why do you hate our freedom?! :C

[töm]

<i>Opinions ahoy...</i>

Reading through the thread that I am <a href=http://roomwithamoose.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=16056>obviously making a reference to</a>, a post that Spürgleshåkk (or whoever this new guy is) wrote struck me in a way that made me realize something: the way that I think is actually grounded in common sense.

The premise: the people in our nation that are in charge of quelling, distracting, or otherwise misguiding our fears and just making us <i>feel good about ourselves</i> often describe our skirmishes vis-à-vis the "terrorists" as such: <b>they hate our freedom. They hate our liberty. They hate the way we live.</b> Etc. You hear it from the government, you hear it from the news sources (who owe money to and are ultimately regulated by the government anyway), and you hear it from the guy at the army surplus store.

Now.

Does that make sense? I know people don't hate freedom. I know people don't hate liberty. I know people don't do things without having a reason. I know that people don't do "evil" things--there's got to be a percieved gain for themselves somewhere; whether material, political, mental or just plain enjoyment. So it's not evil for them. For them it's dan-day. So hm.


So what's going on? Why do they keep saying that, "They hate us because we have freedom." If I allowed them to insult me, I would feel insulted that they keep saying that. It's... well, simplistic, and... wrong. All right.

So why do they not like certain folks of the West? I conjecture.

1. <b>We didn't get off to a good start.</b> I mean, well, our introduction was not the most grand. As soon as Islam (and thusly culture, language, civilization out of the self-proclaimed Arabian "Age of Ignorance") started to spread via military and political routes in Europe starting at southern Spain, the Europeans didn't really react... positively. But one can't blame them for THAT move. No one wants their land overrun (albeit the conquerers were very nice and didn't force anyone to do anything--except pay taxes [but as we know, this is such a grave thing that it should cause revolution]). So... Well, that didn't start out too well. But neither side is TOO sore about this point anymore. Not TOO much... But it sets the stage.

2. <b>Crusades. The less one says about this, the better.</b> But there was that one particular incident in which the Europeans broke down the city walls of Jerusalem and massacred EVERYone in the city--be them Muslim or Jew--and then piled up their severed hands in the city square. Bad move. I know that a lot of people are still sore about THAT. But when the Muslims regained control under Salah ad-Din, I believe, that man was rather remarkably merciful to the Europeans, despite their provocations. But popular opinion was that. Well. Did they deserve that mercy? (Of course, YES, everyone deserves mercy, but it's apparently also human to want revenge.)

3. <B>Imperialism. Oh goddamn.</b> Whenever you <i>take control of, then arbitarily divide the land</i> of what is essentially a tribal people, unpleasantness will ensue. (I mean, just look at <i>Africa</i>. Ew.) And they did that? Whyyy. :C The problems caused by this are very... very evident. Damn.

4. <B>Omgz we need your oil to run our entire world but we don't want to touch our own because there are precious squirrells and rare types of moss living on that land. Oh, and we don't like your race.</b> If you already have a hard time with your world, and then you're expected to generate so much for your agressors. Well. I don't care how much of an INSANE AMOUNT OF MONEY you're making, that's got to be tough.

5. <b>Continual military presense in the Middle East. We know this story.</b>

6. <b>The build up and let down.</b> The West has promised on many occasions to sort of alleviate some of the woes of the Middle East. Then they kind of have a knack of giving up on it, or locating some proverbial (or not-so-proverbial) back to stab.

7.<b>We don't understand them, and we don't want to make an effort to do so.</b> What does the average American know about Islam? What does the average American know about Arab culture in general? I doubt that most could even tell an Arab from an Indian. "Summa dem bof wear dem turbanns." If one is being judged--accused--and even <i>hated</i>; condemned--and one is not even given the grace of having been understood properly... I suppose that could make one very upset.


That makes sense to me. They can get on very well without Western intervention. They were the hight of civilization for centuries, in terms of science, math, medicine, architecture. Almost everything. I'm sure they could get on very well.

Anyway, that's why I think that there is terrorism. Not because they don't like freedom. That's thilly.


This is longer than it has to be. :( If I accidently used "we" or "us" to describe the West, I'm just refering to things at large. Y'know.

[Linzoy]

I wish people who wrote intresting articles like this controlled the media.

