Friday, November 3, 2006

The Heart Of A Jihadi

This Was Sent To Me By John K

FNC will be airing a documentary this weekend called "Obsession". It'll talk about how we are truly unprepared for an attack by Islamic terrorists. Watch it.
Story

7 comments:

VoteWithTroops.com said...

I was aware before seeing Obssession but now I am even more aware, as are millions of FNC watchers. And FNC will keep running it from time to time. Thanks for the tip, Indian Chris!

I am working to boost morale through increased voting unity at my website www.VoteWithTroops.com and thought you might find it of interest.

Please check out www.VoteWithTroops.com when you can and thanks again for your service and sacrifices! God Speed!

Average Joe Boomer

Angus Diesel-Fumes said...

The binary opposition assumed in the article is dangerous. The world map isn't divided into good/evil, 'free world'(America?)/Islam, in a fashion reminiscent of the 'cold war' (over-simplified) communism threat.

The claim that because 'hate' has been on the curriculum in selected middle-east schools for some time, that outside interference by western powers is not a significant causal agent in the motives of jihadists, is simply short-sighted and erroneous.

The middle-east and its affairs has been a play-thing for the west for 90 years (we'll keep the crusades out of it). The only reason that 'Iran' and 'Iraq' exist as nations, and with the borders where they are is because Engalnd and France decided over cigars and cognac one evening to 'renovate' the map (knock-down a border here, install a puppet government there).

This notion of the 'free-world' being under siege from 'Islamic fascists', gives the impression that the whole world is on one side or the other. When the reality is that it is extremist versus extremist, with the rest of the world watching, and hoping that neither extremist calls them 'friend', and makes them a target.

Before anyone started connecting the term 'fascism' to 'Islam', shouldn't they have looked the term-up in a dictionary, and then looked in their own backyard first?
The statement "Your either with us or against us" (george bush jr), is classic fascist-speak.

So, part of the 'preparation' for dealing with Islamic rage, might be to consider all the ways in which US + UK foriegn policy exacerbates the trouble in, what is already a troubled neighbourhood... and stopping it!

John K said...

Well Angus; I know which side you are on now. Thanks for the leftist double-speak and moral equivelency lesson. I'll bet you went to college and majored in Chomsky.

Cletus said...

Hey John K. settle down. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it double speak. Also, just because Angus doesn't preach hate, doesn't make him your (leftist) enemy.

Your inability to simply accept that there is another view out there besides yours reeks of fear. What are you afraid of little fella?

Angus Diesel-Fumes said...

Sorry if I was ambigious John. Cletus (while being condescending) was correct, it isn't about 'sides'. So while Cletus is off 'whittling' something, us adults can talk (sorry Cletus!).

It's not about 'moral equivalency' either.

It's about a pragmatic approach to the problem, and the dangers of binary thinking.

We need to ask: 'what do we want'?

Do we want to kill all the 'bad guys'?

Do we want a world where it is safe to raise families?

These two options are mutually exclusive. Yet the first is often presented as the means to achieve the second. To disagree with the policing of the whole globe with unlimited military force is condemned as condoning terrorism. This thinking is so twisted that it is a paradox. Yet it is trotted out in the 'Fox-news' article in the use of the quote from Edmund Burke: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that enough good men do nothing". This maybe true in some instances, but I haven't heard an example recently that didn't amount to 'killing to save lives'.... which many people wouldn't have a problem with if it worked, but it doesn't, so it becomes 'killing and more killing', which serves no one's interests.

We are presented with two options: 'go along with endless killing to save lives', or be see to 'condone terrorism'. That problem with binary thinking. It's remarkable how similar the two options are, as whatever way you slice it, violence begets more violence.

So when I say it isn't about sides, it's because this mess we're in is due to 'people being on sides'. People vote for the same 'side' that their father, grand father, etc, voted for, and each time the two sides behave predictably.

We need to let politicians know that we won't be voting for whoever our fathers and grandfathers voted for, we'll be voting for whoever will seriously represent our best interests, not those playing the binary-bullshit game, the party politics. They need to know that their political futures depends on them coming up with serious solutions, not same nonsense again and again. Otherwise, our vote is worthless, and people will continue to die without reason or result.

As I said, it's about pragmatism, not 'moral equivalency'. The options our leaders present us with at the moment are limited and not working, and it is a 'binary opposition' that defines the problem and the solution, and until that changes, little else will.

John: As for the comment about "leftist double-speak", that is an oxymoron, as the notion of 'doublespeak' is derived from Orwell's 1984, which, while criticising something named 'English Socialism', it actually described a conservative state that was 'right wing' in every thing but name. As for my education, while I spent significant time since 1990 in tertiary education (they're called universities, not colleges, where I'm from), I haven't done any subjects based on the work of Noam Chomsky.

John K said...

Very Interesting. And; I understand what you are saying concerning binary thinking.
Unfortunatly; binary thinking is a normal condition with humanity.
Anything else is too complicated for the average person to understand. The challenge in non-linear solutions is that while taking into consideration all the variables; the facts and situations have changed and the equation is no longer valid.

Za said...

So you're suggesting using something that doesn't work because it's simpler to think about?