----- Original Message -----
From: "OrionWorks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: New Segway Products
I can sympathize with your sense of outrage. However, are you willing to
acknowledge the sense of outrage that also exists on the other side as
well?
I acknowledge that it exists. I just happen to think that we are right, and
they are wrong, and that that is that. (a lot of thats, a most versatile
word!)
It's possible it may not have been your intention but from my perspective
you seem to be involved in religion bashing. To that I would say, bashing
any religion, be it Muslin, Judaism, Christianity, or whatever misses a
crucial point. It only fans the flames.
Did you even read what I wrote? I am not religion bashing. There are plenty
of other members here on Vortex that do that job quite well. I am
condemning, however, a certain group of radicals who see fit to destroy
anything which does not fit with their views of Islam. Unfortunately, a very
large percentage of the Muslim world either supports this to some degree or
another, despite what may be said for the benefit of the TV cameras, or they
do nothing to combat this evil in their midst. Aiding criminals will get you
thrown in jail very quickly, so I would say that aiding "terrorists" (the
word isn't strong enough), when the stakes are so very much higher, should
probably get you killed.
As far as "bashing", I do not care if Muslims want to peacefully coexist. If
they do, I have no problem with them. If however, as a very many do
(despite, again, the news-bites) they support in any degree what the
radicals are doing, then I am not interested in bashing them, merely seeing
them destroyed utterly. That goes for any religion.
The kinds of spectacular carnage most rational human beings abhor, such as
flying commercial airlines into buildings, or walking into a public place
and blowing >themselves up, are performed for the most part by fascists
and extremists. They are not religious acts, even though I'm sure the
perpetrators have convinced >themselves that their actions are motivated
by religious faith.
This is pretty much true by definition. But, if a Jew or Christian were to
do these things in the name of God, can you tell me in all honesty that
there would not be those very vocal members here (you know who you are) who
would not be quick to point out the religious connection? Its already been
done, pointing out the crusades, etc. Its just not apparently politically
correct when Muslims are the targeted by this sort of talk.
Such acts of carnage are performed as the result of having nurtured a
unique blend hatred to the extreme, one that has been carefully cultivated
and then given an >outlet, all to suit the goals of a small collection very
shrewd extremists whose own goals are to assure that their own kind, their
particular way of life, is vaulted to >the top of the pecking order.
...A radical Islamic way of life? Oh, sorry, religion bashing again I
suppose... the truth doesn't set us free any more I gather. (do note
qualifier: radical)
In order to legitimize their special brew of hatred these fascists and
extremist have hijacked the local religion. Any religion will do. It's just
that typically it's the one >they grew up in that that gets hijacked in
order to legitimize the ne!
ed to act on their predilections.
I agree. But this is neither here nor there. It does not matter that Jews or
Christians or Zoroastrians *could* do these things. The cold, hard facts are
that they are *not* doing these things, but radical Muslims are. Whether
that seems insulting, I do not care one bit. All I am interested in is the
cold practicality of the situation. If I could steal, does that make me just
as bad as the many who actually does steal? This sort of moral ambiguity and
"we're all just alike" mentality is a disease. We are NOT all alike. And no
one should feel sorry in any way for the poor people who felt all they could
do is attack our nation, and that we need to try to understand them. We do
not need to understand the people that did these terrible things. We need to
find them and destroy them.
The point I'm trying to make is to bash any particular religion is a
fruitless endeavor that reduces one to endless finger pointing. It is
likely to be a more productive >endeavor (and, unfortunately, a far more
difficult task) to get to the root of what makes individuals transform
their mind, body, and soul into the mindset of an >extremist who sees
personal glory in transforming themselves into a cruise missile. In the
collective sense I think it would wiser of us if we were to try to find
ways >to help promote more productive outlets in which such predilections
can express themselves.
If you feel it will be productive to get in touch with these people any try
to understand them, please feel free to do so, I would not restrict your
actions in this regard, that would be wrong of me. However, while you are
doing this, I will support those who feel the solution is to use force (see
postscript) to solve the problem more elegantly and completely. Sorry, but I
am completely uninterested in why they transformed their minds to be this
way: they are, and that is it. There is no going back. If you want to
transform minds, then perhaps consider Americanizing them. Maybe that sounds
imperialist/colonialist/insert-anti-American-term-of-the-day-here. I do not
care. I do not want to understand the enemy. I want to destroy him. Maybe
many do not agree with these statements, but I don't mince words, I will
give you what I think honestly and from the heart.
I realize my suggestion is likely to sound a tad esoteric or possibly even
naïve by some. Nevertheless, a population that is better educated, a
population that >understands the issues as they exist on BOTH SIDES of the
border is more likely to begrudgingly acknowledge the fact that both sides
will need to perform an >equal amount of sacrificing.
One could argue that this understanding is very simple: us or them. There is
a book written by Charles Pellegrino and George Zebrowski titled "The
Killing Star". The book is not about terrorism but there are some points
that are applicable to the world situation at this point. The book is
basically about an advanced interstellar civilization that sees fit to
preemptively destroy human civilization. I don't personally think that we
need to worry about other civilizations doing this, unless we really ask for
it, but we should probably be very very careful so as not to earn their
wrath. Getting back to the topic, Pellegrino and Zebrowski make three points
which I think the reader will see can apply just as well in the
Superpower-vs.-Terrorist ordeal as in a Supercivilization-vs.-primitive
planetbound civilization scenario:
1. THEIR SURVIVAL WILL BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR SURVIVAL: If an alien
species has to choose between them and us, they won't choose us. It is
difficult to imagine a contrary case; species don't survive by being
self-sacrificing.
2. WIMPS DON'T BECOME TOP DOGS: No species makes it to the top by being
passive. The species in charge of any given planet will be highly
intelligent,. alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary.
3. THEY WILL ASSUME THE FIRST TWO LAWS APPLY TO US.
Make from that what you will. (Where are Patton and MacArthur when we need
them?)
If both sides can acknowledge to each other, and especially to themselves,
that an equal amount of personal sacrifice IS transpiring on >both sides of
the border, >that is more likely to foster a lasting peace. Better
education is also more likely to keep the extremist elements and their
particular need >to act on their >predilections better in check.
How do you plan to educate them better if they don't want it?
Postscript referenced above: Maybe we aren't using enough raw force "over
there." I think it is arguable that the amount of cost of the Iraqi war in
ratio to the amount of wholesale destruction of radical Islamic groups is
not justified. Don't think this means I am anti-war: I as stating that I
don't think most people today have the necessary intestinal fortitude for
the kind of ruthless war that would be most effective. Unfortunately, until
we get off of the oil addiction, we are always going to be in a sling with
regards to what happens "over there." Once that problem is solved, and I
hope it will be soon, the rules of engagement can change dramatically.
--Kyle (I feel like Walter Matthau's character from Fail-Safe)
