Exploiting "Religious Sensitivities" = OK by me

[epepke]

One major problem, as is patently clear, is that when you offend the prisoners, you offend all the people of that culture. You might not see much in it, but the Arabs are getting this story 24*7, and the US may as well pack up and go home and save itself the money and embarrassment.

As I said before, Osama is giving thanks to Allah overtime at the moment.

I'm assuming that, when we're talking about offending cultural sensitivies, we're talking in much more general terms than those pig piles in the recent photographs, which I would agree are clearly abuse, are reprehensible, and should be stopped.

I still have some problems, though. There seems to be an implicit model with several parts, and the ultimate conclusion is that cultural insensitivity by, say, the US government is what gives rise ultimately to violence in the US.

This just seems to be a given and I have never seen the model defended. However, I question it. At best it's weak, and it might be completely wrong.

For one thing, there have been instances in which offending or even destroying the cultural sensibilities of a group of people was strategically and tactically correct. Instances include the "melting pot" of immigrants from the late 1800s to the early-to-mid 1900s, which effectively stripped native culture from millions of people, including my grandparents, and the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, which offended the cultural sensibilities of the South.

For another thing, you yourself seemed to have been taken in by the pornography posted in another thread, and I think it highly likely that people in Arabic countries either 1) have a higher probability of being taken in, or 2) do not care if the images are genuine at all. I recall how Mohammed Atta and company used to visit strip clubs and porn stores, almost as if they were searching for ways to become offended. There is little one can do in the face of it.

For another thing, history does not seem to show any a clear relationship between offending people and getting attacked by them. It seems like it should, but that may be simplistic. The cognitive psychology done in the 1950s showed some surprising things. Frequently, being nice and respectful engenders contempt and a perception that one is weak.

I would like to hear the model described in detail and defended by a believer in it.

 

[The Don]

The use of propaganda in order to portray the "enemy" in a bad light is as old as the art of war. All it requires is an enemy and a story which is somewhat believable in the circumstances. In WW1 "The Hun" were accused of atrocities (which were subsequently investigated by the Bryce Commission.

So,

I think it highly likely that people in Arabic countries either 1) have a higher probability of being taken in, or 2) do not care if the images are genuine at all

. Yet many people are willing to have Arab Extremists demonised. We should look at our own willingness to have Sadam portrayed as the source of all that is ill in the world prior to invasion of Iraq.

I think we are all equally susceptable to propaganda, particularly when this reinforces an existing view or opinion. After all we in the UK are quite happy to hear of U.S. mismanagement of Iraq safe in the knowledge that we are doing it "better" in our little bit.

 

[a_unique_person]

I'm assuming that, when we're talking about offending cultural sensitivies, we're talking in much more general terms than those pig piles in the recent photographs, which I would agree are clearly abuse, are reprehensible, and should be stopped.

I still have some problems, though. There seems to be an implicit model with several parts, and the ultimate conclusion is that cultural insensitivity by, say, the US government is what gives rise ultimately to violence in the US.

Osama was pretty fired up about US troops in the holy land, that is, Saudi.

Now, I can understand this at a rational level. Here we have a sovereign country, with a massive army from a foreign country camped out on it. Like that book about the mice and the cheese, once you get the cats in to get rid of the mice, the cats then hang around and outstay their welcome.

At a religious level, well, look anywhere around the world, the religious thinking of many people is totally irrational, but why pick on Osama, he just happens to be better at being irrational than others about it. There were plenty of signs that he was pissed, but the thinking of the US seems to be that if they have the overwhelming firepower, then they can't lose. They thought wrong. At the time that Osama struck on 9/11, the thinking of the US was resolutely following the greater firepower line of thought.

At a cultural level, the Wahabists are pretty backward in many ways. Look around, the world is full of such thinking, but places like, say, India, haven't got any oil.

Strangely enough, this event didn't change their line of thinking. GWII went ahead, right on schedule. I believe Dubya and friends are currently reviewing the wisdom of this model.

This just seems to be a given and I have never seen the model defended. However, I question it. At best it's weak, and it might be completely wrong.

For one thing, there have been instances in which offending or even destroying the cultural sensibilities of a group of people was strategically and tactically correct. Instances include the "melting pot" of immigrants from the late 1800s to the early-to-mid 1900s, which effectively stripped native culture from millions of people, including my grandparents, and the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, which offended the cultural sensibilities of the South.

