Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 6
Why the Islamic Terrorists Hate the USA?; "who we are" or "our foreign policy?
Topic Started: Oct 13 2006, 02:41 AM (2,050 Views)
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
I was originally going to say "because of who we are", but I decided not to. Either terrorist grunts believe the propaganda about who we are and want to destroy our civilization, or the higher-ups create the propaganda about who we are to stir things up. Either way, I think all this started because of our foreign policy. Like IT said, there's plenty of other crazy groups out there who are just looking to cause trouble, but they haven't started a massive campaign to mess with us yet because we haven't given them a reason to.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
JBryan
Oct 13 2006, 12:09 PM

Did you get a visit by a particularly pushy Amway salesman today?

You are being redundant. :lol:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Ax: It cannot be "who we are" as Americans and explain why Europe as well has suffered the atrocities of these bastards.

You neglected to provide the option that they hate us (the West) because they are power seeking ideologues.

As someone once said "There is no one more dangerous than an ideologue with a machine gun".
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Oct 13 2006, 03:19 PM
Ax: It cannot be "who we are" as Americans and explain why Europe as well has suffered the atrocities of these bastards.

I read "who we are" in terms our American cultural imperative. I doubt they know or care who we are personally or as a nation. I think their dislike is for the secular society of permissiveness and frivolity.

These are serious people.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1hp
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
I once read that the best thing that happened to Rush Limbagh was Bill Clinton becoming president.

My take on this is that it has nothing to do with hate - it has to do with power. Osama bin Laden, clerics such as Al Sadr, they are after power. Their perceived hate is their way of rallying others to their cause. Osama bin Laden needs America to stay the way it is, else he becomes a person without a cause. If it isn't about power, why are Iraqis killing Iraqis? When the Shah of Iran was overthrown, the executives at the larger companies in Iran were removed and replaced with religious types. Why. Because it was about power - they had no interest in running a company (and the companies went down hill fast), they just wanted the title.

If it was about hate, why would Hezbollah suddenly stop launching missiles into Israel and stand down (something that it took a long time for the IRA to agree to do). Probably so Nasrallah could come out of his hole and get some publicity to further his station in life. If it was about hate, Nasrallah would have been with the troops leading the battle.

It's animal farm all over again. Islam says all Muslims are equal - but some are more equal than others.

What's missing is a fifth option - "They hate America because that's what the clerics tell them to do."
There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those that understand binary and................
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
TomK
Oct 13 2006, 12:27 PM
ivorythumper
Oct 13 2006, 03:19 PM
Ax:  It cannot be "who we are" as Americans and explain why Europe as well has suffered the atrocities of these bastards. 

I read "who we are" in terms our American cultural imperative. I doubt they know or care who we are personally or as a nation. I think their dislike is for the secular society of permissiveness and frivolity.

These are serious people.

Kind of hard to take you seriously about this with that avatar.

Posted Image

:lol:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
1hp
Oct 13 2006, 12:57 PM
I once read that the best thing that happened to Rush Limbagh was Bill Clinton becoming president.

My take on this is that it has nothing to do with hate - it has to do with power. Osama bin Laden, clerics such as Al Sadr, they are after power. Their perceived hate is their way of rallying others to their cause. Osama bin Laden needs America to stay the way it is, else he becomes a person without a cause. If it isn't about power, why are Iraqis killing Iraqis? When the Shah of Iran was overthrown, the executives at the larger companies in Iran were removed and replaced with religious types. Why. Because it was about power - they had no interest in running a company (and the companies went down hill fast), they just wanted the title.

If it was about hate, why would Hezbollah suddenly stop launching missiles into Israel and stand down (something that it took a long time for the IRA to agree to do). Probably so Nasrallah could come out of his hole and get some publicity to further his station in life. If it was about hate, Nasrallah would have been with the troops leading the battle.

It's animal farm all over again. Islam says all Muslims are equal - but some are more equal than others.

What's missing is a fifth option - "They hate America because that's what the clerics tell them to do."

I suspect we are saying the same thing, Iain.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ben
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
ivorythumper
Oct 13 2006, 01:54 PM
Ben
Oct 13 2006, 08:48 AM

Who we are only dictates our foreign policy to a certain extent. This is pretty obvious; otherwise Bush and Clinton would have very similar foreign policies, at least Bush before 9/11, as you could make the argument that who we are changed that day, and I would agree.


