humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Feb 28, 7:40 am, Agent Cooper wrote:
> On Feb 28, 12:27 am, Potroast wrote:
>
> > When billions of people are saying the Pali issue and US meddling
> > the the middle east are a big problem (friends and foes alike) and you
> > say "I don't think any of these things had anything to do with 9/11"
> > then I have to assume you are just being stubborn (because I don't
> > think you are stupid enough to actually believe that)
>
> Not at all. Nor do they reflect an attitude toward the various
> phenomena you mentioned. The problem is epistemic, and I was hoping
> you'd calm down long enough to reflect on the larger point: if all
> these things are the cause of 9/11, then why hasn't the US been under
> continuous terrorist attack for *decades*? The answer is relatively
> simple: prior to the first Gulf War, the United States was largely an
> abstraction to the *Arab* (and Sunni) world. After the Gulf War, Arabs
> saw the US put boots on the ground on their turf, and it made a lot of
> people mad. The history with Iran goes a long way to explaining the
> Iranian revolution in 1979, but there was no Shia or Iranian
> involvement in 9/11. So slow down, open your ears, and listen.

You are the one who obviously isn't interested in listening because
plenty of people are saying what I'm saying. You are just interested
in repeating your world view to anyone that will listen. Listening is
the part that kicks in when you hear what the other guy is saying.

The "boots on the ground" started long before the Gulf war with CIA
puppet dictatorships and indirectly funding Israeli expansion. You
already forget the Beirut bombing in the 80's? I know that Iran wasn't
directly involved on 9/11 because the 9/11 commission said so. However
this did not stop some on the far right from labeling Iran a terrorist
threat for exporting virulent fundamentalism and lumping them with Al
Qaeda right? Now you come back and say that America had no role in
creating that situation? Which was is it going to be?

Of course 9/11 is connected to all sorts of US meddling in the
middle east. Osama didn't target Sweden or Costa Rica on 9/11 right?
I'm certainly not saying Iran is right for flaming this hatred alive
going on decades past these events, but the lack of dialog between
Iran and US politicians certainly hasn't helped the diplomatic
situation. Pretty hard to have a dialog when US politicians are
labeled antisemites and appeasers by fundies and Aipac alike for
simply wanting to peacefully resolve issues for their country.

> present a lot of reasons why the Middle East would be mad at the US
> circa 2008, and I haven't said a word to disagree. But you said that
> these things made people want to kill Americans in 2001, and they
> didn't. The Arab world didn't give a damn about the crimes of SAVAK as
> far as I can tell

Then there is a disconnect between you and the facts. Muslims
constantly use it as fuel on top of the other issues. US support for
puppet governments in the middle east is an oft repeated line (again
by friends and foes alike)

>, or, for the most part, the crimes of Israel.

Ridiculous. Why are they nearly constantly at war with Israel for
decades? Something to do?

I think you are projecting your own your lack of concern with that
of how Muslims feel about the Pali situation. They very much do care
in the political sense...in the same way fundies and Aipac care about
Israel. Stop telling them what they should be thinking and start
listening to what they are actually saying (over and over again)
because your "thoughts" about their views simply don't match up with
the reality of what's coming out of most of their mouths.

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/106758.html (75% of Muslims
believe fixing Palestine will improve US-Muslim relations)

What I find interesting in your reply though is even you seem to be
acknowledging what Israel has done to the Palis is a crime. Why
continue funding this when it works against America's interests in the
middle east? Biblical prophecy? Pride? All it takes is one call from
a US President or from Aipac to say "NO we won't pay for this further"
and it's done. The peace process didn't need to take years. It has
only taken this long because stalling allowed more settlements to be
shoved in. It can be done in a matter of months if the political will
is there. (which it's not yet...but it's coming now that it is no
longer being swept under the rug)

The rest of the world (including allies) kept telling American
politicians for decades that supporting the illegal occupation of
Palestine territory (via funding Israel) was both immoral and bad
foreign policy. Looking at how much money you're spending these days
and how much pressure you've been under.....who was doing you the
favor by telling you what was the right thing to do?

Pride is a problem in communication though.

> Once again, you want to play partisan and assume that anyone who
> disagrees with you is a paid henchman.

Gibberish. This is some stereotype in your head. I have never said
such a thing.

>But I have no dog in this fight. I've said so repeatedly, and yet when I say
> something you agree with, you think I'm weirdly inconsistent. But
> that's because you're not listening.

I am listening although you may not think so. And from my end it
often appears you personally are the one who isn't listening to the
Muslims (or even traditional allies). Even now you seem more
interested in mudslinging and "being right" than observing hard
polling data..

