251. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #57065 by GoatBoy36 on July 18, 2007 at 8:25 am

Xeno,

You haven't really said anything new in your last post. So I guess the arguments which I have already put forward stand. You do attempt to mind-read: "..which I detect borders on a somewhat frantic desire to have my contentions discredited, which I fully accept would be the case ..." which is pretty funny, I suppose. But your comments speak to your own desires and no one else's, if you'd care to sit and think about it for a moment.

When I was writing essays on, say, John Stuart Mill, then I'd have to read "On Liberty" (for example) several times, and only when I was familiar with everything in the book, would I commence a-typing. To say that someone who has actually bothered to read your posts, and thought about what you've said before commenting on it, has "a somewhat frantic desire" about them is obviously absurd. It's just something rational people do, Xeno. On that note, can I suggest to you that to merely keep repeating "America is a terrorist state" over and over again, and to insist that anyone who does not try to "blame" (your term) their own countries for the terrorist acts being carried out against them, is not being rational or responsible, is perhaps not the best debating tactic? Maybe you should try a different approach? Because that one sure doesn't seem to be working out too well for you.

I notice you keep saying that you can't enter into genuine discussion with other people who disagree with you (this is obviously false), because they do not immediately accept your fundamental assertion that America is a terrorist state. Apparently you have "gained insight into the operations of US and UK foreign policy" and hold this belief based on that "insight". You seem to think that no one else on this board has even tried to understand the political realities of the world today (because, of all things, you don't know if they've read Gore Vidal or not). But this is clearly false - I commented earlier on the "dirty hands" problem; I even quoted Machiavelli on this, since he is probably the most well-known writer on that subject. (By the way, when you say that people strive to make a better world for themselves, you completely miss the point Machiavelli is making within the context of his argument in "The Prince", so your objection, and I hesitate to even call it that, fails.) Unfortunately, most of that earlier post seems to have gone right over your head. And you have altogether ignored much of what has been said against your own position, in, for example, post 182. As well as talking about Machiavelli's writing, I talked about concrete examples of the appalling things that can happen in war, and recommended to you an excellent book called "Fortress Malta", by James Holland. I do so again; the story of what the people on that island went through during WWII is quite astonishing (and very moving).

Can I also comment here, since I'm talking about books, that you have said several times now that we all ought to toddle off and read Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, and the rest of your favourite writers.

I remember quite a few years ago now, seeing John Pilger on TV being asked what he would remember most out of all his years in journalism, and he said that his most abiding memory (at that time) was seeing the UK miners going back to work. Wow! That just blew me away. I grew to respect John Pilger hugely after hearing that comment, and I still do btw. I remember seeing him on one of his more recent documentaries giving some member of the American administration a right hard time, it was great. (Unsurprisingly, I am not a fan of that religious wingnut Bush.)

I also spent some time reading a lot of the guys you are currently in thrall to. But I moved on.

You do now acknowledge that Islamic terrorists are not necessarily going to be poor and disadvantaged people, but that they engage in terrorism "as members of a religion". This is so stunningly obvious that no further comment is needed here. What is worth noting here though, is that the notion that the morality of our enemies is not inferior to our own collapses when it is subjected to scrutiny. And you have no response to this.

Bottom line: Because I disagree with what you think are the fundamental premises underlying whatever it is you're trying to say, you apparently think (incorrectly, as I have noted) that I am not as well read as you, and I am therefore unable to form "a full picture of world and historical affairs". I can only repeat what I said earlier, that I worked my way through much of your reading list a long time ago, then moved on. As for accepting your position, you need to argue for it, that is to say, see each of your "fundamental" premises as the conclusion of an argument, and go ahead and provide the necessary premises in support of it. Really basic stuff here ...

Only then can you move forward. You can't simply expect people to accept what you're saying because you wish they would. You did try to put forward a silly little argument based on an elementary observation which one can find in the first chapter of any textbook on the philosophy of mind, and then claimed that you did this because you knew that I knew far more about the topic than you did. How strange. How totally unconvincing. Apart from that, some aimless waffle about different definitions of terrorism which at the end of the day didn't amount to much of anything. And that's it. A pretty poor show, really. Oh, and apparently you think that Osama bin Laden is in the right, and that we should kowtow to any Muslims who don't like infidels in their holy lands, and not think twice about leaving them all to implement their preferred system of Islamic law, which results in 13 year old girls being shot on their way out the school door, and anyone suspected of being bi having a dry stane dyke pushed over on top of them. Do I have a superior morality? Fucking RIGHT! Killing kids at school and murdering people during a football match is NOT the best way to go Xeno! You really think any, what was it you said, "intellectually honest and responsible citizen" of a free and democratic country like the United Kingdom is going to swallow what you're saying - just because you've posted it on this board? Get real.

You acknowledge that your own knowledge of Islam is limited, and that you would like to learn more about it. Now, I'm no expert in that field, and would never claim to be, but I have done a little research, just a wee bit of reading of my own. If you don't mind I'd like to recommend a few books to you (all good ones, I assure you). Firstly, and I mentioned this book already, I have to say that "The Kite Runner" is worth reading. An excellent novel, which I think made Richard and Judy's book club! (So it must be good, right? :-) ). I would also recommend - to anybody - the amazing life story of Ayaan Hirsi Ali; the book is of course called "Infidel". If you enjoy those, you can branch off in any direction that takes your fancy, there are many books on Islam out there. Watch out for the different translations of the Koran though, take a few down off the bookshelf and see which you prefer, at the moment I have Hapwood's translation from Penguin Classics, but if you read Hitchens' latest book, you'll see that he prefers a different one. You might choose another. - As far as the bombs being dropped on Japan in WWII, I really do suggest that you read "Quartered Safe Out Here" by George MacDonald Fraser. You'll know him as the author of the "Flashman" novels. (I'd recommend those too btw.) But he served in WWII, and has a different perspective on this.

And finally, I suggest that instead of thinking that an ad hominem attack on John Stuart Mill negates what he wrote in "On Liberty", you bear Mill's arguments in mind as you go forth into the world, and expose yourself to the views of more people who, like MacDonald Fraser, have an outlook on this life than differs greatly from your own. (And of course from "the great" Noam Chomsky's.)

yours,

GB.

252. Kenya: The Death of Religion And Rise of Atheism in the West

Comment #56807 by GoatBoy36 on July 17, 2007 at 10:49 am

geckoman,

Apparently the spam filters on this website won't let me put links to flickr into a post, but if you do a search there for "Aberdeen Slain's Castle" you should get some cool photos, it's one of those former churches in Aberdeen that is now a big old pub with a vampire theme to it. The guy who's taken all the photos is called "Hound Owner". I'll try to put a link in here again, & see if it works ..

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Aberdeen+Slain%27s+Castle&m=text

gb.

edit: well that didn't quite work, but if you either copy & paste that whole thing into your browser, or just go to flickr and do the search yourself, you should get to the boy's fotys like .. they're pretty good.

253. The New New Atheism

Comment #56784 by GoatBoy36 on July 17, 2007 at 7:53 am

Satanburiedfossils,

Excellent point my man! Also: note how God punished David by murdering his child (2 Samuel 12).

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2012;&version=31;

gb.

254. Kenya: The Death of Religion And Rise of Atheism in the West

Comment #56776 by GoatBoy36 on July 17, 2007 at 7:20 am

"And where are the intellectual titans of the Christian religion?"

Where indeed, lol .. I'm pretty sure he didn't mean to be funny there, but I couldn't help laughing.

One thing he's got right is the use nowadays of kirks for all kinds of useful things, for example if you walk about Aberdeen there's a kirk at the end of Belmont Street now being used as a restaurant, halfway down towards Union St there's another one that's now a nightclub, walk up Union St and there's another restaurant (just up from Waterstones), round the corner from Jimmy Cheung's there's another nightclub, Charlies if I remember right, and they're all former kirks. Man, I could walk about the centre of Aberdeen with my moby and take some rare photos, it might be worth sticking them on photobucket or something & linking to different pics of buildings that are "no longer churches".

gb.

255. Fears Grow Over 'Mega Mosque'

Comment #56774 by GoatBoy36 on July 17, 2007 at 7:08 am

Fanusi,

Can I just say that I have sent in several new posts (inc. what will probably be my final one just now) on the thread started by Christopher Hitchens's article about the car bomb in London targetting women; the thread seems to have quietened right down, but I thought you might get a kick out of reading what I've said there.

yours,

gb.

256. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #56766 by GoatBoy36 on July 17, 2007 at 6:43 am

"How about Hitchens' "shame-faced..refusal to confront" the "facts" about the country he lavishes such unequivocal support on these days, namely the United States of America, unquestionably the world's biggest terror state?" - Xeno, post 21 (opening post)

"The UK government is a major terrorist, so if they want to seriously limit terrorism they are firstly to stop supporting it either directly or indirectly. The same goes for the USA or any other state you care to mention." - Xeno, post 59.

"What is the history of Europe but plunder, both within the continent and beyond?" - Xeno, post 59.

"The US is basically an outgrowth of European civilization, and its terrorism far outstips the reach or the scale of any nation on earth, including all the Muslim states ..." - Xeno, post 110.

"… do you know of any Muslim country who used nuclear weapons against a civilian population? Oh, wait, that was the United States, you rabid jingoist." - Xeno, post 64.

"The US happens to be the world's most powerful state .." - Xeno, post 27.

"As long as the State of Israel continues with its barbaric actions in the Occupied Territories Islamic extremists everywhere have a good reason to hate both Jews and their Western sponsors, which in this case is the US government." - Xeno, post 105.

"You, on the other hand, have seemingly been so deranged by your hatred for Islam and the adherents of this faith that you are able to seriously write that "an appalling number of Moslems (sic) are primitive, brutal savages, addicted to violence, drunk on an appalling level of arrogance, and generally not just uncivilised but anti-civilised". This displays such "appalling" (your favourite adjective evidently) level of racist and cultural contempt that it beggars belief." - Xeno, post 46 (talking to Fanusi).

"Fanusi likes to think that he represents a "superior morality" ..." - Xeno, post 154.

"They (Benhamin Michael and Fanusi) are the types of people who side with mass murderers in the deluded hope that they are saviours, wholesome operators beset on all sides by threatening forces whose actual evil definitively pales in comparison to the far greater villainy obscured by posturings of noble intent." - Xeno, post 154.

"You have clearly not read a single sentence that Chomsky has ever written and instead have allowed your mind to be warped by the sort of religious lunatics who thinks anyone who criticises the Nazi-like actions of the Israeli State are anti-Semites." - Xeno, post 117 (talking to Benjamin Michael).

"Surprised you can even string a sentence together." - Xeno, post 117 (talking to Benjamin Michael).

"I, on the other hand, am not so abjectly confident in my own or my culture's superiority ..." - Xeno, post 154.

"The world will certainly be a much better place without religion and there is surely a connection between certain interpretations of the Koran and suicide bombers. The degree to which this is true is, however, highly debatable." - Xeno, post 170.

"Which brings me to another point, namely that for all his supposed knowledge of Islam and the terrorism that springs from this religion Fanusi does not seem to know anything about Osama Bin Laden's pronouncements." - Xeno, post 154.

"… why not ask the US government to stop being so belligerent towards Iran and rather support the many moderates in the country who are trying to reform it? Doesn't logic tell you that in a fight you'd rather want to be on the side of the big bad guy in the playground rather than the wimpy kid with the glasses. So it naturally follows that if you threaten a country such as Iran, which is now happening, that the overwhelming majority of the population, including those with aspirations to greater liberty, are going to side with the Islamic hardliners in the hopes that these guys are going to protect them. I know I would in that type of a situation." - Xeno, post 78.


Xeno,

You have repeatedly asserted that both the United Kingdom and the United States of America are terrorist states. According to you, the USA is in fact the world's largest terrorist state. You believe that she has committed more terrorist crimes than all of the world's Muslim states combined.

You also believe that Islamic suicide bombers have good reason to hate "Jews", a people whose homeland is in your opinion a "Nazi-like" state. What is more, you think that anyone who criticises your opinion of Israel has a "warped mind".

According to you, anyone who thinks that the United Kingdom and the United States of America should defend themselves against their enemies is guilty of having a "superior morality". And because another user holds that view, and in support of that position argues that there are many Muslims who are "drunk" on arrogance and notions of violence, and who hold core beliefs which are "not just uncivilised but anti-civilised" (in the same way that Hitchens does not consider himself merely an atheist but an anti-theist), you consider that user guilty of racism and "cultural contempt".

You are not confident that Western culture is superior to that of our enemies, and although you do concede that some Islamic beliefs can be linked to Islamic terrorism, you question "to what degree" this is so. You acknowledge that Fanusi, a critic of Islam, has a decent knowledge of that particular religion, although you wonder whether he is familiar with Osama bin Laden's pronouncements.

I have to tell you, Xeno, that anyone familiar with Osama bin Laden's pronouncements will see a startling similarity to your own words on this thread. It's almost as if both you and the writers you are so fond of quoting agree with everything that the world's greatest terrorist ever said. In case you don't trust me on this (I don't expect you to) please use the link at the end of this post, and see for yourself.

Unlike you, Xeno, I am confident that the cultural and moral values of the United Kingdom are superior to those of say, Iran. And I am confident that freedom and democracy are better foundations for society than for example, the unforgiving religious absolutes which demanded the murder of "sinners" during the half-time break at football matches in Afghanistan. (Have you ever read "The Kite Runner"?)

Whenever I go to a football match down at Pittodrie, my half-time entertainment usually consists of a bottle of Moray Cup and a steak pie. I don't know, that just seems better to me than watching people being shot in the centre circle. Don't you think?

Should you really have any doubt that the morality of our enemies is inferior to our own, I suggest you read about what the people we removed from power in Afghanistan are now doing, in an effort to influence future events in that country: they're killing children.

"In the southern provinces where the Taliban are most aggressively combating US and Nato troops, education has virtually come to a halt in large swathes of the contested terrain. In other areas, attacks against schools are sporadic, unpredictable and perplexing. By the ministry's rough count, there have been 444 attacks since last August. Some were simple thefts. Some were audacious murders. " (Xeno: If you use the link at the end of this post, then you can read the whole article. Please do.)

The story focuses on one particular group of schoolgirls who were shot at by followers of the Taliban. Two of them died. Incredibly, a relative of one of the victims said that, according to Islamic law, this was to be expected. After all, the headmistress of the girls' school, a 42 year old woman named Bibi Gul, had the audacity to fly on an aeroplane on her own, without a man accompanying her. I have to tell you Xeno, that any morality that demands the death of two innocent 13 year old girls, because a grown woman took a trip by herself, is inferior to my own.

Any moral system that does not want young girls to be educated, and exhorts its followers to shoot them in order to put a stop to their schooling, is inferior to my own.

Any moral system that gars believers like Mohamed Atta simultaneously despise women (Jane Corbin, "The Base", Pocket Books, p. 154.) and want women so much he'll commit mass murder in order to get a blow job, is definitely inferior to my own.

By the way, what's with this 72 virgins anyway? As Denis Leary said to a Muslim cabbie in the excellent series "Rescue Me", wouldn't you be better off with 72 whores? At least they'd know how to give good head. A fair point, I think. There's nothing worse than an untalented and unenthusiastic virge trying to suck you off. I know, I once dated a Catholic girl who despite having been married, had reached thirty years of age without ever having gone down on a man. How repressed can you get? Needless to say, Goatboy did his utmost to bring her over to the dark side … but that's another story, for another day.

Can I at this point ask that you read again the description of Fanusi's which you quoted in post 46? Brutal savages, addicted to violence? And here we have members of the Taliban killing children? Is Fanusi's language accurate? Hmmm … Of course not every follower of the Islamic faith advocates infanticide, that's a given. (Thank goodness!) Nevertheless, we all remember the appalling images of more than a few Muslims calling for people to be beheaded etc. following the publication of some cartoons in a Danish paper. (See link below.) That arrogant, anti-civilised display, which we all witnessed, revealed a cultural contempt (for our culture) that almost beggars belief. After looking at the behaviour of some of our enemies, Xeno, your earlier criticism of Fanusi's description appears to be on shaky ground. Don't you think?

You wonder to what degree there is a link between Islamic beliefs and Islamic terrorism. I don't think I need to say much here, I really don't. Can I just point out something which you may not know though, Xeno. You will be familiar with the terrorist Mohamed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 attacks; I wonder if you know how he signed off at the end of his academic career? The dedication on his thesis, which he completed in October 1999, read: "My life and my death and my sacrifice belong to Allah, the Lord of all the Worlds." (Corbin, "The Base", Pocket Books, p. 145.) With that, he turned upon the Western world, and upon life itself, and strove to enter paradise as a martyr. A five page handwritten document was found in Atta's belongings after the attack. In it, the author (very probably Atta himself) describes the motives of the killers: ".. strike like champions who do not wish to return to the world"; "Know that the gardens of paradise are waiting for you in all their beauty and the women of Paradise are waiting, calling, "Come hither, friend of God." They have dressed in their most beautiful clothing." (ibid., p. 242) Are you still wondering "to what degree" Islamic beliefs motivate Islamic terrorists? Surely not.

