From my blog - On racial profiling, etc. "Conditioned Prejudices" Thoughts?

Now, some of you will probably disagree with what I will be writing, some of you will agree, some of you will think I’m mentally weak for it, some of you will think I’m an idiot for not believing it 100%.

My point here is that this will affect different mind sets in different ways, so bare in mind this is my view. My personal experiences. You are entitled to yours as much as I am to mine. That being said, let the blog begin.

I was standing outside, walking towards the train, & I passed by an area that appeared to be predominantly muslim. I saw a mosque where they were praying, some were standing around, & so on. & it begins.

As I continued my walk, I saw 2 women, covered in a black outfit, full body, head & partial face. As I passed by, I see them looking @ me, so I look @ them, there eyes are impassive, blank, I see no emotion or reaction. I give them my trademark “halfsmile”, but still no reaction, even though their face is covered, you can see in someone’s eyes if they are smiling back, or acknowledging you. I saw nothing. So it continues.

Now here is where my internal conflict enters. It “began” right after I entered the area. I get antsy, & cautious. Due to the conditioning we have been getting for years from the media, movies, news, etc, when I see something like that, it makes me nervous.
My body pauses, & everything feels like it slows down as I pass by. The women worry me, as I can’t see their faces & due to their cold aura, the men worry me because they also stare @ me as I pass by.. I feel like an unwelcome outsider, I feel like I may be in danger, & this is walking blocks from where I live.

Now understand this, I know not all muslims are radicals, I have muslim friends, I listen to arabic music, I appreciate the culture.

It angers me that we have been brainwashed in this way, we are not free to make our own unbiased judgements, years of feeding makes it almost instinctual to react that way.

For instance, today in flushing there was a terrorist raid, searching places in queens, where I live. “No details available”. Whatever dude.

We don’t know if any of this stuff happening is real. We don’t know if muslims are in fact radicals, or if in fact they became radicals due to our invasions, ie: iraq, etc. I mean where are the wmd’s georgie bush? Why did we go into iraq? Tell me why?

So now our boys pay for that. Maybe the got pissed & reacted? I don’t know? Do you? No you don’t, you don’t know sh*t, just like I don’t know sh*t.

What I do know is that seeing a woman dressed all in black, covered up, worries the crap out of me. & why is that? She never did anything to me. & I don’t know that any of the b.s they say on the news about her kind is true, but after so many years of seeing it, I react in a worried fashion.

Now if that isn’t being brainwashed, then I don’t know what is.

Please forgive me if I have offended anyone, I am just stating my views on the b.s of government & how it affects individuals, in this case me.

sounds like the government/media/whatever...hasn't really got the hold on you
you're worried about if you can get the feelings you do, understand them to be
disturbing, question from the outside looking in--in a detached way.

i can't say i have similar fears, but then i live in DC, far from ground zero...you
have possibly been differently affected. i'd say it's good you have muslim friends
and listen to arabic music, etc..by doing that you're not in danger of flooding drowning
yourself in ethnocentrism, you're taking steps down the road to cultural relativism.
it's a road, a spectrum, it's important.

i've taken to seeing fundamentalists as 'mentalists' in general, including christians,
jews, hindus, buddhists, peta-animal right activists. lets face it. any time no more outside
information is going in, one runs into danger of becoming a public neusance in a
modern and international world. that's a first step if you need one.
you may have your own way around the subject, either way, the narrower your lens,
the narrower--as a rule, your world is.

good luck with your wrestling match, we all have one, no one can really judge you mate.
it's good you open yourself up for dialogue. stay questioning or risk becoming simply the
antithesis of everything that sucks in the world--which is part and parcel of the problem.

in the buddhist view, a cop was a robber in his last life--first steps of reform being hating
in others what you have in your heart. take that idea and try and step off of the extremes
and take that metaphorical bridge out of the ebb and flow of side show ignorrance, until you
reach your own sort of nirvana of sorts, with space to breath and the absence of so many
yolks on your shoulders to battle with. what you own owns you after all. codes can trap
one and limit one. let your values serve you, not the other way around. if you ever feel trapped,
you probably are.

my humble opinion.

