JayB Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 It may be that you can't understand the phenomenon of Islamist violence taking poverty and repression into account, but it's far from clear that these two variables represent a complete picture of the phenomenon. You certainly can't understand it at all by removing the set of doctrines, convictions, etc that constitute Islam from the picture entirely, much less pretending that you'd have the same outcome if Jainism had been the predominant religion in the region for the past ~1400 years. That's certainly true - but that's not exactly what I've been driving at here. It's interesting to attempt to account for the manner in which religious convictions, morals, mores, and laws co-evolved in one fashion in society A, and another in society B. Neither focusing exclusively on the ideals embedded within whatever religious doctrine has prevailed in each society nor neglecting them will provide for a complete analysis of why primitive barbarism practiced in the name of a given religion is more prevalent in one than the other. It's just not clear to me why noting the torturous path away from depraved religious barbarism that started in the reformation requires that western liberals should collectively hold their tongues when witnessing depraved acts of religiously inspired barbarism in the present. Witch burnings in 17th century Salem mean that we are in no position to condemn female genital mutilation, the burqua, stoning adulteresses to death, needing four male witnesses to exhonerate rape victims, punishing apostates with death, tossing acid on schoolgirls, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc? Should we be prepared to grant indulgences to abortion clinic bombers based on the unique sociohistorical trajectory of southern Baptism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 More lies from JayB. The left hasn't held its collective tongue regarding human and civil rights abuses in Islamic societies now or 30 years ago when JayB's side was conveniently allied with Islamic extremists because it was expedient to provoke the Soviet Union into military intervention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I would kind of have a problem with a bunch of foreigners rolling into to town, setting up check points, kicking doors down, dragging people away, and throwing them into rivers to drown. Yeah...maybe just a little problem with that. But hey...ALLAH AKBAR! or whatev... Neat. I have a problem with things like the death penalty for apostates, etc that you can neither account for by recourse to Western misdeeds, nor seemingly find it within you to unconditionally condemn. I propose a game where I point out a practice like killing apostates and you strain your faculties to use it as a justifiable response to western cultural hegemony/imperialism, point out that it's no worse than a christian practice that was widespread a few centuries ago and thus exempt from a principled criticism, etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 as if it were impossible to condemn unconditionally on bases that do not include claiming that Islam is the root of all evil. to people like JayB, ancient barbarian practices are a hundred fold more evil than modern barbarian practices. He has yet to explain why stoning adulterers is so much more evil than Reagan arming the contras to butcher peasants, doctors and teachers, but perhaps some day he'll come clean on that one .. although, I am not holding my breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 here is one for the road for JayB so that he can consider the various uses of terror: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=School_of_the_Americas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) what about that one? 22,000 people murdered or disappeared As we all know, torturing and disappearing left wingers isn't terror, it's a picnic according to JayB. Edited February 11, 2011 by j_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimmo Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Witch burnings in 17th century Salem mean that we are in no position to condemn female genital mutilation, the burqua, stoning adulteresses to death, needing four male witnesses to exhonerate rape victims, punishing apostates with death, tossing acid on schoolgirls, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc? i'm a little puzzled as to what you are driving at: the attrocities you mention above are abominable, and i don't think anyone here is stating otherwise. What's your point? What are your suggestions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted February 11, 2011 Author Share Posted February 11, 2011 It's just not clear to me why noting the torturous path away from depraved religious barbarism that started in the reformation requires that western liberals should collectively hold their tongues when witnessing depraved acts of religiously inspired barbarism in the present. Witch burnings in 17th century Salem mean that we are in no position to condemn female genital mutilation, the burqua, stoning adulteresses to death, needing four male witnesses to exhonerate rape victims, punishing apostates with death, tossing acid on schoolgirls, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc? No one is "holding their tongues when witnessing depraved acts of religiously inspired barbarism". What you construe as relativism is simply an unwillingness to entertain an argument that lays blame for incidents of religious violence on the religion itself when the overwhelming majority of practitioners do not engage in them and when a comparative approach clearly shows that bloodyminded imperialism, oppression, and barbarism are themes present across the spectrum of religious texts. Your appeals to Jainism are ridiculous, as it's clearly been shown with regards to religious and communal violence in India, what Jainism doesn't provide, Hindutva certainly does. What's the point of laying blame for the Gujarat massacres on Hinduism, Jay? Where does that go? I don't blame Christianity for 17th century witch burning. What would be the point? Real scholars that study these topics would find the prospect laughable and people working on human and women's rights in countries where this shit happens would find it, for the practical purposes of their work, totally irrelevant. What's your excuse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimmo Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 what about that one? 22,000 people murdered or disappeared As we all know, torturing and disappearing left wingers isn't terror, it's a picnic according to JayB. i don't think he ever said this, to be fair. i believe JayB is against violence of any kind. and, to be fair again, violence i presume is a bit of an abstract for most people posting here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 based on memory Jay_B was for afghansitan and iraq. you know, huge violent wastes of money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 violence i presume is a bit of an abstract for most people posting here. meaning we/they have not seen violence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 kkk getting cockslapped doesnt count as violence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) I would kind of have a problem with a bunch of foreigners rolling into to town, setting up check points, kicking doors down, dragging people away, and throwing them into rivers to drown. Yeah...maybe just a little problem with that. But hey...ALLAH AKBAR! or whatev... Neat. I have a problem with things like the death penalty for apostates, etc that you can neither account for by recourse to Western misdeeds, nor seemingly find it within you to unconditionally condemn. I propose a game where I point out a practice like killing apostates and you strain your faculties to use it as a justifiable response to western cultural hegemony/imperialism, point out that it's no worse than a christian practice that was widespread a few centuries ago and thus exempt from a principled criticism, etc... And I have