[MD] Barbarian attack

[Platt Holden]

Scott:

Thanks for reposting the post I stupidly deleted. 

> 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.

Point well taken. The more one delves into the mysteries of the quantum 
field, the more the evidence mounts that something else is going on 
that might be attributed to a mind of God. I believe you and I agree on 
the universality of consciousness, i.e. the human brain is a vehicle 
rather than the creator of consciousness. I do not rule out the 
existence of a higher power. Otherwise, beauty is hard to explain.  

> > 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.

To my mind the West is not clashing with part of Muslim culture which 
is peaceful. There is no attempt by the West to strike against Muslim 
nations who mean us no harm. But those among the Muslims who cheered at 
the news of the 9/11 attack are a different story. What we in the West 
fail to see is many Muslims fighting the terrorists in their midst. 
That's disheartening to say the least. 
 
> 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.

You seem to have a better handle on Turkey politics than me. 

> 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).

Well, again I don't see much difference between a civilian occupation 
backed by the military and a military occupation alone. In both cases, 
the territory has to be defended if it is to remain occupied against an 
enemy bent on destroying the occupier.  

Platt