I applaud you writing this. I think alot more people feel the exact same way but never admit it. It is brainwashing to an extent and also could be our internal fears and prejudices. (Obviously I do not know you, and it's true, I dont know sh*t about the complications of US-Muslim relations) I'm not American. Here in my city it's not uncommon to see women wearing Burquas so I do understand where you are coming from.

All cultures are brainwashed.

They may be looking at you with the same uncertainty as you see them.

In countries/cultures where women wear burquas, it is frowned upon(to put it mildly) for women to communicate(let alone look at/smile) with men who are not married to them or related to them. The fact that they seemed cold had nothing to do with you.

I realize this is a more complex global issue and therefore out of my depth, so I'll stop here.

"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds"-Bob Marley

Ha!


Interesting synchronicity, my best mate came back from working Malaysia, he's the guy standing looking a bit bewilderd in the "cage to street" clips on youtube- family is from Bangladesh, last night I went round for tea and there was a big family gathering on and I got what I would call a bit of an

"ethnic flinch"

its a momentary thing and it works both ways, Im all jeans and tshirt, they are in traditional dress talking the language of their homeland, which is easier for them to do than english, my last gf was chinese so over the last couple of years I've gotten used to bein the "minority" and how to handle it

couple of bits of advice for what its worth:

Realise very explicitly that "ethnic flinch" is just a reaction to the unfamiliar, dont feel bad about it, the media brainwashing tags on or "plays to" our natural human xenophobia- of course we instinctually fear "other" tribes, it's going to be hardwired over millenia of conflict- it can be developed by the media or by a group or trainer into full blown hatred, but I dont believe thats natural, it takes time training and a willingness to hate. (notice how the most vociferous xenophobically motivated perpetrators of violence are usually ill educated, resentful people who ...erm... "arent enjoying the best life has to offer?" ok, Angry Little Men... there I said it )

whats natural is overcoming that initial distrust and slowly seeing the similarities rather then the differences and working from there- as everyone knows from interacting with and forming bonds with people from different ethnicities/cultures right?

wherever you come from kids are always cute and do funny things and we all like to eat... ok thats a great start, eat some food, say "yum yum", laugh at the kids "ha ha", youre half way there to "winning hearts and minds" and doing your bit for world peace

I bet that strategy would work damn near anywhere in the world at any point in history

two arms, two legs, one head... see that saying doesnt just apply to martial arts


Anyway its worth remembering that they are also getting an "ethnic flinch" over you
In my case its been with Chinese folk: "oh my god he's a white englishman! He is an alcholic, std ridden, casually violent man-whore who engages in debauched orgies"

damn their racial prejudices! at least one of those things isnt true... Im half irish



ANother thing you can do to overcome this "flinch" is you go first- meaning, you get into a friendly polite state, turn up the friendliness signals in yourself and other people WILL respond, its human nature (and a very useful way of affecting someones mood in any context) you did the right thing smiling mate its definitely the right strategy YOU made the effort first

but you should know the cultural codes specific to the ethnicity/culture you are interacting with:

heres a pointer for the situation you described

It can be considered inappropriate for muslim women to smile at unknown men, especially foreigners-

there are varying degrees to which people will take their orthodoxy (indicated by the fact they are wearing burkhas you can guess tho) but your safest bet is to smile but make minimal or preferrably NO eye contact with muslim women, address the men present first (and usually only)- if the women want to talk or interact they will but in my experience (I used to teach in orthodox muslim schools where I was not allowed to address the girls in the class nor were they allowed to ask questions) these are your safest guidelines for not causing offense/embarassment.
There are varying degrees to which Shariah law is adhered to and interpreted but as a generalisation Islamic culture is particular about how women behave and how women should be approached.


I dont think you've been brainwashed, Islamic culture is distinct in that it can dictate a lack of freindliness towards unkown/foreign men as a requirement, any friendliness on the womens part could be interpreted as innapropriate behaviour. So you've just come across a cultural idiosyncracy.

A bloody annoying idiosyncracy as it plays into the hands of "those with an agenda" in making Muslims the scapegoats they desperately need.

But I digress.

Notice I said these cultural idiosyncracies are dictated by Islamic culture, not Islamic religion. I'll leave that debate to the muslim clerics qualified for the task

Would it have been different if you had been walking with a few of your muslim mates and they knew these people? I bet it would have.