I conclude this post, and I suspect my participation in this debate, by pointing out to you that your own stated position demands that you support America in the war against Islamic terrorism. For you argue (in post 78) that if you lived in Iran, then you would side with "the Islamic hardliners", not because you agree with their beliefs or policies, but because they are the baddest kids in the Iranian playground, and are therefore the group most likely able to prevent you from getting own your arse kicked. But you do not live in Iran, and in an earlier post of yours (post 27), you assert (correctly) that America is at this moment in time the world's most powerful state. It follows then, that you will support the United States of America as she does battle with the Islamic terrorists who are enemies not just of America, but of us all.

Yours,

GB36.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/12527/Guilty,-the-fanatic-who-called-for-British-9/11

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1103532007

http://www.allgreatquotes.com/osama_binladen_quotes.shtml

257. Hitler Was an Atheist Who Killed Millions in the Name of Atheism, Secularism?

Comment #56423 by GoatBoy36 on July 15, 2007 at 5:29 pm

I always think, when I hear Hitler being mentioned by Christians, that it poses more of a problem for them than it does for me. Because it brings up the problem of evil - big time!

Why on earth did their god not do something about Hitler? Perhaps they don't want to say that their god is an out and out killer (despite the OT) but God could have made Hitler mute. Imagine - no rallies, no speeches, none of that. Game over for old Adolf.

I watched a programme on Discovery not long ago, where they replicated the attempt to blow Hitler up. Apparently they only had one charge in the suitcase because a second one was faulty. When they tried it with two, it blew the dummy's legs off. Also, some gadgie moved the suitcase to the other side of the table leg, which was some kind of old oak, & tough as hell. If that boy hadn't done that, if for example the all powerful god the christians believe in made that boy want to take a pee at that specific moment, so that bomb laden suitcase was left where it had been placed ... bango, end of Hitler, it would have blown his pins clean off. Why didn't god do either of those things, and put an end to WWII?

I mean, sorting a faulty electrical circuit or making someone want to pee, that's within the power of the creator of the universe, surely?

The usual response you hear to the problem of evil is what Drange calls the unknown purpose defence - it's all part of God's unknown plan - If a Christian wants to mention Hitler it would be worth asking him or her what their response to the problem of evil is - if that's the only response they have, then they're going to be forced to admit that Hitler was doing God's will.

Like I said, it's more of a problem for the Christian than it is for me. Ho hum ..

gb.

258. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #56235 by GoatBoy36 on July 14, 2007 at 3:03 pm

Xeno,

If you genuinely want to know what lies at the root of the terrorism we are currently facing, then please read the following, and note that nowhere in his suicide note does the writer say anything like "I can't get a job" or "They've stopped my dole". What does he talk about? I'm pretty confident that you already know what he talked about.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/London-bomb-suspect-left-suicide-note/2007/07/10/1183833442566.html

yours,

gb.

259. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #56064 by GoatBoy36 on July 13, 2007 at 3:05 pm

"I may be a ninnie, Fanusi Khiyal, but you are a deluded, naive buffoon who knows almost nothing about history or even present day socio-political reality. Perhaps you should ask yourself the root of fundamentalism and not always moan, like Hitchens and his ignoble ilk, about its manifestations which arises, as it virtually always does, as a result of disenfranchisement, marginalisation and horrible oppression. The US has only its past practices to blame for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and anyone who says anything else simply isn't living in the real world. Maybe instead of calling people such as myself, and we are fortunately not alone, childish names you should do a little bit of research. You dare talk to me about the "obvious" when your evaluation of the US is a product of such woeful misinterpretation that I cannot believe someone on this website, supposedly for enlightened people, could possibly think such thoughts, let alone post them on this forum." - Xeno, post 28.

"Do you think, Fanusi, that the British achieved world domination by being nice to people? Or how about the Romans when they were the imperial top dogs in an earlier age? As Tacitus wrote after Julius Caesar had totally destroyed a Gaulish village – "they made a desert and called it peace". It has ever been so with the West, whom you seem to love so much. The reason the Aboriginal population in Tasmania was completely wiped out, or the ones in Australia were drastically reduced or the Native American population diminished to a few hundred thousand from a projected 20 million, wasn't because they were fed candy by the friendly colonisers." - Xeno, post 46.

"Try reading the political books by Chomsky, William Blum, Chalmers Johnson, John Pilger, Michael Parenti, Gore Vidal, to name a few major writers on US imperialism. " Xeno (to mmurray), post 27.

"Care to name all these "millions" who have been saved by kind US assistance? Or how many "good decent and honest leaders" has the US "helped"? " - Xeno, post 27.

"Is it my "assertion", or simple fact, that the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003 and killed untold number of civilians? Is it simply my "assertion" that the US invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 and killed more civilians than died on September 11 2001 in New York? Or that, according to reliable UN sources, millions of people were forced to flood into Pakistan and pushed to the brink of starvation because all the aid agencies pulled out on the eve of the war? " - Xeno, post 64.

"Back to you, Pewkatchoo - of course you'd rather have the US on your side because you, like most of the people on this forum, are from an imperial society that has plundered the world for centuries, a system that continues in a more indirect manner in the twenty first century. Most people just want Muslims and other people from the Third World to simply move on and forget what happened to them. As the great Noam Chomsky once observed, "if you kick someone in the face you might not remember it, but they will". The kick that is still being doled out by the likes of the US and the UK is pretty harsh so to expect someone to simply move on is the height of hypocrisy." - Xeno, post 78.

"What all of this ignores is the unfortunate fact that freedom may be a right, but it is one that needs to be seized and defended by force, and that were it not for the Aegis of American Power, we would live in a world where a triumphant German Empire had killed every jew and gypsy in Europe, Imperian Japan had control over most of East Asia, and the Soviet Union had enslaved anything that was left of Eurasia. And they also ignore that without the incredible power of America to back us up in the fight against the jihad, we are well and truly cooked." - Fanusi, post 84.


Xeno,

Funnily enough I was reading a book earlier today which provides an excellent example of people who had a good, decent and honest leader being saved by US assistance. During the second world war, as you probably know, the Italians and the Germans bombed the living sh1t out of Malta. When the island was in really dire straits, Churchill asked Roosevelt to lend him the USS Wasp, which duly came to the aid of the Maltese and the British forces who were stationed there. Twice, that ship helped to bring Spitfires into the Med so that the island could be defended. After their second mission, Churchill signalled to the captain and said, "Who said that a Wasp couldn't sting twice?" You appear to be a keen reader, as I am, and I can definitely recommend this book to you. It is called "Fortress Malta". The writer's name is James Holland.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has experienced the depths to which Islam can sink at first hand, has said several times that we in the West have forgotten what Fanusi has said earlier in this thread, that freedom cannot be taken for granted. It must be defended. (You can find some of Ms. Ali's radio broadcasts on sites like odeo dot com, she's a fascinating and courageous person. I suggest you download a couple of "programmes" and listen to her talk if you are unfamiliar with her incredible life.) Reading this book about Malta, I could not help but remember what Ms. Ali had said.

I was going to suggest "Fortress Malta" to you to make the point, in words far more eloquent than my own, that horrible things happen in war. Some of the submariners talked to the author about having to sink enemy shipping, and one of the pilots in particular found setting out to kill enemy pilots deeply unsettling. But such acts were necessary. The alternative doesn't bear thinking about.

After reading your post about the Romans though, I see that you know fine well how the world actually works. Although at the same time you are apparently blind to it. So I thought you might be interested in what Machiavelli wrote in "The Prince": "A man who wishes to profess goodness at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good. Therefore, it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain himself to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge or not to use it according to necessity." (Machiavelli, "The Prince", Oxford World's Classics, p. 53.) And later, in Chapter 18: "One must understand this: a prince, and especially a new prince, cannot observe all those things for which men are considered good, because in order to maintain the state he must often act against his faith, against charity, against humanity, and against religion. And so it is necessary that he should have a mind ready to turn itself according to the way the winds of Fortune and the changing circumstances command him. And, as I said above, he should not depart from the good if it is possible to do so, but he should know how to enter into evil when forced to do so by necessity." (ibid., p. 61.) This is known in philosophy as the "dirty hands" problem. Much has been written about whether only politicians are susceptible to this, but of course the military are actually carrying out their commands, and so regular citizens do face getting their hands "dirty". As many of the military heroes who served on Malta during WWII said in Holland's book, killing fellow husbands, fathers and sons was deeply unpleasant, but it was necessary. No, Xeno, the British and the Americans did not prevail against the enemy by being "nice" to them. In war, people die. Afghanistan and Iraq are no different in that respect. It has, as you say, ever been so. I really do suggest you read "Fortress Malta".

