For My Anti-War Friends...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

Good responses, everybody. I entitled this thread the way I did because I thought that the anti-Iraq invasion guys had some thoughts on how we can put an end to something like Iraq ever happening again. What I see happened is that the big guns of the T-Nation “bloods” basically threw their hands up at the thought of world peace.

We had a little give and take, and then the thread devolved into why Iraq was a bad idea (which we’ve done to death), how the US (or more specifically this current administration) is committing a crime by the invasion… basically, a whinefest. And that’s a shame.

So you guys are so cynical that you think there’s no way on earth to ever put an end to war? Really? Damn, I hope that y’all aren’t mistaking your cynicism for wisdom, because they are not the same thing. I’ve seen “conflict is in our nature”, which is true. “We will always have differing viewpoints, so we will never really agree”, which is true. But I will say it again: there is a difference between conflict and large-scale, organized violence.

Violence at some level will be around as long as the homo sapiens is around. Conflict will be a part of us as long as emotion will be a part of us. There is no escaping this fact. But it is a function of our developmental maturity as a species to choose to resolve our differences or express those differences in ways that do not involve killing each other in large quantities at a time.

Don’t get me wrong now, I love conflict. It is conflict which makes a movie interesting, makes a sport exciting… it is the essence of passion. Truly, life would be unbearably boring without it. I think that a few of us are confusing conflict (which is a part of life) with war. War is not a necessary thing.

That is the hurdle I wish we could all jump here. To think that it is impossible to erase war is to be short-sighted and cynical (actually the two are the same thing if you get technical about it). We can do better than this, I know it.

Honestly, I’ve said this before: democracy and personal liberty have the power to free our people from war. When there is no more tyranny, and our children can look forward to a future of their own making, then why will we want to destroy each other? In other words, what will there be to envy or despise of each other when we are all free? Are you incapable of looking across the lines we’ve drawn between each other over the centuries to see that the people of other cultures, creeds, and nationalities aren’t so different from yourself?

62

lothario,

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Good responses, everybody. I entitled this thread the way I did because I thought that the anti-Iraq invasion guys had some thoughts on how we can put an end to something like Iraq ever happening again. What I see happened is that the big guns of the T-Nation “bloods” basically threw their hands up at the thought of world peace.
…

Honestly, I’ve said this before: democracy and personal liberty have the power to free our people from war. When there is no more tyranny, and our children can look forward to a future of their own making, then why will we want to destroy each other? In other words, what will there be to envy or despise of each other when we are all free? Are you incapable of looking across the lines we’ve drawn between each other over the centuries to see that the people of other cultures, creeds, and nationalities aren’t so different from yourself?
[/quote]

Very good summary, and heartfelt statement. I agree that it is wrong to give up hope and give in to cynisism.

Just to make one thing clear: I believe that the moment you resort to violence (whether in your personal life or as a nation), you have lost the debate on the topic at hand: true there is such a thing as self-defense, but it is something not to be proud of, but rather bemoan as unfortunately necessary. Any putative self-defense, or self-defense that is found out to be non-necessary or out of proportion should be sanctioned accordingly. And - as I have stated before in an earlier thread: Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity. :wink:

I do not believe in our ability to make “world peace” where there will be no armed conflict anywhere. But what I do believe in, is multilateral and supranational treaty systems that help countries to prosper while at the same time bind them into certain moral obligations. Will that guarantee that all its members will always uphold the rules? Hell no, but it gives other members of the club a chance to intervene on behalf of the longterm interest of all concerned (including the rule-breaker). That’s checks and balances.

Thanks to one of those systems (the EU) I can now safely live and work anywhere within 25 countries who used to be at each others throats for centuries. That is a big step towards “peace”.

Obviously I am not happy with how world politics have developed in the last few years. And I am loosing trust in the ability of especially the UN to be such a unifying body. But not because its systems are flawed or corruption is rife (every big organisation will always have to fight with this), but rather because it is populated with nations who try to manoeuver it solely for their own benefit - or key members who simply disregard it.

