Other people have provided links on this very thread which you have ignored and continued your apologetic behavior for terrorist organizations or Countries that kill innocent people on a mass scale.
Like this:
It is also worth noting that many of the founding ideologues of al Qaeda were radicalized towards violence by being tortured in Egypt.
Holy crap! How many times do you have to apologize for them? They just
HAVE to kill thousands of innocent people because they were abused as a child, or picked on when they were younger. Plus, if you met them, you would think they would be really nice and well mannered people too... before they tried to kill you that is.
So let's just get to the heart of it. The part that you, Chomsky, and other terrorist apologists leave out:
If you do not dispute that Countries across the Muslim world legally kill thousands of innocent women, gays, and those accused of blasphemy, than what can be done to address this?
The only answer I have heard from Chomsky is to just ignore the problem and spend all of his time on red hearings and criticizing those people that do stand up to people that kill innocents for their own pleasure like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
The reason for this is simple. Chomsky's tactic, and the one that you have adopted, has nothing to do with advocating policies that uphold the declaration of Human rights or standing up for innocent people who are killed by tyrants and terrorists, but it has everything to do with shifting the blame to something that you feel good pointing your finger at. Which is the people who are putting their lives on the line to protect those innocent people. It is a tactic that has nothing to do with trying to make things better in the world, and everything to do with making yourself feel better about yourself.
Jih
adJane;7244797 said:
No-one has provided links showing my support for "groups (sic) like Hezbollah, the Taliban, Hamas, and Iran" on this thread or any other thread, nor have they linked to examples of my alleged "apologetic behavior for terrorist organizations or Countries that kill innocent people on a mass scale". Perhaps you'd like to provide some yourself.
I included my post because you ignored most of it, and if you really read it, it will get to the heart of what you have been doing.
You have no intention of answering any of your apologetic behavior for countries and groups that support the intentional mass killings of innocent people, and I do not have time to play this merry go-round game with you. There is nothing "historical" or "factual" about your excuses.
If you want evidence of your behavior, you could look at your posts on this page, or go back 4 pages, or just look at your screen name which glorifies those that pointlessly blow up innocent children, men, and women.
I do not expect you to answer the content of your posts given your past history of you perpetually ignoring them, and I do not think your bias would allow you to anyways.
What I do expect however is that you will answer, is the question that you avoided before. Which gets to the heart of the dichotomy of yours and Chomsky's position:
If you do not dispute that Countries across the Muslim world legally kill thousands of innocent women, gays, and those accused of blasphemy, than what can be done to address this?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208346&page=21
JJ, if you care about human rights, why do you condone OBL and AQ's attacks on civilians over the years?
Your only answer to the question about OBL's monstrous activities was this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7182611#post7182611
So let's just get to the heart of it. The part that you, Chomsky, and other terrorist apologists leave out:
If you do not dispute that Countries across the Muslim world legally kill thousands of innocent women, gays, and those accused of blasphemy, what can be done to address this?
You obviously haven't heard (or read) much Chomsky.
Women, in fact, are even worse off than before the invasion.
Wrong, I have read and heard plenty of Chomsky, and don't try to feed me his completely unsubstantiated cow manure.
This is the truth that you and Chomsky leave out:
http://www.afghan-web.com/woman/
Over 1400 years ago, Islam demanded that men and women be equal before God, and gave them various rights such the right to inheritance, the right to vote, the right to work, and even choose their own partners in marriage. For centuries now in Afghanistan, women have been denied these rights either by official government decree or by their own husbands, fathers, and brothers. During the rule of the Taliban (1996 - 2001), women were treated worse than in any other time or by any other society. They were forbidden to work, leave the house without a male escort, not allowed to seek medical help from a male doctor, and forced to cover themselves from head to toe, even covering their eyes. Women who were doctors and teachers before, suddenly were forced to be beggars and even prostitutes in order to feed their families.
Since the fall of the Taliban in late 2001, many would agree that the political and cultural position of Afghan women has improved substantially. The recently adopted Afghan constitution states that "the citizens of Afghanistan - whether man or woman- have equal rights and duties before the law". So far, women have been allowed to return back to work, the government no longer forces them to wear the all covering burqa, and they even have been appointed to prominent positions in the government. Despite all these changes many challenges still remain. The repression of women is still prevalent in rural areas where many families still restrict their own mothers, daughters, wives and sisters from participation in public life. They are still forced into marriages and denied a basic education.