Maybe you can tell us all why Clinton went into the Balkans.
Quote:
 


"Standing up for freedom and defending it abroad" - this is not what we are doing at all. We are trying to spread it, and that's where they get mad about it, IMO.

It seems to be a distinction without a difference.

1) If you see a regime oppressing their populace in violation of the cease fire agreement, are you "defending freedom" or "trying to spread it"?

2) If a group of people is opposed to the spread of freedom, and they get angry because we are trying to [defend or spread -- use your own word] freedom, does that not render that group illegitimate as a true political entity? The same thing could be said for organized crime who are opposed to the spread of justice that would reduce their income from loan sharking and protection payoffs.

I don't remember when Clinton went into the Balkans. I am old enough to but wasn't interested in politics at the time. I'm not going to talk about what I don't know - revolutionary words around here, I know.

Before answering the questions, I don't see how you don't see a difference between defending and spreading. It seems pretty clear to me. Spreading it to other places is, to use a sports analogy, playing offense, not defense. Defense would be protecting your civil liberties at home. Interestingly enough, Bush has spent hundreds of billions on offense, and sacrificed aspects of the defense for offense. I wonder what his sports philosophy is.

1) Trying to spread it. There wasn't freedom in the first place, was there?

2) No, and your example does not work. By the definition of organized crime what they are doing is already illegal. Trying to forcibly impress our political systems on other nations is not illegal and whether it is right or wrong is up for debate. I don't see what makes the political group illegitimate.
- Ben

"Playing 'bop' is like playing Scrabble with all the vowels missing." - Duke Ellington

bennieloohoo@gmail.com
Or you can just PM me. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ben
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
After reading my post again I realized I'm leaving it open for you to say I was talking about what I didn't know when I said Clinton and pre-9/11 Bush's foreign policies were different. I do know Clinton actively pursued a lasting peace in the middle east between Israel and Pakistan not only in words but also in actions. Condi says we are but she might as well promise to fix the situation in North Korea because it's truly a joke. Bush's middle east policies have caused the current bad situation in the middle east.
- Ben

"Playing 'bop' is like playing Scrabble with all the vowels missing." - Duke Ellington

bennieloohoo@gmail.com
Or you can just PM me. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1hp
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp

Kind of a half full, half empty kind of thing. If you are addressing Iraq - I don't see it as pushing our political system on the Iraqis. They wrote their own constitution, and had free elections. I believe the only thing GW is pushing is for them to have a stable and effective government that is freely elected by the people. Something, I think, that clerics like Al Sadr are against because it removes power from their hands.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those that understand binary and................
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klotz
Middle Aged Carp
Ben
Oct 14 2006, 01:19 AM
After reading my post again I realized I'm leaving it open for you to say I was talking about what I didn't know

I do know Clinton actively pursued a lasting peace in the middle east between [size=7]Israel and Pakistan[/size] not only in words but also in actions.

:huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Oct 13 2006, 04:13 PM
Kind of hard to take you seriously about this with that avatar.

Posted Image

:lol:

I put it up after bach said all I was interested in was Israelis and sluts. The girl in the picture is a little of each. :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Two polls for the price of one.
:o

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Ben
Oct 13 2006, 04:15 PM
ivorythumper
Oct 13 2006, 01:54 PM
Ben
Oct 13 2006, 08:48 AM

Who we are only dictates our foreign policy to a certain extent. This is pretty obvious; otherwise Bush and Clinton would have very similar foreign policies, at least Bush before 9/11, as you could make the argument that who we are changed that day, and I would agree.


Maybe you can tell us all why Clinton went into the Balkans.
Quote:
 


"Standing up for freedom and defending it abroad" - this is not what we are doing at all. We are trying to spread it, and that's where they get mad about it, IMO.

It seems to be a distinction without a difference.

1) If you see a regime oppressing their populace in violation of the cease fire agreement, are you "defending freedom" or "trying to spread it"?

2) If a group of people is opposed to the spread of freedom, and they get angry because we are trying to [defend or spread -- use your own word] freedom, does that not render that group illegitimate as a true political entity? The same thing could be said for organized crime who are opposed to the spread of justice that would reduce their income from loan sharking and protection payoffs.