Not every culture expresses nervousness or fear in the same way, not every culture has the same rules about "staring at people".

However for all that, it does behoove them to learn western cultural ways too. I wouldnt go to another country without trying to learn what constituted rude or possibly offensive behaviour. Nor would I live in another country for 20 or 30 years and not bother to learn to speak the language. Thats just plain ignorant and lazy.

Everyone doing their bit, means everyone doing their bit. Equality is equality. No exceptions.

You did well, they did not.

If one wanted to be apologetic one could say "their cultural conditioing is letting them down".

The end result of the behaviour of the individuals you came across, and people who also behave like that, will be that they create more paranoia, mistrust and resentment towards muslims generally.

Are you sure they werent government shills? seeking to stir up ethnic tensions in NY?

sorry zen you posted while I was writing and I ended up repeating your points

She was on the radio today - love her books

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/karen_armstrong_makes_her_ted_prize_wish_the_charter_for_compassion.html

Richard Grannon wrote:

sorry zen you posted while I was writing and I ended up repeating your points

No problem Richard , You articulated much better than I ever could.



**Maija, I love Karen Armstrong. I'm currentley reading her book on Buddha. Her book "A History Of God' should be read by anyone interested in the three main Monotheistic religions.

You guys make some very valid points.

I didn't consider the taboo of the women smiling or befriending a man, a foreigner.

In light of that I am more understanding.

Natural taboo to smile at other men? Or outright bloody terror that they will be beaten, scarred for life, or possibly even killed if they dare do so? But of course that never happens. It's all media propaganda. All natural xenophobia. Pretty convenient how this line of belief allows people off the hook from making the hard moral calls, and the condemnations of such barbarous acts that should follow.
In the same way it's all (cue dramatic music), the invasion of Iraq that prompted any acrimony on the part of Muslims! After all, Iraq was a paradise, where people danced around with rose petals shooting out of their butts before the arrival of the evil white man, just ask the Kurds. What could such people possibly want with democracy? I mean honestly, the gall of giving all women in that country the vote for the first time ever! Absolutely disgusting I say.
Funny thing though, after the extermination of nearly a 1/3 of the Jewish race and the continual attacks upon Jews today, I am yet to encounter a Jewish suicide bomber, or widespread Jewish calls that we should all live according to their religious doctrine. They must be just saving it up. Did I mention that I have Jewish friends and listen to Jewish music?
As for the lovey dovey world of Multiculturalism. Curious how nowhere in recorded history has it ever resulted in a harmonious society. Monoculturalism, where it is expected that newcomers embrace the values of the land they choose to come to, has worked just fine. Of course this latter had to be abandoned though, I mean who are we to say that our values are better? It's all just different points of view. If that's your culture who am I to say that it is wrong? So what if this quite naturally results in the Balkanisation of society? What we need to do, is reassure one another just what wonderful people we are. We need to go out our way to say, not that we have friends, but what ethnicity our friends are. I mean judging people by the quality of their character and not the color of their skin? That is so yesterday! These days, the color of one's skin is synonymous with character. And if we show everyone else that we identify this, and in the process reduce all those around us to the the primary quality of their race, we can show just how enlightened we are. Just as important though, is that we accept that it is we who are the ones that are in the wrong. It is our society and our values which are to blame. It is with this whip that we must thrash ourselves, and in doing so, show our piety.

zero empathy on the view that invading Iraq was about liberation and the spread of democracy or anything that sugarcoats what it actually is: an imperialist invasion

interersting points tho

actually I'd never considered that amongst my multiethnic group of mates their is in fact a "monoculture" as you put it- style of dress, modes of conduct, sense of humour, values etc are all the same


yes I said "my multiethnic" group of mates- have I qualified myself as "enlightened" yet or am I merely giving an accurate report of the facts?

