|
| Thread: Sheer Brutality |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
posted November 23, 2004 10:16 PM |
|
|
Shiva, Svarog is from Macedonia, not Turkey. The only member I can think of from Turkey is Hamsi, and I don't know if he's Muslim.
Svarog, Quote:
Oh, and Consis, if you bothered reading more carefully what I wrote, you'd have seen it says "religious conservativism" quite clearly, which is a different thing from religious faith. it would've saved you time writing that response pal. 
Actually, I don't agree with your statement either, although for different reasons than Consis. Religion is a flexible thing. Some religious fanaticism may grow up as you describe, but certainly not all. In the US, "religious conservatism" has less to do with religion itself and more to do with using religion to bolster conservatism in general. Quite often, this seems to be used by people in power (political, economic, social, etc.) to maintain their hold on power. For example, some people use the Bible to attempt to thwart feminism. That's not the oppressed using religion as opium. That's the privileged using religion as a pillar of the status quo. Same result, different causes.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2004 10:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Shiva, Svarog is from Macedonia, not Turkey. The only member I can think of from Turkey is Hamsi, and I don't know if he's Muslim.
My apologies Svarog, should have checked your profile.
Quote:
Actually, I don't agree with your statement either, although for different reasons than Consis. Religion is a flexible thing. Some religious fanaticism may grow up as you describe, but certainly not all. In the US, "religious conservatism" has less to do with religion itself and more to do with using religion to bolster conservatism in general. Quite often, this seems to be used by people in power (political, economic, social, etc.) to maintain their hold on power. For example, some people use the Bible to attempt to thwart feminism. That's not the oppressed using religion as opium. That's the privileged using religion as a pillar of the status quo. Same result, different causes.
Those who quote scriptures to back up their views of life
are usually to be feared for their lack of openmindedness. Conservatism, East or West, North or South, is an attempt as you say to preserve the status quo. Unfortunately, all the progressive ideas get lumped together..feminism, abortion, gay marriage etc. You may be for one and not another but get lumped together under the term "Liberal" which has been defined in sneering, derogatory terms by the neocons.
I find the use of the bible to back political ends just as scary as Imams preaching jihad. Love your neighbour as yourself gets lost in other pseudo-Christian jargon spouted from rightist preachers. Render unto Caesar is forgotten in the run for the Presidency.
Well, there I've gone and quoted scripture to back my argument...
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 24, 2004 04:09 AM |
|
|
Defreni,
You’re talking about islamic fundamentalism, and you mention Primeminister Erdogan’s party. Not at all a good combo. It isnt islamic party, but a normal right wing European party (with christian-democratic orientation  )
Furthermore, you are probably right that fundamentalist parties are popular because people think they wont be corrupt, but that’s not in contradiction with the notion that they draw support due to the islamic conservativism among the masses, because their unquestionable faith in their religious leaders makes them believe they are immune to corruption.
Quote:
I wonder if the democratic process in Iraq produced an Islamic government that was anti-American how the Bush government would react.
There’s no way that could happen, because even in the face of all the anti-Americanism in Iraq, the democratic process leads through the White House, either before or after it reaches the ballots.
Khaelo,
You may want to disagree with me dear, but I perfectly agree with what you wrote in your “disagreement”. Sorry, I must be missing something.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
darksparkle
Hired Hero
Quote the raven,
|
|
posted November 24, 2004 05:50 AM |
|
|
Why did america get involved with..now what was the name again? Iraq?
____________
Why does death have to be such a likely answer?
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted November 24, 2004 06:16 AM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 24 Nov 2004
|
Hmm, I guess the disagreement would be over the word "mostly" in your post of Nov. 18. The degree of "mostly" isn't worth a debate, but I thought another side of conservativism was worth a mention. [Edit re: relevance. Suffice to say, I think there are a number of factors behind the trends in contemporary Islam, and that all need to be addressed before we can cope.]
Off topic: Who is "dear," and why have I been confused with him/her?
On scripture: The thing about scripture is that it's often very complex and occasionally contradictory. Scriptural views don't boil down to soundbites very easily. The Qur'an is better about consistency than the Hebrew Scriptures or the Christian Bible, but all three are subject to selective readings and multiple interpretations. These kinds of nuances just don't sell to crowds. Two different preachers oversimplify the texts in two different ways, and suddenly it looks like you have two different religions.
