Oriana Fallaci

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 3:32 am

Originally posted by Ambiorix

Nonsense. Where are the suicide bombers from sub-saharan Africa, the slums of South-America or India?
The people who perpetrated the september 11th attacks were all from the middle or higher classes. Some of them were even at European universities. Hardly paupers. Nor are the Islamic countries from where they were recruited (Yemen, Saudi-Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, ...) the poorest countries in the world. And Osama himself is/was rich enough.

Some of them were even educated in the United States. I agree, there is no direct correlation between terrorism and poverty. Historically, when poverty is an issue, any uprising/violence takes place locally - The French Revolution, The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the Revolution in China, etc, - the focus was always on overthrowing that particular country's government and replacing it with a more just one. I regard Bin laden being interested in power, which IMO, is what terrorism is all about.

Nexus · Post by **Nexus** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 3:58 am

I was wondering where the point is...

Thanks to my studies of philosophy I realized that religions have always been a problem between men.

But the fact is religions are somewhat essential for humanity... or at least for a part of it.

I think that a group of people pushed to believe in something, sooner or later, will forget how to use the most precious gift it has: the brain.

So what I mean is that a vast amount of problems we have in this world are (or have been) caused by religions.

This is why I believe racial subject has no weight in this matter. The real problem is the state religion and its teachings.

Parallel to this we find a bigger problem, the economic one. Poverty, hunger, lack of education... these are things that lead to violence, death and so on...

The real problem of our planet is that there are too many differences between nations. This lead to envy richness (or presumed richness) of our neighbor.

We all know the hatred that is at the base of the tragedy of NY. This hatred comes from a difficult situation caused by economical problems...

I've heard voices saying that USA pulled the rope too much with the Middle-Orient countries... could this be true? Could a behaviour of the USA be the cause of all this?

And if it is true, how all the european countries are responsible, together with the USA, in this matter?

Another fact is that the countries we consider less civilized are now becoming more industrialized. China for example...

Potentially, in the near future, there will be not enough space for every one. They're grabbing their place in the world.

The countries that until yesterday were looking with amazingness the rich and industrialized nations are now coming out with new intentions...

And, as we saw, not always positive ones...

What are the solutions?

A difficult question... indeed...

Ambiorix · Post by **Ambiorix** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 6:29 am

Originally posted by Nexus
Parallel to this we find a bigger problem, the economic one. Poverty, hunger, lack of education... these are things that lead to violence, death and so on...

The real problem of our planet is that there are too many differences between nations. This lead to envy richness (or presumed richness) of our neighbor.

We all know the hatred that is at the base of the tragedy of NY. This hatred comes from a difficult situation caused by economical problems...

There are a lot of regions in the world much poorer than the Middle East that do not breed hatred against the west. Are there people dying from hunger in the Middle East?
Nor is education a protection against fanaticism. Germany before the war had amongst the best levels of education of the world at that time.
I don't subscribe to the theory that differences in wealth lead to this kind of hatred. I posted earlier my argements why, at least in this case, I believe there is no relation between poverty and terrorism (or fundamentalism). I should have added that there recently was a report (don't know if I can find it) that there are proportionally more fundamentalists amongst muslims living in Europe than in the countries they originated from. Also: some of the terrorists of september 11th were not fundamentalist when they went out to study in the west. They were not poor and didn't lack education. They became fundamentalists here and were recruited under our own noses. Why would that be?

We should really stop blaming ourselves (or the US) as being somehow responsible for what happened.

Nexus · Post by **Nexus** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 6:47 am

Originally posted by Ambiorix

There are a lot of regions in the world much poorer than the Middle East that do not breed hatred against the west. Are there people dying from hunger in the Middle East?
Nor is education a protection against fanaticism. Germany before the war had amongst the best levels of education of the world at that time.

This is where the concept of religion takes place.

Sometimes the religion is stronger than the education. This is true especially if you think about a person who has studied for a long time in its life and still believes in faith and religious precepts.

Fanatism is generated by religion, not by lack of education.

However, when you say that there are many places in the world poorer thant Middle-East I could add that they have no ways to be a threat for the rest of the world... The Middle-East can.