[implode]

i think there is such terrorism because:

a select group of people are outraged by some or all of the examples you have set forth, including some you haven't mentioned (building U.S. military bases on islamic holy lands, for example.)

these people are, or have passed this information in vitriolic propaganda form, to the people in power and with a massive amount of leverage over the general opinions of the "average arabian" (e.g. clerics, tribal leaders, other people i don't know nearly enough about yet still continue to form an opinion on anyway.)

from there, these people can spread their message of western indifference/brutality/etc. to a much larger group of people who are deeply involved in religious sentiment, to the point where they let it manipulate their lives just like the way we let the TEE-VEE or TALKRADIO manipulate ours. people that care for little else than gratifying themselves, the only way they know how. i'm not as well read on middle eastern culture as you are, certainly, but it is my understanding that their culture is more "primitive" in the sense that a vast majority of the population operates under appeasing God's will before anything else. (though, i guess the case could be made that that's neither primitive nor exclusive to the middle east... but. it's not my case. so somebody else can make it.)

from there, the message can trickle down to the radicals that in our country go no further than denouncing homosexuality and masturbation, that western civilzation is a bane on society (for the reasons you presented) and that it is "God's will" that they be eliminated by any means possible, whether it be blowing up a marketplace of your own countrymen or not. i've always had the feeling that most militants (regardless of ethnicity) get up to one point in their thought process and just stop there, agree to it as truth, and operate under it for the rest of their lives without ever listening to any arguments against it. i don't want to accept that there's rational thought behind blowing up a bus full of people that has officially been discovered to not be a bus full of zombies. there has to be some sort of towering overcommitment to something to make that the most logical solution to anything.

i wrote something about this, a while back. about how the mark of a "civilized" society is what the most outrageous group of religious zealots would feel justified in doing. if "exploding" makes the list, you get a check in the "neanderthal" department. i guess that was rude and generalizing and blah blah, but it seems to be all i'm capable of, save taping my mouth shut and my wrists together behind my back.

[töm]

yeeah. i can certainly think of things in their own culture that doesn't exactly assist in resisting terrorist sentiment. they like demonstrations, which are very prone to hivemind. and such. the society is hierarchical de facto, but islam says that everyone is equal. but they like their clerics good. :\

they're VERY well organized as far as communicating propaganda. as good as we are.

<small>in fact, my business plan for success involves opening printing shop in the middle east. you know, whenever you see any of their demonstrations, there are GIANT posters of their favorite religious or political leader, tons of flags and banners declaring who they hate and who they love, and there needs to be a surplus of american flags to burn. these materials can be VERY cheapy produced, and they are indeed in very high demand for every event. i could make millions.</small>

[implode]

ehehe. yeah. i always got a kick out of that. like when people go out and buy mass quanitites of books so they can participate in the mass burning later that night. oh, people and the impressions they want to give off...

sometimes, it almost seems like they don't mind being misled. like... like they wouldn't be doing anything else with their lives anyway. i see it over here, too. the average person doesn't seem to care about the truth as much as... well, as much as they should, i think. if you're going to have a purpose, shouldn't it at least be a logical one?

<small>no, love doesn't count.</small>

[Vortian_Queen]

Why can't we all just shutup and get along. I'll be less depressed and come out to socity more with out the fear of getting hurt...

[Invader Noodle]

Okay, I got to the part when you said "People don't do evil things" and stopped reading. I must disagree with this statement. You're right on one account, people don't usually do things unless they have something that's in it for them. But you can't say that people don't do bad things just because of that. For example, someone can kill somebody because they bother them. The murderer gained something right? However you can't say that this wasn't an evil act. Saying that people don't do evil things is just ignorant.

[Vile]

Evil is only ever an opinion.

[Linzoy]

I don't think people kill because they think it's wrong, they do it because they feel like it's nessicary, like society is their enemy, or like they don't have control over themselves.

That doesn't mean people shouldn't be punished for what they do wrong. I don't want to live in a place where murderers aren't restrained. But the definition of evil is the opposite of good, even though every evil action is positive on one side. If someone thinks what they're doing is evil they just won't do it.

[Vile]

Or, what I just said.

[Magenta]

Why can't we all just shutup and get along.
Welcome to planet earth. Everyone hates everyone else, and it sure does suck.