I don't believe the 'melting pot', which Australia is experiencing just now, is something that strips culture. Rather, at it's best, it merges cultures and we get to pick the best aspects of the cultures. It is not a one way street. The US has had it's culture changed by it's immigrants just as much as it has changed their cultures.

As to how to deal with the worst aspects of cultures, education and cross cultural exposure is the best way to cure this. Believe it or not, but many women from the more repressive cultures want education and a better life for themselves. They might still wear a scarf, but the brain is not imprisoned in it. And the western guarantee that every woman can be a lap dancer isn't that much of an alternative.

For another thing, you yourself seemed to have been taken in by the pornography posted in another thread, and I think it highly likely that people in Arabic countries either 1) have a higher probability of being taken in, or 2) do not care if the images are genuine at all. I recall how Mohammed Atta and company used to visit strip clubs and porn stores, almost as if they were searching for ways to become offended. There is little one can do in the face of it.

Not at all. I was curious where the pictures came from. I think they are genuine pictures of rape, but not necessarily from Iraq at this time. I am prepared to wait and see what the truth behind them is. However, as you have already said, the photos we have already, which are acknowledged to be genuine, are bad enough.

For another thing, history does not seem to show any a clear relationship between offending people and getting attacked by them. It seems like it should, but that may be simplistic. The cognitive psychology done in the 1950s showed some surprising things. Frequently, being nice and respectful engenders contempt and a perception that one is weak.

I would like to hear the model described in detail and defended by a believer in it.

I think you are seeing a realtime experiment in just this. The photos are all over the Arab news channels, (Well, except for the one run by the US).

There are plenty of Americans, (and, I might add, Australians, I marched in protest against the war and was amazed at the size of the march), who didn't want this war in the first place.

There are many more who have since changed their minds, given that the whole pretext of the war has been shown to be a sham.

There will be many more seeing just how resistance is growing to the US presence. There were many Iraqis who did want the US to come and free them from Saddam, and who would have been happy to give democracy a chance. However, the photos just show to them that the US is no better than Saddam. If the US was better, it would have respected their culture. To make a mockery of it is to make a mockery of them.

 

[a_unique_person]

The use of propaganda in order to portray the "enemy" in a bad light is as old as the art of war. All it requires is an enemy and a story which is somewhat believable in the circumstances. In WW1 "The Hun" were accused of atrocities (which were subsequently investigated by the Bryce Commission.

So, . Yet many people are willing to have Arab Extremists demonised. We should look at our own willingness to have Sadam portrayed as the source of all that is ill in the world prior to invasion of Iraq.

I think we are all equally susceptable to propaganda, particularly when this reinforces an existing view or opinion. After all we in the UK are quite happy to hear of U.S. mismanagement of Iraq safe in the knowledge that we are doing it "better" in our little bit.

The dubios photos, and they are still dubious, not proven one way or the other, the photos could well be true. Don't forget, as I showed in the job application for an interrogator, the mercenaries are involved in this up to their neck as well. Even if the uniforms aren't regular army issue, the photos could be of mercenaries or forces involved in Iraq from one of the Coalition of the Billing. Those countries are more or less mercenaries anyway. And if it is not US troops but the other countries, well, the responsiblity still lies with the US.

 

[epepke]

Osama was pretty fired up about US troops in the holy land, that is, Saudi.

Now, I can understand this at a rational level. Here we have a sovereign country, with a massive army from a foreign country camped out on it. Like that book about the mice and the cheese, once you get the cats in to get rid of the mice, the cats then hang around and outstay their welcome.

Thank you for using an actual thing that bin Laden claimed that he didn't like.

Although I would like to see US troops out of Saudi Arabia, I think that it is only appropriate to do so when Saudi Arabia asks for it to happen. There have been some grumblings (all post-9/11), but so far no actual request.

The Arabic/Islamic world is far from a monolith, and there is practically no way of not offending someone. Thus, presuming the model that I am hoping someone will explain is accurate, there must be some algorithm for determing whom it it safe to offend and whom it is not safe to offend. This algorithm would have had to have been applicable by about 1997 to have had any effect on decision-making. I am aware of no such algorithm. I have certainly never seen it presented.

Everyone's hindsight is 20-20.

