Civilization and Terrorism.

Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.

THOMAS JEFFERSON, Motto on his Seal.

How very strange. I used that line(your line) on a contractor today. He had set up this elaborate scaffold system to reach the top of a three story deck, to do some repair work. Among the scaffolding bucks he had various walk boards staggered this way and that, forming a series of levels, each precisely three feet from the next. This was to stack the stone, mortar, and tools on.

This gigantic and fantastically structured scaffolding system, from the ground, appeared to be a days work in itself. Indeed it took him half a day to build it. And he certainly was pround of his creation. He thought himself very professional and believed that he even deserved to be paid by the hour to construct it, rather than that aspect of the job being included in the price per square foot. After showing the home-owner this monsterous thing and carrying on about how much safer and better and faster it was to do it like that, she was convinced to pay him what he wanted.

Then this guy straps on this tool belt that looked like something out of a Mad Max movie, with loops in it for all his rock hammers and what not. He and his helper then began to carry rocks in buckets. One per man, as it is difficult to climb a scaffold with a bucket in each hand.

Fourty-five minutes it took these guys to stock up the walk-boards with stone and mortar. All the while, get this…he had his tool belt on. Why? He was carrying stone. If anything, the belt was weighing him down, making it more difficult to climb the bucks.

This was enough. I had to say something.

I respectfully walked up to him and asked sort of jokingly: We work smarter…not harder, right? He was immediately suspicious of me. Waiting for me to try to insult him or something. He couldn’t possibly imagine that somebody else might object to what he considered the ‘only way’ to do something. He was shocked slightly.

I told him that the scaffolding wasn’t necessary. I explained that it was possible to build a safe walk board out of some lumber if one were so inclined. With two braces attached at a ninety degree angle and fastened to the post below, the walk boards would support at least three men. This would eliminate the time and effort it took to build the scaffolding, as well as the extra bill to the home owner.

At this point he seemed to be somewhat embarrassed. I think it was the comment about the extra bill that got him. I think he thought that I thought that I had exposed him as a farce. I did, but that’s not the point yet.

Anyway, I continued to explain how one could use the fourty foot metal walk board(the siders had a few there for anyones use) to bridge the gap between the walk board and the driveway where the stone was boxed. The house was on a steep hill and the area where they would be working was in level with the area where the stone was, only that it was fourty foot away. The aluminum walk-board was perfect. It was just long enough to go the distance. Using it would allow for one to have constant access to the boxed stone and the mortar mix, they wouldn’t have to stock up the scaffold with materials. This would eliminate the time and effort it took to move the rocks up the scaffolding.

During the time I was explaing this, he kept trying to come up with problems with my idea, not cooperating very well. What was really happening was that he was ashamed that I had called him and knew he wasn’t so ‘professional.’ That he wasn’t, as he’d like to think, the ‘best’ there was.

Then I turned to his tool belt. “You sure as hell don’t need that thing, man,” I said to him with a sigh on my face. “You might look professional with that thing on, and have everyone fooled, but not me,” I continued on.

That was it. I sure did it this time, as they say. He was pissed. I had totally exposed him. He was a flake. I knew it. He knew it. And the home owner knew it too because she was listening.(he…he)

Then I noted the irony. I’m telling this guy this stuff to help him. Yet somewhere in the middle of it all, I decided that this guy was an ass, so I continued only to make him look like one. Still, he could have had no knowledge of my intentions, so his disposition toward me was even more evidence of his ignorance.

Finally we began the traditional “I’ve been doing this work for a hundred years, before you were a twinkle in your daddy’s eye, bud” routine until eventually I ended with the “forget it, I don’t cast pearls before swine” bit.

How very strange it is that so often what I find to be called “pearls” is in fact nothing more than a enormous, beautiful, useless waste of time and energy. Much like the twaddle I see in your posts, or the scaffolding on those jobs.

De Trop:

First you tell me that you will stay out of this conversation, then you return to post an endless and seemingly pointless story about some contractor that has nothing to do with the topic of this post and that does nothing to redeem your ragged reputation as the drivelling, snivelling retard that you seem to be – on your good days.

