And there are situations that you can blame the victim. Not in the sense that (s)he is guilty, but that (s)he was very unwise. A tourist with his purse visible, walking through a South-African township, a sexy clothed woman visiting the Hell's Angels, and editors publishing tasteless provocative cartoons about Islam are, well, stupid. What else? Is provocation a strategy that helps to solve the problem of Muslim terrorism? Or is it just an outskirt of the freedom of speech we have to live with: the right to offend, insult, and provoke? Non, je ne suis pas charlie.That's just a terrible statement. All three of your examples are unacceptable situations that should eliminated. A tourist SHOULD be able to walk in any neighborhood without fear of being robbed, if they cannot then those in authority are not doing their job. A woman SHOULD be able to dress any way she wants and walk out in public without fear of being raped, if she cannot then those in authority are not doing their job. An artist SHOULD be able to publish whatever tasteless cartoon they like without fear of being killed, if they cannot then those in authority are not doing their job. The sooner that the Muslim world accepts the fact that this isn't a fringe of their religion, that martyrdom and tolerance/acceptance of it is far more mainstream than most apologists would like to admit, the sooner that happens then the sooner reform can happen. Too many people are worried about offending the majority of benign Muslims than they are about admitting that the problem is tied directly to Islam. You can be critical of Islam and NOT be prejudiced against Muslims, these are not mutually exclusive ideas.
How long will it take for the mother of the Paris terrorist brothers to come forrward claiming that her sons were as pure as the driven snow, that they were with her at the time of the shootings and that they were “set up”. [As the mother of the Tsarnaev brothers did after the Boston Marathon bombings,]
Lois
Also, IMO, Islam is the worst in terms of its being easily susceptible to powerfully destructive interpretations.Or are they the worst because they been shit on the worst and the longest ? Don't get me wrong, the people that did this are trash, but what makes them so much worse then Cheney/Bush and USA's sadistic embrace of torture? And destruction of countless neighborhoods and innocent lives??? Is Islamic violence acceptable, then, as long as we've done something similar? That's a strange way to assess actions--and to create a non-violent society. Tit for tat. Lois What's unacceptable is pretending we are innocents and they are demons - hell that's how we go into this mess. Remember the moronic flag waving and rah rah head long rush into an insane unjustified war that guaranteed a spiral into this sort of hell the middle east is living these days. {yeah, I appreciate it started before that and in many ways the mould was set already, but Cheney/Bush, and we, sure did add tons of fuel to that simmer.} Now it's just a wheel of mutual distrust, rage and revenge and everyone keeps pumping up the momentum. And so long as we believe we can ignore the immense unnecessary destruction we have inflicted upon them and the various middle eastern hell holes we're created nothing's getting accomplished no matter how much verbal diarrhea the pundits, politicians and we expend. An eye for an eye until the whole world is blind. But, it hardly matters anymore, we got other even more implacable problems barreling down on us.
And there are situations that you can blame the victim. Not in the sense that (s)he is guilty, but that (s)he was very unwise. A tourist with his purse visible, walking through a South-African township, a sexy clothed woman visiting the Hell's Angels, and editors publishing tasteless provocative cartoons about Islam are, well, stupid. What else? Is provocation a strategy that helps to solve the problem of Muslim terrorism? Or is it just an outskirt of the freedom of speech we have to live with: the right to offend, insult, and provoke? Non, je ne suis pas charlie.That's just a terrible statement. All three of your examples are unacceptable situations that should eliminated. A tourist SHOULD be able to walk in any neighborhood without fear of being robbed, if they cannot then those in authority are not doing their job. A woman SHOULD be able to dress any way she wants and walk out in public without fear of being raped, if she cannot then those in authority are not doing their job. An artist SHOULD be able to publish whatever tasteless cartoon they like without fear of being killed, if they cannot then those in authority are not doing their job.Yea and every husband should honor his wife and every child should go to bed with a full belly surrounding by a loving family.