I don't remember when Clinton went into the Balkans. I am old enough to but wasn't interested in politics at the time. I'm not going to talk about what I don't know - revolutionary words around here, I know.

Before answering the questions, I don't see how you don't see a difference between defending and spreading. It seems pretty clear to me. Spreading it to other places is, to use a sports analogy, playing offense, not defense. Defense would be protecting your civil liberties at home. Interestingly enough, Bush has spent hundreds of billions on offense, and sacrificed aspects of the defense for offense. I wonder what his sports philosophy is.

1) Trying to spread it. There wasn't freedom in the first place, was there?

2) No, and your example does not work. By the definition of organized crime what they are doing is already illegal. Trying to forcibly impress our political systems on other nations is not illegal and whether it is right or wrong is up for debate. I don't see what makes the political group illegitimate.

Re Clinton in the Balkans -- I appreciate your candor, and wouldn't hold your feet to the fire. I was just sort of surprised at your rather sweeping statement regarding differences between Clintonian foreign policy and Bush's. There are differences of course, the chief one being that Bush's are proactive (regardless of whether you think that they are correctly proactive) and Clinton's were diversionary.

As to the second point, there is the universally accepted concept in analogies of mutatis mutandis -- changing the terms that need to be changed. Otherwise, it is impossible to make analogies.

You can of course ignore that principle and argue technicalities such as "legality"--as if law were only predicated on some statute recognizing what was and was not strictly legal to do--but that is begging the question. On those grounds, as Hans Kelsen argued, Hitler was not illegal in his actions against the Jews since his was the government that made the laws. I don't think you really want to go there, do you?

Do you think, as does the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights, "that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,"? If yes, then the analogy with organized crime certainly holds, and regimes that oppress people and deny freedoms are criminal de facto if not de jure. If no, then that is a whole other discussion, and I would be interested to hear your viewpoint.

At the bottom of this is whether you think that freedom is the natural condition of the human person, or is some form of slavery the natural conditon of the human person? If it is freedom, then the analogy holds as well as the point that it is a distinction without a difference. If it is slavery, then you are right and things such as human freedom and dignity have no universal value.

The point of your sports analogy seems to be that advocating freedom is the aggressive position against the defensive position of oppression. Even accepting the mutatis mutandis principle with your sports analogy, I don't think it works for you unless you view slavery as the natural human condition and the view that "human rights are to be protected by the rule of law" is capricious and without any real foundation.

I think that is wrong simply because freedom is the natural condition and thus to be defended against assaults of oppression. At that point, all aggression toward freedom is in fact in its defense -- which is why I think it is a distinction without a difference.

I hope that explains it better.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Klotz
Oct 13 2006, 04:41 PM
Ben
Oct 14 2006, 01:19 AM
After reading my post again I realized I'm leaving it open for you to say I was talking about what I didn't know

I do know Clinton actively pursued a lasting peace in the middle east between [size=7]Israel and Pakistan[/size] not only in words but also in actions.

:huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh:

Well, at least he achieved it, didn't he? :lol:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ben
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Ok, you all know what I mean, we all know Pakistan wasn't/isn't a country.

IT - Well I think you are pretty much right until we get to the last bit. It's not that I think slavery is the natural human condition. Slavery is not what you typically have, more often it is somewhere in the middle. However I don't think in the example with the generic regime it is the natural human condition that matters but the current one.

Should human rights be protected by law? It seems like an easy question until you think about it a little bit. I think the answer is yes but the question is how far do we take that law. I think it should be global law, and we're not there yet (see Abu Ghraib), and I think we should make it tough on violators. However I don't think we should make it our mission - the mission of the United States, that is - to depose every dictator or government who violates human rights law. If you (generic you) think this then you must be very upset that our military is not in North Korea and a number of African countries. While we may feel that our form of government is best and that it best facilitates freedom, others feel differently and I don't think we should press our beliefs on other people. If a bunch of Muslims think freedom comes under sharia law then they should find a royal family and make their own country, maybe call it Saudi Arabia. Now when human rights are violated I think we should take every step short of military force: all the sanctions and boycotts you can imagine and whatever else you can think of. But to me it is not acceptable to go around demolishing and rebuilding nations. I sincerely hope we have learned this lesson in Iraq.