When will you stand by your word and stay out of conversations like this one that are way, WAY over your head?

When you figure out that writing about “fourty[sic.] foot walk boards” is slightly irrevelant to the topic of “terrorism” here, you might begin to make some progress.

My suggestion is that you take your medication and call your shrink in the morning. Until you do so, ponder this quote and learn something:

Your visceral anti-Americanism is a form of self-hatred. You may wish to invest in some therapy to figure out where that is coming from – and in a good guide to correct spelling. :laughing:

Friedrich:

well, now the cliches are out of the way and the real point of difference comes out…

you see, I like to entertain the notion that most US citizens are merely ignorant of their nations use of client states, private millitia and dictatorships as a means of controling world resources in their interests…

but it seems that your well aware of it…

and so there’s no more reason for us to disscuss the topic… I only ever bother because I assume that the person on the other end might, when the see the facts, be a little concerned and a little like “wow so THAT’S why they hate us… its not about religon and the clash of civilisations or any of that neo-con bullshit… it’s because we are a violent and self-intersted state set on sercuring our interests (which we have no right to) and explicitly or implicitly dominating most of the worlds peoples…”

but that wouldnt be a surprise or cause for concern at all for you it seems…

and dont compare supporting saddam to soviet support of the allies WW2… if Churchill was seeking only to prevent the spread of popular rule and religous self-determination in europe in the interests of manipulating the price of a commodity then I would be very much revolted by that alliance.

and I don’t think Churchill would have been shocked by Facist terrorist attacks on British soil…

and if all of that had been happening, not 30 minutes away but on the other side of the world… well that would make it even more disturbing…

anyway… agree to be disgusted and all that…

Rob:

I do agree to be disgusted.

You do not seem to be as mentally defective as De Trop, but I could be wrong about that. Apparently, it comes as a shock to you that nations have interestes and compete for power and that they sometimes have to defend their interests ruthlessly, when those interests are threatened by ruthless people.

What planet have you been living on?

Allow me to fill you in: When people want to kill you, it is O.K. to try to defend yourself and kill them first, if it comes to that.

This is about the clash of civilizations. Islamic fundamentalists have prescribed a way of life that does not allow for pluralism. We must die because “we are sinful.” Their stated aim is to direct terroristic efforts at us. Do you think we will throw flowers back at them? I don’t. We shouldn’t.

What I find disgusting is your casual assumption that the willingness of your countrymen to die for your right to express anti-American feelings to the effect that this nation has no “right” to “secure its interests,” something which every nation will do in fact to the best of its abilities, is foolish or naive.

You are not worthy of the sacrifice of many of the young men and women risking their lives for you in Iraq or in many secret struggles against those terrorists. Churchill would have done exactly what the U.S. did in forming an alliance of convenience with Hussein, when it was useful, and taking appropriate corrective action when it became necessary afterwards. That is pretty much what he did with Stalin, who was certainly worse than Hussein, and who became the U.K.'s “cold war” adversary immediately after the hot war.

These terrorists are threatening the very freedoms that you take for granted in expressing your opinions here. They are potentially threatening your life and the lives of your family members, yet your concern is about whether the United States has any right to protect you and the American way of life. To allow these people to succeed with their efforts of intimidation renders everything else kind of moot.

Yep, I am pretty disgusted.

Lots of luck to you.

um… i know I said I wasn’t going to carry this on but it’s worth noting…

I’m not an American citizen… I live in New Zealand…

Rob:

There is very little difference with respect to this issue between citizens of any of the nations of the free world.

Either we stand together against this global threat of terrorism or we will surely succumb to it individually. I cannot make this point often enough: Terror is the “negation” of civilization, it is the antithesis of civilization. The writer Boaz Ganor, a New Zealander I believe, has argued forcefully that an analytically useful definition is possible and imperative, and proposes that:

Terrorism is the intentional use of, or threat to use violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims.

