At least it seems to be perfect. I understand what I think to myself perfectly.

Alcohol has some nasty side effects, that’s granted. While it allows you to think like a mastermind (at least in your little universe during the time you’re inebriated) it’ll render your means of communication absolutely useless.

Mine went downhill after I started drinking at the university. It gets better when I’m sober for a few months

Even though I didn’t, and actually still don’t, share your opinion I have to admit that it was a pleasure talking about these topics to you.

Thank you for the roses, concerning my English. It’s very much appreciated.

Bob

For the record: Luxembourgian, having lived nowhere but there, studying and living since 2 years in Innsbruck Austria.

I had assumed from some of your earlier posts that you were an American living in Germany…

I’ll let yours be the last word, since it’s your ‘Blog, but I hope we can take up discussion of some of these and other points soon.

I will be checking out your ‘Blog again very soon.

En garde!

Bob,

Kip,

sorry for not having been able to get back sooner to our little discussion here. I wished I could have – but was unfortunately a bit busy at work.

I’ll tell what, I don’t like the term ‘biased’, it implies I’m wrong (a position that, if true, ought to be established by argument). However I will accept the more neutral synonym ‘highly opinionated’.

Not being a native English speaker, I might not have grasped the probably slight difference between highly opinionated and biased. As far as I understand it though, biased doesn’t imply that something is wrong, it just means (again – to my understanding) that something is or might be subjective and should thus be analysed with a grain of salt. Whatever way I look at it, I can’t see a clear difference between biased and highly opinionated.

If you prefer it though, I’ll not use biased in that context again.

I see a big difference between Buddhists who believe Man has an immortal soul, that life has a powerful spiritual component and that the Universe is underpinned by spiritual forces; and those he see no reality but the crude mechanics of the physical world. A huge difference. The proof is that Communists are nothing like Buddhists. If you won’t agree to wear the ‘materialist’ tag yourself, perhaps you need to explicitly repudiate those — Dawkins and Hitches for example — for whom the Materialist tag is entirely fitting (your support for whom I have assumed, sorry if I’m mistaken).

I am as well totally against people like Dawkins and Hitches (which I do not know – but as you name them together, I suppose they share the same set of ideas; will look him up later though), as I am against people trying to put their religious believes in front of anything they and others believe in. In a certain way I just can’t be bothered to argue about similar things – which might make me an agnostic some time. Yet at the beginning I still am, and will probably be for some time a radical atheist.

No hard feelings, but that’s the way it is.

On a not totally serious side note: What if for some people the what you label crude mechanics of the physical world is some sort of spiritual force? A force that they believe in? A force that actually can be explained and is more logical to a lot of people then deities?

True, Hitler attacked the Communists. Although, he repeatedly describes Communism as a Jewish phenomenon, so I don’t think that disproves my point. Not to mention the obvious political threat the Communists posed which he needed to neutralise in order to cement power. Besides which, intense hatred between Socialist factions is typical of that awful cult, not an aberration. That he hated Bolshevism doesn’t prove he was not a Socialist any more than the hatred of Trotsky and his faction proves the same for Stalin.

Er. Yup, the Nazis did describe Communism as a Jewish phenomenon. Yet, Communism didn’t become a problem because it was supposed to be a Jewish phenomenon, but because the social system (as in the system applicable to the society – not as social in social interaction) wasn’t deemed to be good. That aside, the Nazis had to produce a lot and Communism might have been just a bit to sluggish in certain things.

And I don’t argue that Hitler absolutely commanded the Armed forces, but not sufficiently to prevent them plotting against him or occasionally disobeying his orders. Hitler frequently expressed frustration with the recalcitrance and independence of of the Wehrmacht senior officers (Stalin never had that problem). The Wehrmacht, although mostly intensely loyal to Hitler personally, was never the highly indoctrinated and politicised tool of Nazism that the Red Army was for Communism.