After hitting submit on my post above, it occurred to me that another really good example of selectively using religion to preserve an oppressive status quo would be the nineteenth century slavery debates in the US -- there are several passages in both Old and New Testaments of the Christian Bible that slaveowners used to validate themselves. The abolitionists replied with a number of other passages supporting their cause.
"Liberal" -- the term has multiple connotations, doesn't it? My understanding of economics, never mind global economics, is shaky, but isn't "liberal" used to reference free trade? And isn't free trade the system that allows international corporations unrestricted access to the cheap labor and resources of underdeveloped countries? (Stop me if this is ridiculous or off-topic.) Also, I was given to understand that "liberal" and "conservative" mean different things in European politics than they do in US politics. By "conservative," I meant "preserving the status quo" as definition. 
I'll stop rambling now...
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2004 01:50 PM |
|
Edited By: Shiva on 24 Nov 2004
|
Quote:
"Liberal" -- the term has multiple connotations, doesn't it? My understanding of economics, never mind global economics, is shaky, but isn't "liberal" used to reference free trade? And isn't free trade the system that allows international corporations unrestricted access to the cheap labor and resources of underdeveloped countries? (Stop me if this is ridiculous or off-topic.) Also, I was given to understand that "liberal" and "conservative" mean different things in European politics than they do in US politics. By "conservative," I meant "preserving the status quo" as definition.
Liberal:
# Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
# Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Conservative:
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
Thats the strictest definition of the words. If a country has a Liberal or Conservative party, their platforms are dependant on the political realities of the time. Blair in England is head of the Labor Party, supposedly leftish, worker oriented but obviously heavily identified with Bush because of Iraq. Strange bed-fellows indeed! Its a wonder how the party of Abraham Lincoln became the party of today, because abolishing slavery was definitely not a conservative move.
As far as free trade goes, I dont believe there is such a thing at all. Special interest groups always take over, demand protection and want government interference when its convenient to them. Big corporations will always throw their money around and get what they want. Its a two sided thing, when they move into an undeveloped country. The people there really need the jobs, and will work for much less then in a developed country, but from the point of view of us over here, it looks like they are exploited. Making $2 in India or some such place means feeding your whole family. Here, it means slave labor.
As far as Liberal being identified with free trade, presently, Bush is pushing for an agreement with Central America. Again, free trade really means "as long as we benefit we wont put up tarifs". There are so many disputes between the EU- America, Canada-America and others and they all boil down to special interest groups and government subsidies.
Well yes, its off topic, but after all, your a moderator . Then again, I went along and replied to you trying to be Liberal in what we are discussing although my Conservative conscience is bugging me to stick to the topic.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 25, 2004 03:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Also, I was given to understand that "liberal" and "conservative" mean different things in European politics than they do in US politics.
Well, liberal ideology is the same everywhere. Still, you’re correct on your observation of the liberal stance towards economy.
But confusion arises when Americans identify the political left with the liberals. The left has another face too, which is often in direct conrast with liberalism. It’s the socialist left, which unfortunately practiacaly doesn’t exist in US.
Quote:
“For example, some people use the Bible to attempt to thwart feminism. That's not the oppressed using religion as opium.”
Sure it is. The reason they even try to give chauvinist arguments, is precisely convincing the masses and maintaining the status quo, as you say, through their support. Religion can be equally pointed against feminism, gays, USA, other religions and nations etc.
I don’t think there’s disparity between religion conservativism used for economical exploitation and one aimed at maintaining the status quo by people in power. It’s the same phenomenon, observed from two different perspectives. The powerholders hypnotise the masses, thus financially thriving, and the masses cling to religion in hope of escaping from their poor economic and social condition.
Quote:
Who is "dear," and why have I been confused with him/her?
Dear is a person who I like pretty much, but if you don’t want to be confused with him/her anymore, just tell me.
Quote:
The people there really need the jobs, and will work for much less then in a developed country, but from the point of view of us over here, it looks like they are exploited. Making $2 in India or some such place means feeding your whole family. Here, it means slave labor.
I might be getting the wrong impression, but it appears to me that you say devloping countries actually benefit from foreign companies "investing" in their industries. This is utterly wrong.
