[MD] Barbarian attack

[Scott Roberts]

Platt,

> 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:
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.

Scott:
Yes, we agree on that, though I usually prefer expressing it in non-theistic 
terms.

> > 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:
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.

Scott:
This is where your view is simply not that of the nonviolent majority of 
Muslim nations. For them, the clash has been going on for about three 
centuries, and it has been one-sided: they have been invaded and colonized 
by the West. Of course there had been conflict since the 7th cenury, but 
that was more or less a clash between similar civilizations (when, as we now 
see it, there's was the slightly superior one, being more tolerant and more 
intellectually open -- but economically they were similar). But starting in 
the 18th century, the West acquired considerably more power and inflicted 
that power (industrial civilization) on the East, rather than letting them 
industrialize on their own. Of course one can view this all as just the way 
a sort of social Darwinism takes place, but it is nevertheless the case that 
we initiated this clash.

> 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.

Scott:
Two points. The U.S. didn't see a need to settle Americans in Germany and 
Japan after WWII. Second, the Israeli settlers were doing so not to aid in 
the defense of the 1948 boundaries but to put "facts on the ground" to add 
Judea and Samaria (as they call it -- i.e., the West Bank) to Israel.

- Scott