Peace and freedom need democracy. A democracy needs earnest democrats to sustain it, accept fair majority votes and are willing to bring sacrifices - on a world wide scale, democrats are a rare breed. Breed more true democrats (and I don’t mean the bloody party) and you will have more peace. But keep in mind that though, that democracy has a lot in common with virginity (see above).

Preaching mode off.
Makkun

63

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Good responses, everybody. I entitled this thread the way I did because I thought that the anti-Iraq invasion guys had some thoughts on how we can put an end to something like Iraq ever happening again. What I see happened is that the big guns of the T-Nation “bloods” basically threw their hands up at the thought of world peace.

We had a little give and take, and then the thread devolved into why Iraq was a bad idea (which we’ve done to death), how the US (or more specifically this current administration) is committing a crime by the invasion… basically, a whinefest. And that’s a shame.

So you guys are so cynical that you think there’s no way on earth to ever put an end to war? Really? Damn, I hope that y’all aren’t mistaking your cynicism for wisdom, because they are not the same thing. I’ve seen “conflict is in our nature”, which is true. “We will always have differing viewpoints, so we will never really agree”, which is true. But I will say it again: there is a difference between conflict and large-scale, organized violence.

Violence at some level will be around as long as the homo sapiens is around. Conflict will be a part of us as long as emotion will be a part of us. There is no escaping this fact. But it is a function of our developmental maturity as a species to choose to resolve our differences or express those differences in ways that do not involve killing each other in large quantities at a time.

Don’t get me wrong now, I love conflict. It is conflict which makes a movie interesting, makes a sport exciting… it is the essence of passion. Truly, life would be unbearably boring without it. I think that a few of us are confusing conflict (which is a part of life) with war. War is not a necessary thing.

That is the hurdle I wish we could all jump here. To think that it is impossible to erase war is to be short-sighted and cynical (actually the two are the same thing if you get technical about it). We can do better than this, I know it.

Honestly, I’ve said this before: democracy and personal liberty have the power to free our people from war. When there is no more tyranny, and our children can look forward to a future of their own making, then why will we want to destroy each other? In other words, what will there be to envy or despise of each other when we are all free? Are you incapable of looking across the lines we’ve drawn between each other over the centuries to see that the people of other cultures, creeds, and nationalities aren’t so different from yourself?
[/quote]

W0W!!!

64

The problem with ending war, is that all war eventually comes back to conflict, which we aparently all agree will always exsist. Pretty much all conflict breaks down to one thing- greed. More specifically, wanting.

Look at very small children playing together. They fight because one will grab a toy another has. They’re not old enough to speak or communicate coherently with one another. So they are the basest form of humanity. What we were given to work with, so to speak. One will just take the other’s toy, the child will cry, often times hit the other child, who doesn’t even realize he’s done anything wrong. He just saw something he wanted and took it. Wanting.

We’re supposed to grow out of this as we get older, but it’s really hard to get rid of instinctual traits.

Hell, I’d go as far as to blame trying to kill this instinctual drive as the basis of communism, and that kinda flopped. Apparently it looked and sounded good all laid out to people as the way to ensure equality, yada yada, but it goes against everything in your DNA. What sense is living if you can’t want anything because your gunna have the same old fuckin thing everyone else has and it’s all preplanned for you?

Original sin, if you are so inclined as to believe in the Bible. Eve WANTED that apple. Why? Because God told her she couldn’t have it. It was that want that screwed it up for everyone, according to the story. Eve wanted that apple…Adam wanted some of Eve…Original sin.

So as long as people want things, there are going to be those that take them, or do anything conceivable to make it happen. And hell, I gotta be honest with ya. Living in $30 million palaces and having everything you ever wish for looks pretty tempting. That’s something a lot of people could WANT. Dictators happen to have it. How? They TOOK WHAT THEY WANTED. People will always do this. It’s human nature.

