Sept 11-
- Thread starter welsh
- Start date
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Sense when was political fractioning a good thing? The Rhineland system, with it's almost comical swaying in the breeze did not do the world good in 1933. True, the American system has it's problems (like the lack of a Leftist party I appreciate), but I would call the marrige of political stability and something approaching democracy a good thing.
Still, I would *not* mind more parties in the US, that is for sure, although I think that to the degree that our political system looks anything like France or Italy, where people like Berlisconi take power and the choice is between Chirac and LePen would not fare America well.
Still, I would *not* mind more parties in the US, that is for sure, although I think that to the degree that our political system looks anything like France or Italy, where people like Berlisconi take power and the choice is between Chirac and LePen would not fare America well.
Political fractioning is good because it gives the voter options, the system in the USA is far from decent in that respect. In fact, it absolutely sucks.
Yes, people you may not like could get elected as a leader, but that's the very basis of democracy, majority rules, live with it, or stop idolizing democracy.
The funny thing about minorities in a democracy, is that they generally lose, simply because they ARE a minority. Any democracy will fail to please minority groups fully, UNLESS those minority groups have a lot of influence(Ie. the politicians), OR the general attitude towards everything is one of consensus, instead of domination by the majority and the elected part/president. I like that in our political system, I live in a country where consensus is someting that is strived for, but then again, that doesn't ALWAYS happen.
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
I could understand the vitrues of it, but I think that our political system suits our nation perfectly. I am not certain it would be good for anybody if America had a real Handmaiden's Tale like Right Wing. Which is not to say that the American people are stupid- just that with being the most powerful nation in history comes a need for centrific polotics.
welsh
Junkmaster
Gwydion said:
True, up to a point. Majority politics are what often leads to much of our legislation, and to our selection of executive. But the institutions of democracy are also crafted to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. One find this perhaps best in the judicial system and in the idea of constitutional rights.
One measure of a democracy is how well it treats its weakest and most insular minorities. It was partly the danger of that tyranny of the majority that led to our Bill of Rights in the US. One also finds discussion of that in the Federalist Papers (#51 I think) as well as by Tocqueville and Mill.
Here's a discussion from Madison-
http://www.classicnote.com/ClassicNotes/Titles/federalist/summ51.html
It's been awhile since I did the Federalist papers but on factioning in the US system see Federalist 10 which should probably be read in conjunction with 51.
This is, of course, one of the great challenges of democratic governance. Those in power, even if a majority election, have the ability to dominate the agenda to the disservice of minorities. Tax cuts for the rich, screw the poor- type stuff. Why screw the poor, because its difficult for them to get representation, because rich interests are more powerful. Why do the rich get to have more power, because their freedom of speech (and thus power to contribute money) is the same as the poor.
Which actually comes back to notions of human rights. In the US we generally favor civil rights- individual liberties. In other countries social and community rights are more regarded. One reason why the Europeans often have a better life on some quality of life issues (health care, vacation time, hours per week) is because of stronger labor unions. To have those unions, one needs stronger support for economic rights.
Before the New Deal, the notion of civil rights included the right of contract, but this notion was used against everything from fair salaries for women, long hours for labor, child labor, and a variety of other types of legislation that was directed to helping improve conditions for workers. Such legislation was deemed to violate the Right to Contract. Not surprising the judicial system was headed by corporate attorneys!
ConstinpatedCraprunner said:
I fail to see what these two have to do with each other. As far as I know, the Rhineland model in its current form wasn't used anywhere in 1933, except maybe in Holland and Belgium.
Yeah, but the French and Italian systems suck.
Roland Deschain
First time out of the vault
I can't imagine how horribly I would have reacted to that muslim bitch you met, Blade Runner. Holy fuck. I hope that cunt dies a horrible horrible death. I hate such blind, misguided hatred.
My blind hatred towards her is merely a defensive measure, and I simply can't help it.
To me... Sept. 11 was a tragedy, but it hasn't affected me personally so I don't really feel strongly about it. It has been an excuse to go to war and have a chance to do something with my military career, but thus far I have not had a chance to go overseas.
My blind hatred towards her is merely a defensive measure, and I simply can't help it.
