View Single Post
Old 10-01-2010, 05:31 AM
Neo Emolga's Avatar
Neo Emolga Offline
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Reading your mind
Posts: 21,704
Send a message via AIM to Neo Emolga
Default Re: Islaamic Extremists.

Hmm, interesting observations with regards to the hijabs. Thanks for sharing that, I found it to be pretty insightful.

Also, for the record, Iím actually more on the conservative side, and there is a lot of liberal beliefs I personally donít agree with. But to your points:

Originally Posted by Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah View Post
Since you have questioned the Islaamic culture, let me now question the liberal cultural values: what gives you the impression that justice is achieved by generalizing between all individuals and giving them identical rights as a blanket rule? I personally think that the individualistic premise on which liberalism builds upon is flawed. To mention just a few tangents of arguments against liberal philosophy:

- Liberalismís political values are the outcome of specific social and historical conditions, subjected to a specific type of analysis. Therefore it must be asked, is Liberalism an 'absolute' alternative to other ideologies, or is it historically and geographically bound? If Liberalism is found to be historically and context bound then it can not have any relevance in todayís modern society.
I personally donít believe its either. Itís a guideline created under the idea that all individuals were created equal, and that one group of people doesnít have leverage over another group of people due to uncontrollable circumstances such as race or gender. Instead, people are judged more on the content of their character. Personally, I donít think this is flawed, no more so than the alternative of a social caste system that is often subjected to internal conflicts.

Originally Posted by Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah View Post
- Philosophically, liberalismís political values rest on the premise of individualism, or what some political philosophers call atomism. Most definitely it can be argued that this is not a safe premise to base political philosophies and legislative rulings on. however Im just pointing to the fact this is arguable, and not making an argument ^_^
Well, that comes down to matter of opinion.

Originally Posted by Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah View Post
- From a practical and social research perspective modern liberal societies, specifically the UK and US, exhibit signs of increasing social breakdown and social malaise. If the most predominant political values propagated in western societies are Liberalismís political values, and these societies are showing signs of social decay, then it naturally follows that Liberalism is a key contributing factor to modern social problems. This argument rests on the premise that there is an established link between propagated values and a societyís behaviour; this essay will bring to light social research strengthening this premise.
Iíd like to see some links with this research claim. To me, I donít think a society of inequalities has a lesser chance of social conflict. Not when entire wars were started over such things. We can look back to Nazi Germany, where an entire genocidal campaign was started from beliefs that entire groups of people were to be blamed for things that werenít true.

Again, content of character is whatís important here, not race, social class, gender, or any of those criterion. Yes, there is an issue when too much liberalism is shown, and those that should be subjected to investigation and punishment are given pardons by those with money and/or political power. Yes, the system isnít perfect, but it observes the rights of all individuals and itís a heck of a better system to increase the overall quality of life and freedom within the country. I wouldnít want to live in a country where only certain people have rights and leverages over those that have been chosen to be deprived by certain individuals simply because of forces those people could not control.

Originally Posted by Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah View Post
Not so in a liberalistic totalitarian State. You practice what you wish, and let us practice what we wish without any impediment. To say otherwise is a bit of hypocritic, why point to a certain culture just on the basis that this goes against the prevalent culture? We don't expect the entire country to adapt to this culture, the least we are asking is to accept the differences, and live and let live, as the liberals might say.
Itís based on a matter of perceptions. After 9/11, there were many people that questioned the nature of the attacks. The fact they were Islamic extremists immediately caused them to naturally question the nature of the Islamic religion, and because of that, assumptions were made. The main important point is to break the association bond.

Originally Posted by Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah View Post
I agree to this, but just as a side point, let us not forget that Islaamic extremism is quite often the result of western wrong being done to the Muslim World. As a matter of fact -and Im not saying this with a mindset to justifying the extremists at all- The wrong thats been done to the Muslim world by the Secular Literalistic political paradigm is far greater than whatever harm Muslim extremists caused. Point being, we need to point our fingers to all the guilty parties simultaneously.
Any way you slice it, extremism of any nature isnít justified with the killing of innocent people. On 9/11, I saw the twin towers collapse on television, knowing a horrific amount of innocent civilians were killed, national security was suddenly threatened, and with it, a chain reaction of distrust and suspicion was caused. And this was felt worldwide as well with subsequent terrorist attacks. Honestly, I donít know what we would be doing that could possibly be considered ďfar greater wrongĒ than what Muslim extremists are causing.

If youíre referring to Iraq (Gulf War and Iraqi Freedom) and Afghanistan, these campaigns were started with the objective of removing terrorist threats and taking a destructive dictator out of political power. During World War II, we originally stayed out of the war, while destructive war criminals like Hitler and Stalin came to power, and slaughtered millions of innocents. In truth, it is our intention to avoid having the same situation arise again. The reason why Iraq was targeted was the potential that weapons of mass destruction existed within Iraq. It was better to attempt to search and turn up nothing than to remain indifferent toward it and allow someone to use such weapons because we wrongfully chose to ignore the issue.

Also, there is American presence throughout the world, it isnít just in the Middle East.