Its true that they want to attract foreign investors, but it's not beneficial to them. Problem is the enormous disparity in labour value in developed and Third World countries. This is a parasite relationship maintained by those that are in power, and the free trade is another word for free parasitizing. An Indian would work as twice as much as the American, but he'd be even hundred times underpaid. The reason is the surplus value of his products almost completely go to foreign owners. In USA, worker labour is at least somehow protected with minimal wage, but liberal economies that undeveloped countries governments maintain provide for unrestrained economical exploitation, without any minimal wage rate, or without any guaranteed workers' rights. Thats the evil of liberalism, that socialism opposes.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 25, 2004 04:44 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 24 Nov 2004
|
LoL Svarog,
Of all the people I thought would already know this. You would have been the first. Newsflash: America has communists too. I'm talking about your favorite kind, the socialistic Lenin-types who are ashamed of Stalin just like yourself. Heck they might even be saving a seat for you at the next convention You should look into that. If it's one thing america has, it's every culture you can think of.
'If you build it, they will come.' McCarthy is long dead so I hear there's a free-for-all coming up this May 1st! w00t!
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted November 25, 2004 01:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Of all the people I thought would already know this. You would have been the first. Newsflash: America has communists too.
I belive what Svarog said was that it's practically no socialists/communists in the US. Not that there's none...
But he's probably capable of answering for himself, lol
Btw, this is still the "Sheer Brutality" thread, right? (My short run memory isn't what it never was anymore... )
If so, I would like to say something.
I usually side with anti-imperialist resistance movements across the world. But somehow, I don't wanna support the Iraqi.
Sure, most of them may be good men and women, who truly believe that democracy will be obtained faster if the US is thrown out of thei country; people who aren't too keen on comitting war crimes.
But between these people, you have the extremists. The Islamists, and the purely criminal ones, who simply get a kick out of being a sadist (you get them everywhere; just see the Mosque Execution a few day ago). These people attack women and men who are helping the civilians of Iraq. They kidnap humanitarian workers, and threaten to behead them if their homeland leaders don't do what the Extremists wish. Most of the times, the poor humanitarian workers are killed.
And this hurts their cause, if their cause is to throw the Americans out of Iraq, get some peace and quiet in their country for the first time in 30 years.
Because, when these people kill innocents, the American war leaders get legitimization for intensifying the war, and to use brute force against the population, and the so-called "terrorists" (some of them are, but some are probably no worse than say the Norwegian resistance during WWII).
Well, that was my opinions. Please note that this most probably ain't facts about the situation in Iraq, but my estimation of it, based on what I've picked up in the media...
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2004 02:10 PM |
|
Edited By: Shiva on 25 Nov 2004
|
Quote:
I might be getting the wrong impression, but it appears to me that you say devloping countries actually benefit from foreign companies "investing" in their industries. This is utterly wrong.
Its true that they want to attract foreign investors, but it's not beneficial to them. Problem is the enormous disparity in labour value in developed and Third World countries. This is a parasite relationship maintained by those that are in power, and the free trade is another word for free parasitizing. An Indian would work as twice as much as the American, but he'd be even hundred times underpaid. The reason is the surplus value of his products almost completely go to foreign owners. In USA, worker labour is at least somehow protected with minimal wage, but liberal economies that undeveloped countries governments maintain provide for unrestrained economical exploitation, without any minimal wage rate, or without any guaranteed workers' rights. Thats the evil of liberalism, that socialism opposes.
I will not argue the evils of Capitalism vs the benefits of Socialism/Marxism. Any system is only as good as the people running it. The human factors influenced by greed, lust for power etc tend to make any system rather corrupt.
However, I will say you do misunderstand alot. Having lived in India for many years, I saw first hand the total poverty of many. And yes, these people were happy to have jobs that paid them regularly. And trust me, the "evil" multi-nationals are nothing compared to the remnants of the feudal society that still enslaves its own people. There are indentured laborers there that owe their life to their bosses. You cannot expect wage parity when $1 converted to local currency buys so much. In other words, you have to look at what that dollar buys in a local economy. And a daily wage of $20 would be an absolute fortune. Too many social do-gooders have absolutely no knowledge of the society they want to reform. All they see is looked at from their own vantage point,which doesn't always translate well into another local.