And can I repeat that the latest batch of jihadis were medically trained, and working as doctors for the NHS. They were not disenfranchised, marginalised or horribly oppressed. And they are not atypical. Mohamed Atta, leader of the 9/11 attack on America, was a graduate of Cairo University, and according to the BBC journalist Jane Corbin had completed a postgraduate degree at Hamburg.

Xeno, if I treat your writing as a body of work which accurately reveals your outlook on the world, and note both your continual citing of "the great" Noam Chomsky, and your acceptance of the core teachings of Jesus Christ, then I can't help but think of what Machiavelli wrote back in the 16th Century, as he introduced the key chapter in what was to become his most well-known work, from which I have already quoted: "But since my intention is to say something that will prove of practical use to the inquirer, I have thought it proper to represent things as they are in a real truth, rather than as they are imagined. Many have dreamed up republics and principalities which have never in truth been known to exist; the gulf between how one should live and how one does live is so wide that a man who neglects what is actually done for what should be done moves towards self-destruction rather than self-preservation." (Machiavelli, "The Prince", Penguin Books - Great Ideas, p. 65.)

I couldn't have put it better myself.

yours,

gb.

260. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #56034 by GoatBoy36 on July 13, 2007 at 11:58 am

"So people like Fanusi can have all the discussions about Islamic terrorism they would like, they can even organise academic symposiums in which there is much gnashing of teeth about the ills of Islam, but its effect in the world will be exactly zilch. That's why the terms intellectually honest and responsible citizen apply to those who first assiduously examine the practices of their own country before they look elsewhere for blame." - Xeno, post 154.


Xeno,

I don't believe this is a good argument, and I'll argue for that in this little essay of mine. First of all, I will show why I think that the premise you provide in support of your conclusion is false.

One of the most well known texts on the subject of free speech is John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty". In it, Mill puts forward several arguments in support of the liberty "of thought and discussion". If you hold a particular view, there is always the possibility that you are wrong, and through exposure to an opposing view, you can find that out. (This is sometimes called "The Infallibility Argument".) And if someone advances a view contrary to your own, they may turn out to be wrong, but what they say may still contain some shards of truth. ("The Partly True Argument".) Can I humbly suggest to you that you keep Mill's treatise in mind as you consider the views of people who happen to disagree with some of the ideas advanced by Parenti, Pilger and Chomsky?

I won't bother going over Mill's other arguments here. But perhaps I ought to say that Mill himself took the view that his arguments were not applicable to all people, at all times. He wrote that there were "backward" nations that could not (yet) be improved by free speech. One immediately sees that your premise can be considered here. Talking about religious fanatics, Sam Harris has written that there are some people who will never change their minds, who will never renounce their religious faith. As Harris puts it, "There is, in fact, no talking to some people." (Harris, "The End of Faith", Free Press, p. 52.) Anyone who's tried debating Christians on the internet knows that there's something to this. But the assertion that all believers are beyond changing their mind is clearly false.

Jonathan Edwards was an active Christian, who spoke openly about his faith throughout his athletic career. But as you can read elsewhere on this website, he has recently asked himself some serious questions, and rather courageously, has now admitted openly that the religious beliefs he used to hold were irrational.

John Loftus was educated by some of the finest Christian minds around, and for many years he did his utmost to convert unbelievers to the Christian way. He has recalled saying to a fellow believer at a Christian spiritual conference in 1973 that there was "no way the devil could ever cause him to lose his faith." Loftus has now written a book detailing his loss of faith (available from Amazon), and runs an excellent blog called "debunking Christianity". (Google it!)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, once a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, is now a confirmed atheist, who speaks out against Islamic beliefs and practices. She is currently living under armed guard, since there are Muslims who believe her apostasy is reason enough to end her life. (Her colleague Theo van Gogh was murdered by Mohammed Bouyeri in 2004.)

One wonders how many people with no interest in making their atheism known to others have trod a similar path. Certainly it would be in the best interests of someone leaving the Muslim faith to keep quiet about it. And as Mill observed, even in what we think of as civilised countries, one can suffer from a social tyranny as unforgiving as any form of political oppression. It is easy to see that former Christians too may not always speak out about their new atheism. (Some do, of course - the internet can be a great thing!)

If it is true that devout faith-heads can come to reject their religious beliefs, then it is clearly wrong to say that talking about religion, holding conferences such as the upcoming Atheist Alliance International convention (at which Richard Dawkins will be speaking), and writing books such as "The God Delusion" will have an effect in the modern world of "exactly zilch".

Another reason why your argument is a bad one is that it is clearly a non sequitur. For even if (as you falsely claim) the ideology of your enemy cannot be challenged effectively using a pen, it does not follow that they are no longer your enemy, or that one cannot now engage with them using a sword. Nor does it follow that one must strive (assiduously or otherwise) to blame your enemy's actions on your own political leaders.

You also claim that if your reader believes herself to be a member of the group of people who are both intellectually honest and responsible, then she must accept your conclusion, but this is a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy. Obviously such a claim has no bearing whatsoever on the truth value of the proposition in question.

In short, Xeno, I found what you wrote quite interesting, and I have to thank you for giving me a reason to take John Stuart Mill off the shelf once again, but I also have to say that, in my opinion, your argument is a bad one.

yours,

gb.

261. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #56026 by GoatBoy36 on July 13, 2007 at 11:27 am

proud athiest USA,

Yes, if one wanted to fight against an occupying force, then one could do so without deliberately targeting innocent civilians. Sam Harris has previously argued that to try to achieve a military objective without incurring any civilian casualties is morally distinct from actually "intending to kill a child, because of the effect you hope to produce in its parents (we call this terrorism)". (Harris, "The End of Faith", Free Press, p. 146.) This is a clear and undeniable ethical point, surely?.

yours,

gb.

262. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #55279 by GoatBoy36 on July 10, 2007 at 12:44 pm

"I'd like to start what I suspect will be my final post by addressing an earlier question posed by GoatBoy36. You asked "what's my point" raising the issue of Western terrorism "within the context of a discussion about Islamic terrorists attacking London and Glasgow"? I think it behoves us to first understand that there are two definitions of terrorism, namely a doctrinal and a literal definition. It is by now preposterously clear to anyone reading Fanusi's deranged posts (he was making some clear headed points in the beginning of this forum but he has gone so far off the edge that I am truly gob smacked) that he applies terrorism in the doctrinal sense. What this basically means is that terrorism by the West is acceptable but when other nations, or religious groups in this case, perform acts of terror, which the recent attempted acts of terror in Glasgow and London undoubtedly were, they are to be loudly denounced and vilified. When George W. Bush talks about the "War on Terrorism" his version of terrorism is precisely the doctrinal variant of the term. If he or Blair were seriously interested in combating terrorism they would both have killed themselves and numerous members of their administrations, in the case of the US possibly even blown up the White House and instilled someone like Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich as president. For two of the world's biggest terrorists to even talk about eliminating terrorism is laughable in the extreme. What I'm driving at, GoatBoy36, and I thank you for the civility of your earlier post, is that Western nations have to first stopping participating in terrorism before their constant complaints can actually mean something beyond a selective victimisation which has been the hallmark of Western civilization for centuries. The events on September 11 2001 are among the most shocking I have ever witnessed in my life and am still deeply disturbed by those images. Likewise the July 7 2005 suicide bombings in London. But shouldn't a moderately moral and intellectually honest person ask him or herself why is it that it took Blair's support of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq for the first suicide bombings to occur on British soil? The question "why?" is a simple one, but people like Fanusi never ask it because of what it may reveal." - Xeno (post 154.)


Xeno,

You may have addressed my original question, but I do not think you have provided a coherent answer to it. If I strip out the emotive language, and the ad hominem material aimed towards Fanusi (logically irrelevant), then there doesn't seem to be much left. You claim that there are two definitions of terrorism, and you assert that one of these definitions applies to acts such as the recent attacks in London and Glasgow. You then say that another poster believes that such acts should be "denounced and vilified". (I assume you agree with this.) Ok, I'm with you so far.

You assert that the president of the USA is a terrorist, and I think that you are using the second definition of "terrorism" here, although this is not clear. You go on to say that George Bush ought to have killed himself, which I don't believe addresses my question in any way, shape, or form, (but you're not ranting against George Bush, no, no ..) and that if he wants to stop the first kind of terrorism (such as the attacks on Glasgow) then he ought to quit participating in the second kind.