All you can do is to love and show people love so something in the back of their heads might click and say "HEY. THAT 'LOVE EACH OTHER' HIPPIE PEACE JUNK IS KINDA NIFTY."

You can't FORCE people to be peaceful, and unfortunately, in my humbly cynical opinion, there never WILL be peace.

[Linzoy]

Or, what I just said.
You said it's an opinion, you didn't say what your opinion is. Nobody knows if you think people can be evil or not.

[Vile]

What I meant by that was that evil = AN opinion. If the person believed something they were doing was evil, they wouldn't. I don't think.

But that's just MY opinion. I don't believe in evil. It's about as credible as "pure".

[Linzoy]

That's true. Ghandi was a jerk to his family.

[Vile]

Aye. I'm neutral, you're neutral. Hitler was just as neutral as ghandi. They all thought they were right. Whether they were or not, however...

[Magenta]

Have you ever read Crime and Punishment?

You remind me of Raskolnikov's theories. I liked that book, although I did not agree with him.

[Vile]

No, but I've heard of it. If magenta says it's a good read, I swear I'll look into it.

[Vortian_Queen]

Welcome to planet earth. Everyone hates everyone else, and it sure does suck.

All you can do is to love and show people love so something in the back of their heads might click and say "HEY. THAT 'LOVE EACH OTHER' HIPPIE PEACE JUNK IS KINDA NIFTY."

You can't FORCE people to be peaceful, and unfortunately, in my humbly cynical opinion, there never WILL be peace.

Thats cause every one sucks and they don't have that certian "push" of being nice or kind. We are just like fucking dinosaurs with guns, mindless baballing idiots who think nothing of violence and shit I know some of you think "Oh let's all get along " and shit but even that person thinks deep inside "Man, If that fucking person doesn't shut the fuck up soeveyone can hear what I'M saying I'm gonna beat the shit out of that person" but if you TRY than maybe we can over come these feelings

[MST3Kakalina]

Have you ever read Crime and Punishment?

You remind me of Raskolnikov's theories. I liked that book, although I did not agree with him.
the wannabe Russian Studies major inside of me just had a literary orgasm.


Crime & Punishment is one of the greatest books EVAR. even if Dostoyevsky was a jerk.



Raskolnikov's ideas about how great men should be "allowed" to commit crimes and break the law kinda jive with me. i mean, i don't think you really can use it to justify murdering some random little old lady, but every revolution and fight for independence started because someone (or a bunch of people) decided that they had ideas about human life and political ideals that could warrant breaking the law, even to the point of murder (after all, people still die in civil wars as well).

but i haven't read C&P in a bit so i don't quite remember what Raskolnikov's essay was trying to say. i think i got it close, though.

[implode]

What I meant by that was that evil = AN opinion. If the person believed something they were doing was evil, they wouldn't. I don't think. don't believe it. i've actually talked to people about this. i'm not going to go into the specifics, because there's no reason to, but when i explain how i choose not to do things because i believe they are wrong and would hurt other people i get a "you've got to look out for yourself, no matter what." even if it's evil (or wrong or whatever), i'm sure they would have continued, were they names on a screen like us. evil exists because selfishness exists. it eclipses everything.

but then again, i haven't read crime and punishment, so my opinion is probably to be immediately disregarded anyway.

[Magenta]

I believe there's a set "right" and "wrong", but I understand Raskolnikov's ideas that, every "revolution" or any thing was you know..."against the law" (i.e. evil) was right to some people. Its like war. In war, you kill the other people, but every soldier isn't charged with MURDER afterwards.

[Linzoy]

The only reason pacifists can exist is because soldiers and the police are out there killing your enemys for you.

[implode]

that's more nonsense. or, rather, the term "pacifist" is nonsense in the strictest sense of the word - if someone is out to physically injure you and your moral constitution won't allow you to defend yourself, you're on the low end of the darwin chain and deserve whatever your grisly end might be.

however, in any situation but the one just described, pacifists can certainly exist without help from anyone else. pacifism is just about not seeing any need to solve your problems with physical force. and really, its concepts are grounded in the firmest roots of realism around - you can <i>always</i> solve a problem without physically attacking the cause of it. there is no example other than "survival" where simply changing your <i>god damned fucking stupid opinions</i> about something wouldn't prevent the need for actual force. but it is usually destined to failure, because most people would rather be right than be civil. most people care more about their ego than their debt to humanity. most people lack basic problem solving skills. most people want to come out on top, or at least be remember as somebody who was willing to die trying. for a belief. for a concept. for "being right." urgh.

