[MD] Barbarian attack

[Scott Roberts]

Platt,

> Platt said:
> I thought that was what philosophy, and in a broader sense, a liberal
> education was for. I'm confident you would have little trouble judging a
> superior culture from an inferior one. In any case, one of the benefits
> of the MOQ is that it gives us ability to answer such questions on a
> rational, rather than an emotional or religious, basis.
>
> Scott said:
> Since I don't consider religion and rationality to be incompatible, I
> guess in your sights I am unable to judge a superior culture.

Platt said:
Pirsig finds religion and rationality incompatible in the sense that
the former is a social value and the latter an intellectual value. Like
other levels, each fights to dominate the other. I mention this to
point out your disagreement with Pirsig. Personally, I'll take
Pirsig's view over yours. No offense. :-)

Scott:
Religion as practiced is largely social. But there is an intellectual side 
to it as well, which Pirsig apparently knows nothing about. I wouldn't take 
him as your guide in these matters.

> Platt said:
> Thanks for the recommendation[ of Armstrong's *Islam*].
>  But, can you tell me if the book says a
> majority of Muslims support the terrorists and are spoiling for a fight
> with the West? If so, a clash of civilizations seems inevitable.
>
[Scott said]> The book indicates that no, the majority is not spoiling for a 
fight.
> However, the book also indicates that what is happening is that there is
> a clash of civilizations. From your question, are you saying that if a
> culture does not want to live as Westerners do they are spoiling for a
> fight?

Platt said:
No. But a culture that condones flying airplanes into buildings in a
surprise attack killing 3,000 innocent civilians is spoiling for a
fight.

Scott:
I thought we agreed that the majority of Muslims did not condone this. And 
it is the culture of that majority with which the West is clashing.


> Platt said: You suggest Ataturk and the generals were bad guys.
> Wikipedia tells a different story. Looks like the "generals" brought
> Turkey into the 20th century. Don't you think a republican
> constitutional democracy is better than a dictatorship?
>
> Scott:
> For much of the last 80 years Turkey was a dictatorship. I'm not sure I
> would say Ataturk and the generals were "bad guys", or no worse than
> other dictators. What I would say is that I prefer persuasion to force.

Platt said
The write up about Turkey in Wikipedia doesn't quite paint the picture
of dictatorial force that you do. Of course, Wikipedia could be wrong.

Scott:
It was only ten or so years ago that Erdogan, now the Turkish Prime 
Minister, was arrested for publishing a poem. You might also ask the Kurds 
about dictatorial force. But it is true that things have been changing for 
the better in recent years, not least that Erdogan now is the PM. But the 
last time an Islamist party showed signs of gaining power through the ballot 
box, it was banned.

> > Scott:
> > I will point out, though, that you didn't answer the
> > question. Military occupation is one thing, settling Israelis in
> > occupied territory is another.
>
> Platt said:
> IMO its a distinction without a difference.
>
> Scott:
> You see no difference between violating international law and not
> violating it? Or if you aren't a stickler for rules, do you see no
> difference between "we are going to control this area until you are not
> a threat to us" and "we are going to take choice pieces of your land
> from you"?

Platt said:
I would ask, "Since you violated international law by invading us do
you not see why we will occupy this land in self-defense? Do you not
understand that you brought this on yourselves by illegally initiating
physical force against us?"

Scott:
You're dodging. I'm not saying the military occupation is a violation. I'm 
saying building settlements in occupied territory is. The latter just makes 
the military occupation harder (the settlements have to be defended).

- Scott