The Stereotyping of Terrorism

[Akainu]

not going to watch the videos, sry. just don't have the time ^^;

just in response to that paragraph:

just as all Germans are responsible/accountable for what their ancestors did to the Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals at the end of WWII. It is YOUR GERMAN BURDEN/SHAME.

just as all Japanese are responsble accountable for what their ancestors did to the chinese and other asians in the Rape of Nanking event as well as the rest of their actions in WWII. (the japanese aren't that innocent... don't just criticize the U.S.' dropping of the nukes... research what the Japanese had done to others too please)

etc etc etc...

no, see. I am not responsible for how my ancestors reacted and neither should I be accountable for it. why? simply because I have/had no means of influencing anything that happend. if it happens now and I let a chance to end the crimes slip, then maybe yes.
but I don't see myself as responsible or anything for what they did.
it is a minority of people commiting these crimes, so why should a whole nation that expressly does not in it's entirety have hitler for example as an ancestor be responsible for his doings?

in the same sense if you further spin that wheel the french, britons, americans are just as responsible for the genocide because they were trying to appease hitler to no end or turned a blind eye on it. especially america first taking in the jewish and after the war the nazi intelligencia has a sad history, but you are not responsible now for what some individuals decided way back. therefor it is possible like it happend in the US that the nazi war criminals were kicked out - in 1990 or so, but better late than never.

no, my only responsibility is not forgetting what happend as blai wrote and trying everything I can to prevent that it happens again.

as for the case now, to get back on topic, no, not the whole of norway can be labeld criminal now, neither terrorist or violent or deranged.
I somewhat get what you mean since it's some sort of bad fame that a nation can earn, like all americans are dumb fatsos in cowboyboots and hats carrying guns. that's a stereotype though and there is nothing good thinking in such categories without narrowing such a statement.
"some americans are overweight" is the right way to label it, pointing at individuals, not at the whole group.
only some muslims, few actually, are terrorists. they may ruin everyone elses fame, yes. but again we're not doing ourselves a favour there :|

[Roflkopt3r]

A generation beeing responsable for what their ancestors did? oh my god... I did not expect to hear that from such a freedom loving liberal like Hegemon.
No, I'm not ashamed in front of a jew. There is no plausible reason for beeing so. There is no burden of legacy for children.

[kkck]

Come on, if we were accountable for what our ancestors did we would never even begin to repay that debt to society, its absurd. I have ancestry from every major european nation (Spain, italy, france, germany, england) and a little from USA, if there was such a thing as reincarnation I would get the death penalty 1000 times over consecutively lol.

[HegemonKhan]

Legally and Politically the U.S. has confessed their responsibility for what their (white) ancestors had done to at least Blacks and Japanese, with reparations by Congress and Affirmative Action, recognizing that those years of slavery with the Blacks (I'm not sure if Affirmative Action applies to Japanese or not, actually I don't know much about Affirmative Action, other than minorities being allowed into schools or jobs), set them much farther back economically then white American families who never were enslaved.

So, the U.S. did/does feel responsible/accountable for what our (white) ancestors had done. If this wasn't the case, believing we have no responsibility, then there would ahve been no reparations nor affirmative action by congress.

[blai]

There is one thing with acknowledging something that has happened and the apologize was merely a good gesture from the government since no apologize has been made before. It's not that they feel personally responsible because regardless of what they say, they do not, and neither should they.

I also can't help but notice how you're avoiding to reply to the various arguments presented to you but instead continue to present new facts and twisting them to fit to your own viewpoint. =/

[HegemonKhan]

Myth/Fallacy of Personal Responsibility:

Who determines what's appropriate or inappropriate behavior?

Yourself?

As living organisms, we are rational, everything we do is for our betterment/neccesity, from bacterii to humans. Self interest, species interest, self preservation, species preservation. So, everything we do is righteous, just, reasonable, rational, and logical. I am always doing what is right and my intention is always noble. You are always doing what is right and your intention is always noble.

Is this how we determine whether our behavior is appropriate or not? What need have we of laws? We never do wrong, everything we do is right. We can govern and police ourselves. We (ourselves) know and determine what is right and wrong. Maddoff turns himself in to the police on his own. Weiner steps down from congress on his own. Hitler turns himself in to Nuremburg trial. The cops who break the law ("police brutality") turn themselves in for their crime and/or the other cops turn him in all on their own, etc etc etc etc.

obviously... this is utterly absurd....

Without others determining what is right and wrong with our behaviors, I or you can do whatever I or you want to do. We can go around murdering people, stealing, lying, stalking, raping, and etc all we want. Nothing is wrong until you're caught... and you never catch yourself... no, you can only be caught by others, only others can determine whether your behavior is right or wrong.

there is no such thing as personal responsiblilty, no, we are slaves to others ("society"), it is others who determine what behaviors are right and which are wrong. We live caged in the world of socializing, it is others who make/judge an action/behavior as right or wrong.

