Split from ISIS thread

You know after reading that, then reading it again and once more because I got confused I have decided that we are doing everything we can to avoid solving the problem by looking for overly complex reasons as to why people turn to terrorism.


I look at all the mindless socially maladjusted losers that pick up a gun and go nuts and I can't help but wonder whether today's world isn't the reason.


As a kid I grew up in a traditional family of the time, dad worked, mum stayed at home, we were packed up and sent to school, on the weekends we as a family went and did things.


Since then we trade seven days a week, jobs are now almost entirely rostered and the pay has failed to keep up resulting in both parents having to work at all hours and sometimes requiring multiple jobs, what time you do get is spent frantically trying to fill in the gaps, most kids probably couldn't pick their parents from a line up (and in many cases one has totally abandoned the process and fled the scene).


Should we be surprised that kids are now parented by the internet and end up loners who are completely incapable of social interaction (and this doesnt take into account the generally poor state of parenting) which more often than not is the description of those who end up in terrorist organisations and mass murderers.


I guess my point is that perhaps we should look at the world we have created/inherited to find the root causes and solutions.


Anyway sorry for the rambling but reflection is a big thing in New Zealand right now and I am probably doing a bit of it myself.
:)
 
Monty, are you trying to say that you don't agree with my opinion on the article?
 
Tuan said:
Monty, are you trying to say that you don't agree with my opinion on the article?
Click to expand...

I agree with it in the sense that it probably isn't wrong but I think it ignores the root of the problem as do most "academic" attempts to analyse the issue.
Talk of soft and hard power is great but it is ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff in order to reduce the migration to these groups I think we need to look much closer to home and resolve societal issues (which are different for each nation).

Essentially we should be spending our time and money on fencing off the cliff rather than building a hospital at the bottom to reduce ambulance costs.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
I agree with it in the sense that it probably isn't wrong but I think it ignores the root of the problem as do most "academic" attempts to analyse the issue.

Essentially we should be spending our time and money on fencing off the cliff rather than building a hospital at the bottom to reduce ambulance costs.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that the article doesn't address the root causes of CVE.

FYI, it is an abridged version of the below paper, in which I did mention the root causes...

https://www.academia.edu/31329846/R...vide_Countering_Terrorism_through_Smart_Power
 
MontyB said:
You know after reading that, then reading it again and once more because I got confused I have decided that we are doing everything we can to avoid solving the problem by looking for overly complex reasons as to why people turn to terrorism.

As a kid I grew up in a traditional family of the time, dad worked, mum stayed at home, we were packed up and sent to school, on the weekends we as a family went and did things.


Since then we trade seven days a week, jobs are now almost entirely rostered and the pay has failed to keep up resulting in both parents having to work at all hours and sometimes requiring multiple jobs, what time you do get is spent frantically trying to fill in the gaps, most kids probably couldn't pick their parents from a line up (and in many cases one has totally abandoned the process and fled the scene).


I guess my point is that perhaps we should look at the world we have created/inherited to find the root causes and solutions.


Anyway sorry for the rambling but reflection is a big thing in New Zealand right now and I am probably doing a bit of it myself.
:)
Click to expand...

All I can say to this is to quote Mahatma Gandhi — 'Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed.'

Again, let me emphasize once again the root causes, which are inequality, poverty, and social injustices.
 
Last edited:
Tuan said:
All I can say to this is to quote Mahatma Gandhi — 'Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed.'

Again, let me emphasize once again the root causes, which are inequality, poverty, and social injustices.
Click to expand...

Gandhi was correct in the context of his time on this planet, but we need three Earths to fulfill the needs of man now. Earth cannot sustain all 7 billion people having the same opportunities as what the people in the developed world has. I'm not so worried about it, though. The evolution of pathogens will sort it out for the humanity. A repeat of the Spanish Flu will help to solve the problem of resources.

You are correct when you are addressing the issues of the social issues, but I also think the leaders of "some countries" shall focus on the benefits of their people and not their own Swiss bank accounts
 
No, we should get the facts straight. The world's richest 1% own the world's 45% of wealth. Isn't that global inequality?

https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality/

By and large, it is the flawed capitalism to be blamed.

That is why Karl Marx reminded us that "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it."