If you undertsood economics at all, you would know that eventually, as a country develops, these currency gaps close. And the only way to develop is to accept foreign investment, whilst educating your own people so they can be a more skilled labor force.
One of the points in the last election was the great loss of jobs to over-seas labor. That is a result of the these practices of investment and education in other countries. These countries would not recieve these jobs if they couldn't offer a cheaper and skilled labor force.
Then, they would be doomed to 3rd world status for ever.
And finally, your use of Liberal is somewhat off . Open to change does not always translate to open to exploitation. Again, it's the quality of the people running things, not the system that matters so much.
@Terje..Thats what this thread is about, rather than the shear brutality of the Capitalist system. What you stated are the reasons I started it in the first place:
The obvious brutality of terrorists acting in Islams name. I agree with you, their acts are totally counterproductive to their cause. At least in the case of the Abu Ghurayb prison, there is an investigation. In the case of the beheadings, these is nothing, hardly any outcry from the Arab nations at all.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted November 25, 2004 02:36 PM |
|
|
I very much suspect that most Arab (and other Muslim) leaders are as indignated over these atrocities as us western people, but I guess it's not easy for them to get some attention of the western media to say so.
It just doesn't sell, you know...
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2004 02:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I very much suspect that most Arab (and other Muslim) leaders are as indignated over these atrocities as us western people, but I guess it's not easy for them to get some attention of the western media to say so.
It just doesn't sell, you know...
I should hope they are, uh, indignated (nice word).
But I think the reason is not that it doesn't sell to the
Western media, but to their own people.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted November 25, 2004 02:55 PM |
|
|
Good point. It wouldn't look good to his people if King Fayd of Jordan (or whatever; Middle Eastern despots isn't exactly my strong side) began to "diss" fellow believers (even though he's probably a Sunni, and they're most likely to be shias...) for resisting the Great Satan...
And yes, "indignation" is a nice word. It's so civilized
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2004 03:37 PM |
|
|
|
However, there were some demonstrations in Baghdad protesting the beheading of Hassan, the aid worker. She helped many people in her life's work there. That is what is so sad, that they executed someone who spent her life helping people.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted November 25, 2004 03:53 PM |
|
|
That was indeed one completely hopless act. Did they behead her just cos she was British of origin?
I thought she even had converted to Islam, and married an Iraqi...
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2004 07:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Defreni,
You’re talking about islamic fundamentalism, and you mention Primeminister Erdogan’s party. Not at all a good combo. It isnt islamic party, but a normal right wing European party (with christian-democratic orientation )
Furthermore, you are probably right that fundamentalist parties are popular because people think they wont be corrupt, but that’s not in contradiction with the notion that they draw support due to the islamic conservativism among the masses, because their unquestionable faith in their religious leaders makes them believe they are immune to corruption.
Quote:
I wonder if the democratic process in Iraq produced an Islamic government that was anti-American how the Bush government would react.
There’s no way that could happen, because even in the face of all the anti-Americanism in Iraq, the democratic process leads through the White House, either before or after it reaches the ballots.
Khaelo,
You may want to disagree with me dear, but I perfectly agree with what you wrote in your “disagreement”. Sorry, I must be missing something.
Ohh please Svarog
I mentioned the Welfare party, just because I mix up who leads what party in Turkey, you at least know what I mean
Yes I know, it was a thank you from Laurent Kabila and Che Guevara.
Good one I might add.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 26, 2004 03:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You cannot expect wage parity when $1 converted to local currency buys so much. In other words, you have to look at what that dollar buys in a local economy. And a daily wage of $20 would be an absolute fortune. Too many social do-gooders have absolutely no knowledge of the society they want to reform. All they see is looked at from their own vantage point,which doesn't always translate well into another local.
If you undertsood economics at all, you would know that eventually, as a country develops, these currency gaps close. And the only way to develop is to accept foreign investment, whilst educating your own people so they can be a more skilled labor force.
LOL. I don’t know what to begin with. I probably wont, as I’ve had quite a few economy contributing posts on HC (from the socialist point of view), and there’s no use explaining it all over again for every new guy that comes here.