The responsibility solely lies with others, as they are the law makers, regulators, and enforcers of behavior, NOT ourselves... it's impossible to govern or police yourself, because it's impossible for you to make/determine/judge your own behavior as being right or wrong. You just can't do it, you can't make your own action being right or wrong.

Only someone else can tell and/or create whether what you are doing is right or wrong.

Ethics/morality is solely created and maintained by others, not by your personal individual self.

If only I existed, nothing I do is wrong, however when other people exist, they now tell me what is alright to do and what is wrong to do.

without others, there's no such thing as ethics/morality, appropriate or inappropriate behavior, only others can create morality/ethics, not yourself.

And because of this, the responsibility solely and entirely lies with others. As it is others who tell you NO or YES, it is they who know what is right and what is wrong, as you do not, as again, if it was only you and thus your decision, how can you do anything wrong? No, wrongness only exists with and from there being others around you, wrongness only exists with and from by others. NEVER yourself.

------------------------------------------------------

the southern white plantation slave masters in the U.S. looked to the other americans for whether it was right or wrong to enslave blacks, and they responded with YES, and so allowing blacks to be enslaved.

and many years later, the others would change their minds, now saying slavery is wrong, and slavery ended in the U.S.

never once was the decision their (the white southern plantation slave masters) own, ethics/morality is solely from and by others. it does not exist personally in an individual.

its the same with any situation, Hitler's Germany, kids at school, anything. ethics/morality is entirely the creation, maintainence, judgement, enforcement, and responsibility of OTHERS. They literally own it in every single way, as it is only something that exists for them, there's no such thing as ethics/morality for the individual to personally own.

---------- Post added at 03:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:41 PM ----------

Ourself is the car, we can never be the stop-go lights, we are always the car. Without others (who are the stop-go lights), we'd have no rules, we'd have anarchy where there's no such thing as morality/ethics, you can drive however you want, there's no street lights telling you to stop nor go. The existence of others is the existence of ethics/morality, the right-wrong of behaviors. The personal individual exists without the eixstence of ethics/morality, without the right-wrong of behaviors. Only OTHERS can tell you NO or YES, It's impossible, as it's meaningless, if you're telling yourself Yes or No, why, because one day I can say No (stop!) to myself to murdering someone, and the next day I can say YES (Go ahead!) to myself to murdering someone. It's meaningless, without others, as they matter, as it is they who condemn or who "congratulate" (there's a word that is almost exact like condemn but means the opposite, but I cna't think of it at the moment, argh!), it is they (others) who give authenticity, meaning, and authority to what is right and what is wrong, they (others) are the "gatekeepers" of morality/ethics, not the individual's personal self.

---------- Post added at 04:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:57 PM ----------

I also can't help but notice how you're avoiding to reply to the various arguments presented to you

my apologizes , if you could name/list/mention which issues/questions I hadn't addressed yet, I'll definately try to respond as best I can to them !

not going to watch the videos, sry. just don't have the time

well, if you can find time, you should watch/listen to him, as he argues and explains so much better than I do about Islam and other religions, and other topics too.

he's much better (more expertise and way more clear and concise and focused) to listen to than reading my feeble (amatuer) posts, which aren't well organized/contructed as I need more time to craft my writings, like days/weeks/months depending on the depth of what I'm trying to discuss/debate/explain about. Posting is done in a much shorter time frame, it's communicating back and forth even as rapid as in-person communication can be. I can't craft a perfect post impromptu, sadly, as it would be so helpful if I could... sighs...

he communicates what I'm trying to say much better than I myself am able to do

also, he talks about some really interesting and fascinating things, it's very informative and educational too.

[ilinx]

just as all Germans are responsible/accountable for what their ancestors did

...just ...no.

just as Germans gave the GREEN LIGHT to Hitler and his S.S., heck they even helped point out the Jews/Gypsies/homosexuals to the S.S. to be put on the "trains". They weren't passively giving the GREEN LIGHT to Hitler and his S.S., they were aiding the S.S. in the mass murder of millions of innocent people

When listing the victims, don't forget those Germans who were killed or 'put on the trains' because they did not 'give green light' but rather opposed Hitler and his system.

One can't generalize like you do. I don't want to rant or repeat what has already been pointed out, just see post #13 and #16...

[HegemonKhan]

I'm talking about the Germans as a people/group, not each individual German one by one. The Germans* did allow Hitler and his S.S. to do what they did. The vast majority of Germans ALLOWED by giving the GO AHEAD for the genocide to happen.

(and the individual Germans who tried to challenge/stop it, such as with mission Valkyrie, you're right, they're indeed failed wannabe heroes.. sadly)

*(and so did other countries/people too, just as we, all people/countries of the entire world, CONTINUE TO DO, never again right? WRONG! Darfur, the Middle East, North Africa, North Korea, South America, Mexico, and etc. As, indeed, the U.S. did nothing as the genocide continued, waiting until it was nearly completed to act, SHAME ON US, THE U.S. !!! Actually, the ones who won WWII were the Russians, they're the HEROES!)

