Edward Snowden

[dre]

What causes the terrorist attacks is their hatred of what the West stands for.

This is such a load of simplistic bunk its not even funny anymore.

We actually know very well why Bin Laden set his sights on the US. He was furious about the presence of the US military in Saudi Arabia, and it caused a spat with the royal family that eventually lead to his exile. It wasnt until after that he started mobilizing against the US.

This has nothing even remotely to do with "hating our freedom". The exact same bunch of guys went after the USSR before they went after the US. Did they hate communist russias freedom too?

Every wonder why so many of these terrorists are Saudis? Its actually pretty simple... you talk about treatment of gays and women... well in Saudi Arabia the west has funded one of the most opressive regimes in the world today. Woman are a posession of a man similar to a toaster or hacksaw might be here. Theres absolutely no political freedom, and absolutely no dissent is tolerated.

These are the kinds of policies that have radicalized many in the middle east against us. This is no big secret, in fact its what our own intelligence apparatus has been warning us about for decades. The situation we have today is not something special or exotic. Its the completely and totally predictable outcome of our relationship with the middle east.

[sharkman]

That's right, it is simplistic bunk but it's exactly how they think about the West. I noticed you didn't try to disprove any of their views I described, good thinking there. Instead you go describe the misdeeds of the West as if when these deeds stopped then the terrorists would stop? Now that is simplistic.

I am puzzled why you think that people who own, rape and beat women, outlaw gays, attack and burn Jewish property and Christian churches and punish thieves by cutting off their hands, that these people think rationally.

[bleeding heart]

I beg to differ......Living under the overpass, Hobo Joe’s contribution to a “collective society” is nil…….And one can take that even farther, Comrade Street Sweeper has less a contribution to make then Comrade Doctor….so on and so forth…

And this doesn't begin to answer what I was saying...it is a separate subject altogether.

I said we are by definition social animals...and that co-operation (as well as qualities such as empathy) are innate. They're not engineered constructs by Leninists.

Further, I am suggesting that no one succeeds, individually, as a capitalist, without indulging in the co-operative behavior that is wired into our nature.

You can beg to differ with the uncontroversial truisms, ones with which no one but you disputes, all you wish. It doesn't change the facts.

Interdependence is a skewed bottom-up approach that breeds complacency,

First of all, it's not skewed...it just is. It's as if you're railing at the failed philosophy of the sun's existence.

Second, it's not "bottom-up," but by nature horizontal.

Third, it's not an "approach." You're mistaking my remarks for an endorsement of communism. I don't endorse communism. I am talking about the fact that we are--biologically--social animals, and so that culturally, we are in fact interdependent.

Automatically. Inherently.

fore one can’t deny the obvious truth that all humans are not equal in their ability……Some are smarter, healthier, more attractive, better workers etc

You keep bringing the non sequiter up, and I keep telling you that no one is saying any such thing.

Well like I said above, one key qualifier is determining if one party in any given transaction shares the same ability for intelligent thought as the other……..Simply put, If you and I sat around a poker table with a monkey, are we to expect the monkey to play by the rules and not fling it’s poop?

Ah, yes: a cherished cornerstone of Western intellectual thought: every time one of the powerful Western nations does something wrong--or when they commit to an atrocity in concert--it's "someone else's fault."

You sure wouldn't want them to accept any responsibility--gods no!

There certainly should be fungible limits, bit each and every case should be determined on it’s merits and the possible negative side effects……For a more concrete response, I’d require a more concrete hypothetical example.

Well, you can name any of them: material and diplomatic collusion in mass murder in East Timor; the funding of terrorist rapists in Nicaragua; the torture and slaughter of Catholic activists throughout Latin America; the jaw-dropping terror regime of the Duvalier Dynasty in Haiti.

But it's maybe moot, because you have already said that you support all these things, by replying that Western foreign policy is always "broadly justifiable"--my term, but one to which you offered a near-unqualified salute...and reiterated again, in your last post.

How so? I mean if both our families were marooned on a deserted Island with only enough resources to sustain one family, can you fault the families looking after their own interests? Now further compound the problem by replacing one family with a family group of Neanderthals.

