evils I don't consider them evils.

    Whether you consider them evils or not isnt the point. Its obvious both forms of killing and repression are bad. Rather, you really arent a reliable source for gauging evils given your bias and idea that bad beliefs held only by certain people are worse than bad actions, specially those commited on a worldwide scale.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 25

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Sat May 30, 2015 12:58 pm

    Jet wrote:

    Take for instance the law banning denial of the holocaust, while at the same time not applied to other genocides. When the principle is applied for only certain groups, it is hypocritical.

    Which is a completely different point to the CH events...
    That example you cite is hypocritical, but what happened with the guy accused with inciting violence towards another group is not.

    Jet wrote:
    If anyone is guilty of that it is you. Moreover, it is naive to believe that government FP is well intentioned rather than self serving and beneficial to elites that support them with little care for the consequences that results in.

    Well good thing I don't believe that...LOL I'm guilty of what?

    Jet wrote:
    Humans have been violent throughout history. They will always look for a reason to justify their atrocities, this is blatantly obvious and like Ive said before not exclusive to religion, much less to Islam. As societies evolve there is a decline in fundamentalism, societies do not evolve when they are prevented from doing so through the means ive previously discussed. Radicalization manifests itself as a response to real or perceived grievances. As such if you truly wanted to see its end youd target the greatest factor, which is the influence of superpowers in creating and sustaining these conditions, in all the ways that involves.

    Yes societies evolve when fundamentalism declines... yet you still exhibit your inability to understand the past. What superpower pressured Europe (The only superpower) during the 1000 years of Fundamental Christianity? Who tormented or intervened in Spain, France, Italy during the middle ages to motivate radical, pious actions?

    Jet wrote:
    Dont bomb civilians you say?

    https://www.amnesty.org/en/articles/news/2015/05/yemen-eyewitness-accounts-indicate-huthis-attacked-civilians-and-medical-workers-in-aden/

    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0NR0QH20150506?irpc=932

    Couple that in with the chants and by your own simplistic metric that makes them religious radicals.

    Ahhhh... the one outlier. When this behavior becomes systematic then I'll concede the point.

    jec wrote:
    Bullshit, where's your proof that piece was biased? Also the series absolutely refutes your claim.

    jec wrote:I don't have specific proof for that piece

    Thank You.[/quote]

    Your intellectual dishonesty is disheartening you blatantly ignore the rest of my point. Anecdotal journalism is not a good way to get a broad perspective on any matter.
    For example in Colombia, during the years of intense paramilitary presence they would make journalists (through extortion) 'report' on the victims of guerrilla attacks. These reports would usually paint the guerrilla as vicious assholes and the military as weak and inefficient. They would however paint the paramilitary as noble vigilantes willing to do what the army could not. Thus we have a complete generation that paints these groups as heroes (See Alvaro Uribe Velez) despite the fact that paramilitaries are just (if not worse) than the Guerrilla. All thanks to gonzo, anectdotal journalism.

    Or imagine Fox News finding that one waitress who manages to raise her three children on the minimum wage... What effect would that have on the mind of their viewers?


    jec wrote:That was support after the conflict had started. I'm not gonna deny the US are a bunch of assholes when protecting their interests...

    Jet wrote:Support=responsibility.

    Debatable. Still doesn't refute the fact that they were not the catalyst that began the conflict, which was your point.


    Jet wrote:

    That assumption on your part would be valid had I been making the point that these conflicts are solely a result of western intervention. Looks like you forgot once more that is not my claim. Im guessing you didn't even read the article.

    My quote: Historical persecutions mostly caused within themselves based on religious shism... Or are you also going to blame the west for the Iraq-Iran War, Kurdish Conflict, the Invasion of Kuwait, the Simko Shikak revolt, The Saudi-Yemeni war, the terrible legacy of the Ottomans or the entire history of Shia-Sunni schism?

    Your quote: Only for what accounts to modern history. One can certainly attribute the rise of extremism with the wests role in creating the conditions necessary for it to come to power.

