DescentBB

my one liner was more of an observation than anything else.

but since you asked, here goes:

After watching how events progressed, and seeing who was appointed where, it makes me wonder why most people would come to the conclusion that their hardliners are worse than the ones on this side of the world.

There's right-wing hardliners in congress, the supreme court and the white house. But for some reason that's ok. unless it's being done in another country. then having hardliners running things is very bad for everyone.

You are afraid of them having one bomb. The US has 2700 of them, and with an inept leader with his finger on the button. That alone scares me more than anything Iran could come up with.

On a related note; North Korea has a few nukes with a crazy guy at the helm who threatens to use them if someone from this side says 'boo'. But he hasn't done so. Why? I'm not sure. But the concern keeps getting pushed to someone who might build one bomb if they go through with their nuclear power program.

It just seems like the US's priorities are messed up to me.

There is a difference when Religion becomes the motive to kill. They will build a weapon.

I'm not sure how much research you've done on Islam and references to how Infidels are dealt with, but I don't think even their hardliners will launch because we don't believe the same they do.

Fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, but aggress not: God loves not the aggressors (2:190)

The way i'm interpreting this is if they do decide to build a warhead and launch, they go to hell along with the infidels. and besides, if they really wanted to hit the US with a nuke, wouldn't they just buy a few from Russia?


As I was working on this post I came across this story.

Ferno wrote:. . . it makes me wonder why most people would come to the conclusion that their hardliners are worse than the ones on this side of the world.

There's right-wing hardliners in congress, the supreme court and the white house. But for some reason that's ok. unless it's being done in another country. then having hardliners running things is very bad for everyone.

Not all 'hardliners' are the same. The ones in the US don't call for the extirpation of countries. Or do you think wiping Israel off the map is basically the same thing as calling for regime change?

The problem with an excessive commitment to moral equivalence is that you lose your sense of proportion.

Not all 'hardliners' are the same. The ones in the US don't call for the extirpation of countries. Or do you think wiping Israel off the map is basically the same thing as calling for regime change?

Just because the words may be different, doesn't mean the message is.

extremism is extremism. no matter what it's about.

EG: I seem to recall a few people on here saying 'turn the place into a glass parking lot'.

Ferno's smoked too much pot for me to take him seriously anyway.

character assasinations are so boring.

Ferno wrote:extremism is extremism. no matter what it's about.

This is not a very nuanced outlook. Extremism admits of scope and degree. By being so 'extreme' about extremism, you make yourself the target of your own criticism.

I suspect the real reason people appeal to such maxims is that it gives them an excuse to pass judgement on those they disagree with.

Ferno wrote:The US has 2700 of them, and with an inept leader with his finger on the button. That alone scares me more than anything Iran could come up with.

I find it pretty hard to take you seriously after this.

The US has thousands of nukes and a leader who a lot of people don't like, who has called for certain other "evil" government leaders to step down. Iran is hoping to get nukes, and their leader has called for every Israeli to be killed, every Jew and Christian in the world to convert or live as a Dhimmi, etc. The only reason I'm not afraid of Iran is because Blackfive's exit strategy isn't as unrealistic as it sounds.

-----

On a slightly related note: you can find many quotes in the Bible about turning the other cheek, loving one another, and so on, but that doesn't mean the KKK will follow them. I also don't think the particular Islamic extremists we're dealing with care one bit about the whole "aggress not" verse you quoted, or if they do, they'll come up with a loophole. (Osama gets around it by speaking of Western aggression against Islam... in the 12th century.) The thing to remember about extremists is that they don't always pay attention to the more moderate parts of their religion; that's why they're extreme.

-----

Ferno, I like the distorted history in the article you linked ;) There's some truth there worth knowing, but plenty of distortions. Also, never trust an article that says we "should ask ourselves why we have lost this goodwill" and doesn't immediately mention Israel in answer.

Crap. That's twice in one week I have agreed with Lothar. I may be coming down with something.

Lothar wrote:Ferno, I like the distorted history in the article you linked There's some truth there worth knowing, but plenty of distortions. Also, never trust an article that says we "should ask ourselves why we have lost this goodwill" and doesn't immediately mention Israel in answer.

I met Karen Armstrong once at school. I'm surprised she would write an article like that. Reminds me of the researcher in the other thread who faked data, or whatever.

well, if Iran did want nukes.. what makes more sense: them spending years on research and development? or buying them from Russia?

Rigueur: Since you say that there are differences between extremisms, what are the differences between a religious extremist that bombs people and a pro-life extremist that bombs abortion clinics?

Ferno wrote:what are the differences between a religious extremist that bombs people and a pro-life extremist that bombs abortion clinics?

There's no significant difference between those particular extremists at a personal level. However, on a societal level, the pro-life extremists are rare, typically act alone, and are immediately disavowed by the rest of the pro-life movement. The religious extremists in the middle east are common, supported by the governments of Syria, Iran, pre-war Iraq, and most of the largest Palestinian political parties, and cheered by significant public figures in those countries and our own.

Ferno wrote:well, if Iran did want nukes.. what makes more sense: them spending years on research and development? or buying them from Russia?

Except Russia is signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and by treaty cannot be selling nukes to non signatory countries.

So you would agree because of their actions, that's what makes them extremists, right Lothar?

Woodchip: Perhaps on a legal ground... but it's been said that Russia loses a lot of their weapons. but none have been recovered. I don't know if they just disappear as a test or someone's actually taking them.

Ferno wrote:So you would agree because of their actions, that's what makes them extremists, right Lothar?

A combination of their actions (including statements), attitudes, motivations, etc. Their actions are usually the most reliable indicator, though.