Let us accept this tentative definition, for the moment: A person with a gun to his or her head cannot live a decent or productive or creative life, which is the right (at least in aspiration) of every human being. No matter where you live or what is your nationality, to the extent that you share in this aspiration, the battle being fought on the streets of Baghdad (and I was against the war initially, but we are there now) or in the streets of Jerusalem by Israelis, believe it or not, is being fought FOR YOU and ON YOUR BEHALF.

If the terrorists win, if violence and the threat of violence and an insecure world, become the defining characteristics of our future everywhere, then all – I repeat, ALL – civilization loses. You lose and your children, if you have them, lose.

For this reason, you should care about the outcome in such places and should be on the side of those soldiers fighting your battle.

I say this for the purpose of clarification.

I have to mention a few sources for those concerned to go further than this discussion has allowed:

The Alternative Information Center
POB 31417, Jerusalem 91313, Israel
alternativenews.org

Amnesty International
99-119 Roseberry Avenue
London, EC1R 4RE, UK
amnesty.org

Global Terrorism: The Complete Reference Guide, Harry Henderson (New York: Checkmark Books, 2001).

Pretty sure Dr. Boaz Ganor is an Israeli academic…

anyway… I agree that violence is a problem for everyone in the world (I think doubly so for those who are NOT part of the free world…)

and I find violence carried out by states, supported by states, condoned by states, funded or implicitly funded by states… or IGNORED by states as terrible…

probably the worst form of violence, because it isnt the desperate act of the insanely hopeless and fanatical… it is the self-interested calculations of the cruel with regard to clients and resources and geo-political vantage points and material prizes and etc…

it is revolting… it being common doesnt make it ok.

and as it costs many mor elives than terrorism I will be more concerned about it. (it also is possible to prevent… states asnwer to someone…)

the best way to decrease the amount of terrorism in the world is to stop participating in it.

you are responsible for your own actions… others evil actions dont justify any and all evil actions on your part… to think otherwise is the logic of the angry child (you can seek to pragmaticaly prevent it…to DEFEND your self and get help… anyway…)

blah blah… your not going to change your mind… some people are out there trying to destroy “civilisation” and some are supporting your “interests”… and everyone else in the world had better be on your side, as that is our moral responsibility… because “civ” depends upon it…

you and Friedman should share an op ed. piece…

Rob:

There is much that we can agree on.

State terrorism is as evil as any other kind of terrorism. My early childhood – I am in my early forties – was spent in a Marxist totalitarian society. It was (and remains) by any understanding of the word, “evil.”

People in that Third World nation were tortured for expressing political opinions that were deemed even mildly unacceptable. The climate of fear was all-pervasive and suffocating, even as a child I felt this. All virtue is not with the poor, nor is evil the exclusive province of the rich nations.

We all take a great deal for granted in the free world – like our ability to participate in this dialogue. And you fail to appreciate, if you will forgive me for saying so, that corporate capitalism is still around because it results in people having more wealth and living better lives, despite the social injustices that it reflects and (sometimes) reinforces, and this is true no matter what imperfections it suffers from as a system.

People who have experienced the joys of collectivism, where the man with a roll of toilet paper to trade for a piece of bread is king, can assure you that a world in which some people have a lot and others a few things, is infinitely preferable to a world in which no one, except the maximum leader, has anything.

There are people in this world who hate and are prepared to blow you up because you are not a Muslim of the “right” sort. This is evil and such people must be stopped.

If we can agree on that much, then we are on the same page.

Violence is a weapon. It is the preferred weapon of the desperate – and with good reason. It is used when people have nothing to lose. Many people have nothing to lose and this cannot be the exclusive fault of the capitalist system or of the evil Americans, sometimes it is their own fault, because of terrible leadership and bad ideas. We cannot allow such people to instill terror in the rest of us or to halt our efforts to improve the quality of life for all, including themselves.

P.S. I would love to share an op-ed piece with Friedman. Incidentally, I may be wrong, but my guess is that you are very young. Do not be surprised if you change your mind about all of this when you get a little older. (Friedman might be horrified to share an op-ed piece with a Third Wave democratic socialist, one who believes in responsible capitalism!)

You missed the moral of that story, Freddy. You are that contractor. Oh, nevermind.