We all have guilts, it's fruitless continuing to negate it...

The only way to understand how to solve this big problem is to open our eyes.

However, why do you think those well-educated-by-us-fanatics should hate US for?

There must be an answer...

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 6:57 am

Originally posted by Nexus
Fanatism is generated by religion, not by lack of education.

You might want to specify exactly what you define as fanaticism and also you might want to suggest what evidence you have to support your claims. I can forsee several religious members being less than happy with being labeled fanatics

Nexus · Post by **Nexus** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 7:32 am

Originally posted by Mr Sleep

You might want to specify exactly what you define as fanaticism and also you might want to suggest what evidence you have to support your claims. I can forsee several religious members being less than happy with being labeled fanatics

Well, I din't say: "The members of a religion are fanatics".

This should be enough for a start...

Fanaticism is the exaggerated religious feeling (or also politic), which leads to intollerance and blindness towards other ideas...

The evidences are simple.

Religion is an irrational thing. Sometimes one must be irrational to defend what is not rational... this can lead to fanaticism...

If I have just one faith, and I blindly believe in it, other faiths, other way of seeing the world, will push me to become intollerant and violent...

Sufficient to say that in Europe we had Inquisition (remember Torquemada?). I also know that Americans burned a lot of "witches"

This is fanaticism...

For example, someone that categorically refuses to respect the idea of another person that "god" could not exist is, for me, a fanatic.

But this is just my point of view and, however, there are different "level" of fanaticism...

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 7:52 am

Since you are new to SYM it's important that people understand your ethos, it is better that you explain now than have a 5 page flame war over your comments

You have explained what you meant and i hopefully no onewill have a problem with what you said. I hope that makes sense.

Nexus · Post by **Nexus** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 7:57 am

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
it is better that you explain now than have a 5 page flame war over your comments

I understand your worries... and I know religion is a delicate matter.

However it's not my intention to offend anyone...

Let's say I'm a person who chose to stop himself in the point his brain can arrive... this obviously left out the possibility for me to believe in a religion...

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 8:06 am

Originally posted by Nexus
Sufficient to say that in Europe we had Inquisition (remember Torquemada?). I also know that Americans burned a lot of "witches"

If you're referring to the Salem Witchcraft Trials, the accused were hung, with the exception of one man, who was pressed to death in an attempt to get him to "confess". Go here, to learn more.

Nexus · Post by **Nexus** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 8:09 am

Originally posted by Sojourner

If you're referring to the Salem Witchcraft Trials, the accused were hung, with the exception of one man, who was pressed to death in an attempt to get him to "confess".

The result is the same...

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 8:12 am

Originally posted by Nexus

I understand your worries... and I know religion is a delicate matter.

However it's not my intention to offend anyone...

Let's say I'm a person who chose to stop himself in the point his brain can arrive... this obviously left out the possibility for me to believe in a religion...

Glad to hear it

You might want to look for a previous thread called "Can logic lead to religion" which you might find interesting. I am not sure what exactly was concluded in that thread but it does raise some interesting issues.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 11:35 am

Originally posted by Nexus
Could a behaviour of the USA be the cause of all this?

We have a winner!

However, I think that is a different discussion...

@Littiz, sorry, I was under the impression that you were a Catholic. I must be confusing you with someone else though...Anyway, forget the whole Northern Ireland thing...

Anyway, firstly, you can certainly classify Islam and the Swedish population as different groups, but I am sure that the Isamic Swedish population would have something to say about it...

And I said 'ratio' not 'radio'...

but that doesn't matter...

My actual points: I do not disagree that it was Islamic terrorists who destroyed the WTC. And I do not disagree that it could only have been Islamic terrorists, in the world we live in...but it is not because they are Islamic...it is because of the political situation which they live in - i.e. The one in which Israelis live in Palestine. If Palestine was a Jewish country, you can surely see that it would be Jews doing exactly the same thing...

?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 12:05 pm

Originally posted by frogus
Anyway, firstly, you can certainly classify Islam and the Swedish population as different groups, but I am sure that the Isamic Swedish population would have something to say about it...

There is quite an Islamic population here that would object...