    It's ridiculous to assume the self caused historical tensions before "modern history" played a smaller role than western intervention. They didn't "make up" for a time and began clashing again. There has been animosity for centuries.

    Jet wrote:
    You were implying that they held no responsibility,

    Where and when?

    Jet wrote:
    Think about what youre saying. You are defending the military industrial complex, a system which depends on continual warfare and conflicts for its own economic and political gain. The end result of which leads to a state of perpetual war, a cycle of extremism breeding furthering extremism. You dont realize you are upholding its continuation with these arguments, while claiming it is a more moral system, instead of seeing it as the purveyor of greater immorality that it clearly is. You may say you dont agree with it, but thats false, your own words betray you.

    Defending it? I'm seeing the rationality in it not defending the military industrial complex.Your black and white view on morality and ethics impedes you from understanding simple agent rationality. You know what upholds continuation of violence and war? Voting for the same bastards that have been bought off by the MIC. How you link my rational with upholding the continuation of these arguments is astonishingly frightening.

    jet wrote:
    The unaffiliated are rising in the west, yes. New atheism? I hope not. In any case moderates(including western ones) are the key to any regional transformation, who are ostracized by the stupid/bigoted language espoused by NAs

    Except moderates are not ostracized by our language which isn't bigoted nor stupid. And yes, you could say "New Atheism" is on the rise, despite the whole concept of dividing atheism like some sort of religion is ridiculous. Society is just used to atheists who keep to themselves, just now that we are being vocal with our beliefs and obstaculizing religious bigotry and intervention in state laws that the apologetic, hurt media decides to put a label.

    Strongly criticizing a set of ideas is not bigotry. Discriminating against a group of people just because your book tells you to, that is bigotry. I still don't understand how you blame us for ostracizing moderates considering our vocalness is fairly recent. What ostracized moderates in the past?


    Jet wrote:
    The US, like other powers, is not going to leave because it sees the middle east as vital to its interests. The only way to have any chance at curbing extremism is by leaving

    Since we both accept that the US is not leaving any time soon, can't we agree that the only way to go is to simply curb violent ideals of Islam and other faiths? At least if the violence stops, intervention can be transformed to that of mutual gain rather than a zero sum game.

    Jet wrote:
    Its your opinion that religion is the greatest cause for radicalization. You love to blame liberals for not standing with warmongers because they dont follow your ideas.

    Except I never stated liberals should stand on the side of war. WTF, your twisting my points so far it's getting ridiculous.

    Jet wrote:You state religion is the root of the issue yet you dont understand the level of collusion required on the part of world governments in creating the conditions necessary for radicalization to rise; and continuing to ferment it on a larger scale for their own purposes, through a wide variety of ways unavailable by ordinary means.

    And you still have the naive belief that as long as we have something that can inspire violence towards the very people we are supposed to love (for example, parents who react violently to gay children, kids that want to marry a person from another religion/village, etc), we will not be able to translate that into further violence.

    In other words, religion inspires hatred, violence and segregation at a micro level yet you believe this will somehow not make its way to the macro level. Once again I must say, greed is evolutionary, religion is artificial child of fear and ignorance. We cannot fight against our genes (not yet), but we can't fight bad ideas.


    Jet wrote:People have been violent long before any of this. Maybe if you acknowledged that violence is not unique to muslims youd have better judgment. Honestly, the lack of awareness on your part is astonishing.

    Except I have never, ever, ignored the violence outside of Muslim societies. I'm simply not blind to the noticeable correlation between the violence incited by the Quran and the form of violence itself (It's impossible to think this is not endogenous), or to the similarities between the "moderates" and the extremists and the lack of will of the moderates to take out their own trash. If you would cast aside foolish and sentimental notions of moral equivalence and Utopian thinking you'd too would have better judgement.

    Jet wrote:Whether you consider them evils or not isnt the point. Its obvious both forms of killing and repression are bad. Rather, you really arent a reliable source for gauging evils given your bias and idea that bad beliefs held only by certain people are worse than bad actions, specially those commited on a worldwide scale.