> Now if you want to do *history*, if you want to do social *science*
> instead of posturing and ranting, here's how it is: the US had done
> things to please some people in the Middle East, and it had done some
> things to upset some people in the Middle East, but none of it added
> up to anything sufficient to make Sunni Arabs want to murder Americans
> on US soil until we put boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia. The
> proof, to the extent that such things are possible, is that it never
> happened until after that, despite half a century of entanglement in
> Sunni Arab affairs. Reread what I said: any particular event will have
> countlessly many necessary conditions, but we dub something the cause
> because it is of especial significance in explanation. And clearly, US
> policy in Sunni Arab countries was not sufficient to generate
> terrorist attacks on US soil, because those policies (including, for
> example, our siding with Egypt during the Suez Crisis, our brokering
> peace with Israel in the 70s, and our supporting the Mujaheddin in
> Afghanistan in the 80s) were going on for half a century without
> anyone attacking us. Secondly, Bin Laden effing *said* that was his
> motivation: in one of his communiques he says that the true nature of
> US power was revealed when we put boots on the ground in the Hijaz. So
> I'm sorry to say this, but your statements and reaction to mine simply
> look biased and ignorant.

Ignorant and biased are a good description of how I feel about some
of your middle east views too.

What you need to ask yourself is what do I care about America or
Muslims? If anything Greeks have felt bad feelings for the middle east
for thousands of years. A fair chunk of Greeks even want
Constantinople back. Emotionally I feel a far greater kinship and
appreciation for American culture that have largely embraced Greek
values and ideas that I am already acquainted with.

I am not an Oist though. I do care about doing my perception of the
moral thing and not only about my own personal safety. (How it is in
an atheist's personal interests to go one-on-one with a nation with
nuclear weapons is beyond my ability to fathom :) You on the other
hand are clearly obsessed with defending the hawkish far rightwing
perspective...as opposed to just objectively examining the facts to
see where they might lead to a solution peacefully (and not all
rightwingers are like you as Jim Klein and others seems to
demonstrate).

You bring up Bin Laden as "proof" of your view that Palestine has
nothing to do with it.....then completely ignore that Bin Ladin
himself went very indepth into the Palestinian situation too. From his
letter one why he attacked. (NOTICE IT IS HIS FIRST POINT)

"Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you? Q2)What are we calling you
to, and what do we want from you?
As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The
answer is very simple:
(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.
a) You attacked us in Palestine."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

> the seriousness of standing tall against the Yankee Antichrist

More stereotyping as me as the anti-America because I completely
disagree with your personal assessment of the effects of American
foreign policy in the middle east (and the further violence it
continues to encourage). When it comes to the middle east I do mostly
agree with Ron Paul, Obama, and the other 75% of Americans that are
against the war though. These are Americans too last I checked... and
I seem to find most of them quite agreeable.

I could just as easily say you are anti-American and unpatriotic for
disagreeing with them.

> is too important for humor. Which kinda proves the point of the joke,
> doesn't it? This is the same kind of thinking that says that the
> Illuminati are behind every earthquake. Honestly, the world is much
> more complex than that, and people are pretty much the same
> everywhere. If they nail down the Yankee Antichrist Gene, though, let
> me know.

More stereotypes and mudslinging.

> I really have no stake in any of this. I think that the policies of
> the two Bush administrations have been a disaster for us and the
> world, though one of the reasons why I think the latter is one you
> wouldn't understand: the world needs the US, as an example and as a
> deterrent (read "Dark Continent" to see what Europe, unhindered and
> unlead by the US, looks like), and when we weaken and discredit
> ourselves, it opens a Pandora's Box, while harming our interests.

Harming your personal credibility perhaps...and the credibility of
any remaining hawk Republicans, fundies, Aipac, and Oists....but not
the interests of millions of other Americans. There are countless
moderate Americans that I both admire and respect...particularly
Jewish people who I have a great love affair with (other than that
whole war for uber-zionism-holocaust-paranoia thing amongst some of
them)

I am quite comfortable by now millions of Americans are quite sick
of listening to hateful paranoid persecution-complex ranters explain
how America needs to secure its interests through the pursuit of war
atrocities on some stereotype and bullying its allies in the rest of
the world. (and even the Israelis are starting to get sick of the
hawks in their own government)

> yes, I do care that you hate us, but not for our sake. For yours.

More words in my mouth. I'm not sure if that was intended as a
threat or worry about me personally. (likely the first I imagine)

I don't hate the US. I don't even hate you. Considering your love of
philosophy I'm sure you are a decent honourable fellow in most of your
other dealings with others (I feel much the same about Bob actually)

I just disagree with you and think you work against your own
country's interests by being too hawkish instead of trying to be
friends with other people. We can manufacture a war like any of our
ancestors if we want...but it will be a sign our minds were still to
weak to figure out more civilized solution.

To me the value of existence itself supersedes all other human
values. The idiot excuses people use to justify why they ended up in a
stupid situation that required them to intentionally murder each other
is a sign of intellectual weakness. Great minds that were truly in
control would go out of their way to entirely avoid messy situations
like that. That lethal force still exists is basically an admission
that humanity still doesn't know what the fuck it is doing. Until a
more enlightened man appears to remedy that situation my simple
politics will have to suffice.....

Any individual that is generally looking to address things in a
civilized manner is my ally.. those that are excessively gun-ho about
killing people are going to have their credibility undermined.