And besides, are we talking just the super power countries and the ones we happen to give a shit about at the minute, or the entire world. Look at Africa. There’s women and kids being stolen, put into slavery for sex, killed, tribes go to war, etc. We don’t care about those wars because they don’t affect us, but they are still there. I’m not speaking about my personal views at all on any of this right now, but the fact remains they do exsist. We cannot expect it to never happen to “us, and these countries” again because we are all human beings, regardless, and have the same need to get our way.

No, I don’t believe it’s possible to “end war” because, in the rawest form of humanity, it all comes down to who can beat who up. It’s a sad truth, but nonetheless. That’s what war is supposed to be. The only resource left to resolve an unreasolvable issue. When cutting off funds to a country, aid, etc, fail, the only way left to get what you want is to take it. Way back, cavemen beat each other up. And I’ll bet ya this. One got smart one day and decided to use a stick. And that caveman won. The next time, they both had sticks. Today, we have nuclear missiles. But in the end, it all comes down to the same thing. If you are physically capable of taking something away from someone, what they have is then yours. You either get what you want, or they get what they want.

The reason it’s a ‘war’ and not a ‘fight’ is because of the weapons it’s being fought with and the number of people involved. That takes money to supply weapons and people to use them with. Something governments seem to have handy. And the weapons are severe now. Again, that’s why it’s a war and not a fight. If the best weapon available was a stick, then sure, maybe. People out there now have the ability to DESTROY THE ENTIRE WORLD. And I don’t care who owns them. Could only be one motherfucker in Omaha named Bob, owns all the weapons in the world. We’d be living in Bob’s dictatorship right now. If not, Bob would declare nuclear war on our shit, and then Bob would get his own way.

As long as people are born with the ability and instinct to want, there will be fights. And from fighting comes war. Just the destructive capabilities of the weapons involved. And well, that stuff’s been created already, so we all just kinda get to go along for the ride now. People out there can now blow us all to smithereens. The world is now what THEY want.

Speaking of wants, I want to quit typing now. Bye.

Kubo

65

These are some great posts. I think certainly if there were an international organization, like the UN, but stronger. More like the EU for Europe. Something that helped regulate trade, made more stringent rules, etc… we could have something closer to the goal of world peace.

66

[quote]makkun wrote:
And - as I have stated before in an earlier thread: Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity. :wink:
Makkun[/quote]

Haha! Classic makkun! I really liked your post, dude. It’s this one statement above that I want to discuss while I still have time this morning…

Do you believe in the principle of breaking a few eggs to make an omelette?

What I’m getting at here is that I believe the biggest roadblock to the realization of world peace is tyranny – in all of its forms. Now, in order to instill that democracy which is so crucial, there will necessarily be a need to overthrow or somehow subdue the tyrants and power-hungry who have everything to lose (Saudi Arabia, anyone?) should their people gain personal liberty and a voice in their destinies. While I would love for there to be a better way than military force to accomplish something like this, sometimes the people who desire freedom are too weak and the tyrant too overpowering for them to do this by peaceful means. Quite frankly, they need help.

Before y’all jump on this, I’m not saying that Iraq is a shining example of what I am describing above.

Continuing on… can you see that sometimes we NEED to commit violence to protect the greater good? What if (big what if here) Saddam had developed WMD’s in secret? This is not such a far-fetched scenario given the amount of resources he was acquiring from the corrupt Oil For Food program. What if he had them? Deposing him after he had acquired or developed these weapons would be practically impossible. Then, the world would be saddled with a dangerous and psychotic madman and a dynasty of his sons, who basically could hold the world hostage. He could gas as many Kurds and Shiites as he wanted with the UN sending him more letters which he could ignore at his leisure, just like he did with the weapons inspectors he kicked out.

I know you guys feel differently about this, but I think this is an open and shut case of necessary violence. We may need to do this some more elsewhere if we are to prevent other tyrants from acquiring WMD’s. Those weapons are just an enormous lever for these despots, giving them unrivalled control over their people. Those people will need our help before then if they are ever to have that chance at that choice we talked about earlier. I say we at least try to give them a chance, dammit.