That's what I'm getting from your post, but if I've got that wrong, feel free to explain what you actually meant. It would be helpful if you stopped mixing in attacks on other posters, I'm really not interested in that, and also, if you want to claim that there are two definitions of the one word, to provide those two definitions, and then indicate clearly which you are using at any given point.

You then ask why it took Tony Blair's support of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for the first suicide bombings to occur on British soil, but I believe this is what is called a "Complex Question". (Since you clearly imply that there is a causal link.) Please enjoy the following comments by Julian Baggini:

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/badmovesprint.php?num=37


The only part of your post which addresses my question directly is the assertion that since the UK and the USA participate in the second kind of terrorism, they cannot legitimately complain about the first. (I think this is what you mean, but again, it's not clear.)


So I don't think that my question has been answered. I wonder if you could try again?

yours,

gb.

263. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #55267 by GoatBoy36 on July 10, 2007 at 11:49 am

"... I really think this forum has petered out and am rather weary of the hostility." - Xeno (post 170.)

Xeno,


Can I suggest that you take your own advice re. what you consider "terrorism", and stop participating in said "hostility". Just an idea like, you can take it or leave it, as you please ..

yours,

gb.

264. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #55266 by GoatBoy36 on July 10, 2007 at 11:42 am

"Another thing Fanusi should realise is that, as Michael Parenit once pointed out, no one has ever "seen an intention", so we should thus judge people on their actions. An elementary point overlooked by the Fanusi brigade." - Xeno (post 154.)

"The reason I didn't continue with the rest of that Jesus quotation from Matthew was because it merely confirmed my point, namely that "by your fruits shall you know them" and not by their lofty rhetoric. I was also not trying to be particularly original by pointing out that "no one has ever seen an intention" as I was quoting directly from one of Michael Parenti's talks. You probably know far more about philosophy and the theory of mind than I do so that's why I kept to a rather straightforward principle. Perhaps an analogy will illustrate my point a bit better. Let's say that Person A spouts a great deal of noble intent while his actions lead to the deaths of millions. Person B spouts hatred and his actions lead to the death of only a few thousand. So in the case of Person B there is a direct correlation between his intent and his actions, yet even though there isn't the selfsame correlation in the case of Person A the death toll is far higher. Now let's also say that the country Person A represents has constantly produced leaders who use similar idealised language and which consistently leads to the same results, namely scores of civilian deaths. Then we also observe, taking other historical figures into account, that some of the worst tyrants in history have also professed adherence to the loftiest of ideals. Should we then conclude that perhaps actions are always a better guide to understanding people's real intention, or should we continue to labour under the impression that the untold millions of innocent people who die are simply an unfortunate by product of this nobility? I'm sure you know what I'm getting at. - Xeno (post 170)

First, I believe that the rest of the quotation from the gospel of Matthew, which I provided in my post (and which you can read at biblegateway dot com), actually supports what *I* said earlier. I suggest you re-read post 159.

And secondly, in response to your final comment: No, I don't really know "what you're getting at" Xeno. Why don't you go ahead and explain your position? And argue for it?

And Xeno, could I bring to your attention the words of Nigel Sweeney QC, who has just (successfully) prosecuted Muktar Ibrahim, Ramzi Mohammed, Yassin Omar and Hussain Osman: "The failure of those bombs to explode owed nothing to the intention of these defendants. It was simply the good fortune of the travelling public that they were spared."

Quite so.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2048575.ece

http://news.aol.co.uk/bomb-plotters-jailed-for-40-years/article/20070711063109990001

yours,

gb.

265. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #55256 by GoatBoy36 on July 10, 2007 at 11:23 am

"Which brings me to another interesting point, namely that between the threat to our planet posed by climate change and by Islamic fundamentalism, I kind of think that the former is a tad more pressing. Another interesting fact is that the United States, along with Europe, are the biggest drivers who are taking the whole world along with them on a collision course with environmental meltdown. Funny how amidst all this fatuous talk of the US being the "lynchpin of the West" there is nary a remark about how this behemoth, which is responsible for a quarter of all green house gas emitions in the world, is the most destructive force in the world, even if we set aside for the moment its vast terrorist operations. As Chomsky noted in 'Hegemony or Survival', perhaps the history of humanity, fast coming to a close, has taught us that being smart is not necessarily better than being stupid. But this is kind of unrelated to your post, so I'll give this topic a rest for now." - Xeno (post 170.)

Like you, I'd rather not get into that here, but I read this today & just thought you might find it interesting ..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=467333&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=322


gb.

266. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #55253 by GoatBoy36 on July 10, 2007 at 11:14 am

"If suicide bombing was so neatly inherent to the Islamic faith then why don't you ever hear of suicide bombings in Kuwait, Qatar or the UAE? Could it be that in these countries there is a generally equitable spread of wealth and a high living standard for most of the population, thus the socio-political conditions are such that people don't experience the same degree of alienation and marginalisation as they do in the poorer Arab states?" - Xeno (post 170.)


"The people behind these recent terrorist attacks were well educated, and they had well paying jobs. This is not unusual. As I mentioned earlier, Mohamed Atta, to give but one example, was a graduate of Cairo University, and according to Jane Corbin's book on Al Qaeda, "The Base", he also completed a postgraduate degree at Hamburg. The world at his feet, and what did he do with it? This devout believer tried to bring it down.


I don't know you Xeno, beyond what you've said on this board, but let's say that you and I are both reasonably well educated, at least to the point where we are both able to earn a living somehow in our own country; I assume that you live in the UK as well. There are of course many people in the same position. And we could all say that we disagree with some of the things our government does, but to state the obvious, it does *not* follow that our country is therefore a "terrorist state". (That's just fallacious black and white thinking there, I have to say.) And again stating the obvious, we do *not* go out and commit murder on the strength of our disagreements either. (If you don't like what your government does, well, as you know, you can always vote.) No, Xeno, people like you and I don't become suicide bombers.


The doctors behind last week's terrorist attacks had everything to live for, they had good jobs, could move around the world to work in different places if they wanted, could help others, and find satisfaction in doing that. But they chose to throw all the opportunities the West had given them over the side. And go off to commit mass murder. Obviously those people differ from you and me in one important respect. And this was revealed when one of the bombers yelled to Allah over and over while he tried to kill other people. They were believers. Men of faith. Perfect faith - and it must finally be admitted that this is a terrible thing to be. (as Sam Harris has said.)" - gb (post 159.)


"Surely we all know by now that this notion of terrorists having "no means to support themselves" etc is not accurate. Mohamed Atta, who led the 9/11 attacks, had a degree from Cairo University, and a postgraduate degree from Hamburg (according to Jane Corbin's "The Base", the prof. who assessed his work in Germany said it was exceptional). And of course all these recent terrorists were doctors, and could hardly be said to have "no means to support themselves". I work for the NHS and I know fine well how much GPs can get paid, especially locums. And Osama bin Laden is fu*king loaded, in case you'd forgotten.

As for losing their familes, one of the people arrested in the UK just now turned out to be one of the doctors' wives. Apparently she was in it with him. (Edit: and might I add here that to say that a suicide bomber "loses" his family as a result of his own actions is to misuse the word horribly, for it is they who lose him, as a direct result of the choices he has made.)

One final thing: those boys from 9/11 could afford to fly off to the States and take their pilot's licences - man I'm working 7 days and I'll be lucky if I can afford a holiday abroad once every two years! Unable to support themselves - I don't think so!" - gb (post 138.)

I think it's pretty clear by now that the notion that Islamic terrorists are poor, uneducated, alienated, marginalised people, who have somehow been deprived of the many opportunities we have in the West, is completely untenable.

gb.

267. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #55244 by GoatBoy36 on July 10, 2007 at 10:38 am

Xeno,

Osama bin Laden issued his first fatwa against America on 23d August 1996. (Corbin, "The Base", pp. 65-66.) Between '96 and '98, bin Laden built terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and recruited holy warriors, and in February '98 he and Ayman al-Zawahiri formed a coalition that brought together different groups, including Islamic Jihad and the Egyptian Islamic Group, saying at that time to the Pakistani press, that "this Front has been established as the first step to pool together the energies and concentrate efforts against the infidels as represented in the Jewish-Crusader alliance, thus replacing splinter and subsidiary fronts." (ibid., p. 68.) On 7th August 1998, the US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam were attacked by Al Qaeda, in a sleeper operation which had taken years to prepare. Never mind the Ladenese epistle and how long ago that was, Abdul Hakim Murad, a co-conspirator of Ramsi Yousef who is currently serving time in a maximum security prison in Colorado, was interrogated by the Philippines intelligence service and told them that terrorists had begun to think about how to use aeroplanes as weapons as early as 1994. To quote from that debrief, "He will hijack the aircraft, control its cockpit and dive it at CIA headquarters. There will be no bomb or any explosive that he will use in its execution. It is simply a suicide mission that he is willing to execute." (ibid., p. 166.) And we learn from the CIA that bin Laden's military chief and one time member of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Mohamed Atef, carried out a feasibility study on hijacking American planes - in 1996. I wonder if you know, Xeno, that the Algerian GIA, the Groupe Islamique Arme, hijacked an Air France plane in December of 1994. The pilot managed to mislead them by saying they had to land at Marseilles due to a shortage of fuel. Once on land, a French paramilitary force (the GIGN) stormed the plane and killed the terrorists, foiling their original plan, which was: to fly a fully-fuelled plane into the Eiffel Tower. All of this, and more besides, occurred before "9/11"; before "The Bush Doctrine"; before "Dubya" was president; and therefore, before he even had the opportunity to do any of the things you now, in the year 2007, claim that he has done since.


Shouldn't a moderately moral and intellectually honest person ask him or herself why it is that it did not take Tony Blair's support for the future wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the political will and manpower for those two military enterprises comes primarily from America, there's no question about that, for the first suicide bombings to be carried out by Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists against targets in the West? The question "why" is a simple one, and I suggest you ask it of yourself, and accept what it reveals.

yours,

gb.

edited: wow Xeno, your previous post wasn't there when I started writing this in Notepad, guess we must have both been typing away there at the same time.

268. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #54972 by GoatBoy36 on July 9, 2007 at 2:05 pm

Xeno,

I look forward to reading your response to my earlier post (no. 159).

yours,

gb.

269. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #54674 by GoatBoy36 on July 8, 2007 at 12:37 pm

Xeno,

Another rant about the evils of the West. Man, you've typed so many words now, you could have written a small novel. But you're just saying the same thing over and over: Islamic terrorists have attacked us again and again, since before Sept. 11th 2001 btw, therefore we must all strive to live like Jesus.

But as Machiavelli pointed out long ago, and as Jesus' life successfully demonstrates, an unarmed prophet always comes to grief.


You argue that people ought not to be judged by their motives, but by their actions, and you use a biblical quotation, from Matthew Ch. 7, to make your point.

Note however that immediately after the words you quoted, Jesus goes on to say, "Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." To say that no one has "seen an intention" may be true, but it does not follow that the motives of the people behind the terrorist attacks on Glasgow and London should not be examined, and their beliefs challenged.

If you want to quote Jesus and to be consistent, then the tree from which the "bad fruit" of Islamic terrorism comes should be cut down and burnt. And while we cannot physically see the thoughts of the man who was shouting "Allah" while he tried to set off a bomb in front of Glasgow Airport, we can easily buy a copy of the Koran from Amazon, and read it.

Might I add in passing that the elementary observation that thoughts can't be seen is something that appears in the first chapter of any textbook on the philosophy of mind, and is hardly an original idea. What is more, that simple assertion (which can itself be challenged) does not by itself provide adequate support for your conclusion that people ought to be judged by their actions alone. If you want to make that case, you have a wee bit more work to do. But that's by the by ..


Returning to the matter at hand, we can read the Koran and see the tree from which the bad fruit of Islamic terrorism grows. And it is undeniable that one's being a devout Muslim is a necessary condition for one's becoming a suicide bomber. (How could one possibly think that Islamic terrorism doesn't have a teensy weensy connection with Islamic beliefs ... one might say.)


The people behind these recent terrorist attacks were well educated, and they had well paying jobs. This is not unusual. As I mentioned earlier, Mohamed Atta, to give but one example, was a graduate of Cairo University, and according to Jane Corbin's book on Al Qaeda, "The Base", he also completed a postgraduate degree at Hamburg. The world at his feet, and what did he do with it? This devout believer tried to bring it down.


I don't know you Xeno, beyond what you've said on this board, but let's say that you and I are both reasonably well educated, at least to the point where we are both able to earn a living somehow in our own country; I assume that you live in the UK as well. There are of course many people in the same position. And we could all say that we disagree with some of the things our government does, but to state the obvious, it does *not* follow that our country is therefore a "terrorist state". (That's just fallacious black and white thinking there, I have to say.) And again stating the obvious, we do *not* go out and commit murder on the strength of our disagreements either. (If you don't like what your government does, well, as you know, you can always vote.) No, Xeno, people like you and I don't become suicide bombers.


The doctors behind last week's terrorist attacks had everything to live for, they had good jobs, could move around the world to work in different places if they wanted, could help others and find satisfaction in doing that. But they chose to throw all the opportunities the West had given them over the side. And go off to commit mass murder. Obviously those people differ from you and me in one important respect. And this was revealed when one of the bombers yelled to Allah over and over while he tried to kill other people. They were believers. Men of faith. Perfect faith - and it must finally be admitted that this is a terrible thing to be. (as Sam Harris has said.)

So, although we can both agree that the actions of our political leaders sometimes leave a lot to be desired, I don't think that the recent actions of Blair and Bush are a sufficient condition for anyone's becoming a jihadist. (One might say, those actions are not all there is at the root of that particular evil.) No, it is necessary to be a believer. That, for me, is the key.


brian,

it's good to hear from you, I'm pleasantly surprised to hear that you got something from my earlier posts. Funnily enough, I was thinking earlier on today about when I started using the internet, some years ago now. I immediately got involved in a feud (I guess you'd say) with a bible thumper and got all wound up about it, big style. But nowadays, I just don't go down that road. Nah. Too much hassle. I was working with a doctor a few years ago who was doing some distance learning diploma with the University of London, and he suggested that I do something like that as well. Maybe sign up with the OU? Well to cut a long story short, I did, and it was a revelation to me, I have to say. The description of the first course I did (a philosophy course) said that you'd learn how to argue effectively, and that this was a transferrable skill. It was a good course, and I particularly enjoyed those two books I recommended to you earlier. I went on to do a few more courses with the OU, and eventually graduated in 2004. I don't know how much I actually learned, but I did my best. All good fun! :-)

So Brian, I don't know that you've got too much to apologise for, like, apart from getting a bit wound up, but nevertheless if you feel one is in order, I'll certainly accept it in the spirit in which it's offered. I know I might backslide a bit myself now and then, but I do try to stay on an even keel, especially when I'm using the net. And I've just thought of something: you know how "The God Delusion" has been criticised by some people for being too emotional and so forth, which I don't agree with by the way, not at all. It was, as one would expect, a clearly written and well laid out effort. Well, I think I'll just remind myself of that every now and then, when I'm writing something. (As in: if those bible thumpers thought *that* was too much, and dismissed what was being said on that basis, then what about what I'm saying right now?) Know what I mean?

Anyway, that's enough for me, for now, I've already spent far too long typing this post up, it's taken a while man, in between trying to read sections of "The Rum Diary" like, which it now turns out I *still* haven't finished. That's one of the downsides of the internet, you can spend an afternoon off on there nae bother, and not get any reading done. I've another early start tomorrow, so I'll just have to squeeze Hunter S. Thompson in somewhere, don't you just hate it when your work interferes with your reading, lol .. any way, for now I'm going to head off to watch UFC 73 on Bravo. It's on at nine, apparently.

gb.

270. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #54367 by GoatBoy36 on July 6, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Fanusi,

I'm reminded of Machiavelli, who wrote in Chapter 3 of "The Prince", on the necessity of war:

"Once evils are recognised ahead of time, they may be easily cured; but if you wait for them to come upon you, the medicine will be too late, because the disease will have become incurable. And what physicians say about consumptive illnesses is applicable here: that at the beginning, such an illness is easy to cure but difficult to diagnose; but as time passes, not having been recognised or treated at the outset, it becomes easy to diagnose but difficult to cure. The same thing occurs in affairs of state; by recognising evils in advance (a gift granted only to the prudent ruler), they can be cured quickly; but when they are not recognised and are left to grow to such an extent that everyone recognises them, there is no longer any remedy.

Thus, recognising dangers from afar, the Romans always found remedies for them; and they never allowed them to develop in order to avoid a war, because they knew that war cannot be avoided, but can only be put off to the advantage of others." (Machavelli, "The Prince", Oxford World's Classics, p. 12)

gb.

271. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #54345 by GoatBoy36 on July 6, 2007 at 12:58 pm

Davin06,

Surely we all know by now that this notion of terrorists having "no means to support themselves" etc is not accurate. Mohamed Atta, who led the 9/11 attacks, had a degree from Cairo University, and a postgraduate degree from Hamburg (according to Jane Corbin's "The Base", the prof. who assessed his work in Germany said it was exceptional). And of course all these recent terrorists were doctors, and could hardly be said to have "no means to support themselves". I work for the NHS and I know fine well how much GPs can get paid, especially locums. And Osama bin Laden is fu*king loaded, in case you'd forgotten.

As for losing their familes, one of the people arrested in the UK just now turned out to be one of the doctors' wives. Apparently she was in it with him.

One final thing: those boys from 9/11 could afford to fly off to the States and take their pilot's licences - man I'm working 7 days and I'll be lucky if I can afford a holiday abroad once every two years! Unable to support themselves - I don't think so!

gb.

272. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #54326 by GoatBoy36 on July 6, 2007 at 11:32 am

Jiten,

You said: "You tell us what the US would do if it were a terrorist state and so because it hasn't done those things then it's not a terrorist state.This is funny reasoning indeed."

Well, not so funny, really. That appears to be a valid argument. If one starts with a conditional premise, then denies the consequent of that opening premise, then concludes the argument by denying the antecedent of the opening premise, that argument is said to be in the form modus tollens. Which is a valid argument.

Fanusi's argument, as you have presented it, seems to be (written in something like structured english/pseudocode):


If America is a terrorist state

then we would see x, y and z

endif.


We do not see x, y or z.

Therefore America is not a terrorist state.


As I said, Fanusi's reasoning isn't bad at all.

Check out the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens

273. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #54239 by GoatBoy36 on July 6, 2007 at 5:25 am

Xeno,

Hi, how are you today? I'm enjoying my last day off before going back to work at the weekend. I was actually working with a foreign doctor when the attack at Glasgow Airport happened. He came in to the hospital and told me about it. He was supposed to be flying home (to Germany) the following morning - from Glasgow Airport. Those terrorists could have killed not only women and children, but other doctors as well!

When I asked you "So what?" I was not saying that people who have had horrible things happen to them should be dismissed. I was asking what you were trying to argue for in the context of this discussion. Ok, so the UK (for example) has oppressed people from other cultures in the past - I'm not suggesting that we ought to say to the people who have suffered: So what, I don't care about what happened to you, just forget about it - I'm asking you: Ok, you've said that, here on this message board, within the context of a discussion about Islamic terrorists attacking London and Glasgow. Well, logically speaking ...so what?

And I certainly wouldn't say that criticising one's own political leaders is something one ought not to do. (Hardly!) Of course citizens in any Western country can, and should, do that. Again I would say though: what's your point by doing that here, in the context of this debate about Islamic terrorists attacking a nightclub in London, and Glasgow Airport.

It seems to be that all you are doing is trying to put forward some kind of circumstantial ad hominem argument. Which doesn't really advance whatever case you are trying to make.

You see what I'm driving at?

yours,

GB.

274. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #54128 by GoatBoy36 on July 5, 2007 at 1:31 pm

Xeno,

I note in one of your longer posts that you call another poster a "hate monger" yet it appears from what you write about that poster that you ... hate ... what he's saying? Maybe the poster himself? (Even though you don't know him.) You certainly spent a lot of time calling him all sorts of nasty names, instead of trying to make some kind of argument of your own.

You also seem to spend a lot of time trying to say that Western societies have committed terrible acts in the past. Well, so what?

Do you ... hate ... your own country so much, that instead of acknowleding that we are all under threat from religious terrorists, and discussing what *they* believe, you are more interested in some kind of weird cultural self-flagellation?

If you think that Islam does not advocate all the unpleasant things listed by that other poster, then prove him wrong. If you can.

275. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #53975 by GoatBoy36 on July 4, 2007 at 2:15 pm

I read Christopher Hitchens' article earlier today; I enjoy reading him and his latest book is sitting on my shelf right now next to Ludovic Kennedy's "All In The Mind: A Farewell To God".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludovic_Kennedy

Somewhat off topic, I'm sure I'm not the only person on the site who as well as enjoying a good book, likes music. I also found a pretty good track today by Rush, called "Faithless". Check out the lyrics here:

http://www.metrolyrics.com/faithless-lyrics-rush.html

The song's available on iTunes, should you want to buy it.

And talking of newspaper articles today, do check out the Glasgow based Daily Record, especially the articles headed "I kicked the burning terrorist so hard in the balls I tore a tendon" and "Hero cabbie - police took my good Nike trainers".

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/

I really don't know if those terrorists, or any terrorists, want to make us Brits cower and bow down to them. But when push comes to shove, that just isn't going to happen. Not up here anyway.

If you try acting hard in Glasgow, no one's going to be impressed. It's that simple. And I'll tell you what, if you go further north to Aberdeen or Inverness you'll find the outlook is the very same. If any mad Muslims "shouting p*sh" came in about to Dyce Airport, or anywhere in Aberdeen for that matter, the locals would set about him faster than you can say Allahu fu*king Akbahr. That I can guarantee.

As Detective Burnside once said in "The Bill" to some skanky crook he'd just run in: "You think you're hard? Well we're harder!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Burnside%2C

Amen to that, brother.

276. Messiah

Comment #53126 by GoatBoy36 on June 29, 2007 at 3:08 pm

I used to work with a doctor who was very interested in neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) and who was also a fan of Derren Brown; one evening he said he would show me how one could convince other people to do something through the use of language; he proceeded to try to "sell" me a car, and after a couple of minutes I wanted to buy that (non-existent) car! So while I would take some of the ideas behind NLP with a pinch of salt, there is no doubt that there's something to it, and if you get someone as good as Derren Brown together with an audience who don't have any idea what he's doing (or how he's doing it) then it wouldn't surprise me at all if he got them to think whatever he wanted them to think.

277. We of little faith

Comment #50488 by GoatBoy36 on June 18, 2007 at 12:19 pm

I've always thought that asking someone to respect another person's religious belief is rather strange. How can one respect a belief?

One can respect a person - but even then, as they say, respect is earned.

But a belief? It's either true or false. And if you are of the opinion that a particular belief is false - how on earth can you "respect" that belief? It just seems like a wildly inappropriate use of the English language.

278. U.S. a theocratic state, says former Canadian ambassador

Comment #47829 by GoatBoy36 on June 5, 2007 at 4:40 pm

blaine,

I did recognise an old counterargument against John Stuart Mill earlier in the thread, which says that by persecuting someone, you may in fact end up strengthen their beliefs. Yet I must say I cannot bring myself to appease, yes that is the word, the religious people who openly threaten the lives of UK citizens (we've all seen the pictures of those demonstrations in London when the Danish cartoons were published) and who cause writers and thinkers like Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali to live under threat of death. I also mentioned Ayaan Hirsi Ali saying that some Muslims would refuse to work in a supermarket, for example, because there was alcohol being served, or to drive a bus, because what we dould consider normally dressed woman would be wandering about aboard the bus. (I think this was in "The Caged Virgin" btw.) So people such as these are not being "persecuted" - especially if they are allowed to keep signing on "the dole" - they are refusing the opportunities available to them (as well as to everyone else) in the country they live in. How common is this? I really couldn't say, I don't have access to any relevant figures, apart from Miss Ali's book, which I must confess I can't be bothered fetching from downstairs right now (sorry). To continue this little ramble, I recall reading Alan Watts many years ago (one of his books on Buddhism) and he spoke about how wars or conflicts over resources could be settled by compromise, but when you faced a religious enemy, that wasn't possible, because they saw you as evil, and it was their duty to do you in. Which reminds me of what Theo van Gogh said as he was dying - "Can't we talk about this?"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/11/60minutes/main679609.shtml

Apparently Mohammed Bouyeri was beyond that. "Still calm, he made no serious attempt to escape. While he reloaded his gun, a woman who happened by screamed: "You can't do that!" "Yes I can," Bouyeri replied, before strolling into a nearby park with several patrol cars rushing to the scene, "and now you know what you people can expect in the future."" (Ian Buruma, Murder in Amsterdam, Atlantic, p.3)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4716909.stm

gb

279. U.S. a theocratic state, says former Canadian ambassador

Comment #47809 by GoatBoy36 on June 5, 2007 at 3:08 pm

"• NO TROLLING. Don't make posts that are inflammatory just to annoy people.