You certainly know that the Schutzstaffel was created in 1925; or actually 1923 if you consider the Stabswache to be the same thing.

And Stalin might not have had that problem because he went ahead and had most of his senior officers shot in 1938. (One of the reasons by the way why the German forces advanced just that fast through Russia at the beginning. There were almost no qualified officers able to give the highly trained German officers something to chew on.)

I know the term ‘terrorism’ has been applied to many different tactics throughout history, but murdering non-combatants (including hacking the heads off little kids) and blowing up their own people with no military justification, that’s terrorism in my book wherever it takes place. No need to over-complicate things.

What you are doing here is something I don’t like. In my opinion, and certainly in the one of many of the few people reading this hacking the heads off little kids is an Appeal to Emotion and by there a very, very bad thing to use in a discussion. Especially if your discussion partner, in this occasion me, knows about such tactics.

But to get back to your point. I do not believe that in a war zone, or in a war if you wish, these things can be qualified as terrorism. Sure, they are atrocious and will most probably always be. One of the reasons why they happen isn’t because those people are bad people, but because they are desperate. They don’t have a way to decently fight the well organized allied troops in Iraq, they have nothing to eat and yet they continue to fight for what they believe is right.

As they can’t attack the allied troops openly, they are doing something else. Attacking people who are working with the allies, so that the other people (not harmed by their maneuvers) will perhaps join their side and help them. Another approach would be to get to the US, the UK or Australia for that matter and attack the families of the soldiers fighting the war on the other side of the earth. It’s called psycho-terror. And has been used for ages, because it weakens the mentality of soldiers – anywhere in the world – and of any nation. (This is quite hard to explain – I do hope you get my point though ;-))

I don’t dispute what you say about MacArthur, but historical figures to be judged on the totality of their words and deeds, not the worst things they once said. MacArthur’s positive achievements are so extraordinary that I will gladly overlook his career-long weakness for saying obnoxious and outrageous things.

So, in that regard Mao was a fine guy? I mean, after all he got China out of feudalism, ended slavery and gave everybody a cup of rice a day (though the last thing is obviously a myth)?

I don’t blame the Ottomans for terrorism, I blame the USSR squarely the reinventing, exporting and nurturing of that evil tactic — with particular curses to be heaped on the grave of their most murderous Middle-Eastern tool, Arafat. I do blame the Ottomans more generally, though, for reducing the noble Muslims of the Middle East to the degraded, brutalised and backward state that has made them so prone to supporting terrorism. Also for imposing a centuries-long system of corrupt and autocratic rule which the Arabs have yet to throw off.

Terrorism never had to be reinvented. It was always there, and will never leave us. And if anything, the countries responsible for the degraded, brutalised and backward (sic!) states are the European superpowers of the 19th century till after the first World War.

Much like Anglo-Saxons such as I must accept that our forbears (the famous ‘Capitalist Imperialist’ of the 19th Century — I wrote about them too) were responsible for creating the environment in which Communism in East Asia could flourish.

Yes, and? Everything can be described by cause and effect. Can we do something against these little mishaps of history? No. Would it be good not to do anything new out of fear that something bad could happen? No. We have to go on, and learn by mistakes. Not sit there, discuss for ages and come to the conclusion that we shouldn’t do anything or that we are doing things to late.

As I said in one of my LittleTinSoldier posts, Muslims are Christians’ beloved cousins who were once very much like us. ‘There but for the Grace of God, go I’ has never been more apt.

They actually still are. Just as many of them are peace loving, respectable members of their nation as we have Catholics in our regions. If I read the Pope saying things like everything but roman-Catholicism is not the true religion – I am reminded of the conflict between the Sunni and the Shia. If I read something about murders and acts of terrorism in the middle east – always said to be done by religious fundamentalists – I picture Northern Ireland, where it’s always described using other words.

There is no difference in my opinion, and I’d be foolish to say otherwise then.