To me... Sept. 11 was a tragedy, but it hasn't affected me personally so I don't really feel strongly about it. It has been an excuse to go to war and have a chance to do something with my military career, but thus far I have not had a chance to go overseas.
welsh
Junkmaster
Roland Deschain said:
Roland- I agree with you that such single minded hatred is reprehensible and for me Sept 11 is a tragedy. For months people would ask me what I thought and I would say that Osama was such a fucking Prick to do that.
On the other side, a lot of folks in the world, especially the islamic world, feel that the US is part of the problem they face, that the US has caused them great pain and sadness, ruined lives, maintained ruthless dictators, kept them in poverty and dispair. A rather nasty war between Iran and Iraq did serve US purposes (better for two snakes fight each other than to bite someone else).
I am not saying that to justify her position. But perhaps the problem is not that the US often suffers such blind hate, but that we don't really understand why, nor are we sure of how to deal with that.
People are not born prejudiced, nor with hatred. Rather they learn it. One of the great beauties of life is - that which was once learned can be unlearned. Prejudices and hatreds are not in-born, but can be changed.
Look at many of the experiences of the last 100 years or so, where bitter enemies have embraced as friends.
That hatred is a problem. But furthering that hatred or using it as a reason to respond in kind is not the answer. Especially not from the US which, with a culture largely shaped by judeo-christian values, should respond with a policy to change that hatred.
I think it would do us well to understand why the US alienates or creates so much hatred, and perhaps undertake policies that breed friendships rather than animosities.
Actually, the United States of America is a Federal Republic. Get your facts straight, yo.ConstinpatedCraprunner said:
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
While Russia is annihalating entire towns of Muslims, and China is repressing MILLIONS of Muslim Mongols, we are the enemy, you know why?
Because of the Nazi influnce. Everything wrong in the Arab world can be traced back to the Nazis and the Soviets.
People do not realize the extent of the Nazi influnce. At diffirent times, Anwar Sadat and several other inlfuential Arabs confesseed to being Nazi spies. Nazi ideas, depite common opinon, where deeply sympathized in the Arab world, primarily because one of the major points of Nazisim was taking land from Imperial powers (Jews) and giving it to the pure. Although in Germany the focus was primarily on Aryan Superiority, the focus overseas was ALWAYS on the evils of the Jews, and this vien of anti-semitisim was already deeply popular when in 1903 the Oman government orderd all Jewish orpahs be raised Muslim, and within a few decades expelled all Jews. That is the primary reason so many Arab therioes on the International Jew intersect with Nazi ideas, although to be fair many of these ideas can be traced to the Russian influnce in the Mid East. Many views on American society also stem from this period- before 1930, Americans occupied a place between "godlike" and "idolized" in the Arab view. A former colonial nation that fought colonial aspirations of the Europeans everywhere, a nation that was respected for power and morality, and was modern. But then the Nazis began spreading ideas on the corruption of American life, on the evils of Capitalisim and such. Not that Communisim did not help on that front.
That hated is a problem for 90% of Islam, the Koran and thirteen hundread years of Arab history. There is one incedent in which the Arabs have not tried to annihalate Christianity, and that was when they where under Christian rule.
Sorry.
ConstinpatedCraprunner said:
You are wrong on so many levels.
Anyone wants to take this one?
uh-huh, 'cause, y'know, the Christians never tried to fight the Qu'uran with the ultimate goal of eradicating it. Duh! Crusades!
There's a reason the muslims had their golden age before we do, the islam is a more modern and peaceful religion than Christianity, which is way outdated. Islam is outdated also, especially 'cause it can't adapt, but not as bad as old '50's Christianity, though that religion adapted nicely.
What problems with the Arab world? The problems where they dislike the USA for being a power-hungry nation that tries to suck the blood out of the Middle-East(And thus Arab) world? WOw, you really think that has anything to do with Nazism or the SU? No, a definite no. The Arab world hasn't been fond of the SU any more than it has been fond of the USA.
But, you may ask, why are they all against the USA then? Well, maybe it is because they dislike the USA, without the influence of the SU. IN fact, it's very possible that if I lived there I'd dislike it for what it is doing. They see it as the ultimate Christian country, and they are partially right, they also see it as a big corrupt corporate world. And again, they are partially right, and they dislike the USA because of that.