I don’t know what I should do. One the one hand I’d love to argue with you. On the other, I know it would probably be a waste of my time. Being that I won’t convince you that your ideas are incredible, either you are genuinely stupid and cannot understand or you purposely lie about what you think the ‘truth’ is about these matters, I should realize that my participation in this thread will be only to pester you. That, I truely enjoy.

There is nothing philosophically true about the statement: “America is right and everyone else is a terrorist.” Granted, you didn’t say that exactly, but that is what you mean. Why I don’t find anything significant in this thread is because you’ve really said nothing to be noted. It is more of a sales pitch, the “Why Freddy wants to kill Osama, and why Kant would permit it” kind of gig that I’ve seen time and time again. Remember, I’ve debated with you for months at a time, so I know who you are. The disbarred lawyer who professes the Kantian philosophy while remaining a hippocrite all the while. You remember, Freddy, when the wrecking crew hit the Cafe, don’t you? You were exposed then, nothing has changed. It should be only a matter of time before the members here are disillusioned as well. Rob, as we speak, is wasting his time. His questions and points are unscathed by your retorts. He has, unfortunately for you, cornered you with problems that are irresolvable. Rather than admitting it, you carry on with more banter and pretend as if Rob doesn’t know what he’s asking or asserting.

The irony is spectacular. One of the smartest, sharpest minds on the internet I’ve ever encountered had to turn out to be you. Ain’t that a bitch?

De Trop:

Believe me, no one on the Internet knows me. Least of all you.

We haven’t had any debates, De Trop, because you are not up to it. We both know that. The fun things in life are the ones you sometimes have to pay for.

I WOULDN"T DO ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY IN MY LIFE AND REGRET NOTHING. THERE ARE DAYS WHEN I CAN’T STOP LAUGHING. :laughing:

By the way, how or where is Malbus? Haven’t heard from him lately.

See you around.

P.S.

Here are some words from Christopher Hitchens:

Quote:

Often unspoken in commentary on attacks on America and Americans – and even worse, half spoken – has been the veiled assumption that such things have a rough justice to them. The United States, with its globalizing blah-blah and its cowboy blah-blah, supposedly invites such wake-up calls. And the sorry fact is that French and Russian commentators and politicians have been noticeable for their promiscuity in this respect. [Until becoming victims themselves recently!] It’s also true that the French and Russian record could, if looked at in one way, be a real cause of sacred rage. (The French authorities have backed Saddam Hussein and many other regional despots, and the conduct of Russian soldiers in Chechnya makes Abu Gharib look like a blip on the charts.) But no serious person would ever let these considerations obscure a full-out denunciation of those who deliberately make war on civilians. So let us ponder this serious moment, of solidarity with French and Russian victims, and hope to build on it.

Hitchens goes on to define the quality that makes the Left in this country (and I say this as a life-long arch-liberal), not only irrelevant, but now laughable:

Quote:

The antiwar isolationist “Left” started by being merely “status quo”: opposing regime change and hinting at moral equivalence between Bush’s “terrorism” and the other sort. This conservative [version of radicalism] … didn’t take long to metastazise into a flat-out reactionary one, with Michael Moore saying that the Iraqui “resistance” was the equivalent of the Revolutionary Minutemen, Tariq Ali calling for solidarity with the “insurgents,” and now Ms. [Naomi] Klein, among many others, wanting to bring the war home because any kind of anti-Americanism is better than none at all. These fellow travellers with fascism are also changing ships on a falling tide: their applause for the holy warriors comes at a time when wide swaths of the Muslim world are sickening of the mindless blasphemy and the sectarian bigotry. It took an effort for American pseudo-radicals to be outflanked on the left by Ayatollah Sistani, but they manage it somehow.

I never thought that you were very original or interesting, intellectually speaking, but I am sad to see you descending into your mental dotage so quickly, like a Bowery stumblebum. Give my regards to the Ayatollah.