And there are situations that you can blame the victim. Not in the sense that (s)he is guilty, but that (s)he was very unwise. A tourist with his purse visible, walking through a South-African township, a sexy clothed woman visiting the Hell's Angels, and editors publishing tasteless provocative cartoons about Islam are, well, stupid. What else? Is provocation a strategy that helps to solve the problem of Muslim terrorism? Or is it just an outskirt of the freedom of speech we have to live with: the right to offend, insult, and provoke? Non, je ne suis pas charlie.That's just a terrible statement. All three of your examples are unacceptable situations that should eliminated. A tourist SHOULD be able to walk in any neighborhood without fear of being robbed, if they cannot then those in authority are not doing their job. A woman SHOULD be able to dress any way she wants and walk out in public without fear of being raped, if she cannot then those in authority are not doing their job. An artist SHOULD be able to publish whatever tasteless cartoon they like without fear of being killed, if they cannot then those in authority are not doing their job. What should the authorities do, kill anybody who is potentially offensive or harmful to anybody else? Police everyone 24/7? GdB is right that some forethought has to be made in potentially dangerous situations, and victims can be blamed sometimes.
Two statements to begin with, to avoid misunderstanding:
- I absolutely detest of the killings of the Charlie Hebdo people.
- I am of course also for free speech.
The problem with free speech is that some people make misuse of it, by sowing hate. Therefore there are some limits, e.g. calls to kill Muslims/Jews/Blacks/homosexuals etc, so real hate speech. Charlie Hebdo however was not beyond this limit. Charlie Hebdo mocked just everything and everybody. The question I raised if this is wise, especially if you know that you indirectly sow hate with it. Who knows what will follow? Will the events lead to better understanding between the West and Muslims? I doubt it, but nothing is impossible. However, I expect an escalation. We will see.
Another consideration if publishing provocations is the best we can do with our freedom of speech. We should not forbid it, because we then possibly shift the limits of free speech in the direction of oppression. But is it not true that with freedom we also have responsibility? I do not think that the editors of Charlie Hebdo were really taking responsibility. Provocation just because it is fun simply is not the highest value in freedom of speech, they knew what kind of people they were provoking. They were under police protection (btw, the policeman killed was a Muslim]).
So in one sentence: freedom of speech, yes, but let’s all make a responsible use of it.
My contention is that Islam, itself, although, obviously it can be interpreted in ways that are consistent with the well being of humanity, it is, I believe, in today's world, uniquely suited to be interpreted in the most destructive ways.The strongest predictors of somebody becoming politically violent, are not his political or religious background, but his personal situation. Depending on his backgrounds he may be a leftist terrorist, a Nazi terrorist or a Muslim terrorist. Many of these radicalised young men did not even read the Koran. What most Muslims share: they have a history or daily history or present of oppression and of marginalisation, when they live in the west. These are the common factors that stimulate people to radicalisation, not Islam itself. It can just thankfully be used for it. Read the science about it.
GdB, you don't need a scientist to tell you that it is raining, if you can look out of your window.You could also take another example: you don't need a scientist to see that global warming is a hoax: look at the terrible winter in Chigago now. C'mon, TimB, I am really disappointed in this highly simplified view of you. 'We are all atheists, so religion is bad, and worst of all is Islam. Read the Koran!' No, no, no. It is bar table talk, Tim.
But in today's world, it must not be allowed for you to kill them for saying something offensive.Of course. Did you conclude from my posting that I find it OK to kill people? I mostly agree with what you write in this posting, but it is no criticism on my view point.
All three of your examples are unacceptable situations that should eliminated. A tourist SHOULD be able to walk in any neighborhood without fear of being robbed, if they cannot then those in authority are not doing their job. A woman SHOULD be able to dress any way she wants and walk out in public without fear of being raped, if she cannot then those in authority are not doing their job. An artist SHOULD be able to publish whatever tasteless cartoon they like without fear of being killed, if they cannot then those in authority are not doing their job.Of course I agree that it should all be possible. So we should do everything to work to this end. But I don't know if intentionally provoke Muslim terrorists is a good strategy to reach that aim. And I am also, as mid atlantic, wondering what you think the authorities should do. It also sounds like a police state to me. The problem lies in us all, westerners and Muslims alike: how to overcome hate, and the feeling that we must take revenge. We must find the most reasonable ways to solve these problems. Publishing provocative cartoons might not be very useful.
Also, IMO, Islam is the worst in terms of its being easily susceptible to powerfully destructive interpretations.Or are they the worst because they been shit on the worst and the longest ? For no logical reason, right! Don't get me wrong, the people that did this are trash, but what makes them so much worse then Cheney/Bush and USA's sadistic embrace of torture? And destruction of countless neighborhoods and innocent lives??? How many people in the world embrace Cheney/Bush ideals or even the US's use of torture? How many innocent lives have been destroyed by those factors as compared to Islam?