- Marx, Theses On Feuerbach: Thesis 11 (1845)
 
Tuan said:
No, we should get the facts straight. The world's richest 1% own the world's 45% of wealth. Isn't that global inequality?

https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality/

By and large, it is the flawed capitalism to be blamed.

That is why Karl Marx reminded us that "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it."

- Marx, Theses On Feuerbach: Thesis 11 (1845)
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood what I said. I agree with when there are grievances, there will be reactions. However, I disagree with using Marx theories as a solution. He didn't understand the human nature and that's why everybody following his thoughts end up with misery. There will always be a ruling elite, you can't change that, but Marx thought he could, but it ended up with something really bad.
 
Last edited:
I3BrigPvSk said:
However, I disagree with using Marx theories as a soluton. He didn't understand the human nature's and that's why everybody following his thoughts end up with misery. There will always be a ruling elite, you can't change that, but Marx thought he could, but it ended up with something really bad.
Click to expand...

Can you give me an example of someone who followed Marx and then they ended up in misery? Or, are you just saying this because you don't like Marx's Communist Manifesto? The truth is Marx was communism’s most zealous intellectual advocate. His comprehensive writings on the subject laid the foundation for later political leaders, notably V. I. Lenin and Mao Tse-tung, to impose communism on more than twenty countries. Although, the idea of communism was undermined by capitalism, it isn't dead yet. Remember, change is the law of the universe!

P/s: I am not saying that communism is the answer to our problems that we are facing today, but capitalism is definitely not the solution, either.
 
Last edited:
Tuan said:
Can you give me an example of someone who followed Marx and then they ended up in misery? Or, are you just saying this because you don't like Marx's Communist Manifesto? The truth is Marx was communism’s most zealous intellectual advocate. His comprehensive writings on the subject laid the foundation for later political leaders, notably V. I. Lenin and Mao Tse-tung, to impose communism on more than twenty countries. Although, the idea of communism was undermined by capitalism, it isn't dead yet. Remember, change is the law of the universe!
Click to expand...

What about every country trying his theory. It hasn't been any communistic country in the world and it will never be any. Do you know why? For a country to reach communism, it needs to go through three steps. the avant guards leading the revolution, they implement the proletarian dictatorship, and then you get communism. Countries trying it get stuck in the second step. Why do they do that? Those in power will not give it away. Marx didn't understand the human nature and that is the major flaw with his theory. So every attempt of using his political and economical theories have failed.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
What about every country trying his theory. It hasn't been any communistic country in the world and it will never be any. Do you know why? For a country to reach communism, it needs to go through three steps. the avant guards leading the revolution, they implement the proletarian dictatorship, and then you get communism. Countries trying it get stuck in the second step. Why do they do that? Those in power will not give it away. Marx didn't understand the human nature and that is the major flaw with his theory. So every attempt of using his political and economical theories have failed.
Click to expand...

While I tend to agree with the point that you are trying to make, I also think that Marx believed that capitalism contained the seeds of its own destruction. He described how the wealth of the bourgeoisie depended on the work of the proletariat. Therefore, capitalism requires an underclass. But Marx predicted that the continued exploitation of this underclass would create great resentment. Time will tell....
 
Tuan said:
While I tend to agree with the point that you are trying to make, I also think that Marx believed that capitalism contained the seeds of its own destruction. He described how the wealth of the bourgeoisie depended on the work of the proletariat. Therefore, capitalism requires an underclass. But Marx predicted that the continued exploitation of this underclass would create great resentment. Time will tell....
Click to expand...

Yes, he is describing it as the means of production. But the wealth of the bourgeoisie provides the workers with an income. Btw, capitalism is an economic system without any morals attached to it, but that is not what we have. It is regulated by the law and when have that it is not capitalism, it is a liberal market economy.
 
lljadw said:
That is not correct : liberalism is an ideology; economy is neutral .
Click to expand...