A promiscuous analogy. Such a situation is not the one in which we find ourselves.

Offering weapons and diplomatic support for Suharto's 25-year paroxysm of mass murder was not done on behalf of your family's "self-interest," Derek.

I think you’re muddying the waters to an extent……Initially yes, we chose to work with tribal warlords under the age old guise of an “enemy of my enemy is a friend”……I think that to be a pragmatic approach to accomplish a clear set of goals……..as it did historically

I'm not muddying the waters...you are. The part you left out was the entire point of the passage to which you're responding.

If by greater good you mean the greater good of our interests, why yes, I do think it so.

That's just silly. And non-responsive.

Edited August 19, 2013 by bleeding heart

[dre]

That's right, it is simplistic bunk but it's exactly how they think about the West.

They think the same way that anyone else in their situation would.

Do you think if the roles were reversed things would be any different? Do you think that if a greater power invaded America, killed thousands of Americans, and sponsored an oppresive government that they wouldnt be the target of guerilla warfare? You are kidding yourself. This kind of thing has been going on for thousands of years.

I am puzzled why you think that people who own, rape and beat women, outlaw gays, attack and burn Jewish property and Christian churches and punish thieves by cutting off their hands, that these people think rationally.

I dont think they think rationally. Lots of them are complete wackos. I simply addressed the unbridled idiocy that is the whole "they hate our freedom" meme.

These same types attacked Russia in Afghanistan and now in Chzecknia. They are attacking the Assad Regime in Syria. They attacked Mubarak. They went after Saddam Hussein at times as well. They dont like to live under quasi secular dictators, and they dont think democracy can work in their countries. Most of the them are deeply conservative, and want to live under religious rule.

I guess they must hate Syrias freedom under the Assad regime as well?

You are ignoring the fact that these people and people like them have gone up against dozens of different regimes, most of which were not "free" at all.

Edited August 19, 2013 by dre

[bleeding heart]

That's right, it is simplistic bunk but it's exactly how they think about the West. I noticed you didn't try to disprove any of their views I described, good thinking there. Instead you go describe the misdeeds of the West as if when these deeds stopped then the terrorists would stop? Now that is simplistic.

Oh....Dre's notion, that there are geopolitical consequences to geopolitical behavior, is simplistic.

But the notion of the Shining City on the Hill, beset by Evil on every side who attack us because of our Goodness, and because of their Evil--sort of a God vs. Satan thing...why, that's sober historical realism.

Edited August 19, 2013 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

I must say, I also find it interesting that so many people evidently believe Soviet Communism to have been a bastion of Freedom and Equality.

I disagree, but I'm fascinated by the sudden turnaround in opinion.

[Guest Derek L]

And this doesn't begin to answer what I was saying...it is a separate subject altogether.

I said we are by definition social animals...and that co-operation (as well as qualities such as empathy) are innate. They're not engineered constructs by Leninists.

Further, I am suggesting that no one succeeds, individually, as a capitalist, without indulging in the co-operative behavior that is wired into our nature.

You can beg to differ with the uncontroversial truisms, ones with which no one but you disputes, all you wish. It doesn't change the facts.

Uncontroversial truisms? That’s the point of my position, they are not truisms

First of all, it's not skewed...it just is. It's as if you're railing at the failed philosophy of the sun's existence.

Second, it's not "bottom-up," but by nature horizontal.

Third, it's not an "approach." You're mistaking my remarks for an endorsement of communism. I don't endorse communism. I am talking about the fact that we are--biologically--social animals, and so that culturally, we are in fact interdependent.

Automatically. Inherently.

And within a social group, are not animals seeking their own individual survival?

I’m not saying Hobo Joe is a mean guy, but his participation within society is not measurable, yet he continues to survive.

You keep bringing the non sequiter up, and I keep telling you that no one is saying any such thing.

So to put it to bed, we can both agree that not all individuals within a society are equal, followed by not all societies being equal?

Ah, yes: a cherished cornerstone of Western intellectual thought: every time one of the powerful Western nations does something wrong--or when they commit to an atrocity in concert--it's "someone else's fault."

You sure wouldn't want them to accept any responsibility--gods no!

My point still stands.....