Al-Qaeda, for instance, started out as an anti-Soviet organisation, with ties to the CIA. When the Soviet Union broke down, Al Qaeda didn't do much, other than gathering resources and training, with CIA-provided measures. When the Gulf War erupted Al Qaeda offered to help, but the USA was called in instead. When the USA stayed there, Al Qaeda saw that as offensive, and only THEN started to go after the USA. NOTHING with either Soviets, OR Nazism there.
As for Nazism playing an important part, again, not correct. There have been partial anti-semitic sentiments in the ARab world for al long time, like there have been all over the world for a long time. Long before the Nazis started to try to wipe the Jews out, there have been anti-semitic sentiments. So, Nazism isn't at the source of ANYTHING at all, IF anti-semitism is, at some point, the source of problems in the Arab world(And it probably is, but there are much much larger problems than that), it has NOTHING to do with Nazism, other than the both of those being anti-semitic.
Yeah, and the Arabs definitely wiped out entire Christian communities and what not when trying to conquer Europe(Spain etc.). Oh wait, they didn't, they just let the Christians live quietly and peacefully and remain Christian. All they ACTUALLY did was raise higher taxes on the Christians. That's right, definitely eradicating Christianity.
Sander said:
I...don't believe so.
The Taliban was an American-trained fighting force trained to defeat the Soviets, but I don't believe the US had anything to do with Al-Qaida...
http://www.rotten.com/library/history/terrorist-organizations/al-qaeda/
That's what I misread, apparently, Kharn. You're right, I'm not correct. It seems that Al Qaeda was more quiet, not being based on CIA stuff. But bin Laden was, and he founded Al Qaeda. But the rest of what I said was right, for as far as I know.
That's what I misread, apparently, Kharn. You're right, I'm not correct. It seems that Al Qaeda was more quiet, not being based on CIA stuff. But bin Laden was, and he founded Al Qaeda. But the rest of what I said was right, for as far as I know.
welsh
Junkmaster
Ok, here is another place where I plead ignorance on the relationship between Nazism and current Arab politics.
The word Nazi is a strong one, so I think we need to think about that more carefully.
I will point that out from what I do know, Kharn and Sander are generally right. Spain went through a high point in its intellectual history during Spanish rule. I also know that Turkey has generally benefitted from a more cosmopolitan society- especially in Istanbul-than most of the Western world, because of tolerance for other faiths.
Whether that is true now, is another matter.
WIth regard to Nazis, I remember that the Phlange party in Lebandon did have a strong Nationalist Socialist bent. If we look elsewhere in the middle east, one often finds Nationalist strong men utilizing a mixed socialist economic party, in some cases only allowing single parties, often utilizing strong rhetoric to stay in power as well as proceeds from oil reserves.
Whether this is a form of governance that mixes Islam with Communism or Socialism is an interesting idea. That the governments often look kind of like Nazis- well.... Lets see- strong man, military power, socialist economic policies centered around a single party that penetrates society, complex intelligence organizations used for internal repression.
Now whether this was created by a desire to emulate the Nazis or merely a coincidence that many governments in the developing world are Autocratic dictatorships that dominate their economies and centralized power.
One can look like a Nazi without being a Nazi.
Still, it would be interesting to see if the Nazi's tried to spread their ideology into the middle east during the period of English and French colonialism.
More to the point, I would think that the notion of single party rule, strong man power and socialist parties has more to do with borrowing from a Soviet model.
The word Nazi is a strong one, so I think we need to think about that more carefully.
I will point that out from what I do know, Kharn and Sander are generally right. Spain went through a high point in its intellectual history during Spanish rule. I also know that Turkey has generally benefitted from a more cosmopolitan society- especially in Istanbul-than most of the Western world, because of tolerance for other faiths.
Whether that is true now, is another matter.
WIth regard to Nazis, I remember that the Phlange party in Lebandon did have a strong Nationalist Socialist bent. If we look elsewhere in the middle east, one often finds Nationalist strong men utilizing a mixed socialist economic party, in some cases only allowing single parties, often utilizing strong rhetoric to stay in power as well as proceeds from oil reserves.
Whether this is a form of governance that mixes Islam with Communism or Socialism is an interesting idea. That the governments often look kind of like Nazis- well.... Lets see- strong man, military power, socialist economic policies centered around a single party that penetrates society, complex intelligence organizations used for internal repression.