... which, I think, plays nicely into De Rigeur's point. There are different degrees of extremism. I remind you of this statement:

Not all 'hardliners' are the same. The ones in the US don't call for the extirpation of countries. Or do you think wiping Israel off the map is basically the same thing as calling for regime change?

What's the difference between the 'hardliners' in those two examples? One set is calling for a particular leader (who virtually everyone agrees was a bad man and dangerous to those around him) to be removed, while the other is calling for every man, woman, and child in a particular country to be killed. One set sent a military force to capture or kill certain opposed leaders while leaving the country mostly intact, and did not use a single one of the nukes in their arsenal, while another desires to drop nukes on populated areas in order to inflict maximum civilian casualties.

To call both "extremists" and pretend they are equivalent is dishonest, at best.

Lothar wrote:

Ferno wrote:The US has 2700 of them, and with an inept leader with his finger on the button. That alone scares me more than anything Iran could come up with.

I find it pretty hard to take you seriously after this.

The US has thousands of nukes and a leader who a lot of people don't like, who has called for certain other "evil" government leaders to step down.

Remind me -- the US needs the nukes for .. ?

Grendel wrote: Remind me -- the US needs the nukes for .. ?

Nothing...but would you feel safer if we disposed of ours? I rather keep them.

The bigger question is what is the civilized world going to do with evil countries, and don't jump on me....we all know what countries are evil.

What should Israel do about Iran for example?

Bettina

Lothar, I think you're confusing my hardliner example with my extemist example.

When I talk about extremists I take into account the track record, the desire to force viewpoints on other people, and the ability to go to whatever means necessary to achieve a goal.

In contrast: hardliners are those who take a stance on something and do not back down from it.

EG: I would consider you a bit of a 'hardliner' when it comes to your religious beliefs, but there is no way i'd think of you as an 'extremist'. that would be insanity.

Bet51987 wrote: The bigger question is what is the civilized world going to do with evil countries, and don't jump on me....we all know what countries are evil.

What should Israel do about Iran for example?

Bettina

Thatâ??s fairly clown-like.
I mean some of my tax dollars go to Israel and it is proven that they have stolen plenty of secrets from the US. So isn't that evil to someone like me who doesn't personally believe in the 3 religions that are constantly fighting over that puny sliver of the earth?

I think you are all evil.

nana nahbooboo.

;-0~

Ferno wrote:Rigueur: Since you say that there are differences between extremisms, what are the differences between a religious extremist that bombs people and a pro-life extremist that bombs abortion clinics?

A point of logic:
"Extremism admits of scope and degree" My claim is that not all extremists are alike. This is an objection to your claim that "extremism is extremism". It does not follow that I am claiming that differences can be found among any pair of extremists. Even if there are no differences between the two extremists you cite, you still have not countered my claim.

However, it can be said that pro-life bombers target abortion clinics (as you say) while religious extremists target people randomly. So I would say that religious extremists are worse. Of course, you may not recognize this difference as significant. Admittedly, it's the sort of thing that only matters when trying to, say, decide between death penalty and life in prison.

Ferno wrote:Lothar, I think you're confusing my hardliner example with my extemist example.

We were talking about your equation of the president of Iran and conservative 'hardliners' in the US gov. Then in the same context you said "extremism is extremism". If extremists are not the same as hardliners, why bring them up at all? Why not just say "hardliners are hardliners"?

Ferno wrote:I would consider you a bit of a 'hardliner'

Oh, so you think Lothar is not as much of a hardliner as, say, the president of Iran? Hence, not all hardliners are the same. I can agree with that.

Whatever happened to the Hawks and Doves?

The Hawks ate the Doves, and the weakening of EPA regulations led to increased pollution, which killed the hawks.

Or maybe we're all just Dawks....
.
.
.

...get it?

De Rigueur wrote:A point of logic:
"Extremism admits of scope and degree" My claim is that not all extremists are alike. This is an objection to your claim that "extremism is extremism". It does not follow that I am claiming that differences can be found among any pair of extremists. Even if there are no differences between the two extremists you cite, you still have not countered my claim.

I did not counter because I agree to a point. While the sociologial standings are different, it is by their actions that puts them into the 'extremist' camp. You can say that you are an activist for <insert cause here> which would define you as a 'hardliner' in a sense. BUT: when you take your stance and start destroying property and/or people, then you become an extremist. Like the difference between a PETA activist and an A.L.F extremist.

However, it can be said that pro-life bombers target abortion clinics (as you say) while religious extremists target people randomly. So I would say that religious extremists are worse. Of course, you may not recognize this difference as significant. Admittedly, it's the sort of thing that only matters when trying to, say, decide between death penalty and life in prison.

Am I correct in thinking that you believe the differing causes is what makes the signifigance? If so, we are in agreement there.

We were talking about your equation of the president of Iran and conservative 'hardliners' in the US gov. Then in the same context you said "extremism is extremism". If extremists are not the same as hardliners, why bring them up at all? Why not just say "hardliners are hardliners"?

I thought I had clarified the two subjects. my bad. *shrug*

Actually Ferno, you make perfect sense.

Actually you all make sense....but its scary. Just for your info on extremism and hardliner.

In the vernacular, hardline means taking an intellectual or political position that is extreme and uncompromising.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardliner


In terms of actions, the term extremism is often used to identify aggressive or violent methodologies used in an attempt to cause political or social change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremism

Bettina

Ferno wrote:

However, it can be said that pro-life bombers target abortion clinics (as you say) while religious extremists target people randomly. So I would say that religious extremists are worse.

Am I correct in thinking that you believe the differing causes is what makes the signifigance?

It seems the distinction he's drawing is not the cause being advocated, but rather, the targets of violence. Are they targetting unarmed, random civilians? Empty buildings? Occupied buildings? Military units? It makes a big difference.

ok. i get ya.