A very impressive post by the way, and I will ponder your organized crime analogy some more. I would like to add one thing there though, and that is that Hitler would have been in violation of human rights laws had they existed. Obviously legal or illegal is not the end-all for the discussion, my post made it sound that way though. If I replaced legal/illegal with morally acceptable/not would that make more sense (besides the sentence structure problems in the second bit :P)?

I kind of wish I had picked two different consecutive presidents besides Bush and Clinton because I did not really begin to have an interest in politics until the 2000 election and so the Clinton presidency is not my area of expertise, although I was born during big Bush's presidency. I remember the '96 election but Monica Lewinsky is really my strongest memory of the Clinton years, which is too bad.

Well I think I'm going to go eat some ice cream! :smile:
- Ben

"Playing 'bop' is like playing Scrabble with all the vowels missing." - Duke Ellington

bennieloohoo@gmail.com
Or you can just PM me. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maple
Junior Carp
Ben
Oct 13 2006, 09:57 PM
Ok, you all know what I mean, we all know Pakistan wasn't/isn't a country.

I might know what you meant, however I certainly know that Pakistan is a country.
I am now wondering if you do

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ben
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
:doh: x 10^43874756

me = pwnz0r3d

ah the joys of posting late on friday night
- Ben

"Playing 'bop' is like playing Scrabble with all the vowels missing." - Duke Ellington

bennieloohoo@gmail.com
Or you can just PM me. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mmmaestro007
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
TomK
Oct 13 2006, 10:51 PM
That's partisan crap, bach. If you change the names and the interests, the speech could have been delivered by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

They hate us for who we are. Just as we look down on them for who they are.

They see America as a secular sewer. They see Israel in the same light--only Israel is located in (what they consider) their land (all of the Middle East.) All in all, they are as horrified by American ethics (loose women and cheep whiskey,) as we are by their ethics (veiled women and public prayer.) We have no more right to tell them how to live their lives (see bach's article above,) as they have to tell them how to live our lives. But, Western Culture is pervasive--and they merely are fighting back--and a bit more.

Not bad people--just different, and of no consequence to us on anyone else until oil and Israeli politics brought them to the fore.

"They hate us for who we are. Just as we look down on them for who they are."

i believe if they hate you for who you are, it is because of your foreign policy

we are bearing the brunt now with Bali due to our foreign policy

ie. the foreign policy came first
"Madam, you have between your legs an instrument capable of giving pleasure to thousands, and all you can do is scratch it!"

Sir Thomas Beechem, conductor
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mmmaestro007
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
The 89th Key
Oct 13 2006, 11:36 PM
Who we are dictates our foreign policy. So I voted for "who we are". They don't like us standing up for freedom, even if that means defending it abroad - which threatens their ideology of islamofascist domination.

"They don't like us standing up for freedom, even if that means defending it abroad - which threatens their ideology of islamofascist domination."

i don't agree- i think they see the US as outsiders meddling in their affairs

imo, most of the punters wouldn't know what freedom was and they are very much victims of leaders manipulating information for their own ends
"Madam, you have between your legs an instrument capable of giving pleasure to thousands, and all you can do is scratch it!"

Sir Thomas Beechem, conductor
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
garrett
Middle Aged Carp
Just a passing thought.

Maybe they hate us because of who they are.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Ben
Oct 13 2006, 07:57 PM

IT - Well I think you are pretty much right until we get to the last bit. It's not that I think slavery is the natural human condition. Slavery is not what you typically have, more often it is somewhere in the middle. However I don't think in the example with the generic regime it is the natural human condition that matters but the current one.
Strictly for the sake of this present discussion, it seems the natural condition -- by that, I mean that which best manifests the nature of man as a rational, acting person -- must be first addressed. As a general principle, whenever you (and mean specifically you since you are forming your world view, and quite admirably I might add) are considering anything regarding the human person -- politics, law, architecture, music, philosophy, ethics, etc -- you should consider first the view of the human person. Anthropology will determine everything else, and if you understand the anthropology behind a particular view, such as Marxism, you will better understand the whole vision of it. Are we spiritual beings or material beings? Are we naturally social or are we sociable? Are we essentially good or essentially evil or something in between? Do we have intrinsic dignity, or is it only imparted to us by social convention/political will?

So I think you are trying to punt by deciding that what is important is the current view (for determining whether we are defending freedom or trying to spread it).