[xi0]

about my football team example:

I didn't make it clear what I meant in my previous post, my apologies.

if some football team, has a history of having players over the years (different players over the years) comitting crimes (rape, violence, domestic violence, theft, DUI, or whatever crime you want to use), then people have every right to look at and treat that footbal team with scorn and disgust or whatever...

I'm sorry to pile on here, but that's one of the worst examples in favor of an argument that I've ever seen. Things are said that way over beer, by half-drunken idiots who are trying to rile their buddies up. It's provincialism, and has no basis in reality. The reputation of teams has more to do with institutional control or lack thereof.

Relating this to terrorism, you're saying people have a right to feel a certain way about Muslims because of Islamic extremism. That's not wrong, people will feel whatever they want. It has nothing to do with "rights", it's intrinsic. It doesn't make it correct either though.




This whole mess has more to do with the "24 hour news cycle" type of world we live in nowadays.

[Akainu]

I'm talking about the Germans as a people/group, not each individual German one by one. The Germans* did allow Hitler and his S.S. to do what they did. The vast majority of Germans ALLOWED by giving the GO AHEAD for the genocide to happen.

there was no 'go ahead' given by the general population. the NSDAP never reached more than 44% in general elections. other parlamentarians however gave in to the violence that they caused on the streets and that's how the nazis came to power. the vast mahority of germans never voted for the NSDAP. Parliamentarians and elite thought they could confine hitler if they worked with him and that turned out wrong.

you see, that's what it's about, you can't generalize it to that extent. there is no vast democrat majority just because Obama won the election either and even less people support his healthcare. I don't mean to compare them, but but people voting for hitler/nsdap in 1933 in the last free elections might not have voted for genocide as much as for nationalism, past glory, independence and restitution of old germany etc.

(and the individual Germans who tried to challenge/stop it, such as with mission Valkyrie, you're right, they're indeed failed wannabe heroes.. sadly)

failed wannabe heroes? wth? they didn't want to be heroes they wanted to get rid of the Führer mostly - to diffrent extent since some groups were leftist and that valkyrie you mentioned rather right/conservative and would probably have been just replacing the leading figure without changing all too much. but again, really? wannabe heroes?

[HegemonKhan]

well, what I mean by "wannabe heroes", is that killing hitler would have been a good (heroic) thing (making them heroes), as at least he would be gone even if they replace him with a "hitler #2". And I used "wannabes" just to reference that they failed to become heroes, they failed to kill hitler. thus, they were "failed wannabe heroes", and that's a sad thing, as if they succeeded in killing hitler, they could have saved some lives...

[xi0]

well, what I mean by "wannabe heroes", is that killing hitler would have been a good (heroic) thing (making them heroes), as at least he would be gone even if they replace him with a "hitler #2". And I used "wannabes" just to reference that they failed to become heroes, they failed to kill hitler. thus, they were "failed wannabe heroes", and that's a sad thing, as if they succeeded in killing hitler, they could have saved some lives...

Not to get into the minutiae here, but you implying that "wannabe" means "failure" and then calling them "failed wannabe heroes" is redundant. I think that's where the confusion came from

[blai]

To be honest, using the phrase "failed wannabe heroes" is very degrading to those opposed to Hitler and who wanted to get rid of him.

You could call it an unsuccessful resistance but please don't call them failed wannabe heroes as the name implies they were trying to become heroes and believe me, I doubt they wanted to kill Hitler just so they could become that... As many of them were Jews they were nothing but freedom fighters to be honest.

[HegemonKhan]

poor choice of words or description by me obviously, my apologies for the confusion, perceived degradation (wasn't my intent to be degradating-again my apologies), and redundency, so "unsuccessful resistance (Blai, thanks Blai!)" it is then !!!

[earthforge]

Hey, khan? You can take the "burden" of being American because it oppressed slaves and what-not, I'm just gonna continue to live my life. Oh by the way, do you also support affirmative action?

I admit when I read this incident and how it coincided with threats regarding the deportation of an Al Qaida-related person, I thought it was an act of Al Qaida terrorism. But I was not surprised to hear that it was domestic terrorism instead. This guy in Norway is their McVeigh. It's all terrorism.

The best description of the whole incident to me is how it was committed by an extreme right wing nut job, and yet two small Islamic terrorist groups took the credit before any verification was made.

I find it abhorrent, however, that right-wing newspapers and blogs are calling this atrocity the doing of Muslims. What the fraggin hell? The guy was a domestic terrorist, a Jared Loughner, a Timothy McVeigh. But they aren't sayin' it cause it goes against their agenda.

This discussion shouldn't be about Al Qaida terrorism nor Nazis (I see Godwin's law has already been invoked), it should be about domestic terrorism.