    Except my gauging of evil follows an established rationale sociologists, anthropologists and other social scientists have used for decades. Rather you aren't the reliable source considering your faux ideals on moral equivalence.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Sat Jun 06, 2015 9:43 pm

    Jet wrote:

    Take for instance the law banning denial of the holocaust, while at the same time not applied to other genocides. When the principle is applied for only certain groups, it is hypocritical.

    jec wrote:Which is a completely different point to the CH events...
    That example you cite is hypocritical, but what happened with the guy accused with inciting violence towards another group is not.

    No they are related. The charlie hebdo marches were held in the defense of free speech, which as the genocide law proves, France is not immune to hypocrisy from. Just like the other representatives for governments who also marched on this principle exposed it for the hypocrisy it was, this unequal protection applies as such as well. These two things are related because the former is a principle that should be upheld, the latter betrays it.

    Jet wrote:
    If anyone is guilty of that it is you. Moreover, it is naive to believe that government FP is well intentioned rather than self serving and beneficial to elites that support them with little care for the consequences that results in.

    jec wrote:Well good thing I don't believe that...LOL I'm guilty of what?

    Ignorance, Sam Harris does.

    Jet wrote:
    Humans have been violent throughout history. They will always look for a reason to justify their atrocities, this is blatantly obvious and like Ive said before not exclusive to religion, much less to Islam. As societies evolve there is a decline in fundamentalism, societies do not evolve when they are prevented from doing so through the means ive previously discussed. Radicalization manifests itself as a response to real or perceived grievances. As such if you truly wanted to see its end youd target the greatest factor, which is the influence of superpowers in creating and sustaining these conditions, in all the ways that involves.

    jec wrote:Yes societies evolve when fundamentalism declines... yet you still exhibit your inability to understand the past. What superpower pressured Europe (The only superpower) during the 1000 years of Fundamental Christianity? Who tormented or intervened in Spain, France, Italy during the middle ages to motivate radical, pious actions?

    My point is people commit violent actions, with religion as a justification. It would happen regardless, under another pretext. Just as the last invasion by the US, which was responsible for over a million deaths, was commited by Bush with the justification provided by his christian god, that doesnt mean that his version of religion is the same or representative of all Christianity. Nor that that was the main reason for the iraq war. Its ridiculous to conflate the beliefs of billions with the actions of the few.

    Jet wrote:
    Dont bomb civilians you say?

    https://www.amnesty.org/en/articles/news/2015/05/yemen-eyewitness-accounts-indicate-huthis-attacked-civilians-and-medical-workers-in-aden/

    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0NR0QH20150506?irpc=932

    Couple that in with the chants and by your own simplistic metric that makes them religious radicals.

    jec wrote:Ahhhh... the one outlier. When this behavior becomes systematic then I'll concede the point.

    Ahhhhh yes, the one outlier lol....

    Spoiler:
    Youve gotta be kidding me here wrote:
    Scores of casualties in Sana’a have been caused by anti-aircraft munitions shot by the Huthi armed group which detonated after landing in populated areas killing and maiming civilians, said Amnesty International.

    During a week-long trip to the Yemeni capital, the organization spoke to medical staff at nine hospitals and residents who said that anti-aircraft weapons were the leading cause of casualties in the capital. Saudi Arabian-led coalition airstrikes against weapons depots in residential areas have triggered further explosions, also killing and injuring other civilians.

    “Sana’a’s residents are caught in a deadly crossfire between the Saudi Arabian-led coalition airstrikes and anti-aircraft fire from the Huthi armed group. Both sides have failed to take the necessary precautions to protect civilian lives in violation of the laws of war. Instead they have carried out attacks that have had devastating consequences for the civilian population,” said Lama Fakih, Senior Crisis Advisor at Amnesty International.

    “For the civilians affected, it doesn’t matter which side is responsible. They pay the same price.”

