Re: TERRORISM: the grim prospects

From: Alex F. Bokov (
Date: Sun Oct 21 2001 - 08:49:26 MDT


On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Samantha Atkins wrote:

> They are all male because the most fundamentalist sects and, in
> some countries, the soceity in general, only support males doing
> much of anything publicly and especially acts of war and
> revenge. This is very old and typical of humans and human
> battles as it is of many of our primate cousins. We ourselves
> only let males have combat roles for much of our history. So
> what? Most of the points of the article could be applied to any
> elite battle group or special forces almost anywhere in the
> world and throughout history. The article is useless as
> purported explanation.

So, basically, most human societies are sexist fundamentalist sects in
particular. Wow, that's a pretty radical, ethnocentric statement. But
I find myself agreeing with it-- you're not the easiest person to
disagree with. So, is this inequality between males and females you
mention in passing a problem? Should something be done about it,
perhaps? Might sexism go hand-in-hand with other, less obvious social

> It is also good to point out that most Americans are ignorant
> bystanders of the forces involved. It would be quite beneficial
> to understand much more deeply both "sides" of the conflict.
> Facile and biased interpretations will not help us.

Our gov has done some dastardly things and we are paying for them.
Okay, no argument there. After defeating the Taliban and punishing Bin
Bacon (if he's still around) we should reduce our commitments abroad
and let some sunshine in on the secretive corridors of state (as an
intermediate step to anarchotopia, of course). I agree.

> Reducing dependence on nuclear energy makes no sense at all.
> Without it we will not replace dependence on mid east oil. And
> nuclear plants are much more centralized and easier to defend.

Thank you for saying it like it is about anti-nuke hysteria.

> The stuff by "Skunk" Baxter is truly bizarre. I do not consider
> this creature a friend and I am amazed and mightily discouraged
> that he has the ear of anyone with any power at all.

He certainly does come across sounding as amoral... to *us*. But,
the reason he has the ears of those in power is that he starts out
from where he agrees with them and then branches out into his own
opinions as necessary conclusions of the agreed-upon premises. I
don't think he'd have anybody's ear if he started out saying:

"You are wrong and your enemy is right"

I wonder what we could learn from that...

> There is no "supreme authority" in Buddhism or even in but one
> variant of Catholicism. A fatwa is a relgiously inspired

How many variants of Catholicism are there? The one with the
Microsoftean market share is the supreme authority one as I recall...

> peaceful religion. This is the equivalent of claiming a
> pronoucement by a local judge determines the goodness of our
> foreign policy or of our culture or can set us to destroying all
> who are not American. It is an outrageous and meaningless claim
> in both cultures.

So the fatwa against Americans doesn't really have a solid theological
basis. Now there's a memetic countermeasure we could use on the
Jihadists. That is, when we can re-establish our credibility with the
normal people of the region.

Hmm. I find us in agreement more and more, Samantha. Are you coming
around, or am I?

- --
* I believe that the majority of the world's Muslims are good, *
* honorable people. If you are a Muslim and want to reassure me and *
* others that you are part of this good, honorable majority, all *
* you need to say are nine simple words: "I OPPOSE the Wahhabi cult *
* and its Jihad." *

Version: PGP 6.5.8


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:14 MDT