However, I should mention that a Swedish man is currently in custody suspected for planning a hi-jack of a plane. According to media, he tried to board an aircraft with explosives hidden in his shoes.

Terrorism is a terrible thing, but we must understand the mechanism that create terrorism in order to avoid it. Islam does not create terrorism, religion does not create terrorism either. Other factors do. And we must also understand that the line between freedom fighters and terrorists is not as sharp as we perhaps like to think - terrorist methods is sometimes a last resort choice when a group of people have no means and no resources to fight an overwhelming, technically superior power. (Look at Chechnya for instance, that's a good example.)

It is popular to believe people can be divided into evil and good, civilised and not civilised, mad and sane and other similar polarised simplifications. Especially media and politicians like to divide the world and it's population that way. But we should all know better than believing in this. After the WTC attack, it was very difficult to discuss reasons that could underlie terrorism, since many people, especially in the US naturally, perceived such discussions as "defending the terrorists". These images were of couse heavily supported by Dubbayh, who claimed everybody who did not support the US sided with the terrorists. By viewing terrorism as "pure evil" and societies where terrorism exist and may originate as fundamentally different from other societies, we fail to analyse the mechanisms behind fantatism that leads to terrorism. And remember - fanatism, religious or not, exist in all cultures, it is part of the potential in human nature. In the US, religious fanatics murder staff working at abortion clinics and lobby for US children to be brainwashed with ideas that science has proven wrong long, long ago and no other christian or other religious culture has a problem with. This is how fanatism can be expressed when the fanatics have resources. When they don't, they may just strap a belt with explosives on them, and blow themselves or others to pieces. In my eyes there is no difference in immorality to kill innocent civilians with a suicide bomb attack than shooting them with a gun outside their workplace.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 12:32 pm

Hmmm, it appears I used the word "poverty" without due care and consideration

What I (probably) meant to say is that oppression (real or imagined, doesn't particularly matter) causes people to respond violently. However, while Al-Qeada and a sub-saharan terrorist group (Laurent Kabila's "freedom fighters" in Zaire, maybe?) may recruit equal numbers and recieve similar training, African revolutionaries have a decent chance of winning, whereas Al-Qaeda hasn't a hope - the people oppressing Al-Qaeda hotbeds (Israelis, Americans, the Saudi authorities) have access to the most powerful military machine the world has ever seen.
The African revolutionaty is fighting an enemy that can be defeated by conventional warfare, but the best Al-Qeada can hope for is to injure and demoralise America. In either case, they're using the most damaging means they have on their enemy, but it happens that targeting civilians is far more demoralising than attacking the military (though they do that too), and it's easier to ensure delivery if the bomber is there personally to deliver the bomb. Hence, the suicide bombers.

Littiz · Post by **Littiz** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 5:40 pm

@Frogus: urgh!

ratio!!!! Of course!!!! Ehm, I was in hurry, forgive
me!!! I thought you spoke about propaganda!
Actually, it was a good point...
Still, 30 suicide terrorists...
Ok, in Sweden there are Moslims, but you got my point!!!!
That's why I said "more likely to find", after all...

C Elegans gave a pair of good examples, nice reasoning!
Don't forget though, that Islamic fanatics don't go after something
specific as abortionists.
They oppose the entire "western world" (please, let's avoid a debate
about this definition now! You see what I mean)

Anyway, all these argumentations hold their degree of truth.
But about a point I *cannot* be moved.
Whatever the reasons behind (cultural, economical, state of necessity
or whatsoever), ultimately, he who intentionally kills people
*is* evil.
Ultimately I said, 'cause you can be led to that situation
by who knows what, but in the end, when you are about to kill someone,
if you have just a trace of humanity in you, you stop.
Just seeing the person you're about to kill should be enough.
Let's remember this simple thing first.
We are always trying to find reasons and justification to explain why
people do horrible acts, tribunals are ever more inclined to
state "mental illness" or so, and everything is nice.
I've seen people really ill, mentally I mean, yet totally GOOD and
lovely.
It's something.... innate.
Some are capable to intimately realize that killing is "bad".
It means to annihilate worlds, passions, tales, emotions.....
Some others don't understand this, or do not care.
So, in my childish definition, they *are*, indeed, evil.
If you have a better word, please, tell me.