I will say something though: 20$ is less than 20,000$ but 5 liters of sweat = 5 liters of sweat; I hate ad hominem attacks; even perfect workers don’t function in a bad system; local means width, but global means depth; “only” is such a strong word; Present Simple obliges too much; feeding the pigs is not fine, when you’re a pig and Walt Disney is still frozen.
Oh, Def, that was just a clarification for others reading this thread. I know what you meant.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 26, 2004 04:11 AM |
|
Edited By: Shiva on 25 Nov 2004
|
Quote:
LOL. I don’t know what to begin with. I probably wont, as I’ve had quite a few economy contributing posts on HC (from the socialist point of view), and there’s no use explaining it all over again for every new guy that comes here.
I will say something though: 20$ is less than 20,000$ but 5 liters of sweat = 5 liters of sweat; I hate ad hominem attacks; even perfect workers don’t function in a bad system; local means width, but global means depth; “only” is such a strong word; Present Simple obliges too much; feeding the pigs is not fine, when you’re a pig and Walt Disney is still frozen.
With all due respect, that is about the most incomprehensible thing I've read on this board yet. It helps if you present your argument a little more clearly. It also helps if you assume someone may know something you don't, as I assume you know something I don't, something about all capitalists being pigs who are against men all because Walt Disney is frozen.
In fact, I realized where I have read something like you just wrote.It was in a translation from Bablefish, german to english. 
ps. You been drinking or smoking something?
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted November 26, 2004 08:04 AM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 26 Nov 2004
|
On Topicness: Threads wander. This is a documented fact; check out Attack Iraq. I didn't want ramblings to hijack the thread topic before people were finished with the original subject.
Personally, I think sweatshops fit under the heading "sheer brutality" just fine.
Quote:
I will say something though: 20$ is less than 20,000$ but 5 liters of sweat = 5 liters of sweat
$20 is less than $20,000, but it's still more than $0, which is what the workers get if they try to insist on higher wages. If they attempt to prevent the profitable human rights violations, never mind start a union, the international corporations will simply go somewhere else. Yes, it's exploitation, but dealing with this devil is better than nothing at all for the Third World countries involved.
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 26, 2004 11:24 AM |
|
Edited By: Shiva on 26 Nov 2004
|
@Terje...yes, she was British, converted to Islam married to an Iraqi..as to why they executed her, they are targeting all foreigners and any Iraqi that appears to be cooperating with the US
Quote:
On Topicness: Threads wander. This is a documented fact; check out Attack Iraq. I didn't want ramblings to hijack the thread topic before people were finished with the original subject.
Personally, I think sweatshops fit under the heading "sheer brutality" just fine.
Ok, any kind of brutality is on topic..
Quote:
I will say something though: 20$ is less than 20,000$ but 5 liters of sweat = 5 liters of sweat
$20 is less than $20,000, but it's still more than $0, which is what the workers get if they try to insist on higher wages. If they attempt to prevent the profitable human rights violations, never mind start a union, the international corporations will simply go somewhere else. Yes, it's exploitation, but dealing with this devil is better than nothing at all for the Third World countries involved.
Thats pretty well what I mean. I'm not for exploitation of anyone. However, different economic and social conditions make for different situations in various countries. If the difference is between starving and working for a little, well what would you choose? I also tried to explain that its the buying power of the local currency that matters. $20 translates to 1000 rupees or so (I'm not up on the current exchange rate). If a worker there made $70 or $80 which is the about the minimum daily wage here, they would be getting an absolute fortune. So you can't translate wages from country to country. As to working conditions, thats another story. Humane conditions should be there, what ever the pay is.
I'm also reluctant to call these local governments "Liberal". If they are so corrupt that they accept pay offs from multi nationals, and don't put anything back into their own country, thats not Liberalism, thats sheer brutal greed(Notice the use of brutal  ).
So Svarog, idealism is nice, but the world isn't black and white, its all kinds of shades of gray. There is no such thing as pure socialism or capitalism in any government these days, just various mixtures. Even the US has many social programs which have been instituted since the depression which GWB will not manage to roll back in his time. The incentive of profit does lead to innovation and a thriving economy, which is why all former communist countries are moving that way, even China..except for North Korea.
|
| |
|
|