At a religious level, well, look anywhere around the world, the religious thinking of many people is totally irrational, but why pick on Osama, he just happens to be better at being irrational than others about it. There were plenty of signs that he was pissed, but the thinking of the US seems to be that if they have the overwhelming firepower, then they can't lose. They thought wrong. At the time that Osama struck on 9/11, the thinking of the US was resolutely following the greater firepower line of thought.

Again, everyone's hindsight is 20-20. It's terribly easy to look back and say "The US did the wrong thing." But what was the right thing? Pull out of Saudi Arabia? Is there any reason to believe that nobody would have been ticked off by that? Without a system that generates right answers consistently, saying that something was wrong carries little weight.

As far as this goes, the only really safe option is not being powerful, because if you're powerful, damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

At a cultural level, the Wahabists are pretty backward in many ways. Look around, the world is full of such thinking, but places like, say, India, haven't got any oil.

This is probably the major way in which oil does enter into the equation. In the absence of oil and the money selling it generates, the whole Middle East would probably have self-destructed long ago.

Strangely enough, this event didn't change their line of thinking.

I don't know which event you are referring to.

I don't believe the 'melting pot', which Australia is experiencing just now, is something that strips culture. Rather, at it's best, it merges cultures and we get to pick the best aspects of the cultures. It is not a one way street. The US has had it's culture changed by it's immigrants just as much as it has changed their cultures.

That's one viewpoint, and it's a viewpoint that I happen to agree with. However, my experience with our US academic Islamic studies professors and such, is that the melting pot is bad, bad, bad! Also, in the US society, you can look at Dearborn and Lansing Michigan. Almost a century ago, Henry Ford paid his workers 250% the going rate, but the cost was that his workers had to become US citizens and throw off their old ways. He even had ceremonies with a big mock-up of a melting pot on a stage. His employees dressed up in some folk attire from their native lands, walked into the melting pot, did some sort of quick change and emerged in business suits. This kind of thing is guaranteed to throw the typical US academic or leftist into fits of apoplexy. Anyway, nowadays, it's hard fo find people in Dearborn and Lansing who can speak English.

I sympathize with the idea of cultural variety, but I think the loss of many of the sharper edges may be the price we have to pay for peace.

As to how to deal with the worst aspects of cultures, education and cross cultural exposure is the best way to cure this. Believe it or not, but many women from the more repressive cultures want education and a better life for themselves.

I believe it, and I approve, but then again, the same thing is widely considered horrible by many of the people, perhaps the majority, that I see talking about cultural sensitivity.

Take a culture like the Taliban. Under them, it was considered vile to teach girls and women to read. I'm all for teaching them to read. But doing so is inherently and irreducibly a direct insult to their cultural sensibilities. Osama bin Laden would, I'm sure, agree.

So, now, we're full-circle. If it is wrong and stupid not to appease bin Laden, then it is necessarily wrong to teach women how to read.

Which is why I agree with the original poster. To hell with those sensibilities.

Not at all. I was curious where the pictures came from. I think they are genuine pictures of rape, but not necessarily from Iraq at this time.

I consider this some back-pedalling. If you really are curious, you could hang out on a.b.p.e., where they get posted regularly.

I think you are seeing a realtime experiment in just this. The photos are all over the Arab news channels, (Well, except for the one run by the US).

OK, but what are the criteria for a hit? Pictures of some upset Arabs burning US flags don't cut it. We've already had terrorist attacks that killed 3000 people in a single day, and that was before these images. I think the criteria for a hit has to be significantly greater than this. Let's say, if there is a terrorist attack on the US which kills more than 5000 people on a single day, within six months of the publication of the images, that will be prima facie evidence.

Pretty ghoulish, huh? But so are the connections we are expected to make.

There are plenty of Americans, (and, I might add, Australians, I marched in protest against the war and was amazed at the size of the march), who didn't want this war in the first place.

I didn't want this war in the first place, either. But that's of little importance now, as it has happened. It is truly history. And I hope that Bush is defeated by the biggest landslide in history, and that Kerry somehow miraculously turns out to be better, and I get a job.

But none of this elucidates what I was asking before. Just what is the justification of this model of which I spoke? And what is the algorithm for getting the right action ahead of time?