And there are situations that you can blame the victim. Not in the sense that (s)he is guilty, but that (s)he was very unwise. A tourist with his purse visible, walking through a South-African township, a sexy clothed woman visiting the Hell's Angels, and editors publishing tasteless provocative cartoons about Islam are, well, stupid. What else? Is provocation a strategy that helps to solve the problem of Muslim terrorism? Or is it just an outskirt of the freedom of speech we have to live with: the right to offend, insult, and provoke? Non, je ne suis pas charlie.That's just a terrible statement. All three of your examples are unacceptable situations that should eliminated. A tourist SHOULD be able to walk in any neighborhood without fear of being robbed, if they cannot then those in authority are not doing their job. A woman SHOULD be able to dress any way she wants and walk out in public without fear of being raped, if she cannot then those in authority are not doing their job. An artist SHOULD be able to publish whatever tasteless cartoon they like without fear of being killed, if they cannot then those in authority are not doing their job.Yea and every husband should honor his wife and every child should go to bed with a full belly surrounding by a loving family. The point he was making is that you don't blame the wife or the child if those things dont happen.
Two statements to begin with, to avoid misunderstanding: - I absolutely detest of the killings of the Charlie Hebdo people. - I am of course also for free speech. The problem with free speech is that some people make misuse of it, by sowing hate. Therefore there are some limits, e.g. calls to kill Muslims/Jews/Blacks/homosexuals etc, so real hate speech. Charlie Hebdo however was not beyond this limit. Charlie Hebdo mocked just everything and everybody. The question I raised if this is wise, especially if you know that you indirectly sow hate with it. Who knows what will follow? Will the events lead to better understanding between the West and Muslims? I doubt it, but nothing is impossible. However, I expect an escalation. We will see. Another consideration if publishing provocations is the best we can do with our freedom of speech. We should not forbid it, because we then possibly shift the limits of free speech in the direction of oppression. But is it not true that with freedom we also have responsibility? I do not think that the editors of Charlie Hebdo were really taking responsibility. Provocation just because it is fun simply is not the highest value in freedom of speech, they knew what kind of people they were provoking. They were under police protection (btw, the policeman killed was a Muslim]). So in one sentence: freedom of speech, yes, but let's all make a responsible use of it. .The problem with this argument is where you draw the line. Had our forefather put prudence ahead of ideals we wouldn't have a ill of rights. Unless some of us are brave enough to stand up to intimidation then none of us are truly free to express our opinions.
The problem with this argument is where you draw the line. Had our forefather put prudence ahead of ideals we wouldn't have a ill of rights. Unless some of us are brave enough to stand up to intimidation then none of us are truly free to express our opinions.I think I was pretty clear where to draw the line: freedom of speech may not be used to call for killing and molesting other people. That's it. It might not always be simple where the line is in concrete cases, but that does not speak against having the line there. For the rest I can just repeat myself: let's take the responsibility that comes with the freedom we have. That is something we have to do ourselves, not the lawgiver, and must be part of a continuing discourse in our free press. As is exactly done now.
The point he was making is that you don't blame the wife or the child if those things dont happen.And the point I'm trying to make: we're all so big on the judgmentalism, but not so interested in understanding the dynamics. So it's no wonder the situation keeps plodding down the slippery slidey slope.
Two statements to begin with, to avoid misunderstanding: - I absolutely detest of the killings of the Charlie Hebdo people. - I am of course also for free speech. The problem with free speech is that some people make misuse of it, by sowing hate. Therefore there are some limits, e.g. calls to kill Muslims/Jews/Blacks/homosexuals etc, so real hate speech. Charlie Hebdo however was not beyond this limit. Charlie Hebdo mocked just everything and everybody. The question I raised if this is wise, especially if you know that you indirectly sow hate with it. Who knows what will follow? Will the events lead to better understanding between the West and Muslims? I doubt it, but nothing is impossible. However, I expect an escalation. We will see. Another consideration if publishing provocations is the best we can do with our freedom of speech. We should not forbid it, because we then possibly shift the limits of free speech in the direction of oppression. But is it not true that with freedom we also have responsibility? I do not think that the editors of Charlie Hebdo were really taking responsibility. Provocation just because it is fun simply is not the highest value in freedom of speech, they knew what kind of people they were provoking. They were under police protection (btw, the policeman killed was a Muslim]). So in one sentence: freedom of speech, yes, but let's all make a responsible use of it. .The problem with this argument is where you draw the line. Had our forefather put prudence ahead of ideals we wouldn't have a ill of rights. Unless some of us are brave enough to stand up to intimidation then none of us are truly free to express our opinions. I think you totally skirted around the point GdB was trying to make. There's a difference between standing up to intimidation and provocation.