I kid, I got your point

Richard,

I think all too often people love to give the ethnicity of their friends, for the simple reason that they believe this conveys something positive about themselves. Others too (non white/straight), identify themselves primarily through this exact same prism. Whether it be ethnicity, sexuality etc. This, I find a contemptible compartmentalizing of the diversity and complexity of the human spirit. Why not simply, Dave, take me as you find me? As opposed to Muslim Dave, or Gay Dave etc. My apologies to any Dave's on the forum, I just picked the name at random!
As to the Iraq thing. I disagree with you, just as I do the initial poster. For the reason that both of you seem to take the cowards way out (Here I may be entirely wrong, and indeed hope that I am) of either making the war either a wholly good, or wholly bad thing. The reality is, with such an issue, any position you adopt makes you a bastard. Perhaps more of a bastard, perhaps less. Such is the way with many adult decisions. Don't think one country has the right to impose it's values upon another? (I'm curious, did you feel the same way about sanctions imposed on South Africa during the apartheid years?) Then your position supports a regime that brutalizes women and a Kurdish minority. That makes you a bastard. You do support intervention? Then you support sending your own country men off to die, and the deaths of a good number of men, women and children. And so again, you're a bastard. Those who are honest enough to admit this I have all the time in the world for. After all, I certainly do not know which is the right answer. Perhaps only history will show us. Will Iraq bring new hope to what is, outside of Israel, a fetid region? Or will it all be for naught?
What I resent though, is those who in effect take the position that it is moral to stand by and let one man brutalize an innocent other, so that the aggressor might be allowed to find the error of their own ways.
Simple values of dignity, safety, and a right to live ones life in freedom, without fear of persecution, should not be said to be precluded from some people because of the color of their skin, or the God they believe in (or not, as in the case of atheists, who, though they believe in something, will insist that its actually nothing.). Individuals who do not hold to this...

slow down a touch mate, this is just a forum and an SP forum at that

war, politics, religion are hot topics that get people riled but its Sunday and I think we can put forth our points of view without referring to anyone as a "coward" or a "bastard".

Quote :

Don't think one country has the right to impose it's values upon another? (I'm curious, did you feel the same way about sanctions imposed on South Africa during the apartheid years?) Then your position supports a regime that brutalizes women and a Kurdish minority. That makes you a bastard. You do support intervention? Then you support sending your own country men off to die, and the deaths of a good number of men, women and children. And so again, you're a bastard.

For a start you're talking as though we went into Iraq to "impose our values on another country"- Im confused, nobody is saying that is why we went in in the first place? Are they?

We went in as a preemptive strike against an alleged imminent threat presented by Saddams posession and desire to use WMD's, did we not?

I wont adress any other issues just yet, more important we get a bit o' clarity first.

Perhaps coward was too much, and there I should have chosen my words with greater care. My apologies. Bastard though. As I gave it to everyone, including very much myself...
Yes the war in Iraq was instigated upon the premise that WMD were held there. Was this intelligence incorrect? Depends upon who you ask. Some say yes, absolutely, with the 20/20 clarity blessed only to those with hindsight. Others point to a vast desert, incredibly porous borders with Iran, and to the fact that if one has the makings for a chocolate cake in their house, has made many a chocolate cake in the past, and has stated that they either have now, or will make a chocolate cake in the future, then it is not entirely unreasonable to expect to find a bloody chocolate cake!
But even taking the position that yes, the case for WMD was completely and utterly wrong. It is an assault upon logic to stop at that point and say that all that follows after is irrelevant. Which is what so many do. One people were freed from murderous persecution (and have a thriving democracy now, [Muslim democracy btw], which is why you don't hear about Kurdistan in the news), another, were actually given the vote in their own country, women for the very first time! All of these things, come with benefits and costs and a multitude of opinions. But to simply try and cancel all of that out with, "Where are the WMD?" Wow.
Now my apologies if all this comes across as too heated. I enjoy what I have found on this forum to date, and have befitted from it, something I have already given in other threads. Though from my perspective, it seems that if there is rising tension, it is because I disagree with the apparent politics of others in this thread only. My reasons for disagreeing, I have given very concisely. I did not not try to paint one party as irredeemably wrong, and the other wholly right. For the reason already stated, that I believe the issue is far too complex to call with any degree of accuracy. And so, I do not believe I have sought to target one group and excluded the other. After all, when you are calling everyone a bastard, including yourself, how much more fair can you get?

