Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 1:26 pm
by HM-PuFFNSTuFF
Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 6:33 pm
by tnf
Massive Quasars wrote:I think I may have been talking past some of you in my last post, not answering the question asked and all. Can't be bothered to contribute significant effort to this thread though, just suggesting you look at that post in light of this potential realization.
Is the potential realization you want us to look at the post with something along the lines of 'it's the western world's fault for screwing over Muslims in the first place, their actions created the angst there was towards Christians in the first place and that blame should be shared here instead of pointing the finger directly at the clerics and population who really think this guy should die for switching religions?' I don't think that 'potential realization' you refer to has been really fleshed out here.
Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 9:34 pm
by Massive Quasars
tnf, that's not at all what I was getting at, the potential realization was that I was talking past some of you folks and this seems like further evidence of that.
Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:56 pm
by tnf
So then please explain.
You just dropped in, said that its a deplorable thing, but then attempted to make it sound a bit less so by saying that you wouldn't ignore that wider context, and then you tell us we shouldn't ignore said context either. If you don't want people to ignore this, why the hell not clue us in on what your line of thinking is?
I really didn't think that the point I made was the one you were getting at. I also wouldn't really classify my statement evidence that you've talked past us being taht the statement offered absolutely zero insight into the point you are referring to.
Why not drop into every thread about a hot-button issue and say "let's not let us forget the most important issue behind all of this...something that I can't be bothered to tell you...but something that you really need to consider when looking at this so you don't unfairly criticize the people involved."
Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 11:26 pm
by Massive Quasars
My mistake was contributing to a thread without expecting, and not intending to get into an exchange with anyone.
Here's a portion of the post I withdrew from the reply to you earlier:
"The purpose of a comprehensive historical study of the situation is not to assign blame, but to seek foreign policy solutions. Granted it's not quite that simple though given both that foreign policy analysis and historical accounts of contributing causal events are fraught with indeterminacy and significant bias. The best that we can do is muddle through and favor foreign policy action or calculated inaction that first and foremost does no harm and secondly improves the situation on the ground in the long term."
Had national security not been affected by the stability of this region, I would err on the side of non-interference. It seems too late for that now.
... and yes when I say "we" I mean industrialized nations perhaps led by the US, perhaps not.
Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 11:41 pm
by Massive Quasars
Here's the opposite of what I envisioned:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 246D97.DTL
Asked about his grasp of Middle Eastern culture and history, Bald responded: "I wish that I had it. It would be nice."
"You need leadership. You don't need subject matter expertise," Bald testified in an ongoing FBI employment case. "It is certainly not what I look for in selecting an official for a position in a counterterrorism position."
...
Those who have held the bureau's top terrorism-fighting jobs since Sept. 11 often said in their testimony that they — and many they have promoted since — had no significant terrorism or Middle East experience. Some could not even explain the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, the two primary groups of Muslims.
...
"What skill sets would they need to better identify, penetrate and/or prevent a future Osama bin Laden-style terrorist attack?" Kohn asked.
Watson answered: "They would need to understand the attorney general guidelines for counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigation."
"Anything else?" the lawyer inquired.
"No," Watson answered.
...
When asked whether he, as the FBI's former counterterrorism chief, could describe the differences between Shiite and Sunni Muslims, Watson answered, "Not technically, no."
He also said that his assertion a few years ago that bin Laden had been killed — a declaration that conflicted with CIA assessments and fresh video evidence — was not based on fact. "It's my gut instinct," he answered.
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 1:11 am
by [xeno]Julios
now i'm confused...
i thought this thread was a discussion of the apostasy case
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 1:21 am
by tnf
[xeno]Julios wrote:now i'm confused...
i thought this thread was a discussion of the apostasy case
me too.
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 1:45 am
by Massive Quasars
tnf wrote:Where's the voice of opposition in the Muslim community for this? Or, is this story just biased western reporting?
What with the title and the quote above, I took this thread as pointing to a potential underlying problem, beyond the case of one apostate. That problem being strict literal militant adherence to one interpretation of muslim doctrine.
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 4:04 am
by tnf
Yes, and I would agree with your perspective completely based on that interpretation of the thread. I was looking at this particular case only. Your argument makes a lot more sense applied to the interpretation you just mentioned.