Just came at this passage in Scott Atran’s ‘Talking with the enemy’:
Islam and religious ideology per se aren’t the principal causes of suicide bombing and terror in today’s world—at least no more than are soccer, friendship, or faith for a better future. What is the cause of the current global wave of terrorism, then? Nothing so abstract or broad as any of these things, but bits of all of them, embedded and acting together in the peculiar sorts of small-and large-scale social networks that are emerging in this time in history.Mind: this is a result of his field research. His comment on the 'new atheists':
I certainly don’t criticize the Four Horsemen and other scientifically minded new atheists for wanting to rid the world of dogmatically held beliefs that are vapid, barbarous, anachronistic, and wrong. I object to their manner of combat, which is often shrill, scientifically baseless, psychologically uninformed, politically naive, and counterproductive for goals we share.Bold by me. And:
The scientific ignorance and tomfoolery of many of the new atheists with regard to religion, and history, makes me almost embarrassed to be an atheist². Footnote 29: This doesn’t apply to Dan Dennett, who treats the science of religion in a serious way.
Two statements to begin with, to avoid misunderstanding: - I absolutely detest of the killings of the Charlie Hebdo people. - I am of course also for free speech. The problem with free speech is that some people make misuse of it, by sowing hate. Therefore there are some limits, e.g. calls to kill Muslims/Jews/Blacks/homosexuals etc, so real hate speech. Charlie Hebdo however was not beyond this limit. Charlie Hebdo mocked just everything and everybody. The question I raised if this is wise, especially if you know that you indirectly sow hate with it. Who knows what will follow? Will the events lead to better understanding between the West and Muslims? I doubt it, but nothing is impossible. However, I expect an escalation. We will see. Another consideration if publishing provocations is the best we can do with our freedom of speech. We should not forbid it, because we then possibly shift the limits of free speech in the direction of oppression. But is it not true that with freedom we also have responsibility? I do not think that the editors of Charlie Hebdo were really taking responsibility. Provocation just because it is fun simply is not the highest value in freedom of speech, they knew what kind of people they were provoking. They were under police protection (btw, the policeman killed was a Muslim]). So in one sentence: freedom of speech, yes, but let's all make a responsible use of it. .The problem with this argument is where you draw the line. Had our forefather put prudence ahead of ideals we wouldn't have a ill of rights. Unless some of us are brave enough to stand up to intimidation then none of us are truly free to express our opinions. I think you totally skirted around the point GdB was trying to make. There's a difference between standing up to intimidation and provocation. I don't think so. Is it provocation if you express an opinion after someone threatened you not to do it or is that simply standing up for your right to speak your mind? If a bully threatens to punch someone in the mouth if they don't bow to him in public and then that person refuses to do so would we blame the victim for getting punched in the mouth or stand beside him in numbers to protect our rights. Free speech means nothing if we only protect that which is acceptable and unoffensive. That sort of speech needs no protection.