67

[quote]Professor X wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
This is a pretty damn good list. These societies aren’t really “free” though. I think you guys are seeing what I’m getting at here. What happens when all the people of the world can look forward to a future free of oppression and bitterness?

I just did a lot of thinking today (perhaps that would explain the headache), and I tried to envision how there could ever be world peace. It would have to be a world free of tyranny, right? How the hell is that ever going to happen? I thought that if there was ever a way to do it, it would have to involve democracy everywhere.

Your biggest mistake in this, along with the same one I see many Americans even making, is that you assume that your understanding of “free” is what everyone in the world wants as a goal. There are tyrannies because there are people willing to bow to them. If everyone in any society revolted as one mind, no one tyrant could ever survive. There will always be leaders and followers, those with more power, and those who are powerless. The biggest hypocrisy in my view is trying to “give” the world our own version of freedom, instead of getting the hell out of the way and letting the people alone decide. Some have actually fallen for this though…instead of realizing that one of the largest reasons our hand stays in the pot is due to our own desires as far as what an area holds. True freedom isn’t guided into any one person’s particular mould of “freedom”.[/quote]

The problem I see with ‘getting out of the way’ is that we are vulnerable to attack by mad-dog regimes. Any idiot with a suitcase nuke can hit us hard. Bush’s idea is that free, prosperous societies are less likely to develop terrorists of this sort. Will it work? I think it’s worth a try. (See my adopt-a soldier thread in the politics forum.)

68

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The problem I see with ‘getting out of the way’ is that we are vulnerable to attack by mad-dog regimes. Any idiot with a suitcase nuke can hit us hard. Bush’s idea is that free, prosperous societies are less likely to develop terrorists of this sort. Will it work? I think it’s worth a try. (See my adopt-a soldier thread in the politics forum.)[/quote]

But it hasn’t worked. While many exclaim that most insurgents are from outside of Iraq, the truth still stands that this “war” has resulted in more terrorists, not less. There are more people directly pissed at America than there were before. If anyone thinks they will all stay “over there” simply because that is where the soldiers are, they are being a little naive.

69

lothario,

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
makkun wrote:
And - as I have stated before in an earlier thread: Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity. :wink:
Makkun

Haha! Classic makkun! I really liked your post, dude. It’s this one statement above that I want to discuss while I still have time this morning…

Do you believe in the principle of breaking a few eggs to make an omelette?

What I’m getting at here is that I believe the biggest roadblock to the realization of world peace is tyranny – in all of its forms. Now, in order to instill that democracy which is so crucial, there will necessarily be a need to overthrow or somehow subdue the tyrants and power-hungry who have everything to lose (Saudi Arabia, anyone?) should their people gain personal liberty and a voice in their destinies. While I would love for there to be a better way than military force to accomplish something like this, sometimes the people who desire freedom are too weak and the tyrant too overpowering for them to do this by peaceful means. Quite frankly, they need help.[/quote]

Yes. They do need help. The question that remains is how shall we help? And that starts with not supporting oppressors in the first place, delivering the weapons to them (and I know well that some people from my own home country did exactly that) and get into bed with them because we think we need them for our own - off course legitimate - purposes (think Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and just a few years earlier Iraq). And I don’t see “us” just doing this right now.

I won’t jump - you know I think it’s not.

As was so nicely cleared in the earlier thread on the Duelfer report, he neither had WMDs, the resources nor mapped out plans. Yeah, he would have loved to become the scourge of the earth, but it is indeed a classic case of self-defense on wrong presumptions. Now I understand that there are quite a few people in these threads who disagree with me on this issue, but if you ask me, the only answer I can give you is: If you break eggs, make sure you really want to make an omelett, because once you’ve broken them you don’t get them back.