Well, you can name any of them: material and diplomatic collusion in mass murder in East Timor; the funding of terrorist rapists in Nicaragua; the torture and slaughter of Catholic activists throughout Latin America; the jaw-dropping terror regime of the Duvalier Dynasty in Haiti.

But it's maybe moot, because you have already said that you support all these things, by replying that Western foreign policy is always "broadly justifiable"--my term, but one to which you offered a near-unqualified salute...and reiterated again, in your last post.

Exactly my point……..in all those instances, “Western interests” were sought…….And yes, I’m of the opinion that our interests are of more impotence then theirs.

You want to talk of truisms…….this is the truth to the history of all human civilization…….A superior group will take from a weaker group.

A promiscuous analogy. Such a situation is not the one in which we find ourselves.

Offering weapons and diplomatic support for Suharto's 25-year paroxysm of mass murder was not done on behalf of your family's "self-interest," Derek.

And to who’s interest was it done?

I'm not muddying the waters...you are. The part you left out was the entire point of the passage to which you're responding.

Which was?

That's just silly. And non-responsive.

Well it’s an answer to the question you posed….

[sharkman]

Dre thinks that everyone in "their" situation would think the same way which says that everyone basically has the same mindset. This is not true.

Still unable to get past this projection.

Edit: For instance, why doesn't Japan hate the US as Muslim extremists do? Why doesn't Germany hate them, WWII decimated both their countries beyond anything ever done in the ME. Yet Muslim extremists in their zealotry think they have a right to blow up you or me. Again, all people or cultures do not respond the same in the same type of situation.

Japan and Germany have long since taken their places among the leaders of the free world. What a glowing example.

Edited August 19, 2013 by sharkman

[PIK]

Yes they can be. Violating the 4th amendment, unreasonable stops, searches and seizures. Can only be stopped if suspected of a crime. Otherwise, you are free to go on your way. People who have excersized these rights have been able to push back on the security apparatus and have been able to freely go on their way.

Knowing the law and your rights is part of the whole thing. Those who do not know their rights, or do not value them will get caught up in this security madness quite easily.

'Can we search your car?' , Not without a warrant!

Counterattack roadside checks? What are you trying to describe here?

We have also seen recently in NYC where the highly controversial Stop and Frisk program has been deemed in violation of NY State constitutional law. This program made criminals out of completely innocent people and was rife with racial profiling.

Maybe it's a matter of appointing the right judges to the supreme court in order to hold up things like the constitution. The constitution is to protect you from the government. It's no wonder they want to marginalize it as much they can. Hence articles like the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA are in place.

When Kucinich was asked why he voted down the PATRIOT ACT, it was because he read it.

From 2011 where he talks about the violations and abuse that has taken place with these acts.

And roadside stops for drinkers??

[bleeding heart]

Uncontroversial truisms? That’s the point of my position, they are not truisms

?

That people are social animals--by their very nature--is certainly a truism. It's a central component of what we are.

Otherwise, it is impossible that you and I would even be having a discussion about it...or about anything.

That compassion, empathy, fellow-feeling are innate human characteristics, is also not an arguable point. We could no more develop them out of nothing than we could choose to sprout wings. That's because they're part of what we are.

And yes, of course self-interest, the lack of compassion and empathy in certain situations is also part of us. That's clear enough. But why you think the former must negate the latter, I don't know.

They are part of human nature.

I'm frankly amazed that we're debating the point at all.

And within a social group, are not animals seeking their own individual survival?

Of course. I'm not arguing against human nature; you are.

So to put it to bed, we can both agree that not all individuals within a society are equal, followed by not all societies being equal?

Sure. To my knowledge, we have never disagreed on it.

Exactly my point……..in all those instances, “Western interests” were sought…….And yes, I’m of the opinion that our interests are of more impotence then theirs.

what interests were served--I mean exactly--and how are they justifiable?

You do know you are actually explicitly advocating rape and mass murder...and of non-combatants to boot? I just want to be clear on this.

It's rare to come up against this type of extreme obedience to State power.

You want to talk of truisms…….this is the truth to the history of all human civilization…….A superior group will take from a weaker group.

And surely you concede there are at least times when this is inappropriate.