Quite amusing, but you are both right and wrong. The two concepts can never be separated. I know this can be confusing when capitalism is an economic system, but not a political system. Let me elaborate further on what separate and what unites them. First of all, when an ism is an ideology. It's an idea of how to organize the society, so economy is a vital part of it. So you when are saying economy is neutral, that is extremely wrong. There is a huge difference between a liberal market economy and a socialistic economy. Do I need to explain the difference between the two....really? If you don't get the difference, you need to visit a library. That is a place with a lot of books, I presume you have those in Belgium
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
Quite amusing, but you are both right and wrong. The two concepts can never be separated. I know this can be confusing when capitalism is an economic system, but not a political system. Let me elaborate further on what separate and what unites them. First of all, when an ism is an ideology. It's an idea of how to organize the society, so economy is a vital part of it. So you when are saying economy is neutral, that is extremely wrong. There is a huge difference between a liberal market economy and a socialistic economy. Do I need to explain the difference between the two....really? If you don't get the difference, you need to visit a library. That is a place with a lot of books, I presume you have those in Belgium
Click to expand...

This is not correct : a capitalist economy can exist in a democracy (US) or a dictatorship (Franquist Spain ),while a communist economy can only exist in a dictatorship .
Thus a liberal market economy does not exist .Because liberalism is not democracy.Liberalism is a 19th century totalitarian ideology .A bastard brother of socialism .
Saying that there is a liberal market economy means that there is in some countries also a conservative market economy.:roll:
If there is liberal capitalism, there is also conservative capitalism.:roll:
If there is a liberal democracy there must exist somewhere a conservative democracy .:roll:
Liberalism implies the existence of conservatism .
 
lljadw said:
This is not correct : a capitalist economy can exist in a democracy (US) or a dictatorship (Franquist Spain ),while a communist economy can only exist in a dictatorship .
Thus a liberal market economy does not exist .Because liberalism is not democracy.Liberalism is a 19th century totalitarian ideology .A bastard brother of socialism .
Saying that there is a liberal market economy means that there is in some countries also a conservative market economy.:roll:
If there is liberal capitalism, there is also conservative capitalism.:roll:
If there is a liberal democracy there must exist somewhere a conservative democracy .:roll:
Liberalism implies the existence of conservatism .
Click to expand...

So economy isn't neutral, either it's neutral or it isn't. As I said earlier, capitalism isn't a political system. It's very obvious you don't know the difference between liberalism and socialism. Liberalism main focus is on the individual freedom, which doesn't exist in socialism. We have talked about this before. Btw, if you were educated you should know the other term for what you call a conservative economy. It's called the fiscal economy. You are entitled to your opinions, but science beats opinions every time. Do it again and do it correctly.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
You are entitled to your opinions, but science beats opinions every time. Do it again and do it correctly.
Click to expand...
Coming from a liberal, that is a good one .
Science never beats opinions .
Science is the idol of liberalism and socialism who both are totalitarian, amoral and materialistic ideologies. SCience has made possible Auschwitz .
They want to build a materialistic heaven on earth and have succeeded to build a hell on earth .
Hannah Arend has proved that both liberalism and socialism are responsible for evil on earth .
In every liberal there is a totalitarian screaming to get out : people as the mayor of New York who dictates what people can eat, people as Robert Kennedy Jr who wants to put in jail all those who do not believe in Global Warming, people as Richard Parncutt who demands that they must be killed . Or those in Britain who wanted, and succeeded ,the death of a sick baby : eugenics are invented and practiced by liberals, already before Hitler .
It is not surprising that the Liberals have enthusiastically embraced Muslim terrorism .
 
lljadw said:
Coming from a liberal, that is a good one .
Science never beats opinions .
Science is the idol of liberalism and socialism who both are totalitarian, amoral and materialistic ideologies. SCience has made possible Auschwitz .
They want to build a materialistic heaven on earth and have succeeded to build a hell on earth .
Hannah Arend has proved that both liberalism and socialism are responsible for evil on earth .
In every liberal there is a totalitarian screaming to get out : people as the mayor of New York who dictates what people can eat, people as Robert Kennedy Jr who wants to put in jail all those who do not believe in Global Warming, people as Richard Parncutt who demands that they must be killed . Or those in Britain who wanted, and succeeded ,the death of a sick baby : eugenics are invented and practiced by liberals, already before Hitler .
It is not surprising that the Liberals have enthusiastically embraced Muslim terrorism .
Click to expand...

So now I'm a liberal, which I'm not. I do agree with some parts of liberalism, or rather libertarianism. However, you still don't know the difference between liberals and socialists. The woman you are referring to studied totalitarianism, she even worked a lot on epistemology. That is something you should try to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top