[MD] Barbarian attack

[Platt Holden]

Scott,

> > 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.

So if I understand what you are saying the majority of Muslims today 
do not want freedom or the standard of living of the West, that they 
would prefer to live as their ancestors did in the 18th century, and 
that the West attempts to bring industrial civilization to that part of 
the world is a major bone of contention. If so, I disagree. The many 
Muslims who have integrated with the West in the U.S., Europe and 
throughout the world belie that view of history, and that excuse for 
radical Islam's behavior. That many Muslims may be envious of the 
West's success I will not argue. But envy is hardly a just cause for 
initiating violence.    

> > 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.

Neither Germany nor Japan were on U.S. borders.

> 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.

Yes, adding a buffer of defense. I believe many in Israel consider the 
West Bank a launching pad for Palestinian terrorism.  

Platt


> 
> - Scott 
> 
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/