 

[epepke]

I think we are all equally susceptable to propaganda, particularly when this reinforces an existing view or opinion. After all we in the UK are quite happy to hear of U.S. mismanagement of Iraq safe in the knowledge that we are doing it "better" in our little bit.

Maybe nominally, or just a little bit, or something, perhaps we're supposed to be skeptics on this board. "Everybody's doin' it, doin' it" doesn't really cut it for me.

 

[a_unique_person]

Although I would like to see US troops out of Saudi Arabia, I think that it is only appropriate to do so when Saudi Arabia asks for it to happen. There have been some grumblings (all post-9/11), but so far no actual request.

Well, the Arab elite. I don't think the average Saudi would see it this way. The rulers of Saudi have used religion to enslave their people. They just didn't realise that maybe it would enslave themselves, Osama wasn't actually supposed to fall for it.

 

[a_unique_person]

I consider this some back-pedalling. If you really are curious, you could hang out on a.b.p.e., where they get posted regularly.

Back Pedalling? Not from me. I have considered them to be perhaps valid depictions of rape, but the uniforms etc not necessarily those of the US regular army. They are a mystery that I believe will be revealed.

I have never claimed anything like 'look at these photos of the US military'.

 

[epepke]

Well, the Arab elite. I don't think the average Saudi would see it this way. The rulers of Saudi have used religion to enslave their people. They just didn't realise that maybe it would enslave themselves, Osama wasn't actually supposed to fall for it.

Sure, but that's just another monkey wrench. Go for the people against the government, and then ooga booga booga, you're Usurping a Sovereign State™ and the UN is on you like brown on a granola bar. And the people are as fickle as--well, people, because nothing is more fickle.

Real easy to declare something wrong in hindsight. Real hard to figure out what would be right ahead of time.

 

[a_unique_person]

Even Colin Powell was telling Bush and his masters, as well as half the word, meddle with human ficklemess and you run a serious risk of ending up in deep doo doo. Which is exactly what has happened. Even I ( I might modestly add) was asking, what is the plan for after the victory. Where is the cultural sensitivity, given that almost no one can even speak arabic. Well, it turns out we were right, Cheney was wrong. Which is pretty scary when you think of it. It's that easy to be smarter than the head of the nation with the most nukes. Well, not that surprising, I worked for EDS for a while, and I got the distinct impression it was run by a cryogenically frozen tadpole, or Walt Disney's head. (Cheney used to be on the EDS board).

Roadtoad had the right idea, bulldoze the damn prison. The idea that 'hey, heres a handy place to toruture people' actually happened is a cause for serious concern. You take a powerful symbol of opression of Iraqis, and assume it for yourself. Practical, but not very smart. It sends out a powerful message.

 

[a_unique_person]

Sure, but that's just another monkey wrench. Go for the people against the government, and then ooga booga booga, you're Usurping a Sovereign State™ and the UN is on you like brown on a granola bar. And the people are as fickle as--well, people, because nothing is more fickle.

Real easy to declare something wrong in hindsight. Real hard to figure out what would be right ahead of time.

But there were plenty of people with foresight. Don't think it was just Dubya and his puppeteers who fell for it, our own leadership did too. There were plenty of warnings that this is what was going to happen, they intentionally ensured that any contrary views were buried.

 

[epepke]

But there were plenty of people with foresight. Don't think it was just Dubya and his puppeteers who fell for it, our own leadership did too. There were plenty of warnings that this is what was going to happen, they intentionally ensured that any contrary views were buried.

All in the past tense. There were plenty of people with foresight, and you can easily claim that things would have been hunky dory if they had been listened to, but since it's already happened, there's no chance of history proving you wrong.

 

[a_unique_person]

All in the past tense. There were plenty of people with foresight, and you can easily claim that things would have been hunky dory if they had been listened to, but since it's already happened, there's no chance of history proving you wrong.

The point is, (the Australian government is doing it too), you have a plan you want to carry out, and you make sure no one tells you otherwise. This is just pig headed ignorance, and a trait you definitely don't want in your leadership. Any raising of doubts is weakness. Those who feel wronged and say that they warned that this might happen are pilloried. I am not talking about what if this, what if that. I am saying that they did not want to know anything contrary to what they wanted to know.

Look at how Colin Powell was treated. They knew he would be critical, so they kept him out of the picture. They told the Saudi Ambassador they were committed to a plan, then they told Powell what the plan was.