Now based on this axiom (and in order not to ruin this thread, I will not comment on any post which try to disprove it), let’s go further: Like it or not, there are considerable parts of the world in which the measures taken in Iraq’s case are being viewed as detrimental and dividing the unified/multilateral treaty systems, I think are necessary to promote peace, freedom and security. And that is definitely what hurts our common agenda in my view.

But on a more general level - yes, military intervention can be indeed necessary (Germany needed to be stopped in WW2), as long as all other roads have been taken unsuccessfully and it stays the absolute exception. Otherwise this tool loses its credibility. And just that is happening now. Metaphorically spoken, the eggs are broken.

Yes, support them, help them help themselves to rid themselves of dictators by supporting democratic movements. Put proper pressure on the dictators, don’t do deals with them because we think they will help us in a common cause (against communism, Iran, terrorists, etc.). Catch the dictators and put them in front of courts. Let due process rule again and practice respect for human rights exemplary. Strengthen multilateral organisations, support them, even if they sometimes make decisions you don’t like - and if they decide to take military action, do it. That’s help.

Makkun

70

There is nothing wrong with being cynical with respect to “world peace”. The world has never seen it.

However, imagining that wars may perpetuate forever does not mean that we increase the likelihood that they will.

The alternative is to use the hope to justify some type of global conformance project to eliminate other religions and other ideologies to achieve this goal.

This is not acceptable.

71

[quote]vroom wrote:
There is nothing wrong with being cynical with respect to “world peace”. The world has never seen it.
[/quote]
Never since the begining of recorded civilization has there been peace…there might have been stretches where wars did not happen, but not for very long in terms of recorded history.

Interesting comment about eliminating religion and idiology to rid the world of war, however I believe it is more simple than that.

The only way to eliminate conflict is to eliminate people with free time. Too much time to think about ones future and success will ultimately lead one down the path to figuring out way in which to increase their “realm”–figuratively and literally. The master moralist will take and the slave moralist will let him or her take it; which will beget alienation and subsequently conflict.

By that same means if someone is too busy trying to find his or her next meal they will not be worrying about their “realm” on the contrary just their own survival. It is our natural tendency toward evolution that has led us to our own demise.

The use of “realm” is meant to mean property, possessions, and borders in general.

It is neither cynical nor pessimistic to believe war, and conflict in general, cannot be eliminated. War and conflict have been since the beginning so shall it end–it is the management of conflict that we need to concern ourselves with.

72

Just wanted state that there are some great posts here, nice thread!
Obviously lots of t-folks have spent considerable time thinking about war/peace.

73

World peace is an impossible utopian fantasy. Humans are so complex and have such vastly differing views on pretty much every aspect of life that there will always be disagreements. Due to the nature of our species this will lead to there always being wars.

The way I see it is either all nations will accelerate technology wise. The more westernized (ie richer) a nation becomes the more likely they are to become a democracy. This leads to worldwide democracy’s instead of a large partition of westernized vs non westernized countries. This should lead to less conflicts. Still arguments sure but with such an amalgam of democratic nations, the ability to prevent war will be greater. Discussions and councils will be the way of resolving problems. Hence much reduced world conflict.

OR all nations accelerate technology wise, but the peoples beliefs and values don’t change at the same rate. Leading to much the same world gap between states except this time with the military power difference is much lower. Imagine in a hundred years if a terrorist group had nukes as a standard instead of ak47’s. Then you may be looking at an apocalyptic future.

The one thing I believe is, a forced democracy will never work. A country has to go that way completely naturally. Remember, democracy is the worst form of government, apart from everything else.

I tried to keep my post away from just being another anti-war one despite the strong temptation to do so. In this forum, almost every topic goes that way.

74

It’s been all downhill for humanity since the invention of agriculture, but even the hunter gatherers probably fought over women and territory.

Humans are by nature somewhat exophobic, I think that’s your main intrinsic problem. With some work and a lot of technology you might be able to get everybody on the planet to see themselves as members of the same group. I remember an event that happened in the early eighties, I think it was. Somebody set up a closed circuit TV link between Red Square and Times Square, with huge video displays on each end. Crowds collected in both places and looked at, talked with each other. It had some interesting effects on people.

