The difference is that now people who think like Pariah actually have the power to wipe out whatever they see as their enemies before eventually realizing that they were wrong.

Quote:

Pariah said:
Exactly. And you can't say that's wrong just because we think we're right.

Making attempts to look through the eyes of the Middle Easterners will only get you so far before your realize that you have to operate on your own views in the end.



My point is that you justify doing horrible things in the name of what you believe and they're doing the exact same thing. So what's the difference? Why should the fact that you think you're right count for anything if they share the exact same conviction? In the bigger picture the whole situation is just two cultures reacting to each other. Take an objective point of view and you'll see that the only undeniable effect this conflict has had is the loss of millions of innocent lives (in both sides).

You say they're a poison to the world: to most of us so are you. You said it yourself, you do whatever you have to do to protect your own interests. Well, the result is that many nations, like mine, have been damaged irreparably by your influence. How is that not a virus? Considering your perspective (in that particular case), is like trying to look through the eyes of a cancer eating through your body. It's also protecting its interests. It also thinks it's right.

Quote:

Just because he would be so emotionally torn as to render the suggestion totally unlikely post-bombing scenario, that doesn't mean it's not good advice. If a person can't see past their blind rage well enough to stop and wonder if a suicide bombing (which will kill his own brethren as well as Americans) just might be the wrong approach, then how useful do they prove themselves to the rest of the world let alone their own country?



We're going around in cirlces. When I ask you to think logically you insist in going back to your subjective opinion as if you were incapable of distnacing yourself from it even for a second, and when I ask you to think empathically you dissect the situation with logic. The former paragraph is YOU analysing the situation, not the 8 year old. How hard is it to take his place for a moment? It wouldn't be human to react any other way in an extreme situation like that. I'm saying that your country's violent response only motivates innocent victims to join the conflict and keep it going. If you're agreeing with that and using it as an argument to destroy them all, then just say that.

Quote:

I fully realize that the only reason an 8 year old in the Mid East would have no fear or problem with going through with a suicide bombing is because that's how he was raised. But that, to me, is all the more reason to destroy the culture--So the atmosphere created it by it won't create anymore threatening fanatics.



It becomes more and more clear to me that the only reason your country has no problem going there and perpetuating the violence is because you, too, have been raised to respond violently. The examples r3x and I have given could easily be attributed to a "whites are inherently evil" theory... I mean, if someone was motivated to start that theory the way you're motivated to start one about arabs. Let me explain myself with an hypothetic situation: what if, instead of being white, the Columbine kids had been of arab descent? The exact same situation, but they happen to have a different ethnicity. It wouldn't be the Columbine Tragedy, it'd be the Columbine Attack. Their violence would suddenly mean something else. It would be used as proof that arabs are predisposed to violence. There would be a ten page thread about it here and G-man would bump it every two weeks with an article about an arab kid pushing another while standing in line. But no, since they're white, it just means that videogames are evil, or something.

To clarify, I'm not saying you're inherently evil... I'm just saying it could be argued as easily as you argue that arabs are.

Quote:

Have you ever stopped to think that this is perhaps the best way to look at the situation? By having an overview that's not corrupted by extraneous elements?



To do what, conclude that that kid is better off dead? Corrupting the overview with extraneous elements is exactly what you're doing in the other part of our debate.

Quote:

No. I didn't fully understand war when I was 8. And I wouldn't assume that kid would either, but just because nobody bothered to teach him about it (which is very odd considering where he lives), that doesn't mean I should compromise my principles for the sake of his inability to grasp the true volume of the matter.



Why is it that hard to "compromise your principles"? What's the big deal? It's just your opinion. By logic, everyone should seriously reconsider their position at least once in their lifetime, especially when they involve matters like these.

Quote:

Are you saying it doesn't?

Mxy, you and I use absolutes all the time: You say America has committed crimes; I say countries are incapable of committing crimes based on the construct and nature of a country. And while we debated such things, I never heard you say, “I could be wrong,”* and I certainly don’t expect you to because that’s not what you believe.



I don't need to say I could be wrong, because to me that's implied in everything everyone says, including myself.

Quote:

All of us must admit the possibility that we could be wrong about anything and everything, but that doesn’t mean that we have to, or should, re-distribute the amount of faith in our primary views for the sake of trying to empathize with our enemies’ views. It simply doesn’t make sense, the world can’t move it ANY direction if we all thought that way.



It's not that important when you're having an argument about who would win in a fight, Superman of Goku (Superman), but when we're talking about wiping out an entire culture, it's not only important, it's necessary. The direction the world has been moving for the past 60 years or so is one filled with escalating wars and loss of life. I don't know for sure in what direction it would move if nations valued empathy over protecting their interests, but it can't be worse than that. After all, what's empathy if not looking out for the greater good?

Quote:

*That’s not say that you don’t think you could be proven wrong. I’m just saying that you wouldn’t pre-dispose yourself to such an idea.



I AM predisposed to that posibility, which is why I don't take extreme positions (such as saying a whole culture should be wiped out). I don't support abortion for the same reason: I personally don't think a two week old fetus is alive, but what if it is? That fetus is worth defending for that posibility alone.

Quote:

That doesn’t mean one of them, or even a greater amount, isn’t correct.