Have you even heard their taste in music? Personally I think that is why THEY (The Himalayan Enclave of Yetis) sicced the Eliminati on the goatfuckers. Yes, and there is also the issue about protecting the sheep from a potential change in sexual taste among the goatfuckers. Of course a fear shared in it's form by the goatfuckers, who have taken to hide their goats in burkhas so as to fool the sheepfuckers into thinking they are just boring old hominids.

Besides that, I really don't know much about the whole Middle-East war thing. Could just as well be something about Middle-Earth for all I know. With Gandalf and a bunch of hobbits running around dodging IED's and orcs in bedsheets and kitchen rags...

But ok... I will assume that nobody went to war here because someone thought the Iraqis needed elections and rights and shit. If so then they need to drop the hypocrisy and head to Africa for a major job. The WMD stuff was either a fuckup or a sneaky, fake pretext. But there has got to be a practical purpose driving it. A plan. Otherwise they are truly a bunch of fucking retards. Geopolitical dominance one way or another. Protecting and adding to resources, whacking enemies, some corruption of course, a few evil schemes hatched here and there, business as usual on the planet of the apes. The improved social conditions can probably be boiled down to "hearts and minds" stuff on whatever scale you prefer. For the Americans? For the Arabs? For everyone? Just an assist then and there and/or long term don't-want-no-enemies type of stuff. Fuck if I know, but probebly something in the area.

There is not as much cannibalism, pillaging and raping as you would expect however. I'm not sure what to make of that.

UncloudedFall wrote:

Others point to a vast desert, incredibly porous borders with Iran, and to the fact that if one has the makings for a chocolate cake in their house, has made many a chocolate cake in the past, and has stated that they either have now, or will make a chocolate cake in the future, then it is not entirely unreasonable to expect to find a bloody chocolate cake!

that is an interesting and debatable point but I was really trying to establish whether you were saying that your understanding of why we went to war WAS for the WMDs or not


... not whether it was a good reason or not

Quote :

But even taking the position that yes, the case for WMD was completely and utterly wrong. It is an assault upon logic to stop at that point and say that all that follows after is irrelevant. Which is what so many do. One people were freed from murderous persecution (and have a thriving democracy now, [Muslim democracy btw], which is why you don't hear about Kurdistan in the news), another, were actually given the vote in their own country, women for the very first time! All of these things, come with benefits and costs and a multitude of opinions. But to simply try and cancel all of that out with, "Where are the WMD?" Wow.

Now either your being a bit slippery here or my hangover is worse than I thought


do you believe we went to Iraq to spread "peace and humanity" or to stop WMD's from being used on us?

Your posts seem to be coming from the position that we went for the former reason rather than the latter.

Nobody would say that having established that "the case for WMDs was completely and utterly wrong" that what follows is "irrelevant" !

Going to war and invading a country on a false pretext is illegal.




If you truly believe we went to Iraq to inflict our special brand of "democracy" (lets pretend we live in one for a second) by force of arms then as RichardB pointed out:

Quote :

If so then they need to drop the hypocrisy and head to Africa for a major job.

If only the Sudan had oil they might have merited the special kind of "humanitarian intervention" we have delivered in Iraq.

...where the civilian body count is at the 100,000 mark.

"You're welcome Iraq"




Before we debate whether its right to intervene when a country is mistreating its people and thereby establish what brand of "bastard" we are we need to get our facts straight on this point first I think.

Back to question one: why are we in Iraq?





Rich B

Quote :

But there has got to be a practical purpose driving it. A plan. Otherwise they are truly a bunch of fucking retards.

I think there is a practical purpose, but remember these are the same guys who drew up plans to invade, but, whooopsy! FORGOT to draw up plans for withdrawl. Ever heard the US Army term SNAFU?

situation normal: all fcuked up

the greatest anti globalist new world order conspiracy "elimaniti" weird handshaky freemasons club argument is that it is just another "illusion of control"... The lunatics are loose or as you would prefer: the monkey's are out of the cage.

Barely ordered chaos. Its NOT in the nature of the domesticated primates to have a single cogent plan but rather a mash of conflicting and competing agendas that leads the clawing brawling scrum of hairless apes in a direction.

Which can be mistaken as looking like a sort of "plan" I suppose

Richard,

I have not been slippery as you term it at all. I have stated that it was accepted intelligence at the time that Iraq possessed WMD. I will go further and state that this intelligence was accepted by both the right and left of the political spectrum. And by foreign Governments, some of whom held quite a derisive view of the then President Bush.
I then stated that those who query the whereabouts of WMD fail, in my experience, to acknowledge both geography, and too, border conditions with neighboring countries. As well the past history of Iraq's then dictator (my chocolate cake analogy).
After this though, for the purposes of debate, I granted your premise. That the intelligence that stated Iraq held WMD was completely wrong. And then went on to state that to use the question "Where are the WMD?" as a means to avoid respective debate on all that had followed, that being, the freeing of Kurds from murderous persecution, the bringing of democracy to entire people, the giving the female portion of this population the vote for the first time in history, was an assault upon logic. Which indeed it is. An assault which is continued with "The war is illegal!" Perhaps I am being obtuse, but I fail to see how this statement, or the question that preceded it, in anyway addresses those points I have made. How does it debate their costs? How does it weigh one sacrifice against another, both bloody?
As for what I took to be quite a sneering reference to "our special brand of democracy". Well, it certainly seems to be a democracy of the kind that was embraced by both Iraqis and Kurds. Are they wrong to hold it in such value?
Now, as to your attempt to put down the invasion of Iraq down solely to oil, I ask two questions:
1) Where is the oil in Afghanistan, where Western casualties have been far higher?
2) Is a country, or for that matter an individual, precluded from acting in a moral manner, because they have failed to do so in the past? You mention the Sudan specifically? Is it your position that the failure of a Western country to act militarily in Sudan precludes them from acting for the moral good in future? If so, for how long are they disqualified? Forever? Or is there a set time period?
As for the old 100, 000 deaths in Iraq line. That one has been thoroughly debunked, and is used now only by those in the grip of knee jerk confirmation bias. However, your use of it does raise an interesting question. What, given all that has been accomplished Iraq and Kurdistan (accomplishments which, whether you value them or not, have clearly and overwhelmingly been embraced by the populace in those two nations), would you view as an acceptable number?
Finally, I have never said I supported the war. I have merely acknowledged the moral positives that have arisen from it. Too, I have acknowledged the bloody cost. Myself, I would not give my life to serve there, as I want to live to a ripe old age. That does not mean though, that I need abandon intellectual integrity and fail to recognize the amazing achievements that have occurred. After all, I have not adopted a child, or fostered one, something which is again down to selfishness on my part, yet I feel no need to denigrate those who do, or the sacrifice they make.

"abandoning intellectual integrity"?


Before we go any further down this rabbit hole

and just so we are clear : you are saying that we went into Iraq because of WMD

not for the reasons implied in your second post

Quote :

Don't think one country has the right to impose it's values upon another? (I'm curious, did you feel the same way about sanctions imposed on South Africa during the apartheid years?) Then your position supports a regime that brutalizes women and a Kurdish minority. That makes you a bastard. You do support intervention? Then you support sending your own country men off to die, and the deaths of a good number of men, women and children. And so again, you're a bastard.

Now Im confused, if you know that the "imposition of our values" was NOT the reason we invaded Iraq why did you post as though it was?

All it did was confuse the issue and your point.

Correct me if Im wrong but isnt the main point you are making on this thread about racial profiling that we should all try and look at the upside of the war in Iraq?

is it fair to say your stance can be summed up as :


"Yes it may have been a completely illegal invasion but at least women can vote there now"?


because the illegality of the invasion and the notion that we might be willing particpants in an imperialist agenda by virtue of the fact we do nothing to stop it kind of eclipses that for me, and I dont think thats an "abondment of intellectual integrity" on my part... in fact I think its the opposite, I would LOVE to think we were doing good and that good things came from the invasion, but do do THAT would be to "abandon my intellectual integrity"

if 100, 000 deaths has been debunked so "thoroughly" why is it still used in the mainstream media?

Who debunked it and how?

I hardly think Im in the grip of "knee jerk reaction confirmation bias" but its interesting to me that your now leaning towards insulting my ability to think critically!

Im sure you knew exactly what "confirmation bias" is before accusing me of it... which leaves me somewhat confused.

Because

Confirmation bias is a psychological term defined as "a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors."