a problem with bullshit artists, such as yourself, who rooted for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq - and the unfathomable human misery those events caused. The message seems to be: our Big Idea projects were (as predicted by half of this country) abject failures...who can we blame? Now you're telling us that you're against "the death penalty for apostates"...as if anyone is FOR such a policy? Kind of like saying you're pro-puppy. Your mantra seems to be that the Left, whoever that is, has stood calmly by while Islam wreaks havoc. Taking Left and Right out of this and getting down reality, tell me, what have you done personally to forward the cause of civil rights either here or abroad? And no, voting Republican (or Democrat), the very minimum of civic duties for any citizen, doesn't count. Don't worry, I don't expect anything but a dodge or personal attack as a response here. I'd love to discover that I'm wrong, but I suspect you haven't done one tangible thing to advance the cause of human rights either here or elsewhere. Edited February 11, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) It's interesting to note that our invasions, by all accounts, serve only has glaring negative examples of how NOT to 'transition to democracy' for the Islamic world. Democracy through total destruction and chaos never seemed to catch on. The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt have everything to do with a natural human desire for secular democracy and self determination, and nothing to do with the threat of our extreme brand of violence so beloved by our ongoing neocon actions. Edited February 11, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Right Wing Thug #2, ousted by a secular, liberal democratic movement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Iran, hopefully you're next. We'd love to have the Persian people back in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted February 11, 2011 Author Share Posted February 11, 2011 Your mantra seems to be that the Left, whoever that is, has stood calmly by while Islam wreaks havoc. Taking Left and Right out of this and getting down reality, tell me, what have you done personally to forward the cause of civil rights either here or abroad? And no, voting Republican (or Democrat), the very minimum of civic duties for any citizen, doesn't count. Don't worry, I don't expect anything but a dodge or personal attack as a response here. I'd love to discover that I'm wrong, but I suspect you haven't done one tangible thing to advance the cause of human rights either here or elsewhere. Does trying to convince us that if the global "free market" dictates that millions of Americans should subsist on less than two dollars a day they should do it count? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimmo Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 based on memory Jay_B was for afghansitan and iraq. you know, huge violent wastes of money JayB is a rational humanoid who has come to understand that his previous support for the iraqi attrocity was a mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) what about that one? 22,000 people murdered or disappeared As we all know, torturing and disappearing left wingers isn't terror, it's a picnic according to JayB. i don't think he ever said this, to be fair. i believe JayB is against violence of any kind. and, to be fair again, violence i presume is a bit of an abstract for most people posting here. it is symptomatic that you assume JayB being against violence or terror, when in fact he is the consummate teflon man like the gipper who'll avoid answering questions and taking positions that would show his true nature: someone who believes that all ends justify the means including mass murder as long as one is sure to call it collateral damage and spew about freedom a lot. Not only is Hugh correct that JayB was a huge supporter of attacking Iraq and Afghanistan but he has always justified the policies of aiding violent coups and subsequent repression against the left that ever came up in discussions (for example he is fully aligned with Hayek's supports for the chilean Pinochet dictatorship as a necessary evil, albeit a temporary one), and although we haven't specifically discussed it you can bet he'd justify what happened in Argentina and our support of it too. So although he didn't say it was a picnic, it is fair to assume he would and he astutely won't respond anyway. For the record, there is a difference between violence and terror. Hunting down, torturing and disappearing leftists and their families is indeed violent but it is also the use of systematic terror by the state to incite fear and prevent all expressions of dissent to authoritarian rule. Edited February 11, 2011 by j_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimmo Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 it is symptomatic that you assume JayB being against violence or terror symptomatic of what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 symptomatic of the success JayB appears to have with his smooth talking, dodging, cherry picking, etc ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Fundamentally most people don't understand what is terror. As i said yesterday, terror isn't about killing as many people as possible, it is about killing some people as publicly and gruesomely as possible to incite fear and a response to that fear (be it to hunker down and let plutocrats rule the roost to not become a victim, or a clamp down on civil liberties and the security state). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I am reminded of an exchange I had with JayB before the invasion of Iraq. I clearly remember arguing that changes in the ME would occur because of the internal dynamics of these countries if left alone but also through peaceful exchanges between our cultures, via commerce, the internet, etc ... whereas attacking these countries would not only be counterproductive to democratic aims but also produce blowback we couldn't handle. Witness, Egypt where socio-economic conditions combined with globally influenced youthful desire for democracy succeeded one step of the way toward freedom, and compare that to the bloodbath that continues to be Iraq. I am not saying this to toot my horn, but it is once again important to consider batting average when assessing political diatribes, then it becomes clear that JayB's logic of empire couched as a quest for liberty is bankrupt through and through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I am reminded of an exchange I had with JayB before the invasion of Iraq. I clearly remember arguing that changes in the ME would occur because of the internal dynamics of these countries if left alone but also through peaceful exchanges between our cultures, via commerce, the internet, etc ... whereas attacking these countries would not only be counterproductive to democratic aims but also produce blowback we couldn't handle. Witness, Egypt where socio-economic conditions combined with globally influenced youthful desire for democracy succeeded one step of the way toward freedom, and compare that to the bloodbath that continues to be Iraq. I am not saying this to toot my horn, but it is once again important to consider batting average when assessing political diatribes, then it becomes clear that JayB's logic of empire couched as a quest for liberty is bankrupt through and through. If you are going to toot, you should have a link. Otherwise, aren't you just talking out yer ass? It would be remarkable that you could accurately remember from years ago, when you do not appear to be able to often correctly replay what others are saying just moments later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 in other words you are saying I am lying, but you wouldn't attack me personally of course (little hypocrite) ... I won't even bother start considering looking for a link until JayB denies it. and quit claiming something you never claimed when it mattered, i.e. as things occurred. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.