However, working on world peace pretty much assumes everybody’s lower needs are more or less taken care of, and we have a pretty bad problem facing us on the path to world peace. The human race has overrun its range. Our future probably reads more like the history of the Easter Islanders.

75

[quote]vroom wrote:
There is nothing wrong with being cynical with respect to “world peace”. The world has never seen it.[/quote]

I have never deadlifted 300 lbs. with good form. Therefore, I never will be able to.

You guys are cynical, and make no mistake: it is a weakness.

The cynical attitude is what keeps man from achievement. It is a preventative measure of the weak which justifies fear, inadequacy, insensitivity, and impotence. Why try? It’s only going to fail. This is the essence of cynicism.

I will say it again: you guys are better than this.

We all made our way to T-Nation through different means, but we all stay here because we all share one common trait:

We are able to see something in ourselves which is not necessarily in the mirror. We are able to battle the negative thoughts, the laziness… the preconceived notions of failure.

So what if I’ve never deadlifted 300? Does that mean I shouldn’t try? Does that mean that it’s not worth the sweat, the effort, the training, the pain…

Do I give up before I start? Why bother? What kind of crazy goal is that? Everybody knows that only huge guys or genetic freaks deadlift with that much…

So after a while, I gave in. “Okay,” I agreed with them, “you’re right… I won’t deadlift 300…”

Because I now deadlift with 315, bitches.

Don’t give in to your cynicism, people. We can do this. We have the tools (democracy, freedom), we have a defined goal (world peace), we just need the goddamn will to achieve!

Are you willing to give what it takes to get there? Are you so short-sighted and empty of hope in our species that you give up before you even start? Are we going to remain bone-club wielding savages for all eternity, or can we transcend our innate distrust of each other and overcome our violent natures to make our world a better place for everyone?

That’s what I want. If you’re different from me, that’s okay. Just don’t try to stop the people like me who haven’t given up.

76

Loth, in your theory of the human race evolving to a point of a peacful co existance. Could you see religion becoming extinct? It has been at the root of many wars and strongly lies at the heart of the current war we are involved in.

What if religion a soothing anesthia used to calm at times control at others became uneeded, like the appendix a vestige of a bygone era.

I know this wouldn’t happen in our lifetime, but if the human species is still around for a few hundred thousands of years, maybe?

77

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Loth, in your theory of the human race evolving to a point of a peacful co existance. Could you see religion becoming extinct? It has been at the root of many wars and strongly lies at the heart of the current war we are involved in.

What if religion a soothing anesthia used to calm at times control at others became uneeded, like the appendix a vestige of a bygone era.

I know this wouldn’t happen in our lifetime, but if the human species is still around for a few hundred thousands of years, maybe?[/quote]

Hmmm… good question, Elk.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3814

Our race is between 300,000 and 100,000 years old already. It is not unreasonable to imagine that we will become a very, very old species on this planet. My only fear for us is not that we will run out of resources to sustain ourselves, but that we will destroy ourselves with the rather creative ways we’ve found to produce human death on a very large scale.

It is my belief that I am not alone in this worry. I think that the coming age of connectivity with each other via internet and other means will be the glue which holds us together as a species, and will prevent us from ever wiping ourselves out. Yes, you could say that I think that an end to war as we know it is an inevitable outcome of our development.

About the religion thing:

I agree with you that religion has been soothing, and at times a system of control. And you could make a very strong argument to say that religion is the basis for the Iraqi conflict right now. But I would actually disagree with that argument. I feel that the insurgents do not suffer from some kind of religious brainwashing as much as they are unable to see us as equals. It is not so much that we are different, it is that we are “lower” than them. And that we dare to intrude upon them is an insult to their very nature and their own belief in their superiority. To them, we are less than dogs.