And to who’s interest was it done?

A few. It was in Indonesia's interest, because they wanted the territory (and the potential wealth of the resources).

A few hundred thousand peasants dead and suffering seemed to them an irrelevancy, apparently.

The US (and, I believe, the other Western colluders in state terror and mass murder) was interested in currying some favour with the regime, because Suharto was violently anti-communist. (They were arguably pretty close to fascist, in fact.) And there was also the matter of the potential resources boom. So when the Good general declared his intentions, privately to Ford and Kissinger, they (heading up the Boss of the Earth) gave him the explicit go-ahead. And then supplied him with the weapons and the diplomatic support to kill at will. The other allies followed suit, presumably for similar reasons.

but the thing is, Derek, they weren't fighting communists. They were supporting anti-communists, which is not the same thing. East Timor, its population and its nascent independence movement were not communist.

In fact, they considered themselves the West's natural allies...boy, were they in for a surprise!

So, with your "moral theory" of the Rightness of the Strong overcoming the weak...you support the fascists over their murder victims?

Really?

And I'm sure you're aware of how miserable and depraved this "theory" has been in any number of situations.

I don't know why you are stubbornly defending that which you know is indefensible...in this case, one of the worst mass murders by percentage of population in the postwar era.

And what did you and your family gain by this, that makes you think it justifiable? Inquiring minds want to know.

Edited August 19, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Guest Derek L]

?

That people are social animals--by their very nature--is certainly a truism. It's a central component of what we are.

Otherwise, it is impossible that you and I would even be having a discussion about it...or about anything.

That compassion, empathy, fellow-feeling are innate human characteristics, is also not an arguable point. We could no more develop them out of nothing than we could choose to sprout wings. That's because they're part of what we are.

And yes, of course self-interest, the lack of compassion and empathy in certain situations is also part of us. That's clear enough. But why you think the former must negate the latter, I don't know.

They are part of human nature.

I'm frankly amazed that we're debating the point at all.

And which human traits have a stronger pull? I have my doubts if a person would be so concerned with Hobo Joe if their belly was empty…

Of course. I'm not arguing against human nature; you are.

Not at all, see above.

what interests were served--I mean exactly--and how are they justifiable?

You do know you are actually explicitly advocating rape and mass murder...and of non-combatants to boot? I just want to be clear on this.

It's rare to come up against this type of extreme obedience to State power.

What specific case?

To generalize though, well you and I would condone rape and murder of innocents, if the alternative was a drastically negative effect on our society, in my view, though the acts are repugnant to our sensibilities, they are justified.

Simply put, how many in the West are willing to go without to ensure the health and well being of those in the third world? Now compound that and ask how many in the West would be receptive to going without because of actions of those in the third world?

It’s not a nice answer, but it is the truth.

And surely you concede there are at least times when this is inappropriate.

For sure, violence should be the last resort in all cases, and if required to use it, violence should be minimized to the greatest possible extent without compromising a set of objectives of the given instance.

A few. It was in Indonesia's interest, because they wanted the territory (and the potential wealth of the resources).

A few hundred thousand peasants dead and suffering seemed to them an irrelevancy, apparently.

The US (and, I believe, the other Western colluders in state terror and mass murder) was interested in currying some favour with the regime, because Suharto was violently anti-communist. (They were arguably pretty close to fascist, in fact.) And there was also the matter of the potential resources boom. So when the Good general declared his intentions, privately to Ford and Kissinger, they (heading up the Boss of the Earth) gave him the explicit go-ahead. And then supplied him with the weapons and the diplomatic support to kill at will. The other allies followed suit, presumably for similar reasons.

but the thing is, Derek, they weren't fighting communists. They were supporting anti-communists, which is not the same thing. East Timor, its population and its nascent independence movement were not communist.

In fact, they considered themselves the West's natural allies...boy, were they in for a surprise!

Can we expect when dealing with culturally backwards people, for them to have the same sensibilities as you or I? Same question as the monkey playing poker really…

Do the ends justify the means? Certainly if your endgame is deterring the spread of Communism in a region situated on both vital shipping lanes and large quantities of oil and rubber…….I’ll ask again, would we in the West tolerate no fuel or tires on our cars for the sake of a few hundred thousand Indonesians?