Two statements to begin with, to avoid misunderstanding: - I absolutely detest of the killings of the Charlie Hebdo people. - I am of course also for free speech. The problem with free speech is that some people make misuse of it, by sowing hate. Therefore there are some limits, e.g. calls to kill Muslims/Jews/Blacks/homosexuals etc, so real hate speech. Charlie Hebdo however was not beyond this limit. Charlie Hebdo mocked just everything and everybody. The question I raised if this is wise, especially if you know that you indirectly sow hate with it. Who knows what will follow? Will the events lead to better understanding between the West and Muslims? I doubt it, but nothing is impossible. However, I expect an escalation. We will see. Another consideration if publishing provocations is the best we can do with our freedom of speech. We should not forbid it, because we then possibly shift the limits of free speech in the direction of oppression. But is it not true that with freedom we also have responsibility? I do not think that the editors of Charlie Hebdo were really taking responsibility. Provocation just because it is fun simply is not the highest value in freedom of speech, they knew what kind of people they were provoking. They were under police protection (btw, the policeman killed was a Muslim]). So in one sentence: freedom of speech, yes, but let's all make a responsible use of it.We don't live in a perfect world. There are places where it would be unwise to walk around at night, but we typically don't accept that as a society. Look at the violent crime rates in most major US cities over the past 25 years or so and you'll see a dramatic reduction nearly across the board. Did that just happen on its own? Of course not, there were changes in various policies, education and outreach programs, etc. My point is that those in authority recognized that there's a problem and took actions. Is it perfect yet? Will it ever be perfect? That's besides the point, continuous improvement is the key. How can the Muslim community ever expect improvement if they won't even acknowledge some ownership of the problem? Martyrdom is a huge problem that is not being dealt with. Think about the families of those who committed some of the terrible crimes recently in the US: Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma City, etc. Are these families PROUD of what their relative(s) did? No way! That isn't the case with a Muslim martyr. Families of martyrs are held in high regard and often will receive money, food, and assistance from their community. Plus, they believe that the path to Paradise is now guaranteed for them because of what the martyr did. That is the attitude that the Muslim community needs to drive out. Their authorities are not doing their job by allowing this part of their culture to still thrive.My contention is that Islam, itself, although, obviously it can be interpreted in ways that are consistent with the well being of humanity, it is, I believe, in today's world, uniquely suited to be interpreted in the most destructive ways.The strongest predictors of somebody becoming politically violent, are not his political or religious background, but his personal situation. Depending on his backgrounds he may be a leftist terrorist, a Nazi terrorist or a Muslim terrorist. Many of these radicalised young men did not even read the Koran. What most Muslims share: they have a history or daily history or present of oppression and of marginalisation, when they live in the west. These are the common factors that stimulate people to radicalisation, not Islam itself. It can just thankfully be used for it. Read the science about it.GdB, you don't need a scientist to tell you that it is raining, if you can look out of your window.You could also take another example: you don't need a scientist to see that global warming is a hoax: look at the terrible winter in Chigago now. C'mon, TimB, I am really disappointed in this highly simplified view of you. 'We are all atheists, so religion is bad, and worst of all is Islam. Read the Koran!' No, no, no. It is bar table talk, Tim.But in today's world, it must not be allowed for you to kill them for saying something offensive.Of course. Did you conclude from my posting that I find it OK to kill people? I mostly agree with what you write in this posting, but it is no criticism on my view point.All three of your examples are unacceptable situations that should eliminated. A tourist SHOULD be able to walk in any neighborhood without fear of being robbed, if they cannot then those in authority are not doing their job. A woman SHOULD be able to dress any way she wants and walk out in public without fear of being raped, if she cannot then those in authority are not doing their job. An artist SHOULD be able to publish whatever tasteless cartoon they like without fear of being killed, if they cannot then those in authority are not doing their job.Of course I agree that it should all be possible. So we should do everything to work to this end. But I don't know if intentionally provoke Muslim terrorists is a good strategy to reach that aim. And I am also, as mid atlantic, wondering what you think the authorities should do. It also sounds like a police state to me. The problem lies in us all, westerners and Muslims alike: how to overcome hate, and the feeling that we must take revenge. We must find the most reasonable ways to solve these problems. Publishing provocative cartoons might not be very useful.
IMO, there are no correct interpretations of any religions, as they are all based on superstitious bullshit. However, there are more destructive and less destructive interpretations. Also, IMO, Islam is the worst in terms of its being easily susceptible to powerfully destructive interpretations. And for the Islam apologists, I am compelled to add, that, by far, most Muslims do not actively accede to these most destructive interpretations. (Too bad that Muslims, just by identifying themselves as such, still have to recognize that their basic ideology can inspire cold blooded murder of those who say something that they find offensive. Shout Allahu Akbar! dumbasses.)Yea, yea, yea, yea - I was reflecting on "honor killings" of sisters and daughters and the unimaginable presumptions such ignorant muslims assume. I appreciation we will only find that sort of obsessive attitude among a tiny minority of christians and jews . . . (but it's there) so OK, I concede 1 point to you. Then I stop to take in the events of the past decades (or past century) and there was a time when such ignorant muslim assumptions were also in the extreme minority and why has that changed?????????