I feel that this is not a religion issue as much as it is an issue of arrogance, pride, and ethnic hatred. Where is Mufasa right now? Isn’t he a Muslim? I think maybe he could tell us better that the Islamic faith is not so xenophobic as to demand a destruction by violence and death to all who are different.

Religion was a remarkable and useful development for us as a species. It has taken many faces, and been a unifying force for many thousands of years, but as history teaches us, when that force is misdirected, religion can be used for great harm and destruction. I do not think of religion as “good” or “evil” in and of itself, because religion can also be used to effect great positive change as well.

I think that religion will be around as long as the fear and mystery of death is around. Maybe over the centuries, it will fade somewhat as more and more of our people come to realize that the world we live in is not so bad after all, and that we can be our own saviors for each other.

78

Hmm, some interesting points, but I would have to disagree with your point about the insurgents and religion.

It’s not soley religion part of it is just not wanting foreigners in their country imposing there will. If they came over here in tanks and armor, I wouldn’t care what religion they were, I would just be ready to fight em.

On the other hand especially with Al qaeda who is supposed to be the main enemy religion is at the heart of the matter. They hate us because to them we are infidels. It is completely religious based. That’s why I think many of the evangalicals here are so fired up about fighting there as well.

Even if they don’t admit because it isn’t politicaly correct many of them feel we are doing god’s holy work wiping out muslims.

79

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
On the other hand especially with Al qaeda who is supposed to be the main enemy religion is at the heart of the matter. They hate us because to them we are infidels.[/quote]
Agreed. We are infidels to them. We are “lower”. This is their narcissism, and it’s a shame that they are so fanatical about themselves that they want to kill us. But you can’t lay this on the doorstep of Islam. There are plenty of muslims out there who just want to live in peace with everyone. See Malaysia. More muslims than anywhere else in the world. And who did they call out to when the shit hit the fan post-tsunami? Their “infidel” allies. They don’t have a problem with seeing us as equals, do they?

Case in point: Can a muslim be true to his faith and still respect a woman as a social equal? If yes, then why are women so restricted in most of the Arab world? Is it purely their religion, or is it their Arab culture of inequality to women which drives them? The same could be said of Al-Qaeda’s xenophobia and desire for revenge against the west for what they perceive as our low and immoral nature.

Man, I hope you’re wrong about this, but I can’t help but give you the benefit of the doubt. There are fanaticals on both sides, I am sure. But this would be the same thing as above, only with Christianity instead. You can’t say that it is Christianity which would make these nutjobs think that they are on a mission for Jesus to kill Iraqi heathens. Make sense? :slight_smile:

80

Lothario, Elk,

I think you guys are getting to the heart of the matter: lack of ambiguity tolerance - the ability to accept that your neighbour lives a certain way and accepting it as right and ok.

Indeed I have difficulties to see the difference between someone who declares his religion the only valid truth (pun intended) and reduces all others to “wrong”. Christianity’s history is full of this, as well as Islam’s. That does not mean that the underlying religions are the problem - it is the people who interpret them in a way that they exclude others from being treated as normal human beings. Yes, you can be Muslim and treat women as equal - because it is you who reads into the scripture and decides what is valid for you. And it is you who is responsible for your actions based upon your choices.

The moment you give away your own identity, and replace your own common sense with dogma or political ideology, you open up a wide door to denying your fellow humans the right they have to dissent with you.

Any religion and ideology can be perverted in that way. And people who are scared, persecuted, poor and in despair are more likely to fall for this kind of radicalism, as it often promises them a way out of their dismay. And that is why debt relief, fair trade and structural help for developing countries is important, as it takes away the ground on which radicalism can florish.

To go back to your initial point of war between free democratic (and rich) countries - the EU is a good example for this: You normally don’t have wars, because people are not starving, fleeing and being tortured, hence you have less radicalisation of their populations. Yes, you will always have a certain radical element within society, but in general it is being kept at bay by the moderate forces.

Makkun