Like I said above, the answer is not nice, but it is the truth.

The same could be asked about the Rwandan Genocide…..Were we in the West willing to expend our treasure on two warring tribal groups in a non-vital (to us anyways) region?

You know the answer already.

So, with your "moral theory" of the Rightness of the Strong overcoming the weak...you support the fascists over their murder victims?

Really?

And I'm sure you're aware of how miserable and depraved this "theory" has been in any number of situations.

As I said above, if the ends justify the means…….Or if the “victims” are preventing us from gaining a vital resources we support the fascist and if the fascist changes his mind, we then support the victims again…so on and so forth, that is until they realize it’s within their best interests to sell us what we were after.

I don't know why you are stubbornly defending that which you know is indefensible...in this case, one of the worst mass murders by percentage of population in the postwar era.

And what did you and your family gain by this, that makes you think it justifiable? Inquiring minds want to know.

Stubbornly defending it? What’s it? Western Society? I would think those reasons would be obvious……..As to what we get out of it, the same as you and yours, the pleasure to live in a First World Society

[bleeding heart]

To generalize though, well you and I would condone rape and murder of innocents, if the alternative was a drastically negative effect on our society, in my view, though the acts are repugnant to our sensibilities, they are justified.

........

As I said above, if the ends justify the means…….Or if the “victims” are preventing us from gaining a vital resources we support the fascist and if the fascist changes his mind, we then support the victims again…so on and so forth, that is until they realize it’s within their best interests to sell us what we were after.

These remarks are too repellent to warrant a detailed response. Among the most disgusting I've read in a while...so congratulations.

Edited August 20, 2013 by bleeding heart

[cybercoma]

These remarks are too repellent to warrant a detailed response. Among the most disgusting I've read in a while...so congratulations.

They're the arguments of people that have given up and cannot imagine a better world or society. Once you blame it on "human nature," you wash your hands of any responsibility to being better than that.

[bleeding heart]

They're the arguments of people that have given up and cannot imagine a better world or society. Once you blame it on "human nature," you wash your hands of any responsibility to being better than that.

Yes...especially when the sweeter and higher parts of "human nature" are left out of the equation, as if some sort of leftwing aberration from our "true" nature as violent and greedy gangsters.

[cybercoma]

It really makes me wonder what kind of individual thinks so little of human nature. Like as if they would be engaging in all of these disgusting activities, if it weren't from tremendous external pressure not to. Frankly, if there were no laws against raping and murdering people or stealing from them, I still wouldn't do this and I'm certain most people still wouldn't do this. If you require some sort of external restraint to keep from doing these things, then I feel sorry for you. I think generally the vast majority of people don't need to be coerced into doing good and that truly awful people are few and far between. It is not human nature to be awful, but to cooperate for survival and that means being altruistic for the benefit of community.

[dre]

If you require some sort of external restraint to keep from doing these things, then I feel sorry for you.

The external restraint is more about avoiding an environment where regular people are likely to do those thing. You are secure in your moral judgements on various things because of the type of society you live in. But morals are relative, and if you lived in a society where killing your competitors was a normal way of making sure you had what you need your morals would shift.

I read an essay by a guy with 50 years experience in civil admistration. His judgement was that we are about 10 days away from the stone age. In the absense of the rule of law (government, police, etc) the first day is somewhat normal but everyone is confused. On the second day there is widespread looting, and confrontations between people. By the end of the third day civil infrastucture breaks down. You cant drive on most roads, and you cant call the cops on criminals and they know it. By the end of the fourth day most utilities fail, and people dont have electricity, water, etc. By the fifth day you have survival instincts and mass panic kicking in, and theres widespread violence over the aquisition of common necessities. The delivery of goods and services has completely stopped at this point.

Within a week people are pooling resources, and you have desperate and violent "gangs: competing.

My guess is that you abandon your moral stance on stealing on about day 3 or 4, and you abandon your moral stance on murder on day 6 or 7.

Edited August 21, 2013 by dre

[Smallc]

And as a result, society would reorganize...because as bad as people may be, they don't like when the bad comes home.