    Anti-aircraft fire

    A doctor at al-Thawra hospital, one of the largest public hospitals in Sana’a, told Amnesty International that the vast majority - around 90% - of war wounded patients admitted to the hospital had been injured by anti-aircraft fire. He said that before the five-day ceasefire last week around 17-23 patients with such injuries were admitted to the hospital daily. A second doctor working at the hospital also confirmed that the majority of the 1,024 wounded patients treated there during the first month of the conflict, had also been injured by anti-aircraft fire.

    This was backed up by staff at the German-Saudi hospital and al-Mu’yyad Modern Hospital, where a doctor told Amnesty International that the majority of the wounded treated there were women and children suffering from fragmentation injuries caused by anti-aircraft fire.

    "The sheer number of injuries caused by anti-aircraft fire in Sana’a points to a disturbing pattern of attacks in which the obligation under international law to protect civilians during a conflict is being flouted,” said Lama Fakih.

    Amnesty International also met the parents of a child killed and four civilians who were injured by anti-aircraft fire, including a nine year old boy who was left with a broken leg and fragmentation wounds in his stomach, groin and foot.

    Fatmeh, a mother of two, was injured along with her one-and-a-half-year-old-baby, when an anti-aircraft projectile struck their home in Sana’a on 30 March. She was left with several fragmentation injuries to her head, hand and body.

    The parents of Karim Ali al-Sagheer Farhan, 13, described to Amnesty International how their son was killed by an anti-aircraft projectile on 27 April while he was leaving his home for the mosque for the noon prayer.

    “I heard him scream Allahu Akbar and he was saying the shahada. I pulled my abaya on and then saw the neighbours taking him to the hospital…I knew it was anti-aircraft weaponry from the noise. There was no shelling that day,” Karim’s mother said.

    Civilians injured or killed by anti-aircraft fire
    30 March, Sa’wan neighbourhood, Sana’a

    Amnesty International spoke with Fatmeh, 24, a mother of two who was injured along with her one and a half year old child on 30 March by an anti-aircraft projectile that hit their home in Sa’wan, Sana’a. At around 9pm a projectile struck their home injuring both of them. She had fragmentation injuries in her right hand, right armpit, and head. Her son suffered from fragmentation injuries to the head and to his hand. Her son had two operations to treat his injuries, her family could not afford to cover the costs of surgery to remove the fragments lodged in her head. She told Amnesty International that she was suffering from debilitating headaches, at times causing her to lose her sight, as a result. Amnesty International visited their home and observed the damage caused by the projectile. The physical evidence was consistent with an anti-aircraft strike.

    Fatmeh’s husband also told Amnesty International that in the days he spent with his son while he was recovering in the al-Thawra hospital more than 10 people came into the emergency room every day who were suffering from anti-aircraft projectile injuries.
    27 April, Shumaylah neighbourhood, Sana’a

    Amnesty International also spoke with the parents of Karim Ali al-Sagheer Farhan, 13, who was killed by an anti-aircraft projectile on 27 April. Karim’s mother, who was home at the time of the strike, said that at 12pm she heard an anti-aircraft projectile strike in front of the house and then heard her son cry out:

    “I heard him scream Allahu Akbar and he was saying the shahada. I pulled my abaya on and then saw the neighbours taking him to the hospital…I knew it was anti-aircraft weaponry from the noise. There was no shelling that day,” she said.

    Karim’s mother and father went to the Yemen Jordan hospital where they were told by doctors and neighbours that their son had a shrapnel injury to the stomach and would need to undergo an operation. Karim’s father told Amnesty International that he was certain the injury was caused by an anti-aircraft projectile. Describing what happened, he said:

    “[Karim] was at the gate of the house going to the mosque for the noon prayer. The anti-aircraft projectile failed to detonate in the sky and hit the ground and his stomach was hit with shrapnel…he went into surgery, but didn’t survive. From the impact of the strike and what people said who were at the site after he was injured we knew it was an anti-aircraft weapon. The whole area heard the explosion. There were no airstrikes here... A second shell hit the roof on Monday but it didn’t detonate.”

