Kush,
i agree to a great deal with this article. i don't see it as a different point of view on terrorist motivation.
i'm not sure if the author is right about everything he wrote (do we know these youngsters acted that way because of their OWN underprivilegidness (or whatever the word may be) rather than because they idealisticaly belived they were doing it for the GREATER GOOD of their people in a far of land? - that's a very important assumption for his text, but from my experience (i know some radical young socialists) the other may be closer to the truth - as they were middle class, educated people (the bombers)), i also STRONGLY disslike using movies and fiction as a real life example, though authors may claime that it was 'based on real life testemonys' - we all know that historical movies are good for everyone but history students who get angry whenever they see one.
but important difference between my oppinions on the matter and his is the insisting that the West should do this or that to make terrorists understand that... blah... blah...
we all know that the West killed much more INNOCENT people for oil than terrorists did, and the West should first right all the wrongs it did (and take pride in the good, of course), rather than killing some more people in the name of perserving the life. let the one who is without sin cast the first stone, says the Bible upon which western mind was developed through centuries. and it sounds wise enough to me. let the West stop killing first, before accusing someone else of murder!
Explosions in London
Jurica it was another viewpoint.
I am not sure I can get into a discussion with you on this coz' its very hard for me to understand your (and for that matter Dem's) thinking. I wish I could. I'm sure our different life experiences shape the way that we think. I think you make many assumptions too...even in the post you have just written. Its for you to figure out yourself what I'm talking about.
There's not much point in going back in history to see who did what to whom first. More realistically, some people have too much time on their hands and as bee said somewhere else "too much reading confuses them" so they end up spending that time in rather destructive ways.
I am not sure I can get into a discussion with you on this coz' its very hard for me to understand your (and for that matter Dem's) thinking. I wish I could. I'm sure our different life experiences shape the way that we think. I think you make many assumptions too...even in the post you have just written. Its for you to figure out yourself what I'm talking about.
There's not much point in going back in history to see who did what to whom first. More realistically, some people have too much time on their hands and as bee said somewhere else "too much reading confuses them" so they end up spending that time in rather destructive ways.
I have to interject that the "too much reading confuses them" was, of course, intended to be a slam ~ one which I found very demeaning, in fact ~ vs. an accurate state of affairs. To suggest that someone is confused because they read too much doesn't come near as close to the truth as saying someone is confused because they read too little.
Lizzytysh...I borrowed bee's phrase only to make the point that former engineering students like Mohammad Atta got a little confused between engineering and destructive religious fanaticism. It would have been better for him to not have read at all.
Jurica...I'll say a little more and then I'll stop. There is a theory that one can always find a reason and try to understand everything a man (or woman) ever does in his or her life. But in practice you have to draw the line somewhere at understanding - for personal safety and for society. Its hard to show understanding to a group of people who would hold hostage 300 kids in a school in Russia and use them as human shields, I really really dont care what the injustice is - or whether it is real or perceived. And often it is the latter though not always.
Which actually reminds me of a Willie Nelson line...from the aptly titled 'The End of Understanding'.
Don't you know love and understanding go together
Ask too much of one and both will die.
p.s. Oh and you should see 'Downfall' if you havent....and dont make assumptions about it and its makers and about history students and many other things.
Jurica...I'll say a little more and then I'll stop. There is a theory that one can always find a reason and try to understand everything a man (or woman) ever does in his or her life. But in practice you have to draw the line somewhere at understanding - for personal safety and for society. Its hard to show understanding to a group of people who would hold hostage 300 kids in a school in Russia and use them as human shields, I really really dont care what the injustice is - or whether it is real or perceived. And often it is the latter though not always.
Which actually reminds me of a Willie Nelson line...from the aptly titled 'The End of Understanding'.
Don't you know love and understanding go together
Ask too much of one and both will die.
p.s. Oh and you should see 'Downfall' if you havent....and dont make assumptions about it and its makers and about history students and many other things.
-
Tchocolatl
- Posts: 3805
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm
Kush I wonder who - other than yourself - you will convince with this type of add-no-argument-I-do-not-agree-with-'cause-they-are-wrong-anyway statement.
"Don't you know love and understanding go together
Ask too much of one and both will die."
Ask too little of one and both will die as well.
And what "too much" is in term of measurable quantity? By the way.
I know what Jurica meant, a child could understant, so I dont' think that "backgrounds" are of importance, here (I have the temptation to bitch and say, that readings could make people understand a lot of things, which tentation I did not resist, after all) : they are doing the war the way they can.
They have not the big means of their opponents, the weapons, the huge net of mass media as a tool of propaganda.
But the results are the same.
A war is a war. A rocket that makes innocents victims in their countries is not less important than the bomb that makes innocents victims in ours and vice versa.
Besides, brain washed bombers are not always middle-class-well- educated reading-too-much young men. Sometimes, they are also young non-educated poor women. It is more easy to wash a brain than to find a body to carry the said brain, whish is easier to find in the firs said category, howerer.
Yes, Lz macho attitude of control. The main problem is machos would prefer to die before loosing control. In a war if needed. In destroying everything and everybody they don't care to take into account as long as they can not control them. The road will be long I'm afraid before some of them, enough of them to make a "critical mass" recognize women and/or feminine energy as as useful and "good" and valuable and needed as masculinity. Patience and Courage!
"Don't you know love and understanding go together
Ask too much of one and both will die."
Ask too little of one and both will die as well.
And what "too much" is in term of measurable quantity? By the way.
I know what Jurica meant, a child could understant, so I dont' think that "backgrounds" are of importance, here (I have the temptation to bitch and say, that readings could make people understand a lot of things, which tentation I did not resist, after all) : they are doing the war the way they can.