So Please do tell me how I "searched" for the figure of Iraqi civilian dead amongst the plethora of options of figures of Iraqi civilian dead AND how Ive gone about interpreting and giving that figure a "negative spin"!


Now

I think you've got a potentially valid point: that some good has come from this clusterfuck


As far as the point making goes it was made at times in such a strident, inflammatory manner that actually started to get a bit personal, (insulting my intelligence mate? come on!) that kind of thing really does more harm than good to an argument...

and in my opinion, in this case pretty much obscured it too.

well being from NYC as your profile says mate i imagine most you guys think every one who follows islam or from the middle east are goin to hurt you.

its sad really. you know because this is a classic case of segragation. your not willing to even experience their culture and "freeze" when see two women look at you who are wearing a whole suit. so.......and? LOL dont we live in a multi cultural society? the only reason their are tensions in any society between its seeming parts, made up of different ethic or religious backgrounds, is due to the lack of understanding.

Richard,

Firstly, if I have been guilty of inflammatory language, I apologize. Although I do think you are cherry picking my words. When you include the beginning of the paragraph that you quote from :

Quote :

As to the Iraq thing. I disagree with you, just as I do the initial poster. For the reason that both of you seem to take the cowards way out (Here I may be entirely wrong, and indeed hope that I am) of either making the war either a wholly good, or wholly bad thing. The reality is, with such an issue, any position you adopt makes you a bastard. Perhaps more of a bastard, perhaps less. Such is the way with many adult decisions.

I believe it is quite clear that what I was talking about was a tendency on the part of those who condemn the war to reject outright that their position is one that results in misery and death too.

Now, I will answer your question as to the lancet study you quote re 100, 000 deaths. Firstly, a breakdown of the statistical methods conducted was performed, and the study was found to be woefully inept, and performed with heavy bias. To your question as to why is it continued to be quoted? Surely you ask that tongue in cheek? A rampantly left wing media distorting/misreporting facts that serve its agenda, who ever heard of such a thing? As to confirmation bias? It is merely accidental that you seize upon a nice big number that was also trumpeted by many other opponents of the Iraq war, who did so because such a number so nicely conformed to their preconceived notions of the cost in human terms of the conflict? Something, which lead to a willful massive misinterpretation of the data/statistics.

Now, as to your summing up of my position. Not quite. Words such as illegal and imperialist (Words which are themselves quite strident and confrontational) are yours, not mine. Indeed, I have addressed the use of them already. So perhaps, rather than looking at what I have written again and again, we can look at what you have written, and maybe answer some of the questions I have asked which so far have gone completely ignored. (Paraphrasing) :

1) If you view it as Imperialistic for one nation to impose its values upon another, were you against Western sanctions against South Africa during the apartheid years? Taking this question one step further, had armed conflict resulted with a Western power invading South Africa during those times, in order so that black people there could be freed from apartheid, would you condemn that as, to use your words, an Imperialistic invasion? Yes, or no? If no, how would such a situation be any different than the bringing of democracy to Iraq and Kurdistan?

2) Do you view it as morally correct the position that one country should stand by and let another brutalize innocents, with the belief that in time, the aggressors will see the error of their ways?

3) Do you believe that simple values of dignity, safety, and a right to live ones life in freedom, without fear of persecution, should not be said to be precluded from some people because of the color of their skin, or the God they believe in?

4) How does the question "Where are WMD?" or the statement "The war is illegal!" in anyway address the freedom from murderous persecution of the Kurds, and the bringing of democracy to a people, including within this, the giving of women the vote for the first time ever, that the Iraq war has resulted in? How does this question or statement in anyway address the many questions that revolve around sacrifice, monetary cost, chance of success, ramifications of success or failure etc?

5) Both Iraqis and Kurds have embraced the democracy they have been presented with. Were they wrong to do so?

6) If the war is solely about oil, why Afghanistan?

7) Is a country, or for that matter an individual, precluded from acting in a moral manner, because they have failed to do so in the past? Using your example of the Sudan, because a Western military power failed to act there, are they then precluded from acting for the moral good in the future? If so, for how long?

And finally, for the purposes of debate, if 100, 000 casualties did result in the bringing of democracy to Iraq and Kurdistan, is this number too great? If so, what in your opinion should the cut off number be, and when this number is reached, what should happen then?