    Karim’s father showed Amnesty International the projectile that hit the roof. He said the anti-aircraft fire was coming from Jabal al-Nahdayn, a Huthi armed group stronghold. He also provided Amnesty International with a copy of Karim’s medical records which stated he was injured by anti-aircraft fire.
    5 May, Beit Baws neighbourhood, Sana’a

    On 5 May at around 11AM, on his walk home from work, Sameer, 50, was injured by an anti-aircraft projectile on 50 Meter Road at a qat market in the Beit Baws area, his relative told Amnesty International. Sameer, who was badly injured in the attack, was still recovering in the intensive care unit at the al-Thawra hospital nearly two weeks after the incident. His relative, who visited him in the Essra’ Hospital where he was taken directly after the attack said that several other men were injured in the same incident and that he saw them at the hospital. He told Amnesty International that that day there were no airstrikes in the area, but that there was anti-aircraft fire.
    6 May, Mount Nuqum neighbourhood, Sana’a

    Amnesty International visited, Salah, 9, in the al-Thawra hospital where he was recovering from injuries sustained from an anti-aircraft projectile on 6 May. His left leg was broken and he had fragmentation injuries to his stomach, groin, and right foot. Salah’s uncle, who was with him in the hospital, told Amnesty International that Salah was injured while in Mount Nuqum, where he lives, on 6 May. He said that at the time Salah was in the street with his siblings and cousins.

    “We were playing [in the street]” Salah said. “It was 5PM, prayer time. The plane was there and they tried to hit it with the Raja [anti-aircraft weaponry].”

    Salah’s uncle told Amnesty International that anti-aircraft fire was a regular occurrence in their neighbourhood. “They are always striking [this area],” he said. “We’ve started to know from the remnants when it is a Raja [anti-aircraft weaponry]…two weeks before another boy and an older man were also injured by a Raja.” He was optimistic that Salah would be walking again in one month
    5 or 6 May, Damar al-Ghar neighbourhood, Sana’a

    Amnesty International spoke to Amal, a woman from the Damar al-Ghar neighbourhood who was recovering from injuries at the al-Thawra hospital from an anti-aircraft projectile that hit the neighbourhood 10 or 11 days before. Amal said that she was getting kids from the family together to leave the area when the projectile struck, injuring her near a school in her neighbourhood. She said that they heard the plane overhead but she did not see it, and that no airstrikes struck the neighbourhood that day.
    Mount Nuqum, airstrike on weapons depot on 11 May 2015

    Ahmad, a resident of Mount Nuqum present during the airstrike early in the evening on 11 May 2015, told Amnesty International that he heard four large explosions following aerial attacks. The airstrikes hit a weapons cache in the mountain which then set off a series of secondary explosions and projectiles. Ahmad said that the secondary projectiles continued to go off until 7am the next day. He said that anti-aircraft weapons that had been stored in the mountain were “dropping like rain” on the neighbourhood. Ahmad estimated that the weapons cache was about 200-250 meters away from the homes in the congested residential area.

    https://www.amnesty.org/en/articles/news/2015/05/yemen-scores-of-civilians-killed-and-injured-by-anti-aircraft-fire-and-airstrikes-on-weapons-depots/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=*Mideast%20Brief&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign


    jec wrote:
    Bullshit, where's your proof that piece was biased? Also the series absolutely refutes your claim.

    jec wrote:I don't have specific proof for that piece

    jet wrote:Thank You.

    jec wrote:you blatantly ignore the rest of my point.

    Because its nonsense. Im not basing my assertions on only that piece.


    jec wrote:That was support after the conflict had started. I'm not gonna deny the US are a bunch of assholes when protecting their interests...

    Jet wrote:Support=responsibility.

    jec wrote:Debatable. Still doesn't refute the fact that they were not the catalyst that began the conflict, which was your point.

    That wasnt my point no. But there is evidence you can find of the US being involved in the beginning stages in some of these conflicts. In any case, the existence of responsibility is not debatable. Those who provided the actors with the weaponry they used to kill and weaken each other share responsibility for supplying them with aid.