They have not the big means of their opponents, the weapons, the huge net of mass media as a tool of propaganda.
But the results are the same.
A war is a war. A rocket that makes innocents victims in their countries is not less important than the bomb that makes innocents victims in ours and vice versa.
Besides, brain washed bombers are not always middle-class-well- educated reading-too-much young men. Sometimes, they are also young non-educated poor women. It is more easy to wash a brain than to find a body to carry the said brain, whish is easier to find in the firs said category, howerer.
Yes, Lz macho attitude of control. The main problem is machos would prefer to die before loosing control. In a war if needed. In destroying everything and everybody they don't care to take into account as long as they can not control them. The road will be long I'm afraid before some of them, enough of them to make a "critical mass" recognize women and/or feminine energy as as useful and "good" and valuable and needed as masculinity. Patience and Courage!
Tchoco- if one would be willing to analyze at least some of your sentences in your statements, and crumbs of some philosophical perceptions in your last post, one coul'd/would have hysterical laugh. Also, one could have good points as to prove, how dangerous is reading for some. As the good book says-the seed thrown in, where the thorns grows-nothing good will grow there. In the chaotic madness of thoughts-there is not really a knowledge or wisdom, just chaos of perceptions and manipulations with one or another theory. I am not willing to analyze, I can leave it at that. I tend to think that it is in the essence of Kush's response-there is no use of trying to convince anybody on anything.
bee
Lizzytish
I hope I still have the freedom of thought, the freedom to express them without being arrested by politically correct morale's police.
While reading this, one wonders, if there is any capability of abstract thinking, or just endless moralizing? Perhaps not. When every thought and method of thinking is reduced to fall in categories of morals-as "slam," or "demeaning." There can't possibly be any spark of something else-like there could be problems of intellectual life to be pondered about, that there could be a need of deeper understanding of creativity and intellect. There could have been even proposition that all knowledge is definable as measurement. There was no proposition from my part too much-or too little. Morale's police dreamed it up. Knowledge of nature comes from studies of nature as well as logic of mathematics leads to intellectual vision. No "too little"- or "too much" just consumed amount of literature leads to any of the above, much less to understanding of him/herself, if there is lack of very basic forms of knowledge. Ones subjective feeling or moral sentiment does not reveal the truth and meaning of nature or on any other object.I have to interject that the "too much reading confuses them" was, of course, intended to be a slam ~ one which I found very demeaning, in fact ~ vs. an accurate state of affairs. To suggest that someone is confused because they read too much doesn't come near as close to the truth as saying someone is confused because they read too little.
I hope I still have the freedom of thought, the freedom to express them without being arrested by politically correct morale's police.
bee
Aside from all the hyperbolizing of your last posting to me, Bee ~
~ Lizzy
"I hope I still have the freedom of thought, the freedom to express . . . ". . . a slam ~ one which I found very demeaning, . . .
"I hope I still have the freedom of thought, the freedom to express . . . "No Bossman or you, Lizzytish can call me snivelling rat. I've seen these big mouth "idealistic" rats for who they really are. I've also seen that pretentious liberalism and pretentious compassion-it is all words, . .
~ Lizzy
-
Tchocolatl
- Posts: 3805
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm
Bee, you know that I like you very much, you make me, sometimes, think to Capitaine Haddock, my favourite character when I was a child, and I like your paintings, but when it cames to these kind of subjects, whaterver you write, I just don't agree.
Your arguments are always going flat as you did not develop the skill to see what is happenning on the "other side". The other side is "bad", demonized, "your side" is the only "good" and in G_d's will, even if it goes againts all G_d's commands. Don't ask for the logic here, there is not. It is, in fact, so obvious, that no discussion, indeed, is needed. It is a war mentality, and this is for an important part, this kind of mentality that provides war.
Kush I doubt that you would solve all the problem in the world, I even think, seing the state of discussion that the world would be more save if you just go there, get drunk and have fun.
Your arguments are always going flat as you did not develop the skill to see what is happenning on the "other side". The other side is "bad", demonized, "your side" is the only "good" and in G_d's will, even if it goes againts all G_d's commands. Don't ask for the logic here, there is not. It is, in fact, so obvious, that no discussion, indeed, is needed. It is a war mentality, and this is for an important part, this kind of mentality that provides war.
Kush I doubt that you would solve all the problem in the world, I even think, seing the state of discussion that the world would be more save if you just go there, get drunk and have fun.
Hi Tchocolatl ~
I thought I'd give Kush a chance to explain his own comment first.
Over here, this comment is a common, humourous reference for people laughing at themselves [or others ] in light of the effects of alcohol. People tend to say things like, "Yep. We went and had a few drinks and solved all the world's problems." ~ commenting on some of the grandiose, unrealistic, "Eureka" type thinking that can come as a result of getting drunk.
It also [very indirectly] can incorporate some of the argumentativeness that can occur in regard to politics, etc. when trying to discuss those things under the influence of alcohol. That "I know I'm right, and you're wrong" stance.
~ Lizzy
I thought I'd give Kush a chance to explain his own comment first.
"I'd me more than happy to meet Jurica in a bar on a Friday night and solve all the problems of the world."
Over here, this comment is a common, humourous reference for people laughing at themselves [or others
] in light of the effects of alcohol. People tend to say things like, "Yep. We went and had a few drinks and solved all the world's problems." ~ commenting on some of the grandiose, unrealistic, "Eureka" type thinking that can come as a result of getting drunk. It also [very indirectly] can incorporate some of the argumentativeness that can occur in regard to politics, etc. when trying to discuss those things under the influence of alcohol. That "I know I'm right, and you're wrong" stance.
~ Lizzy