Bye, bye …

I suspect he is busy raising his son, working, and writing. He left the Thin Edge months ago and hasn’t returned since.

re these… i’m not a communist…

and I think it would be a grave error for someone to conflate the mertits of a liberal society with genuine free enterprise with state supported (and violently enacted) manipulaiton of the market in the interests of narrow sectors of some societies…

why does everything have to be an all or nothing situation these days? do we agree that the capitalist societies of the late 20th century were more acceptable than those of the mid 19th century?

not desiring totalitarian state control of society doesnt mean you have to support all manifestations of capitalism… and I dont see any serious theorist of capitalism suggesting that the use of state violence as a means of controlling markets and resources, both natural and labour, is a good thing.

capitalism generates wealth. capitalism infused with genuine democracy distributes that wealth better whist providing individuals with access to some degree of autonomy… capitalism that recognises the need for autonomy and genuine freedoms and equity (not equality) of opportunity in both a positive and negative sense is more just than a free market, or more relevant to this discussion, a market subsidised for certain interests by geo-political terrorism and anti-democratic manipulation of governments…

im sure we are on the same page there.

and once again it comes back to objecting most strongly to those things for which you are most directly responsible…

but yes we are on the same page on many things… except for your sudden bursts of apology and dissmissal of the wrong-doing of your prefered states. yes they might be better to their population than, for instance, Nrth Korea, but you can’t ignore the wrong just because you can see some other sort of wrong somewhere…

I’m sure you can see why that should be so… you don’t not feed your children because you saw Sudan on the news…

I really must be going, but do not wish to be rude, so:

De Trop:

I miss Malbus. I certainly hope his son “copes” well.

Rob:

There are differences in degree that make for differences in kind. The U.S. – despite the criticisms all of us can make of this flawed society is infinitely preferable to its adversaries – and I make no apologies for saying so. YOU may wish to apologize for the (sorry, I am apologizing again!), frankly hypocritical criticisms of a system that seems to benefit you immensely.

Not to support the U.S. in all things is one thing, but to fail to support it when it fights for the security of the free world – which is what we both know that it is doing right now, is despicable. Sorry, again.

Cheers.

Oh, I apologize for apologizing. :unamused:

I assume that your haste explains your not reading my post…

you say we can all make criticisms. yes I agree. that’s what I’m doing, and they seem to really get your back up, despite being, by most standards, very very tame liberal-democratic ones.

you say that I am hypocritical to make criticisms. lol. so many layers or irony… well one big obvious one. I think you said your a writter so I’ll assume that is on purpose or something.

because one system works better than others does not mean that it cant be improved. that we cant extend symathy, decrease pain and humiliation, allow for greater autonomy in personal life and greater co-operation in public… in other words that we can’t extend the judaeo-christian social-democratic romantic heritage that we have been bestowed…

well what’s so hypocritical about thinking that?

as for the rest of what your saying, I venture that you are simply badly informed. much of the world live in social-democracies and do so with a greater degree of those things that I have singled out as positive above without creating violence in the world and by keeping those values above in mind, rather than ideals of authority, revenge and self interest…

as for capitalism, I am after a more free market than anything you are suggesting with your cynical geo-political apologetics… apologies that sound like “well people have allways humilliated some parts of a community… people have allways bought and sold people as commodities… people have allways killed to get their way…” people can allways point to historical precedents to justify undesirable behaviour.

I’d prefer to point to our moral progress… our increasing capacity to feel others pain and humiliation, and to extend our sympathies even to those we find repulsive… to allow for more and more people to have semantic autority over their identities and excersise autonomy and solidarity in their lives…

that’s the “planet I’ve been (and more importantly want to keep) living on”.

Quote:
“I miss Malbus. I certainly hope his son “copes” well.”

I hear the mini Malbus plays poker for money. The kids only, what, three years old?

Can you believe that? Malbus tells me that when he wins, he leans back in his chair, folds his hands behind his head, and puts his feet up on the desk.

Somebody give that kid a candy cigar.

De Trop:

If you ever get a real college education and some therapy, then you may have some aptitude for this philosophy thing. :laughing: Fare thee well.

Rob.:

I got the gist of your criticisms the first time, and you’re right: They’re not worth my further time or attention.

Thanks anyway. :slight_smile: