"Fantasy Ideology" and Bin Laden
- Thread starter Krug
- Start date
- Status
Nightfall
Sage of the Scarred Lands
Well I read the article and while I agree with SOME of the points, I don't think the article addresses the WHOLE truth. It's true, these guys ARE fanatics, and there is no reasoning with them. BUT the reason fanatics exist is BECAUSE envoriment(sp) exist for them to fill in with their "fanastist" rhetoric. Bin Ladin may or may not believe he's appointed by God, but he DOES feel morally justified because of the atrocities commited by the Iseralis to the Palastineans. And vice versa. The trouble is, some of this article is fuzzy logic, though I have to admit, I enjoy some the references. It's a well written article, but I don't think it will help in Bush's lack of real foreign policy. Or his inability to be anything more than a pale shadow of his father. What I do think needs to be done is not just fix poverty and educate people, but also address in PUBLIC forums, to the Arab people, that we don't see the demise of their lifestyle. We just want our interests protected, though I'm sure the world based on greed isn't something they'd like more than the rest of us.
Myself, I admittedly left winged about all this, but in this instance, I think we ALL need to heed some of the advice written here and rethink what we think of this so-called war. Hell it's not even a real war. In at least a real war, you have CLEARLY defined enemies. This, it's like fighting shadows. And I know something about fighting shadows. You don't win by force of arms. You win by exposing and handing out TRUTH.
Myself, I admittedly left winged about all this, but in this instance, I think we ALL need to heed some of the advice written here and rethink what we think of this so-called war. Hell it's not even a real war. In at least a real war, you have CLEARLY defined enemies. This, it's like fighting shadows. And I know something about fighting shadows. You don't win by force of arms. You win by exposing and handing out TRUTH.
Everyone seems quite content to bicker left vs. right, but the fascinating thesis of the article is that both left and right are missing the boat because both naturally try to ascribe rational, political motives to a group living out a fantasy ideology.
As the article says:
This common identification of 9-11 as an act of war arises from a deeper unquestioned assumption — an assumption made both by Chomsky and his followers on one hand and Hanson and National Review on the other — and, indeed, by almost everyone in between. The assumption is this: An act of violence on the magnitude of 9-11 can only have been intended to further some kind of political objective. What this political objective might be, or whether it is worthwhile — these are all secondary considerations; but surely people do not commit such acts unless they are trying to achieve some kind of recognizably political purpose.
As the article says:
This common identification of 9-11 as an act of war arises from a deeper unquestioned assumption — an assumption made both by Chomsky and his followers on one hand and Hanson and National Review on the other — and, indeed, by almost everyone in between. The assumption is this: An act of violence on the magnitude of 9-11 can only have been intended to further some kind of political objective. What this political objective might be, or whether it is worthwhile — these are all secondary considerations; but surely people do not commit such acts unless they are trying to achieve some kind of recognizably political purpose.
Nightfall
Sage of the Scarred Lands
I'm not saying they ARE rational mmadsen. But I DO think they have SOME rationale left. After all, even Hitler knew how to fight, as committed as he was to his ideals. What I AM saying this:
Yes there was no great political or military objective to the attack on the World Trade Center. Yes, these people are not ones we can have RATIONAL dialogue with. BUT to prevent FURTHER attacks, I think what's needed to take a pincer movement and attack both the ENVIRONMENT where terror and their message comes from AND also the BIOLOGY or the CULTURAL inbreeding that has developed in the Arab world.
Yes there was no great political or military objective to the attack on the World Trade Center. Yes, these people are not ones we can have RATIONAL dialogue with. BUT to prevent FURTHER attacks, I think what's needed to take a pincer movement and attack both the ENVIRONMENT where terror and their message comes from AND also the BIOLOGY or the CULTURAL inbreeding that has developed in the Arab world.