Saudi Wahhabi Islam in the Service of Uncle Sam By Askar H. Enazy | Researcher - Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research | OCT 01, 2009 http://www.mei.edu/content/saudi-wahhabi-islam-service-uncle-sam ~ ~ ~ The Rise of bin Laden Ahmed Rashid Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 by Steve Coll MAY 27, 2004 ISSUE http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2004/may/27/the-rise-of-bin-laden/ ~ ~ ~ Sleeping With the Devil: How U.S. and Saudi Backing of Al Qaeda Led to 9/11 Posted on September 5, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/sleeping-with-the-devil-how-u-s-and-saudi-backing-of-al-qaeda-led-to-911.html ~ ~ ~ Saudi Wahhabism: Threat to World Peace? Robert S. Tanenbaum Sun 26 Sep 2004 http://www.islamdaily.org/en/wahabism/1846.saudi-wahhabism-threat-to-world-peace.htm ~ ~ ~ Iraq 101: The Iraq Effect - The War in Iraq and Its Impact on the War on Terrorism - Pg. 1 Thu Mar. 1, 2007 http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/03/iraq-101-iraq-effect-war-iraq-and-its-impact-war-terrorism-pg-1Guess what I'm thinking is that WE CREATED THIS MONSTER - Condemn them with all the self-righteous sanctimonious rage you like, this is still our baby! [I should to be clearer - the "sanctimonious self-righteousness" I'm complaining about is streaming from the media and politicians - - not pointed at Tim or anyone commenting at this thread! ]
...What's unacceptable is pretending we are innocents and they are demons - hell that's how we go into this mess. Remember the moronic flag waving and rah rah head long rush into an insane unjustified war that guaranteed a spiral into this sort of hell the middle east is living these days. {yeah, I appreciate it started before that and in many ways the mould was set already, but Cheney/Bush, and we, sure did add tons of fuel to that simmer.} Now it's just a wheel of mutual distrust, rage and revenge and everyone keeps pumping up the momentum. And so long as we believe we can ignore the immense unnecessary destruction we have inflicted upon them and the various middle eastern hell holes we're created nothing's getting accomplished no matter how much verbal diarrhea the pundits, politicians and we expend. An eye for an eye until the whole world is blind. But, it hardly matters anymore, we got other even more implacable problems barreling down on us.This is a valid point, I think. And I do not advocate an eye for an eye. But I do advocate recognizing obvious realities, e.g., Islamic doctrine is currently, a salient factor, in inspiring some individuals, and in some cases, large groups of people, to engage in deadly violent and anti-humanistic behaviors.
... Publishing provocative cartoons might not be very useful.Actually satirical cartoonists serve a valuable function in society. Considering giving them up because some people are motivated to murder them, is not, IMO, a wise move.
Just came at this passage in Scott Atran's 'Talking with the enemy':So, as a result of the field research (as I understand it, on a select population of Muslims) you believe his generalized conclusion as he states it above. He could possibly, validly and reliably, claim that among Muslims, the salient factors are in the particular individuals' social networks. A problem that many folks have, and I have repeated this often, on the CFI discussion forums, is over-generalizing the conclusions of particular scientific studies.Islam and religious ideology per se aren’t the principal causes of suicide bombing and terror in today’s world—at least no more than are soccer, friendship, or faith for a better future. What is the cause of the current global wave of terrorism, then? Nothing so abstract or broad as any of these things, but bits of all of them, embedded and acting together in the peculiar sorts of small-and large-scale social networks that are emerging in this time in history.Mind: this is a result of his field research...
This is a valid point, I think. And I do not advocate an eye for an eye. But I do advocate recognizing obvious realities, e.g., Islamic doctrine is currently, a salient factor, in inspiring some individuals, and in some cases, large groups of people, to engage in deadly violent and anti-humanistic behaviors.And what about our American doctrines? So long as we remain blind to our own violence and anti-humanistic behaviors toward third world peoples - and how our policies created this hopeless situation were blind rage and violence is nurtured and seen as the only outlet left to these royally screwed over peoples this cycle will just keep intensifying. That's the only point I'm trying to make.