The answer that I would give to my question above would not include more war. Now that Osama Bin Laden has been killed, we have been able to have a lot more peace negotiations with delegates of Mullah Omar as one of the major obstacles to peace has been removed. We will need to continue to fight against groups like Al-Qaeda, but we do not require perpetual war to do this.
The best thing we could do to address the Countries across the Muslim world that legally kill thousands of innocent women, gays, and those accused of blasphemy, would be to address it specifically at the UN. If the Hague and other bodies that are charged with protecting this document are allowing these Countries to kill thousands of people which is done for no other reason than to spread fear and terror among their population for women who stand up for themselves or people who might be gay, than we need to replace the Human Rights Charter with an agreement that will be able to do what the Human Rights Charter continually fails to do.
The reason for this is simple. Chomsky's tactic, and the one that you have adopted, has nothing to do with advocating policies that uphold the declaration of Human rights or standing up for innocent people who are killed by tyrants and terrorists, but it has everything to do with shifting the blame to something that you feel good pointing your finger at. Which is the people who are putting their lives on the line to protect those innocent people. It is a tactic that has nothing to do with trying to make things better in the world, and everything to do with making yourself feel better about yourself.
Meaningless psycho-babble! Where did you learn such rubbish mind reading?
How have US military invasions protected women, children and gay people in any predominantly Muslim country on the planet?
I hope (but do not expect) that you will take the time to actually read this, and understand what your tactic is actually doing, and the implications of it.
The US has at many times been one of the only Countries standing up for human rights in far off Countries, and there is little indication that China, Brazil, India, Russia, or any of the other major powers in the world will do the same when we stop.
We admittedly have done little to protect the abuse and execution of gays throughout the world, but we have done much to protect women and ethnically oppressed people worldwide.
If we want to do better, we need people like Chomsky and you to actually help promote human rights, instead of apologize for those who are the largest abusers of it.
I understand you avoiding this, because it gets to the heart of the problem with the tactic that you and Chomsky subscribe to. It is a way to frame the world in a way that makes you, and others that subscribe to it, feel better about yourselves.
I define this practice as a "blame based understanding system." In short, complex problems have thousands and even millions of factors that are extremely difficult to understand. However, by placing the blame on one Country or institution, you can have a quick and dirty understanding of a situation that in reality is far more complex.
The problem is that to do this, you give up honesty, truth, and you end up fighting against those who are really trying to understand and fix the problems. Chomsky is a master reinvisionist, but instead of using his intellect to help solve our problems, he uses it to phrase situations in ways that causes you and other to feel happy about blaming the "bad side" while the reality is nothing close to the narrative he has created.
In short, Chomsky creates a blame based understand system that provides him with lots of money selling books, while people like you eat it up without giving it a second thought. All at the sacrifice of developing actual solutions to our problems.
There are people on all sides that do this for many different reasons. Such as when people combine all Muslims as "bad" or "evil." As an example of blame based understanding, I used to blame far more than was justified on Bush (the economy, our War on Terror, etc.). I viewed these complex situation largely based on the actions and speeches of one man. It was not until I heard people doing the same thing to Obama that I realized how wrong I had been.
The truth is that this is just one of our set of very complex problems that includes a number of issues that we have never been able to really understand or grasp. One aspect of this occurs is because of religion, politics, economics, and a whole list of other social structures that we developed from evolutionary adaptations in order to organize and sustain ourselves, but which were developed in a way that made it impossible for any person or group of people to fully understand. We needed to have a basis for understanding and rationalizing the world around us in order to allow us to be more effective in collective economics and warfare, but it is impossible for a human brain to understand all of the factors that go into the function of the world, and even the reasons for why and how you make decisions (which is a combination of nature/nurture, environmental effects, and the evolution of your own emotions and the world around you). This therefore require structures the simplified and organized the world in a way that we could understand, even if they were not entirely accurate.
Everyone has some form of a blame based understanding system, and the more that you understand and recognize it, the more rational you become about it.
One of the major reasons why the War on Terror has gone on for so long is because we all have a different definition of what terrorism is. The goal of Al-Qaeda, to establish a caliphate is false choice, but people just get caught up on both sides, and don't talk about the reality of it. The more that we can have honest conversations in world forums like the UN about how to protect Human Rights while protecting religions freedom, including those abuses under Sharia Law (which is barred from discussion at the UN), than the closer we will get to a real and long lasting solution to this.