I don't think in terms of "correct" or "incorrect": they're all equally valid, because we're all equal. If someone's conviction directly undermines all the rest, then of course he needs to be restrained from doing what he wants to do, but in looking out for the greater good we should necessarily keep him in mind and, if possible, find a way to co-exist in harmony. In the case of the US and the ME: stay the fuck away from each other.

Quote:

It’s enough that I don’t want that kind of thing to happen without being told that I have to stop fighting to make it so.



But if you stopped fighting, you would make it so.

Quote:

If the West let those kind of things stop itself from having wars, it would have been destroyed decades before.



Destroyed by what? Peace?

Quote:

Bullshit. Socrates and Aristotle both spent their entire lifetimes analyzing the status of reality, outlining all of its facets in an attempt to understand what it was composed of and how it got there. They spent countless hours approaching the idea of there being a God from both the positions of the theist and the atheist. They both came to the conclusion that there is a God and that monotheism is the most logically philosophical outlook. Obviously you think they’re wrong, but would you also call them close-minded for coming to an absolute conclusion even after their study?



Didn't Socrates say "that what I don't know, I don't think I know"? A more accurate translation would be "all I know is that I know nothing". He was predisposed to the posibility of his entire system of beliefs being wrong, which from my understanding is what gave him so much clarity of mind.

Quote:

My point being that it’s very possible to look at all sides of the situation and then take an absolute stand on the issue. One doesn’t need to stay away from taking sides to be open-minded in regards to the subject. Your assessment isn’t fair.



On the contrary, I think what isn't fair is putting so much value in your personal opinion that you'd be willing to commit genocide.

Quote:

That’s your opinion and you’re welcome to it.

If we destroyed the Middle East entirely and crumbled its infectious and radiant culture into pieces so as to make sure their brand of fanaticism was never encountered again…You’re right, it’s very possible that the rest of the world would then try to destroy us. Then again, the ME has been a problem for everyone in some form or another, even if they wouldn’t immediately realize it, it’s also possible that they wouldn’t do shit…Except call us imperialist and murdering bastards of course. I mean you do it all the time—As does the UN—As does China—As does Russia.



If the situation that we already percieve as evil imperialism were to be exalted, our response would grow as well. And what's the next logical step? Taking action to stop it.

Quote:

Furthermore, each of those countries would probably cheer us on since they, and us, realize with the most clarity the ME is a world problem. Even after they’d be happy for their destruction, they’d still use it as an excuse to slander America and, if your worst case scenario holds true, attack us. In which case, I’d gladly fight them if it meant defending myself and my country against worldwide dishonesty.

In any event: The world didn’t do anything about Darfur, which involved the mass slaughter of innocent people in a culture that was more or less peaceful aside from the people who seized it. Assuming the world did anything to us if we decided to nuke the shit out of the ME, an area that undeniably harbors a hostile and violent populace and culture, what do you think that would say about the world’s integrity—About how it really feels towards America and its successes? Would you still be so willing to take up arms against us?

But before any of this, I want one thing and one thing only: A second American Civil War. One that destroys this ideological divide and then reunites the nation in whatever philosophy wins the battle (I don’t actually want people to die, but words just aren’t doing the trick anymore and true cultural change has proven to be unattainable any other way). That way, not only would we have one goal, but then we’d have a truly sincere empathy for what the rest of the world wants of us that we should tear each other apart. Other nations and propaganda machines have been working very hard to insert themselves into our culture so they could have a say in what we do and gain growing influence over certain Western populations so as to immobilize our ability to make decisions for ourselves. And guess what? They’ve been successful so far.



Quote:

It’s not America’s fault if the whole world overreacts to America’s retaliation against the ME’s long history of malevolence and belligerence towards us. In that rite, it’s pretty ironic, and pathetic, that America is the one who ends up saving the world from itself by chopping off the gangrene limb that is the Middle East.



Quote:

fanaticism
A noun
1 fanaticism, zealotry

excessive intolerance of opposing views



What's more excessive than wiping out a culture, even if it means going into a world war? Take the end result out of the picture for a second: you're talking about how much you'd benefit from a civil war. Maybe you'd also benefit from spreading a plague, ever considered that? This reminds of the conference where the "Yes Men" (a group of activists) suggested causing natural disasters for profit in front of oil industrials, and were cheered. That's psychopathic behaviour.

Quote:

So you see Mxy, this is a lot more complicated then just having the world take revenge for a destroyed nation; it’s about bitterness…Towards the West.



Ever thought that maybe you're responsible for that bitterness for sticking your nose in other countries to protect your interests? If so, then I guess it must be totally justifiable.

Quote:

*shrug* I think it’s nuts that you’d take up arms against me rather than the Middle East.



If the Middle East wiped you out for whatever reason, I'd take arms against them. It's not the altruist american soldier I'm against, it's the unspeakable crime he commits.

Quote:

A reaction from terrorist cells is undeniable. But we shouldn’t live in fear of them.



Listen to yourself. It's that exact attitude what got you in this problem in the first place.

Quote:

As for the world…Well, let’s just say that I won’t be taking that bet. But if it does physically react to us, then I’ll remember Darfur and proceed to kill rest of the world off out of disgust.



As I said: that's exactly where your current path leads you, and it's disturbing that you seem to have no problem with it.