zumbrunn.com - The war against terror (continued)

> Chris Zumbrunn's personal think tank

The war against terror (continued)

Continued from this page :

Monty Hobbs - Nov 16, 2001 11:27 AM ( 1. )

Community Coordinator, newsobserver.com and triangle.com

Posts: 430

Yes

Doug,

Indeed. "War" time often galvanizes people into such a supposed unity against a supposedly easily identifiable enemy that they not only tolerate such erosions, but encourage them.

The Taliban had originally been at least verbally open (how much sincere tehy were is another issue) to turning Osama bin Laden over to an Islamic court, but the U.S. said no. The U.S. wants to be both police and judge on a geopolitical scale. Imagine if that were the case in the courts you and I might be subject to. The police officer who claims you are the murder gets to determine your guilt or innocence and decide on your punishment.

Chris - Nov 18, 2001 08:23 PM ( 6.1 )

Posts: 1191

Hmmm, I guess a contradiction in higher ethical standards vs acts of terroism. No matter what the act of terror, internal or external I find no ethics in the type of suppression internally or attacks externally in the attempt to defends their beliefs.

Well yes! But what I meant was that we'll need to develop cross-culture consensus on ethical standards in order to prevent exactly those things. Of course, until they are prevented they'll need to be suppressed.

The Islamic culture needs to evolve and open up if it doesn't want to be overrun by the western culture.

Christian culture is evolving at a much faster pace and foundamentalistic Christians do not have a qualified minority that would help them to prevent that because our culture isn't threatened.

Islamic foundamentalists DO have a qualified minority that provides them with moral support, because that minority feels bullied and threatend by a US attitude that they see as imperialistic and suppressive (westernism).

That's why the terrorist attacks are to be interpreted as against westernism - not against western civilisation.

The US could change their attitude without compromising their values. It's a question of communicative skills and consideration for the other culture.

This will allow the development of a cross-culture consensus on ethic principals, where the negative differences will disappear and the positive differences will be celebrated.

One end result will have to be that all cultures show restrain when operating within another culture, in order to not endanger the peaceful evolution of the other culture.

There are two other scenarios:

We could slip into chaotic dark ages where religious fanatics on all sides force the intellectual development to freeze in numbness.

Or western civilisation could overrun all other cultures completely and cause the cultural flavors (including the Christian one) to fade. If this happens, many people will have a major spiritual void that they will need to fill by joining religious splinter groups. These groups will form again a qualified minority that will fuel fanatic sects that operate in the underground and we'll have the same problem all over again.

Besides, it would be sad to loose the cultures as strong elements that give societies their unique flavors. There is nothing wrong with spirituality. Science provides knowledge - but their is another side to the coin. Our societies should stay intouch with what we don't know, too.

Sue - Nov 18, 2001 11:56 PM ( 6.1.1 )

Director of Community Development, WCI

Posts: 11830

One end result will have to be that all cultures show restrain when operating within another culture, in order to not endanger the peaceful evolution of the other culture.

Sounds like the Prime Directive

doug - Nov 19, 2001 01:45 AM ( 6.1.1.1 )

Director of Education, WCI

Posts: 10230

Sue writes:

"Sounds like the Prime Directive "

And finding some good excuse to break the Prime Directive formed the core plot of how many episodes?

doug

If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.

Sue - Nov 19, 2001 05:23 AM ( 6.1.1.1.1 )

Director of Community Development, WCI

Posts: 11830

Doug:

And finding some good excuse to break the Prime Directive formed the core plot of how many episodes?

Janeway, on Kirk's generation: (pretty close paraphrase - I just saw this episode the other night)

"It was different then... They were a little less eager to invoke the Prime Directive and a little more eager to draw their phasers. Of course, the whole lot of them would be drummed out of Starfleet today. Still, what I wouldn't give to ride shotgun with some of those officers..."

Jeff Porten - Nov 25, 2001 12:54 PM ( 6.1.2 )

Posts: 1623

More violent disagreements

But what I meant was that we'll need to develop cross-culture consensus on ethical standards in order to prevent exactly those things.

I think that the first rule of culture is that you'll never come to a consensus on anything. That's why we have international law to deal with how nations deal with each other, and we leave national law up to each nation. There are enough cultural disagreements between Europeans ; you expect to come to a global consensus? There's a reason why you don't see the UN being run on Quaker meeting rules.

The Islamic culture needs to evolve and open up if it doesn't want to be overrun by the western culture.

So, how is saying that Islamic culture "needs to do" anything NOT imperialistic and bullish, Chris?

Christian culture is evolving at a much faster pace and foundamentalistic Christians do not have a qualified minority that would help them to prevent that because our culture isn't threatened.

OK, that's the second or third time you've used that phrase, and can I just say how much that bothers me? I don't know about you, but *I* don't live in a Christian culture. I'm Jewish, my culture is secular. Lots of people in my culture are Christian, of course, and twice a year they tend to jam this down my throat, which makes me rude and irritable and extremely Scrooge-like.

But please don't tell me that Christian culture is any better than Islamic culture. Every time I've seen a Christian culture in action, it's tended to be as repressive and militant as the worst examples of Islamic cultures.

That's why the terrorist attacks are to be interpreted as against westernism - not against western civilisation.

Ok, let's be clear. The terrorist attacks were against 4,603 PEOPLE from around 60 different nations. Not against westernism, not against western civilization, but against people. Any other description begins the process of rationalization and desensitization.

The US could change their attitude without compromising their values. It's a question of communicative skills and consideration for the other culture.

This isn't about culture. Trust me, if Switzerland were harboring bin Laden and refused to negotiate, we'd probably be bombing the hell out of you. We were perfectly happy with the Taliban for the past five years, for better or for worse.

Chris - Nov 27, 2001 10:51 PM ( 6.1.2.1 )

Posts: 1191

Jeff writes:

There are enough cultural disagreements between Europeans; you expect to come to a global consensus?

Yes, most certainly I do!!! There is a cross-cultural consensus on ethics that could be reached ( http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/stiftung-weltethos/ ). And the political model that could administer this exists as well: The sovereign individual as the foundation, delegating power based on subsidiarity and at any of those levels governing together in concordance.

So, how is saying that Islamic culture "needs to do" anything NOT imperialistic and bullish, Chris?

If we tell them that they need to change, it's imperialistic. If we encourage them to evolve, it's not.

I don't know about you, but *I* don't live in a Christian culture. I'm Jewish, my culture is secular. Lots of people in my culture are Christian, of course, and twice a year they tend to jam this down my throat, which makes me rude and irritable and extremely Scrooge-like.

I understand. But just step back a bit and look at the full picture. The jewish culture has a long history of existing 'surrounded' by the christian one (being more or less tolerated at different times). I believe there is nobody that knows that better than the Jews. The secularization was made possible mainly by the enlightenment which allowed the individual to turn against institutionalized religion. The secular model that is so dominating at this time is one that evolved out of christianity. I'm not saying that it could not have or would not have evolved from Judaism or any other religion - but it was the christian reformation that did it. I'm no Christian and the 'secular' label that you prefer to use is fine with me. In the context of my postings it was however important to point out that the christian culture had an easier time to allow a secular society to evolve than it is now the case for the Islamic culture.

But please don't tell me that Christian culture is any better than Islamic culture. Every time I've seen a Christian culture in action, it's tended to be as repressive and militant as the worst examples of Islamic cultures.

I agree, Jeff - I agree!

Ok, let's be clear. The terrorist attacks were against 4,603 PEOPLE from around 60 different nations. Not against westernism, not against western civilization, but against people. Any other description begins the process of rationalization and desensitization.

I don't think you're serious about that. It was a highly symbolic act by an extremist believe system against another believe system.

This isn't about culture. Trust me, if Switzerland were harboring bin Laden and refused to negotiate, we'd probably be bombing the hell out of you.

We're harboring Mark Rich - that causes already enough trouble

Bin Laden is a symptom - not the problem. The problem IS about culture.

We were perfectly happy with the Taliban for the past five years, for better or for worse.

I think the international community including the US has been negotiating with the Taliban about handing out bin Laden since 1997. But yes, the US certainly had its hand in getting the Taliban to power in the first place (unintentionally).

Jeff Porten - Nov 28, 2001 07:16 AM ( 6.1.2.1.1 )

Posts: 1623

There is a cross-cultural consensus on ethics that could be reached ( http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/stiftung-weltethos/ ). And the political model that could administer this exists as well: The sovereign individual as the foundation, delegating power based on subsidiarity and at any of those levels governing together in concordance.

Chris, at least here in the US, there's a sort of osmotic membrane between how political scientists look at the world, and how "regular educated people" look at the world. Your language is on the other side of my membrane.

Don't get me wrong, I'm proud of my academic background and I like to talk theory when it's appropriate. I also believe that theory can get in the way sometimes, as I'll point out below.

In any case, that's the context for what I'm about to say: I went to the site, saw that tenet #4 was "the transformation of consciousness!" and immediately dismissed the document, sight unseen. It's written in a language designed to be dismissed as crackpot here.

The jewish culture has a long history of existing 'surrounded' by the christian one (being more or less tolerated at different times). I believe there is nobody that knows that better than the Jews.

Actually, we have a far better track record of being tolerated by Muslims than Christians. It was the Christians who historically expelled and massacred us. And it's not lost on many Jews that we didn't get our own nation-state until we adopted the militaristic and oppressive tenets of our adversaries.

I don't think you're serious about that. It was a highly symbolic act by an extremist believe system against another believe system.

And I don't believe you're serious about THAT. A symbolic attack could have been done with FedEx jets at 2 AM, with loss of life in the dozens. This is where academia gets in the way of intelligence; the symbolism, whatever might have been intended, is utterly dwarfed and made meaningless by the loss of life.

Bin Laden is a symptom - not the problem. The problem IS about culture.

Bin Laden is a mass murderer. You can call him symptom, problem, cause, or cup of Swiss chocolate, and I really don't care.

Where I *will* be glad to argue with you is about what things made the US in general and the WTC in particular the focus of the attack. I still think it's because we have the audacity to be rich while the world is poor, and because we have a society that values freedom of movement over security and hence made these ripe, juicy targets.

Our culture is more or less dominating the world in exported media and promotion of free trade. We weren't attacked by the Chinese, the Russians, the Africans, or anyone else whose culture is threatened. We weren't attacked by the Islamic nations of Bosnia, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia. We were attacked by a deranged madman whose wealth and political protection gave him the opportunity to lash out.

Any chance bin Laden might have had for a fair hearing of his views, he forfeited. I don't care if he actually is channeling the word of God. To try to understand how he thinks -- to even acknowledge that he has a point of view -- is to encourage others to use the same means to gain the attention of the world stage.

But yes, the US certainly had its hand in getting the Taliban to power in the first place (unintentionally).

No, it was pretty intentional. There's all sorts of documentation that the rise of the Taliban is exactly the sort of blowback caused by poorly designed US policies. Bin Laden's first training camps were built by the CIA for the Taliban when it was us against the Soviets. This is exactly the sort of thing that should cause the "tapping on the shoulder" of the US that I wrote about earlier.

Chris - Nov 29, 2001 12:51 AM ( 6.1.2.1.1.1 )

Posts: 1191

Jeff writes:

Chris, at least here in the US, there's a sort of osmotic membrane between how political scientists look at the world, and how "regular educated people" look at the world. (...) I went to the site, saw that tenet #4 was "the transformation of consciousness!" and immediately dismissed the document, sight unseen. It's written in a language designed to be dismissed as crackpot here.

OK. Can we translate the core message to the other side of that membrane?

Background references:

United Nations Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations

SECRETARY-GENERAL ANNOUNCES MEMBERSHIP OF GROUP OF EMINENT PERSONS FOR YEAR OF DIALOGUE AMONG CIVILIZATIONS

Declaration Toward a Global Ethic

The following are some bits and pieces from the latter document:

<Quote>

From: The Principles of a Global Ethic

Time and again we see leaders and members of religions incite aggression, fanaticism, hate, and xenophobia - even inspire and legitimize violent and bloody conflicts. Religion often is misused for purely power-political goals, including war. We are filled with disgust.

We confirm that there is already a consensus among the religions which can be the basis for a global ethic - a minimal fundamental consensus concerning binding values , irrevocable standards , and fundamental moral attitudes.

(...)

By a global ethic we do not mean a global ideology or a single unified religion beyond all existing religions, and certainly not the domination of one religion over all others. By a global ethic we mean a fundamental consensus on binding values, irrevocable standards, and personal attitudes. Without such a fundamental consensus on an ethic, sooner or later every community will be threatened by chaos or dictatorship, and individuals will despair.

(...)

Historical experience demonstrates the following: Earth cannot be changed for the better unless we achieve a transformation in the consciousness of individuals and in public life. The possibilities for transformation have already been glimpsed in areas such as war and peace, economy, and ecology, where in recent decades fundamental changes have taken place. This transformation must also be achieved in the area of ethics and values! Every individual has intrinsic dignity and inalienable rights, and each also has an inescapable responsibility for what she or he does and does not do. All our decisions and deeds, even our omissions and failures, have consequences.

Can you point out more precisely where that membrane comes into play when reading the above?

And did your 'osmotic membrane' comment also pertain to my statement regarding the system...

The sovereign individual as the foundation, delegating power based on subsidiarity and at any of those levels governing together in concordance.

...or did it only pertain to the world ethos site?

Jeff writes:

the symbolism, whatever might have been intended, is utterly dwarfed and made meaningless by the loss of life.

Sorry, but I don't think that is the case, unfortunately. But let's move on.

I still think it's because we have the audacity to be rich while the world is poor, and because we have a society that values freedom of movement over security and hence made these ripe, juicy targets.

I don't think it's because of ANYTHING you have or are. It's because of what THEY do NOT want to have or be!

Any chance bin Laden might have had for a fair hearing of his views, he forfeited.

I am not suggesting that we negotiate with terrorists. We need to suppress terrorism. But we also have to address the problem... we need to build consensus with their society so the 'qualified minority' disappears that provides them with the 'legitimatization' for terrorism.

doug - Nov 18, 2001 08:42 PM ( 7. )

Director of Education, WCI

Posts: 10230

Chris writes:

"The Islamic culture needs to evolve and open up if it doesn't want to be overrun by the western..."

Getting on very thin ice here, but... Islam seems to me to be the religion least likely to ever "open up"...

doug

If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.

Chris - Nov 18, 2001 08:46 PM ( 7.1 )

Posts: 1191

Yes, Islam has some built in machanisms that are designed to prevent it from evolving. But as with so many things in religion, there are a few open doors that leave room for interpretation.

doug - Nov 18, 2001 08:51 PM ( 7.1.1 )

Director of Education, WCI

Posts: 10230

Chris writes:

"Yes, Islam has some built in machanisms that are designed to prevent it from evolving. But as with so many things in religion, there are a few open doors that leave room for interpretation."

The ones I know of are:

(1) Unlike the Judeo-Christian Bible, which is taken to be "inspired by God and written by man", the Koran is taken to be the literal word of God, memorized by the prophet Mohammed and transcribed literally word for word - thus leaving less room, if any, for interpretation.

(2) Unlike the Judeo-Christian Bible, which foresees new prophets, the Koran imposes a lock-down feature that demands that Mohammed be recognized as the final prophet and that the Koran be the last word.

Any others?

doug

If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.

Chris - Nov 18, 2001 08:58 PM ( 7.1.1.1 )

Posts: 1191

There is some room for interpretation whenever the Koran has various laws that apply to a situation and the Koran isn't clear as to the order or preference that should be given to the various laws. But that's about it, I think.

Jeff Porten - Nov 25, 2001 12:56 PM ( 7.1.1.2 )

Posts: 1623

Not quite

You're being unfair, Doug. Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians all believe that their bibles are the literal word of God. In fact, the defining line between Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judiasm is how they view and interpret the Old Testament.

doug - Nov 26, 2001 12:49 PM ( 7.1.1.2.1 )

Director of Education, WCI

Posts: 10230

Jeff writes:

"Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians all believe that their bibles are the literal word of God."

I thought the Ten Commandments were supposed to be the only literal words of God in the Old Testament.

doug

If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.

Jeff Porten - Nov 28, 2001 06:32 AM ( 7.1.1.2.1.1 )

Posts: 1623

It's just the only words He signed.

AFAIK, the ten commandments were the only incidence of God actually WRITING something. But the entire Bible is said to be written by people who were "inspired" by God, which is to say that the words are His even though the anonymous people who held the quills were human.

Anyway, the formal divisions between the Jewish groups, in case it helps:

1) Orthodoxers believe that the Bible is the word of God, and all rules laid down in Biblical times are now and forever inviolate.

2) Conservatives believe that the Bible was a set of rules given at a certain period of history, and that they may be interpreted for the present day based on the original intent of the laws.

3) Reformers believe that the rules in the Bible were valid in their day, but that some rules no longer apply and others may be interpreted.

Hence the whole "word of God" idea varies widely. Note that no Jews "interpret" the ten commandments; the rules I talk about are the myriad others scattered about.

Keeping kosher's a good example: Reform Jews almost never keep kosher, on the theory that it was meant as a public health code that no longer applies. Conservatives keep kosher to feel more adherent to the laws, but don't feel a requirement to do so. Orthodoxers always keep kosher, as it's the rule.

Michael D.Landis - Nov 28, 2001 06:49 AM ( 7.1.1.2.1.1.1 )

Manager of Technical Services, Readerville.com

Posts: 538

Keeping kosher's a good example: Reform Jews almost never keep kosher, on the theory that it was meant as a public health code that no longer applies. Conservatives keep kosher to feel more adherent to the laws, but don't feel a requirement to do so. Orthodoxers always keep kosher, as it's the rule.

This is incorrect. Specifically, the values and view of halacha imputed to Reform and Conservative Jews are wrong. I can't imagine a more bizarre forum to discuss kashrut than WebX Harbor, but I wanted to point that out.

Jeff Porten - Nov 28, 2001 06:55 AM ( 5.1.2.1.1 )

Posts: 1623

Sorry, that's a tad too vague

The problem with the term "presidential" is that it doesn't MEAN anything. Clinton was always presidential, even as he did things that are inimical to being president. Meanwhile, Carter was rarely presidential, but did all of the business of the presidency quite well.

So once you remove the word "president" from "presidential", you're left with zero meaning. In my experience, "presidential" is a word the media use when they have nothing left to say but have to fill up airtime regardless. When non-media people use it, they're parroting what they've heard to sound informed.

Watch GW Bush on cspan.org the day after the attacks, when he's in an undisclosed location, eyes wide with fear and stammering, and tell me that's presidential.

And in answer to your question: what made Bush more electable than Quayle? Two things: 1) Bush had money, Quayle didn't. Bush had so much money that most of his opponents dropped out because of THAT before any actual campaigning started.

2) Quayle had an image as an unlovable idiot. Bush had an image as a lovable idiot. Had Bush not been the front-runner, I suspect that he would have appeared much less lovable in his common portrayals, but once it became clear that he was the standard bearer for the party, the Republicans adopted stupidity as being more American than anyone who had the audacity to be educated at Harvard. (Whoops -- my mistake, that's where BUSH went to school. See my point?)

So, with 'presidental' I'm not referring to professional qualifications but to the symbolic status that the presidency has in the US society.

Again, that's fairly vague. Herbert Hoover set out to be presidential the way history dictated it, and didn't notice he was living at a time when something new was required.

Essentially, we want only a few things from a president: 1) make us feel safe, 2) make us feel listened to, 3) make us feel powerful and proud. Clinton was popular because he never forgot those things. Bush runs the risk of losing on all three.

Chris - Nov 28, 2001 09:42 PM ( 5.1.2.1.1.1 )

Posts: 1191

Jeff writes:

The problem with the term "presidential" is that it doesn't MEAN anything.

What I meant by it was the sum of all adjectives that the american public associates with a candidate and that they think 'qualifies' him/her for the job. As opposed to the qualification in the professional sense.

Quayle had an image as an unlovable idiot. Bush had an image as a lovable idiot.

Thanks, Jeff! That's exactly what I mean. Some american people saw Gore as an unlovable unidiot and Bush as a lovable idiot. And they valued the 'lovable' adjective higher over the 'idiot' adjective when determining who was more 'presidential'.

Would be nice if the US system would have allowed a Gore/Nader coalition. 9/11 'just maybe might' never have happened.

Jeff Porten - Dec 19, 2001 08:40 PM ( 5.1.2.1.1.1.1 )

Posts: 1623

Belated reply

Chris --

Sorry I've never responded to your posts. This is the first time in a while I've checked messages far enough to get here.

Would be nice if the US system would have allowed a Gore/Nader coalition. 9/11 'just maybe might' never have happened.

Seeing as how Nader spent all of last year spouting how Gore was no better than Bush, I can understand why the Dems wouldn't touch him with a 10-foot pole. I voted for Nader (in a Gore-safe state) out of sympathy for the Greens, but based on how the horror stories about the Green vote tipping Bush into office all came true, and Nader's deplorable post-election comments, I'm never voting for them again.

In any case, I think any analysis that says that we were attacked because of Bush is way short of the mark. And I'm a Bush antagonist.

Michael D.Landis - Dec 19, 2001 09:41 PM ( 5.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 )

Manager of Technical Services, Readerville.com

Posts: 538

In any case, I think any analysis that says that we were attacked because of Bush is way short of the mark. And I'm a Bush antagonist.

I agree that making simplistic cause-effect statements are, well, simplistic. However...

If the Congress and the Special Persecutor's office hadn't kept over 100 FBI agents tied up for years sniffing Clinton's panties...

If Bush hadn't ignored the Kerry (?) commission report on terrorism, delivered last April, that concluded a large-scale terror attack on US territory was imminent and suggested several simple, cheap, common-sense security enhancements...

If the Republican Congress hadn't ridiculed and stifled Clinton's attempts to tighten airport and immigration security after the first WTC bombing...

If, as recently as this summer, INS hadn't unaccountably released a bin Laden relative with close ties to the Bush family being held on an immigration violation and investigated for links to terrorist groups...

...who knows?

Tim - Nov 18, 2001 08:17 AM ( 6. )

WebMD | Forumbuilders.com

Posts: 1078

but a contradiction in which way?

Hmmm, I guess a contradiction in higher ethical standards vs acts of terroism. No matter what the act of terror, internal or external I find no ethics in the type of suppression internally or attacks externally in the attempt to defends their beliefs.

As far as Nader goes, I just think he would be a lose can