LEGO

‘the defining characteristic of an intelligent and moral person, is to always support their people's enemies and attack their people's friends.’

I beg to differ. The defining characteristic of a not overly intelligent or moral person is to always assume that critical analysis of their people’s friends must be construed as an ‘attack’, and that empathetic analysis of their people’s enemies must always be construed as ‘support’.

When it comes to ‘us and them’ thinking, it’s always safer, easier and more comfortable to stick with the ‘us’. If those who empathise with the ‘them’ had been listened to throughout history, a helluva lot of misery and destruction might have been avoided.

Craig

Hang in there, mate. There are plenty of OLO commenters, myself included, who appreciate the intelligence and moral maturity of your contributions.

Hi Killarney,

Your interesting point, about

"Those who dutifully parrot the 'violent Islam' paradigm, while ignoring all the other empirical evidence about what radicalises mostly young men to commit terrorist acts ..... "

seems to contain a slight contradiction: are you saying that 'violent Islam' is a myth ? Or are you saying that there are plenty of reasons for 'violent Islam' ?

I recall arguing with someone back in 2001 who claimed that al Qa'ida didn't exist, it was a figment of the western media - AND anyway the CIA set up al Qa'ida AND anyway , after all the evils of the West over the past thousand years, it was probably a good thing that al Qa'ida [which doesn't exist] blew up those towers, and anyway the Israelis did it.

Let's agree to call a spade a spade: currently, 'violent Islam' is carrying out many atrocities, there seems to be a new one every day. Why is another matter: the fact remains that there are 'violent Islamist' atrocities nearly every day.

Explaining something doesn't explain it away: it still occurs. How to combat it - what, you don't think it should be combatted ? - is going to be huge problem, including how to avoid the radicalisation of psychologically challenged youth. I think that that is vital, as you do (even if you also think it's all a Murdoch-inspired myth).

[TBC]

[continued]

Killarney,

I enjoyed your assertion of "a Nato-campaign to break up the former Yugoslavia". As I recall,

* the Slovenians struggled to break away from a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia.

* Croatia struggled to break away from a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia.

* Macedonia struggled to break away from a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia.

* Muslim-majority Bosnia struggled to break away from a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia, and got invaded by what was left of Serb-dominated Yugoslavia. NATO intervened after three or four years of Serb atrocities.

Serb-dominated Yugoslavia imposed chauvinist and anti-Kosovar policies on Kosovo, from around 1987. Kosovars couldn't work at the universities, and were expelled from the bureaucracy, etc. Eventually the Kosovars were able to express a desire to break away from Serb-dominated Yugoslavia, the Serb army invaded, terrorised (any other word for it ?) the Kosovar population, driving them out of the capital and over the mountains, and - after more than ten years of brutality - NATO intervened on the side of the Kosovars. Russia threatened to intervene on the side of the fascists, but all bluff of course.

Kosovo, like Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia and part of Bosnia, is now an independent state, protected by NATO from further Serb provocations. Yes, a predominantly Muslim state in south-eastern Europe, like Bosnia and Albania. The people have chosen, let it always be so.

And I also recall that, when Serb troops and paramilitaries were going into 'battle', i.e. against women and children, they would be blessed by an Orthodox priest. I suppose that's as close as Christians have come to calling out "Allahu Akbar," which we have heard so often in the last few years.

And yet again, it shouldn't have to be pointed out that two wrongs, or a multitude of wrongs, don't ever make a right. Evil then in 'Yugoslavia', evil now in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Cameroun, Niger, etc.

Joe

Well said Joe. And underlines my own beliefs almost exactly.

And put more aptly by someone like a mythical Forrest Gump.
Who might have said, evil is what evil does.

And on the contested figures of six million Muslims killed in crusades, they not my figures anymore than those killed in the Nazi Holocaust, just what I've read and remembered.

Revisionist will always contest figures, even those that saw Stalin kill more Russians than those killed in WW11.

And to reiterate, Forrest might have commented, evil is what evil does.

We useful idiots need to stick together, as the virtual abuse and other stuff flies.

Usually to detract from the argument or general thread?

And as poorly as Muslims were treated in the former Yugoslavia, what they in their turn are perpetrating in the middle east is far worse, and entirely indefensible!

As Peaceful Muslims in former Yugoslavia found out the hard way, there are some people, whose own belief system and social mores, make them impossible to cohabitate with, in normal civilized peace.

And today that is true for ISIS, and indeed all those who sympathize with or make excuses for.

As you might have said, the justification is entirely invalid, given two wrongs never ever equate to a right!

Evil is what evil does!
Rhrosty.

'Violent Islam' - although of a Shi'ite variety - [maybe Islamism is an equal-opportunity fascism ?] has allegedly just murdered the prosecutor in the Argentinian case against Iranian involvement in the murder of 85 mainly Jewish people in a bombing back in 1994. The prosecutor, characterised as a 'dirty Jew' by Iranians in phone-taps, was found shot dead in his home last Wednesday.

On Kosovo:

I don't think that Kosovars can in any way be accused of complicity in what evil is being perpetrated in the Middle East, just because they are Muslim. They were, so it seemed back in the eighties, just trying to live their lives and get along, and still are. I've heard of Chechens and Bosnians joining IS, but not Kosovars.

But I live a sheltered life, so how would I know ?

Perhaps they represent a progressive form of Islam, in which one doesn't forget the atrocities committed against one's people, but one moves on, puts it all behind one. And pisses people off by referring to oneself as 'one'. Jesus, I'm channelling Sheldon Cooper.

Joe

JKJ, let's start again. I'm sorry for having taken a cheap shot.

To go back to the question of 'enough', in my recitation of my own thought processes around the topic of computing gear, which was prompted by your comment, I had hoped to leave it to the reader to generalise from that particular, which obviously didn't happen, so I'll be a bit clearer.

In determining 'enough', it seems to me that there is a fairly straightforward set of steps that can be followed. It's a set of steps that should be familiar to anybody doing any kind of planning.

1. What are my needs?
2. Are my needs met by my current resources?
3. If they are, is there enough overhead in those resources to cope with expected transient demands and likely growth in needs?
4. If they are not, what can be done to improve the situation?
5. Does the proposed improvement action lead to consequences that themselves need to be taken into account?
6. If it does, is there any other action that might be taken instead?

and so on.

The thing to note is that the course of action revolves around need, not want and requires rational consideration of consequences. For example, choosing a course of action that satisfies my needs at the expense of your ability to satisfy your needs is likely to lead to negative consequences. We have seen an example of that in this thread.

LEGO, I'll make the same offer to you as to JKJ, let's start again. I'm sorry I didn't take your contributions seriously enough to respond properly.

It's interesting that you suggest I am seeking to establish a moral superiority, because my own guiding principle is entirely pragmatic. Perhaps the simple fact is that what we might call 'morality' is simply an ethic based on a pragmatic recognition that we all do better if we look out for each others' interests?

That's certainly what falls out of game theory and in fact was what won Robert Aumann his Nobel 'Memorial' Prize in Economics in 2005.