    Jet wrote:

    That assumption on your part would be valid had I been making the point that these conflicts are solely a result of western intervention. Looks like you forgot once more that is not my claim. Im guessing you didn't even read the article.

    jec wrote:My quote: Historical persecutions mostly caused within themselves based on religious shism... Or are you also going to blame the west for the Iraq-Iran War, Kurdish Conflict, the Invasion of Kuwait, the Simko Shikak revolt, The Saudi-Yemeni war, the terrible legacy of the Ottomans or the entire history of Shia-Sunni schism?"

    Your quote: Only for what accounts to modern history. One can certainly attribute the rise of extremism with the wests role in creating the conditions necessary for it to come to power.

    jec wrote:It's ridiculous to assume the self caused historical tensions before "modern history" played a smaller role than western intervention. They didn't "make up" for a time and began clashing again. There has been animosity for centuries.

    No it isnt. Terrorism did not exist on a global scale as it does now. Nor was my claim that they reconciled or that ethnic/religious tensions didnt exist before hand. No idea where youre pulling that from. Rather, theyve been intensified and sustained through intervention for reasons pertaining to regional dominance.

    Jet wrote:
    You were implying that they held no responsibility,

    jec wrote:Where and when?

    In your quote
    jec wrote:Historical persecutions mostly caused within themselves based on religious shism... Or are you also going to blame the west for the Iraq-Iran War, Kurdish Conflict, the Invasion of Kuwait, the Simko Shikak revolt, The Saudi-Yemeni war, the terrible legacy of the Ottomans or the entire history of Shia-Sunni schism?

    Of course the west shares blame in those conflicts. Western governments played an active role in them.


    Jet wrote:
    Think about what youre saying. You are defending the military industrial complex, a system which depends on continual warfare and conflicts for its own economic and political gain. The end result of which leads to a state of perpetual war, a cycle of extremism breeding furthering extremism. You dont realize you are upholding its continuation with these arguments, while claiming it is a more moral system, instead of seeing it as the purveyor of greater immorality that it clearly is. You may say you dont agree with it, but thats false, your own words betray you.

    jec wrote:Defending it? I'm seeing the rationality in it not defending the military industrial complex.Your black and white view on morality and ethics impedes you from understanding simple agent rationality. You know what upholds continuation of violence and war? Voting for the same bastards that have been bought off by the MIC. How you link my rational with upholding the continuation of these arguments is astonishingly frightening.

    You are claiming that the killing done by Western governments is somehow more moral than those done by religious extremists. This despite the fact that you had previously conceded the actions of the west ultimately create more terrorists than they stop. Your argument in this defense of the Military industrial complex is that their violence is better because weapon manufacturers profit from it, which is blatantly immoral, if refreshingly honest at least. As long as you hold this indoctrinated view that our violence is better youll remain blind to how this argument is used to excuse our actions and focus only on those of others.

    Youre the one who believes there are no moral greys. You are the absolutist here with the black and white view of the world, as I have said before and as is obvious now.

    jet wrote:
    The unaffiliated are rising in the west, yes. New atheism? I hope not. In any case moderates(including western ones) are the key to any regional transformation, who are ostracized by the stupid/bigoted language espoused by NAs

    jec wrote:Except moderates are not ostracized by our language which isn't bigoted nor stupid.


    So everyone who agrees with you is a moderate and those who dont are extremists...what an absolute joke.
    Yes it is bigoted to claim muslims must be fought and brought under the heel of the west. It is stupid to say things like this and present yourself as some sort of moderate who holds goals of reformation. To say nothing of the expectation of holding traction with the people who would lead this transformation, in the places where this would begin to take place.

    Jet wrote:
    The US, like other powers, is not going to leave because it sees the middle east as vital to its interests. The only way to have any chance at curbing extremism is by leaving

    jec wrote:Since we both accept that the US is not leaving any time soon, can't we agree that the only way to go is to simply curb violent ideals of Islam and other faiths? At least if the violence stops, intervention can be transformed to that of mutual gain rather than a zero sum game.