• NO Personal Attacks. Criticise ideas, not people. Flaming will not be tolerated. This includes any material which is vulgar, defamatory, intentional inaccurate information, harassing, hateful, threatening, invading of others privacy or violates any laws. When writing your messages, please use the same courtesy that you would show when speaking face-to-face with someone. Flames, insults, and personal attacks will not be tolerated. It's fine to disagree strongly with opinions, ideas, and facts, but always with respect for the other person. Great minds do not always think alike, and that's where the fun is!"


http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=21888#21888

Clear enough?

brian,

you have no idea about what I think about war, or death, since you don't know me and I haven't told you. In the first place I agreed with the poster Fanusi Kihyal when they said that Islam was a more immediate concern than Christianity (post 26), when they supported that by mentioning the demonstrations in the UK after those cartoons were published in Denmark, and when they cited a documentary (there have been several) that appeared on Brit TV (post 38). Fanusi Kihyal also mentioned Sam Harris' book "The End of Faith" - a book which I found extremely disturbing - along with many other readers. (again, post 38.) Fanusi Kihyal cited a poll which showed that forty per cent of Muslims in the UK were in favour of the idea of specific areas of the UK being Muslim, that is to say subject to sharia law. (I also read several newspaper reports recently about shariah courts being set up, quietly, in several towns throughout the UK.) That user mentioned using Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an example of how Muslims can improve their lives, by examining their own religion. (post 58). This is all fair enough, and having just read Miss Ali's excellent book "Infidel" I indicated to Fanusi Kihyal that I agreed with him. (I assume that user is male.) I went on to clarify what I agreed with, and what I did not, saying that I did not necessarily support using armed troops to settle anything - although in some situations they may be needed, remember for example when the army was called upon to secure some of our airports when No. 10 called a terrorist alert. And there may be situations when they may be needed abroad, so I can't say that the armed forces should never be used. That would be naive in the extreme. I went on to argue that we in the West should not be forced to remain silent about the many worrying events that are occurring within our own borders. We ought to be able to discuss fully and fearlessly whatever is going on. Only then will we manage to figure out how to move forward. (John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" was a core textbook in my university days & made a big impression on me.) Nothing too stunning in any of this, I wouldn't think. I also spoke about an incident at my work, when a Muslim employee came out with the shocking revelation that he supported suicide bombing. Enough to give anyone a fleg, that! From this you conclude that I am a fascist who enjoys seeing people die. Clearly false, abusive and offensive. Well brian, just to give you a wee clue about my feelings on death etc, I've been working with the NHS for the last six years doing everything I can, in my own modest way, to alleviate suffering and prevent people dying. Not that that's any of your business, but it just demonstrates how wrong you can be when you jump to conclusions - as you obviously have done, despite being told repeatedly to pay attention to what other people are *actually* saying to you. I have also tried, in an avuncular fashion, if I may put it like that, to point out that your debating skills are poor, and genuinely recommended two excellent textbooks, which I used myself as a student. For all this I receive ad hominem abuse - well brian I'm afraid that anyone reading this thread, and that includes the moderators, will see clearly that you've repeatedly ignored the points I have tried to raise, contenting yourself instead to throw ad hominem remarks around. I guess anyone can read my posts, including those as yet unwritten, and see what I'm about. And of course they can read yours, past and future, and see what kind of a fellow you are. I make this final post in the genuine hope that the problem is simply that you lack any formal debating skills and I hope that you will recognise this, and go off and do something about that, if you want to keep posting on websites like this one. You'll enjoy your time on these sites much more if you do, I can assure you. Good luck, man.

gb.

280. U.S. a theocratic state, says former Canadian ambassador

Comment #47787 by GoatBoy36 on June 5, 2007 at 2:18 pm

brian,

Just so you know, you needn't flatter yourself by thinking you're a) right or b) annoying enough to actually matter to anyone else. You're neither, brian. You're just one of those people I mentioned earlier, that's all. You come across them every now and again. Ho hum. I've seen it all before.

Edit: in support of the earlier quote from Copi & Cohen, can I also refer to to the following (link to forum on this site):

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=104

It would appear that the first option I suggested is the correct one, you really cannot understand what people are actually saying to you (and equally important, what they are not saying), and it's clear that you have no idea how to argue with someone in a logical (that is to say, grown up) manner. Ah well ... those books are still available on Amazon, I believe .. check them out, man. Reading the pair of them really would do you the power of good. (In fact I'd recommend them to anyone - and I do, constantly.)

Edit: Here are the links anyway (it looks as if you'll have to copy & paste them into your browser):

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Thinking-Z-Nigel-Warburton/dp/0415222818/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/203-3959152-7488763?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181078448&sr=8-3

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Logic-Irving-M-Copi/dp/0131898345/ref=sr_1_4/203-3959152-7488763?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181078529&sr=1-4

Better than the bible! :-)

gb.

281. U.S. a theocratic state, says former Canadian ambassador

Comment #47779 by GoatBoy36 on June 5, 2007 at 1:59 pm

brian,

I really don't know why you insist on behaving as you do. You are either unable to understand what other people are saying to you, or you are choosing to ignore it. All you apparently want to do is repeat baseless "against the person" assertions, over and over again. I'm not the only user who's mentioned your behaviour to you on this thread, either. (scot, post 81) I have to tell you though, that your behaviour toward others is abusive and offensive. I have therefore brought your behaviour to the attention of the moderators of this website. Just so you know.

I did try to find some middle ground, and those book recommendations were made genuinely btw, I read those books myself when I was a student and found them immensely helpful. But nope. It's no go, it seems. Sadly, I have to say that I have seen users like you many times on message boards, over the years. If you talk to them, before too long you wind up feeling like you're stuck in the Big Brother house with Jade Goody. And I have to say I've never seen one of those people mend their ways yet. Not voluntarily, anyway. All anyone else can do is report them to the moderators, then ignore them. So I guess I'll do that then. Sorry about the way it's turned out, but hey, that's life.

yours,

gb.

282. U.S. a theocratic state, says former Canadian ambassador

Comment #47692 by GoatBoy36 on June 5, 2007 at 9:47 am

brian, the point about your misspelling dialogue was that the very thing you say you champion, that particular word, was the one you spelt incorrectly. Which kind of symbolises your whole approach to interacting with others. As I said already, thank goodness we don't have people like you engaged in dialogue with Muslim leaders, at home or abroad. You seem incapable of actually comprehending what you read, either that or you choose to ignore it in order to do the only thing you seem interested in: throw ad hominem remarks around willy nilly. My only surprise is that anyone "talks" with you at all. I sure hope you're not like this in real life, you'll have a right hard time of it. Ah well, you are of course free to live your life any way you see fit.

bye

gb.

283. U.S. a theocratic state, says former Canadian ambassador

Comment #47661 by GoatBoy36 on June 5, 2007 at 7:48 am

brianclough,

Is this what you mean when you talk about "trying the old dialouge (sic) route"? We can only be thankful that you are not responsible for engaging in dialogue (note the spelling) with Islamic leaders in the UK, or with leaders of Islamic countries. One can imagine our political leaders entering a conference room and adopting your tone with such groups. I don't believe that approach would go very well at all.

brian, my man, I do suggest you toddle off and enrol in some evening classes in logic or philosophy, in order to improve your reading skills, and to learn how to argue effectively. If you cannot find any local classes, perhaps you could read some basic textbooks on your own. I can recommend "Introduction to Logic" by Copi and Cohen; also Nigel Warburton's "Thinking from A to Z".

You appear to be a genuine and passionate person, but I have to tell you that the way you conduct yourself towards others does not make for constructive dialogue. If I may give you an example: you could have made the same point by saying that: by taking the characteristics of one person in any particular group and applying them to all the people in that group, one is making a rash generalisation. Which is, as you then say, "not good". See how easy that was, without any ad hominem remarks or emotive language? (Actually I wasn't doing that, and if you read what I said closely that's clear enough, but that is the point I believe you were trying to make.)

Can I just conclude our little interaction (I wouldn't call it a discussion or a debate) by giving you a quote to ponder, from one of the aforementioned volumes:

"Neutral language is to be prized when factual truth is our objective. When we are trying to learn what really is the case, or trying to follow an argument, distractions will be frustrating - and emotion is a powerful distraction. The passions tend to cloud the reason; this truth is reflected in the usage of "dispassionate" and "objective" as near synonyms. Therefore, when we are trying to reason about the facts in a cool and objective fashion, referring to them in strongly emotive language is a hindrance rather than a help." (Introduction to Logic, Copi & Cohen, Prentice Hall, pp. 95-96.)

yours,

GB

284. U.S. a theocratic state, says former Canadian ambassador

Comment #47641 by GoatBoy36 on June 5, 2007 at 5:51 am

I wonder if I may bring up a few points here: Fanusi Khiyal, you mentioned dhimmitude, which Ayaan Hirsi Ali also mentions in this debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKOw7VoRiog

One of the panelists tries to