[töm]

then you're getting to the distinction between <i>pacifism</i> and <i>passivism</i>. you can bet your boots that pacifism is a force to be reckoned with. look at the root: pax, pacis. peace. pacifism isn't about sitting around and getting beaten up. it's about making a POSITIVE and ACTIVE move to ameliorate conflicts without violent means. it's very much doing something. a pacifist doesn't "do nothing" when they're challenged. they take as much action as someone who will throw the punch. except in a maybe more nice way.

passivism, on the other hand, which most people really think of pacifism as (and sadly what a rather large handful pacifists just might be), is just... doing nothing. and that's not really positive at all. :\

[Linzoy]

It depends on what type of opinion you are talking about. If somebody with a gun decides that they should own your house, should you change your opinion that it's actually your house or use force? I know people would call the police but they would use force if they had to. I don't believe in unnessicary violence but there's a question of what's nessicary and what isn't.

[Linzoy]

then you're getting to the distinction between <i>pacifism</i> and <i>passivism</i>. you can bet your boots that pacifism is a force to be reckoned with. look at the root: pax, pacis. peace. pacifism isn't about sitting around and getting beaten up. it's about making a POSITIVE and ACTIVE move to ameliorate conflicts without violent means. it's very much doing something. a pacifist doesn't "do nothing" when they're challenged. they take as much action as someone who will throw the punch. except in a maybe more nice way.

passivism, on the other hand, which most people really think of pacifism as (and sadly what a rather large handful pacifists just might be), is just... doing nothing. and that's not really positive at all. :\Your definition makes more sense, the dictionary pretty much defines it as a refusal to do anything though.

pac·i·fism n
1. a belief that violence, war, and the taking of lives are unacceptable ways of resolving disputes
2. the refusal to take up arms or participate in war because of moral or religious beliefs
3. a belief that international conflicts should be settled by negotiation rather than war

[implode]

tom went and invoked the latin root, and made things very much cleary spectacular. thank you.

It depends on what type of opinion you are talking about. If somebody with a gun decides that they should own your house, should you change your opinion that it's actually your house or use force? I know people would call the police but they would use force if they had to. I don't believe in unnessicary violence but there's a question of what's nessicary and what isn't. it depends on how much you care about your house, i guess. if somebody with a gun decided that they wanted to own my house, i wouldn't bother with trying to convince them otherwise with any of the means i'm adept in using - whatever process led them to that decision is so far removed from logic that i'd be talking just to hear myself talk. i'd probably call the police, yes, because the police have dedicated their lives to dealing with irrationality the only way that's been proven to get through - by outnumbering it and sedating it. i wouldn't use force because i don't care enough about it to die for it. my opinion that the things i paid for should belong to me aren't so important that i'd jeopordize my life to keep them.

if somebody with a stick decided that they should own my house, however, i might try reasoning with them, because there isn't much they can really <i>do</i> with a stick in the first place and i could hightail it the fuck OUT of there if it became apparent that yes, they DO intend to try to kill me with that stick. but if not, and they were just trying to muscle me into submission, they're obviously still in a rational enough state of mind where they aren't willing to kill a stranger for the things he owns, and that's something to work with.

now, if the police force didn't actually exist, yet somehow guns still did (i believe these things go hand in hand) i don't think i'd bother going out of my way to own anything of value in the first place. anything that might elicit greed from someone else would be too dangerous to put too much effort into maintaining and keeping. that situation is just far too removed from reality to really ponder on a reasonable basis - i mean, sure, if caveman a (tom) decided that he liked the humble abode of caveman b (myself) more than his own and wanted to take it by force, i'd certainly defend my cave. but anything beyond that has far too many variables to actually form reasonable opinions about.

[Linzoy]

Yeah, I wasn't considering that you could leave and get a new house. I guess what I'm trying to say is that people have to defend the things that are nessicary for their survival.

[implode]

right. or there is no example other than "survival" where simply changing your god damned fucking stupid opinions about something wouldn't prevent the need for actual force. only without all the unnecessary cuss words.

[TheTallestBlue]

I hate this country. This country is a dick. I would elaborate but I'm so infuriated.