Phew! Okay, no more. You are an articulate individual Richard, and so I truly do hope you answer my questions, my answers to each are pretty obvious. So on my part, I think I have gone as far as I can go. Who knows though, you may throw a curly one back at me! Whatever the case, thank you for the opportunity to exercise the old gray matter. It took me away from other work I would have been better off investing my time in, but, I have no-one to blame for that but myself.

Quote :

Now, I will answer your question as to the lancet study you quote re 100, 000 deaths. Firstly, a breakdown of the statistical methods conducted was performed, and the study was found to be woefully inept, and performed with heavy bias.

is there a link or reference to that study?

Quote :

As to confirmation bias? It is merely accidental that you seize upon a nice big number that was also trumpeted by many other opponents of the Iraq war,

giving the only number Im aware of that is reported in the media (in this instance I have no other way of getting this information) does NOT constitute "confirmation bias" you are misusing a Psychological term here (Im a psych grad - I get uppity about these things )

as I said earlier confirmation bias is selecting and deliberately misinterpreting data- one: I dont have options here and two: there is no need to put "negative spin" on a civilian death toll... for these two reasons this cannot be an example "confirmation bias"

at worst you could accuse me of being "misinformed" but then the onus of responsibility is on you to disprove the mainstream belief not for me to try and justify whether I believe what is widely reported in mainstream media or not.

So actually Ive not "seized" upon anything, this is the number reported in the mainstream media, not some fringe left wing agenda soaked underground bunker report.

If you have information that can go some way to proving that 100, 000 civilians have not been killed I'd be interested to hear it but I would need some references and maybe a link or two, would be great.

Quote :

willful massive misinterpretation of the data/statistics.

I mean really, this is just nonsense: what data? what statistics? Who has looked at the "data"? Have you?

How can I or indeed anyone "willfully misintrepret" on a massive scale what they havent seen?

The only data Ive got is that given to me, you want me to doubt that? No problem man, I will happily doubt what the media tell me all day long, but I need a solid reason.

As I say, if you have inforrmation or some references that would make me doubt the figure reported in the mainstream media I would love to see it... if it convinces me I'll cop to it and say "I was clearly misnformed, the mainstream media have this wrong, they are exagerating the figures to fulfill mainstream media's left wing agenda (?!)"

Quote :

we can look at what you have written, and maybe answer some of the questions I have asked which so far have gone completely ignored. (Paraphrasing) :

They were completely ignored for the following reasons:

1. I dont answer every question asked of me thoughtlessly, if I CHOOSE to dignify them with a response, I might... at my leisure

2. Its pointless me surging ahead to the next point when I'm still unsure about the last point you've made, if I answer a point I think you've made without understanding it then it just gets messy, forums are a limited mode of communication

3. You're questions are of the "so why did you kill your wife?" variety in that they simply PRESUME too much


also this thread isnt called "the nation of Richie's foreign policy"

I'll create a seperate thread for them


Back to the original post:

I dont think Arod did anything wrong, I do think any foreigner to a culture has a responsibility to learn and adapt to that culture and that rule includes the Americans and Brits who trundle round the world as foreigners.

Feeling xenophobic in the short term is a natural response, getting over it is just as natural.

Im sorry I cant feel bad, "cowardly" or "bastardly" about the war in Iraq, nor do I see it as wholly "good" or wholly "bad"... nothing on earth is.



Nor have my views been changed about the value of compassion and of being able to see beyond ethnicity to common humanity,

where we can find common ground we should

and if you want to sneeringly write that off as "love dovey multiculturalism" which is according to you unworkable, because as you say "monoculturalism" is the only thing that has ever worked in history ...

then be my guest



beyond a good bit of structured debate that exercises the brain it concerns me not a jot

Richard,

Certainly you are free to answer my questions as you see fit. Just as I am free to answer yours if I deem them worthy. Which, after the complete lack of time you have afforded mine, I can hardly be expected to do so. Surely you would not expect me to give you the consideration of my time when you have not afforded me the same courtesy?
Should you be interested on hunting up the info that debunks the lancet study, well, the internet is there. And should you not...

Questions answered on seperate thread.