Nightfall said:
No, they don't. And no Hitler didn't. He literally expected children and non-existant divisions to turn away the allies on both fronts well after it was hopeless and the end result was invevitable. He to thought he was divinly appointed due to a myth of his own creation. More over, his irrational decisions early on, made allied victory all but inevitable. Hitler was a mental midget, and delusional too boot. Evil fools like him, and his modern incarnations, understand only one thing. And it isn't the threat of death, it's being dead.
They really need to, and quite frankly deserve to, see the might of the enemy they would have us be. Again the problem we face today with those that threaten our world is the same one our grandparents faced in 1935. This time around we should solve the problem be for it becomes one we must solve at any price. Not everything can be solved by a hug. And even if everything could be, not everything should be.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
This thread is *so* going to get closed. 
But while I can...
I think that the article has a lot of truths, but goes a bit overboard with the idea of a belief being like an infection.
What fantasy world you create stems directly from what kind of reality you experience. Had Germany been a better place to live while little Adolf was growing up, he may never have turned into the maniac he did. If Mr. Bin Laden didn't see the evidence of the Great Satan every day, he may never have cause to hate us. Heck, a study of mythology and religious philosophy can show us that the way in which one grew up heavily focused the everyday fantasy you lived out. The Aztec were certainly living out a different fantasy than Napoleon, and both were products of the world they existed in at the time.
It's not a good thing to consider anybody evil just because they have a destructive fantasy. There is a reason for that fantasy -- remove the reason, and you can remove the destructive fantasy. At the same time, you do have to realize that this is perfectly rational for them. You may never be able to argue them out of it, but you may be able to put yourself in their shoes at least somewhat and see how, maybe, it would be possible to think slightly like how they do given their circumstances and ideas.
Nobody is infected with an incurable, virulent evil that you can simply ethnocidally eradicate. If you push back on people who are already at the brink, they just push back harder and harder until they can't push back anymore. Compare it to a virus: you counteract it, push it to the brink of extinction, and those that survive come back 30 times stronger and immune to your old methods. It's a kind of evolution, a natural selection for ideas.
We can't destroy any ideas, nor would I support anybody who would want to -- even so-called "evil" and "destructive" ideas are useful for understanding how they can arise so we can curtail them.
I agree a lot with what the article is saying in a lot of respects. But I can't stomach the thought of any way of looking at the world as a cancer that can be eradicated. Because if holy wars over the years have taught us one thing it is that ideas never die...they merely become less harmful.
But while I can...
I think that the article has a lot of truths, but goes a bit overboard with the idea of a belief being like an infection.
What fantasy world you create stems directly from what kind of reality you experience. Had Germany been a better place to live while little Adolf was growing up, he may never have turned into the maniac he did. If Mr. Bin Laden didn't see the evidence of the Great Satan every day, he may never have cause to hate us. Heck, a study of mythology and religious philosophy can show us that the way in which one grew up heavily focused the everyday fantasy you lived out. The Aztec were certainly living out a different fantasy than Napoleon, and both were products of the world they existed in at the time.
It's not a good thing to consider anybody evil just because they have a destructive fantasy. There is a reason for that fantasy -- remove the reason, and you can remove the destructive fantasy. At the same time, you do have to realize that this is perfectly rational for them. You may never be able to argue them out of it, but you may be able to put yourself in their shoes at least somewhat and see how, maybe, it would be possible to think slightly like how they do given their circumstances and ideas.
Nobody is infected with an incurable, virulent evil that you can simply ethnocidally eradicate. If you push back on people who are already at the brink, they just push back harder and harder until they can't push back anymore. Compare it to a virus: you counteract it, push it to the brink of extinction, and those that survive come back 30 times stronger and immune to your old methods. It's a kind of evolution, a natural selection for ideas.
We can't destroy any ideas, nor would I support anybody who would want to -- even so-called "evil" and "destructive" ideas are useful for understanding how they can arise so we can curtail them.
I agree a lot with what the article is saying in a lot of respects. But I can't stomach the thought of any way of looking at the world as a cancer that can be eradicated. Because if holy wars over the years have taught us one thing it is that ideas never die...they merely become less harmful.
- Status
Similar Threads