Quote:
 


Should human rights be protected by law? It seems like an easy question until you think about it a little bit. I think the answer is yes but the question is how far do we take that law. I think it should be global law, and we're not there yet (see Abu Ghraib), and I think we should make it tough on violators.


The problem of global law is one of politics and enforcement, as well as the obvious implications of "sovereign" nations. The notion of "one world" government is not idealistic, it is foolish and quite contrary to the natural order of human existence. Is it possible that common law, natural law, legal positivism, shari'a, napoleonic law, etc could be melded into the "best of all"? No, there are deeply set principles that are externally antithetical to other views. Yet, while we can weigh the merits of each, each is also a valid legal tradition that works more or less within the particular circumstances to ensure and promote the common good of the society. Each society holds out similar ideals -- "justice", the rule of law for the maintenence of civil order, rights, etc -- yet each tradition has different presuppositions (e.g., anthropology) and different conclusions regarding justice and what sorts of laws are to be enacted.

Not really an answer to anything, just a musing on your comment.


Quote:
 


However I don't think we should make it our mission - the mission of the United States, that is - to depose every dictator or government who violates human rights law. If you (generic you) think this then you must be very upset that our military is not in North Korea and a number of African countries.


Nor do I. But our recent role in Iraq in deposing Saddam has been (among so many other reasons) the enforcement of the terms of the '91 ceasefire in which Saddam agreed to ensure human rights for the Iraqis and reneged on that and virtually every other condition. So by that account, it can be said that we truly are "defending freedom" rather than "spreading" it.

Quote:
 

While we may feel that our form of government is best and that it best facilitates freedom, others feel differently and I don't think we should press our beliefs on other people. If a bunch of Muslims think freedom comes under sharia law then they should find a royal family and make their own country, maybe call it Saudi Arabia.


Yes, precisely my point above. ASAIK (and I am no expert in shari'a) there is nothing in these systems diametrically opposed to democracy and western views of human rights. The fact the Imams have run thing has more to do with the fact of a large and largely uneducated populace. It is analogous to 12th cent Europe when the only ones with training and literacy were clerics. I suspect this will change as the Moslem lands develop more and education increases more widely.

Quote:
 


Now when human rights are violated I think we should take every step short of military force: all the sanctions and boycotts you can imagine and whatever else you can think of. But to me it is not acceptable to go around demolishing and rebuilding nations. I sincerely hope we have learned this lesson in Iraq.


I agree in general with the first part, but the nature of Iraq is somewhat different regarding the terms of the '91 cease fire. I think that gave us the moral imperative and international standing to do what was necessary. Others here would obviously argue against that, and I am not sure that there were not other better options in hindsight, but I think it is important to not conflate Iraq with all other troublesome places where there are also injustices (such as the Sudan) as grounds for criticism.


Quote:
 

A very impressive post by the way, and I will ponder your organized crime analogy some more. I would like to add one thing there though, and that is that Hitler would have been in violation of human rights laws had they existed. Obviously legal or illegal is not the end-all for the discussion, my post made it sound that way though. If I replaced legal/illegal with morally acceptable/not would that make more sense (besides the sentence structure problems in the second bit :P)?


I think you would enjoy reading the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, esp as it was written in response to the problems during WWII. Still, it is not "law" except in the moral sense of the word. A valid law requires an authority to enforce it, and there simply is (and probably can never be) such an authority.

I hope you enjoyed the ice cream :)
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
garrett
Oct 14 2006, 02:34 AM
Just a passing thought.

Maybe they hate us because of who they are.

:clap:
The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
garrett
Oct 13 2006, 11:34 PM
Just a passing thought.

Maybe they hate us because of who they are.

Bingo.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
I don't believe you can ascribe any motivation to the group as a whole. Some are just dangerous idealogues that believe in a manifest destiny for themselves and their kin. Some are truly worried over the influence our culture has over theirs. Some hate us because of the stances we've been forced to take in the Middle East. Many hate us simply because they are taught to hate us.

In the end, the hopes of a lasting peace can only be accomplished by the "moderates" coming from their side. Any sort of conciliatory gestures, or attempts of understanding from our side will only be seen as a weakness to exploit in the future. This has been a recurring theme throughout the past fifty years.
The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 6