In my case, I can hate attitudes, fanaticisms, behaviours, even
entire religions when pushed to the maximum (as I was a year ago).
This is different from hating PEOPLE, all the less hating them to death!
I would never do harm to anybody.
Oh, ok, two exceptions, maybe...
Murderers of kids (really), and.... politicians!!!!
(with all their "we do this for the good of the country, we do that
for the good of the country!")
Shoot them on sight.

Ambiorix · Post by **Ambiorix** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 5:43 pm

Originally posted by frogus
My actual points: I do not disagree that it was Islamic terrorists who destroyed the WTC. And I do not disagree that it could only have been Islamic terrorists, in the world we live in...but it is not because they are Islamic...it is because of the political situation which they live in - i.e. The one in which Israelis live in Palestine. If Palestine was a Jewish country, you can surely see that it would be Jews doing exactly the same thing... ?

No, I do not see the Jews doing exactly the same things. Jews were persecuted throughout the centuries. Far worse than anything done to the Palestinians. Yet they very rarely resorted to violence, assasination or terrorism against their oppressors.

What exactly is so special about special about Palestine? Some islamic rulers (like Saddam), Russia and China (against the muslim Uighurs) have done worse things to muslims than Israel. Yet I son't see them targetted by the fundamentalists.

Ambiorix · Post by **Ambiorix** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 5:53 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans
It is popular to believe people can be divided into evil and good, civilised and not civilised, mad and sane and other similar polarised simplifications. Especially media and politicians like to divide the world and it's population that way. But we should all know better than believing in this. After the WTC attack, it was very difficult to discuss reasons that could underlie terrorism, since many people, especially in the US naturally, perceived such discussions as "defending the terrorists". These images were of couse heavily supported by Dubbayh, who claimed everybody who did not support the US sided with the terrorists. By viewing terrorism as "pure evil" and societies where terrorism exist and may originate as fundamentally different from other societies, we fail to analyse the mechanisms behind fantatism that leads to terrorism. And remember - fanatism, religious or not, exist in all cultures, it is part of the potential in human nature. In the US, religious fanatics murder staff working at abortion clinics and lobby for US children to be brainwashed with ideas that science has proven wrong long, long ago and no other christian or other religious culture has a problem with. This is how fanatism can be expressed when the fanatics have resources. When they don't, they may just strap a belt with explosives on them, and blow themselves or others to pieces. In my eyes there is no difference in immorality to kill innocent civilians with a suicide bomb attack than shooting them with a gun outside their workplace.

No, it is not popular to divide people between the good and the evil. Rather today's vogue is not to recognise good and evil and to resort to moral equivalence. Like you do. If you don't see the difference between the rare madman who kills an abortionist and organised fundamentalist terrorism, I can't help you.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 7:10 pm

@Ambiorix, watch the flames--unless, of course, you're going to tell me that you have factual evidence that one of your fellow posters literally can't recognize the difference between good and evil.

And for everybody: please remember the forum rules.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sat Sep 07, 2002 12:35 am

Originally posted by Ambiorix
If you don't see the difference between the rare madman who kills an abortionist and organised fundamentalist terrorism, I can't help you.

If you have a problem with my opinions, please take it to PMs since flaming of other members is not allowed at this forum.

So what do you believe is the difference in the example I stated above?

CM · Post by CM » Sat Sep 07, 2002 5:17 am

Real life kicked in but i am back.
I dont have the time to go through all the posts and thus i will not comment on any at the moment.
However if the approval of the mods i would like Amb to cover the problems with Islam and all related issues in this thread.
I rather answer incorrect and ignorant assumptions (this isnt directed to you amb just a general statement) then be PC.
I said so in the Islam QandA thread and i would like to see an open debate.
However mods are the final word and i will abide by what they say.
This will also be an oppurtunity for many to learn as well.

Amb choose whatever you want to discuss, however if are going to quote a hadis or a surah from the Quran i would want to know who did the translation. If you have the hadis i will require you state which of the 6 accepted writers do you take the translation from.

In return i will provide sources if required about what i say. But you will have to bear with me as I have sources which cant be listed as a link ie my life and up bringing.