The original post was intended to highlight the absurdity of blaming religion for terrorism, when it is so blatantly not a religious act. I sacrificed breadth for brevity and emphasis (I think it worked) because I believe ‘religion causes terrorism’ is a patently weak argument — whether wielded by anti-Muslim Rightists or anti-Christian Leftists.

Religion doesn’t necessarily provoque terrorism, yet it makes it easier – in my opinion at least. The question Does religion cause terrorism? is fair question to be asked. The conclusion that religion causes terrorism is far fetched and absurdly generalized. Of your 5 arguments however, 4 were just as generalized.

Cheers,

Bob

I’ll tell what, I don’t like the term ‘biased’, it implies I’m wrong (a position that, if true, ought to be established by argument). However I will accept the more neutral synonym ‘highly opinionated’.

I see a big difference between Buddhists who believe Man has an immortal soul, that life has a powerful spiritual component and that the Universe is underpinned by spiritual forces; and those he see no reality but the crude mechanics of the physical world. A huge difference. The proof is that Communists are nothing like Buddhists. If you won’t agree to wear the ‘materialist’ tag yourself, perhaps you need to explicitly repudiate those — Dawkins and Hitches for example — for whom the Materialist tag is entirely fitting (your support for whom I have assumed, sorry if I’m mistaken).

True, Hitler attacked the Communists. Although, he repeatedly describes Communism as a Jewish phenomenon, so I don’t think that disproves my point. Not to mention the obvious political threat the Communists posed which he needed to neutralise in order to cement power. Besides which, intense hatred between Socialist factions is typical of that awful cult, not an aberration. That he hated Bolshevism doesn’t prove he was not a Socialist any more than the hatred of Trotsky and his faction proves the same for Stalin.

And I don’t argue that Hitler absolutely commanded the Armed forces, but not sufficiently to prevent them plotting against him or occasionally disobeying his orders. Hitler frequently expressed frustration with the recalcitrance and independence of of the Wehrmacht senior officers (Stalin never had that problem). The Wehrmacht, although mostly intensely loyal to Hitler personally, was never the highly indoctrinated and politicised tool of Nazism that the Red Army was for Communism.

I know the term ‘terrorism’ has been applied to many different tactics throughout history, but murdering non-combatants (including hacking the heads off little kids) and blowing up their own people with no military justification, that’s terrorism in my book wherever it takes place. No need to over-complicate things.

I don’t dispute what you say about MacArthur, but historical figures to be judged on the totality of their words and deeds, not the worst things they once said. MacArthur’s positive achievements are so extraordinary that I will gladly overlook his career-long weakness for saying obnoxious and outrageous things.

I don’t blame the Ottomans for terrorism, I blame the USSR squarely the reinventing, exporting and nurturing of that evil tactic — with particular curses to be heaped on the grave of their most murderous Middle-Eastern tool, Arafat. I do blame the Ottomans more generally, though, for reducing the noble Muslims of the MIddle East to the degraded, brutalised and backward state that has made them so prone to supporting terrorism. Also for imposing a centuries-long system of corrupt and autocratic rule which the Arabs have yet to throw off.

Much like Anglo-Saxons such as I must accept that our forbears (the famous ‘Capitalist Imperialist’ of the 19th Century — I wrote about them too) were responsible for creating the environment in which Communism in East Asia could flourish.

As I said in one of my LittleTinSoldier posts, Muslims are Christians’ beloved cousins who were once very much like us. ‘There but for the Grace of God, go I’ has never been more apt.

The original post was intended to highlight the absurdity of blaming religion for terrorism, when it is so blatantly not a religious act. I sacrificed breadth for brevity and emphasis (I think it worked) because I believe ‘religion causes terrorism’ is a patently weak argument — whether wielded by anti-Mulsim Rightists or anti-Christian Leftists.

…and Bill, you may thing I’m wrong, even deluded. But I defy you call me ignorant.