Now whether this was created by a desire to emulate the Nazis or merely a coincidence that many governments in the developing world are Autocratic dictatorships that dominate their economies and centralized power.
One can look like a Nazi without being a Nazi.
Still, it would be interesting to see if the Nazi's tried to spread their ideology into the middle east during the period of English and French colonialism.
More to the point, I would think that the notion of single party rule, strong man power and socialist parties has more to do with borrowing from a Soviet model.
Bryn Jacobson said:
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/90sep/rage.htm
A) It is called the Armenian Genocide. Also, the Orthodox Church NEVER had a Crusade, dispite the fact that they have taken all the major hits from Islam, dispite Lebanon. Infact, it is impossible to be completly forgiven for the murder of an Infidel in Orthodoxy. That is why legendary warrior figures in Byzantine history become monk-like- to seek forgiveness for thier sins. The beggining of Mt. Athos can be traced to this, when, after a particularly brutal campaign, Nicephorus built a personal monastary.
B) Peaceful? Do you know what Muhammed's last words where? "May there never be two religions in Arabia"
C) How about "He who dies without going on a campaign dies in a sort of unbielief""A day on campaign is greater then month of fasting and praying""Paradise is in the shadow of swords""The nip of an ant should hurt the martyr more then the stab of a heathen sword, for while the one is painful, the other is more welcomed then cool water on a summer day in the desert""Allah marvels at those who have been brought to Paradise in Chains". And Sharia gets worse.
D) When Islam spread, it killed hundreads of cultures. It annihaleted everything in it's cultural path. When was the last time you heard an Egyptian speak in Coptic? When was the last time you heard a Syrain speak Syraic?
E) Read on Umar. I do not have time to teach you his history.
A) It is called the Armenian Genocide. Also, the Orthodox Church NEVER had a Crusade, dispite the fact that they have taken all the major hits from Islam, dispite Lebanon. Infact, it is impossible to be completly forgiven for the murder of an Infidel in Orthodoxy. That is why legendary warrior figures in Byzantine history become monk-like- to seek forgiveness for thier sins. The beggining of Mt. Athos can be traced to this, when, after a particularly brutal campaign, Nicephorus built a personal monastary.
B) Peaceful? Do you know what Muhammed's last words where? "May there never be two religions in Arabia"
C) How about "He who dies without going on a campaign dies in a sort of unbielief""A day on campaign is greater then month of fasting and praying""Paradise is in the shadow of swords""The nip of an ant should hurt the martyr more then the stab of a heathen sword, for while the one is painful, the other is more welcomed then cool water on a summer day in the desert""Allah marvels at those who have been brought to Paradise in Chains". And Sharia gets worse.
D) When Islam spread, it killed hundreads of cultures. It annihaleted everything in it's cultural path. When was the last time you heard an Egyptian speak in Coptic? When was the last time you heard a Syrain speak Syraic?
E) Read on Umar. I do not have time to teach you his history.
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
You might have misunderstood me, which is easy to do I must admit.
As a group of "morals", I find Islam to be appalingly misogynistic, hippocritical (ever read the chronolgically last part of the Koran, "Prohibition", in which Muhammed scorns his wife for finding him with a Coptic handmaiden after promising Hafsa and A'isha, his outher wives not to), and sometimes flat out evil.
But as a system of spirituality Islam is quite close to perfect. I respect many breakaways from Islam, such as the Druze, the Ba'hai, the Sufi, and have participated in many of thier praryers. But one must understand that the Islam of Umar, and possibly our modern Muhammed is vile and warlike, and that the definition of Jihad as constant warfare against the Infidel until all lands pray to Allah. Just read Sharia, or all of the Koran sometime.
That said, people who are Muslim are NOT evil. Having been to Turkey on numerous occasions, I can honestly say that the Turks, dispite some of thier human rights record and the bruises the Balkans still have from them, are some of the nicest, most polite and intellegent people I ever hope to meet. But does that mean that a certain aspect of thier lives is not wrong? Of course not.
As a group of "morals", I find Islam to be appalingly misogynistic, hippocritical (ever read the chronolgically last part of the Koran, "Prohibition", in which Muhammed scorns his wife for finding him with a Coptic handmaiden after promising Hafsa and A'isha, his outher wives not to), and sometimes flat out evil.
