[MD] Barbarian attack

[Scott Roberts]

Platt,

> Scott:
> No, that is not what I was asking. What if the culture of those foreign
> powers is superior to ours? Well, we wouldn't know that it was superior,
> and would probably think it wasn't. But if it were, then -- according to
> your thinking -- you would have descended to the biological level to
> defend it.

Platt said:
Sorry, I don't follow you. What culture do you think is superior to
ours? An alien culture from outer space perhaps? How would you judge
whether it was superior or not?

Scott:
That's the point -- from inside one's culture one is not likely to be able 
to judge that a superior culture is superior.

> > Platt said:
> > Further, do you detect a difference in the traditional morality of Al-
> > Qaeda and the Western democracies with one being superior to the
> > other?

> > Scott:
> > The "traditional morality" I am referring to is not that of Al-Qaeda.
> > What I am referring to is centuries-old Islamic culture of hundreds of
> > millions which is in fact being threatened.

Platt said:
The only thing I see being threatened is a culture that supports
biological terrorism, and that culture is limited to radical Islam
represented by the Taliban,  Al-Qaeda, and the current governments of
Palestine and Iran. There may be small splinter groups as well.

Scott:
If that's the only thing you see being threatened, then I suggest you expand 
your vision. Khaled recommended Karen Armstrong's *Islam* and I second that 
recommendation.

> Platt said:
> The response in Iraq to the beginnings of democracy indicate that many
> Muslims do not consider themselves threatened. Turkey is a Muslim
> country that has accepted many Western values.
>
> Scott:
> They were forced on the majority of Turks by westernized Turks, to the
> point of legislating dress codes. When the majority tried to reject
> Western values, the generals took over.

Platt said:
Last I looked, Turkey was a democratic constitutional republic, a
member of NATO and being considered for a membership in the EU.

Scott:
So? Does that mean that Ataturk and the generals didn't force secularization 
on the Turkish people?


> Scott:
> The only thing I am calling a cheap sound bite is characterizing
> terrorism as "biological" when the terrorists think that what they are
> doing is defending their culture.

Platt said:
I don't see in any of Pirsig's writing that the motivation behind
criminal acts changes the biological nature of those acts. If you can
point to such a caveat, I would be happy to be corrected.

Scott:
In the first place, I don't agree that Pirsig would agree that political 
terrorism is biological. In the second place, if by chance he did, I would 
disagree with Pirsig.

> While I agree with the abstract points
> that Pirsig is making in these quotes, the story in history is hardly so
> clearcut. Do you think that the fact that Britain and France were
> democracies legitimizes their colonization of the Middle East?

Platt said:
No. I do not approve of the initiation of physical force except in self-
defense.

Scott:
Which leaves wide open what counts as "self-defense", which sometimes looks 
more like "self-interest". But I'm not up to arguing over it.

> That the
> fact that Israel is a democracy legitimizes their settlements in
> occupied territories (a violation of the Geneva Convention)? And so on.

Platt said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Israel was attacked shortly after its
formation and extended its borders as an act of self-defense against
further attacks. Even today, surrounding countries have as an official
policy goal the eradication of Israel -- a violation of every
international agreement known to modern man.

Scott:
That's assuming (which those countries don't) that Israel's establishment 
was legitimate. But, again, no point in arguing, especially as I'm 
ambivalent about it (I see both sides as defensible and attackable). I will 
point out, though, that you didn't answer the question. Military occupation 
is one thing, settling Israelis in occupied territory is another.

- Scott