    There already are people protesting and seeking reforms, you just arent aware of them. I dont accept the premise that religion is the leading cause for radicalization rather than the actions that create the environment for that to fester and breed. What we have the more power to affect are the actions of our own governments which are the greater purveyor of violence. Again...... actions that keep dictators in power for their own gain, which in turn hinder social progress in the places where reforms would take place. The goal of elites is not democracy, if it were it wouldnt frequently crush such efforts.

    Jet wrote:
    Its your opinion that religion is the greatest cause for radicalization. You love to blame liberals for not standing with warmongers because they dont follow your ideas.

    jec wrote:Except I never stated liberals should stand on the side of war. WTF, your twisting my points so far it's getting ridiculous.

    I notice this denial is becoming a trend, first by bill maher now you. Recently, Bill had Hirsi Ali on his show giving her a platform to present herself as a reformer and convince his audience that people like them, are "true liberals" and that we should stand with them. Ignoring the fact that she has openly called for war against muslims and made no distinction between moderates or extremists. Likewise you are glad to see people like her coming from muslim countries. You dont get to stand on a parapet and preach to others of morality with any legitimacy when the people you support are warmongers themselves. Sure you claim you wouldnt advocate war...yet you support those who do. Just like Maher. This lack of foresight is frightening indeed, you dont even realize what you're doing.

    Jet wrote:You state religion is the root of the issue yet you dont understand the level of collusion required on the part of world governments in creating the conditions necessary for radicalization to rise; and continuing to ferment it on a larger scale for their own purposes, through a wide variety of ways unavailable by ordinary means.

    jec wrote:And you still have the naive belief that as long as we have something that can inspire violence towards the very people we are supposed to love (for example, parents who react violently to gay children, kids that want to marry a person from another religion/village, etc), we will not be able to translate that into further violence.

    No I don't. Its just not the existential threat that you, neocons, and other new atheists like you, present it as. The greater purveyor of violence, like I said before are the superpowers and their allies who commit it to topple governments they dont like, with little care of consequence, outside of their own national interests. Not only do they commit their own violence internationally, but they enable the violence of others, selling them weapons, giving them training, funding and logistically aid which they then use to cause further repression. This ultimately leads to the disillusionment with democracy and the creation of extremist groups, who these global powers go on to use for their own purposes. Boiling this down to muslims being muslims is incredibly reductionist and ignorant of the impact and intentions of geopolitics.

    Jet wrote:People have been violent long before any of this. Maybe if you acknowledged that violence is not unique to muslims youd have better judgment. Honestly, the lack of awareness on your part is astonishing.

    jec wrote:Except I have never, ever, ignored the violence outside of Muslim societies.

    Yet you remain blind to the link between international governments and the violence inflicted upon muslims by other muslims.

    Jet wrote:Whether you consider them evils or not isnt the point. Its obvious both forms of killing and repression are bad. Rather, you really arent a reliable source for gauging evils given your bias and idea that bad beliefs held only by certain people are worse than bad actions, specially those commited on a worldwide scale.


    jec wrote:Except my gauging of evil follows an established rationale sociologists, anthropologists and other social scientists have used for decades. Rather you aren't the reliable source considering your faux ideals on moral equivalence.

    Jec.....you believe western governments are more moral because they(MIC) create jobs out of killing people. Get the fuck out of here with that.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Eri
    Genin Ninja: Rookie
    Genin Ninja: Rookie

    Posts : 5237
    Join date : 2012-01-24
    Location : Lend me the power to let it burn like Usher

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Eri on Tue Jun 09, 2015 5:05 pm



    extended trailer. i think its a compilation of all the characters.

    soo good so far. 12 eps on netflix now i think im on 7 or 8.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Tue Jun 09, 2015 9:15 pm

    Did u finish hoc


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Eri
    Genin Ninja: Rookie
    Genin Ninja: Rookie

    Posts : 5237
    Join date : 2012-01-24
    Location : Lend me the power to let it burn like Usher

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Eri on Wed Jun 10, 2015 12:08 am

    yes i did.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Sun Jun 14, 2015 4:02 pm

    "Tonight....it ends. It will catch up with the books.


    _______________________________

    Sponsored content

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:58 am