But as a system of spirituality Islam is quite close to perfect. I respect many breakaways from Islam, such as the Druze, the Ba'hai, the Sufi, and have participated in many of thier praryers. But one must understand that the Islam of Umar, and possibly our modern Muhammed is vile and warlike, and that the definition of Jihad as constant warfare against the Infidel until all lands pray to Allah. Just read Sharia, or all of the Koran sometime.
That said, people who are Muslim are NOT evil. Having been to Turkey on numerous occasions, I can honestly say that the Turks, dispite some of thier human rights record and the bruises the Balkans still have from them, are some of the nicest, most polite and intellegent people I ever hope to meet. But does that mean that a certain aspect of thier lives is not wrong? Of course not.
ConstinpatedCraprunner said:
Fantastic, but neither of us were talking about the Orthodox Church, we were both referring to Christianity, as in the whole religion. You're going to tell me Christianity has a peaceful history? No
Christianity has had a history at LEAST as opressive and agressive as the muslim one, why EXACTLY do you rise one religion above the other?
And according to God, you may worship only Him, the Christian God, or, according to Dark Age Christian, you should die, this just doesn't work that simply.
Are you actually claiming the Bible is any better?
And even if it was or not, it's a matter of interpetation. Look at Christians now and Christian 500 years ago. You're acting as if somehow when a religion is violent, it has to be inherently violent ipso facto...I mean, seriously, man, have you thought this over?
Why in Frith's name are you raising Christianity above the Islam? Looking at their history, I think it'd be unjust to raise one above the other.
When's the last time you heard and Italian speak Roman? As welsh and I both mentioned, people sure did I shite lot better under the muslim emprire than under Christian empires like that of Charles the Great, both in being able to hold their own cultures (I don't know if noticed, but ALL non-Christian cultures in Northern America and Europe have been wiped out, I don't know why you forget to mention that) as well as in state of living (again, muslims had it better than Christians, the fact that we caught up to them is just history at works)
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Reaserch the Nuba and Mali and the Jannisaries and the Mamalukes, the Arab mideval cycle of violence that kept the Christians down until they gave up thier culture, thier faith and thier children. before you claim to know more of Islam. Go to St. Sophia before you claim to know the "true" nature of Islam, and claim that Christians destroyed more culters than the Arabs.
St. Peter did not conquer one of the greatest empires in history. Christ did not slaughter Jews. Christ did not rule over an Empire. Christ did not fornicate with a Pagan slave.
Actually, Jewish Law specifically states that "All people of the book (it was meant to include Zoastrianisim), if they belive and acto on thier faith they are not infldels".
Italian IS ROMAN. Arabic is NOT SYRIAC. It was NOT a NATURAL progression. You speak DUTCH, not LATIN, or ARAMAHIC, or HEBREW. YOU SPEAK THE LANGUAGE OF YOUR ANCESTORS.
My point is that Christianity did not adopt militarisim until.......TADA! 400 years of contact with Islam. Ever thought that the Crusade sounds a *bit* like a Christian Jihad? THAT IS BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT IS! The NT does not state that "A day on campaign is better then a month of fast and prayer". In one, ONE OUT OF SEVERAL accounts of Jesus does it say that faith determis who goes up and who goes down- the rest of it is basically Zoastrianisim mixed with Neo-Platonisim and contemporary liberal Judaisim.
St. Peter did not conquer one of the greatest empires in history. Christ did not slaughter Jews. Christ did not rule over an Empire. Christ did not fornicate with a Pagan slave.
Actually, Jewish Law specifically states that "All people of the book (it was meant to include Zoastrianisim), if they belive and acto on thier faith they are not infldels".
Italian IS ROMAN. Arabic is NOT SYRIAC. It was NOT a NATURAL progression. You speak DUTCH, not LATIN, or ARAMAHIC, or HEBREW. YOU SPEAK THE LANGUAGE OF YOUR ANCESTORS.
My point is that Christianity did not adopt militarisim until.......TADA! 400 years of contact with Islam. Ever thought that the Crusade sounds a *bit* like a Christian Jihad? THAT IS BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT IS! The NT does not state that "A day on campaign is better then a month of fast and prayer". In one, ONE OUT OF SEVERAL accounts of Jesus does it say that faith determis who goes up and who goes down- the rest of it is basically Zoastrianisim mixed with Neo-Platonisim and contemporary liberal Judaisim.