3 ms·

My problem is not on the definitions, but the "name calling".

by afsina 11y ago

acqq 11y ago
I agree that calling the leaders of fundamentalists "ignorant" is surely wrong and hugely underestimates their capabilities, as it's known that a lot of planning is involved in their work: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-files-show-structure-of-islamist-terror-group-a-1029274.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-file... And we also see how effective in working towards their goals they can be.
- afsina 11y ago
  Ok, perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. Why are you referring ISIS here? You were talking about Turkey and Turkish people I thought.
  - acqq 11y ago
    Using the example of extreme fundamentalism we can see that the successful leaders and their close supporters shouldn't be considered "ignorant" even if we are aware how dangerous they are. I also don't claim that they are the only kind of fundamentalists possible. And if you look at the map, ISIS isn't that far from Turkey.
    - gkya 11y ago
      > And if you look at the map, ISIS isn't that far from Turkey. It's here already. About your argument on not considering fundamentalists ignorant, they are. First, ignorant does not mean idiot, or stupid. Ignorance is absence of objective knowledge. It's hard to believe that either a fundamentalist would wish to look at things objectively or one that does so would become anyhow a fundamentalist. There may be knowledgeable and smart people exploiting fundamentalists, to them I'm indifferent. All I care is the things that go, monuments, people, peace, the stuff the people are made of. Those are the things that bring tears to my eyes.
      - acqq 11y ago
        > Ignorance is absence of objective knowledge. I agree. > There may be knowledgeable and smart people exploiting fundamentalists, to them I'm indifferent. Don't be. They are the real elitists, the ones accepting the suffering of the millions of people as necessary in achieving their goals. Moreover, their beliefs are also often based on the ignorant premises (religious myths!). A good example of high levels that believe in religious myths are some US politicians: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/01/04/821847/-Republicans-Now-the-Party-of-Armageddon http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/01/04/821847/-Republicans... I'm sure you can identify the equivalent examples by politicians/activists closer to you.
        gkya 11y ago
        I agree to your comment. What I do not like is talking about the secret puppeteers and the mysterious hands between the events. Here in turkey we like this sort of talk a lot. The Jewish rule the world. It's Americans' games anyway. Kurds want independence because there's petrol there. Illuminati. These may be true or not, but I'd rather deal with what I see. Speculations and conspiracies don't get you anywhere. Now I do not know if it's proved that the leaders of the ISIS are the people you say them to be, if such, all my comment is useless, but if not, I'd say that we first cut the tentacles, if we were to attack to the bad monstrous bug, then the head will have no room to escape.
        acqq 11y ago
        > Speculations and conspiracies don't get you anywhere. True, but also read once, if you haven't, 1984, the book, per Wikipedia: "Winston works at the Ministry of Truth, or "Minitrue", as an editor responsible for historical revisionism. He rewrites records and alters photographs to conform to the state's ever-changing version of the truth" Then try to find how many people know what the countries did before, like: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone Always do your own research, sometimes the things that the leaders like to be ignored as the "conspiracy theories" in the current political moment actually happened and give a very different view to the whole context.
    - afsina 11y ago
      All right I am lost already. Where did I praise, defend or reject the existence fundamentalism? And what is the relation ISIS being close to Turkey and OP's emotional name calling on Turkish people?
- _nedR 11y ago
  You missed the key point of the article you linked to: That IS is not really a group of religious fundamentalists (at least in the higher levels) - rather they are a bunch of Baathists including intelligence people, who are masquerading as religous fundamentalists and exploiting fundamentalists to get back into power.
  - acqq 11y ago
    Can you please explain where you see I'm missing exactly the point you mention? I understand that you find the point important to you, but I haven't discussed these details specifically. Leaders are seldom constrained by the ideology they proclaim.
    - _nedR 11y ago
      Well, there is a lot of crosstalk here, so there might be bit of confusion. Earlier you were contrasting between religious fundamentalists and 'reasonable' actors : >"Fundamentalist" as in "religious fundamentalist." >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fundamentalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fundamentalism Compare their goals to then successful work of Ataturk in 20th century in Turkey: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atat%C3%BCrk's_Reforms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atat%C3%BCrk's_Reforms Then you cited IS as an example of religious fundamentalists and linked to an article. My point was that the article you linked to makes the point (at least that was what i inferred) that IS is more 'reasonable'/rational than religious in their calculations and actions (including their cruelty and brutality).
      - acqq 11y ago
        Note your statement in the message before > That IS is not really a group of religious fundamentalists (at least in the higher levels) I agree if it's about the higher levels, in sense that their goals aren't restricted to the religion but to the power. However even if they aren't secretly just religious they do use the motives of religious fundamentalism to support their actions and to motivate their supporters and followers, and their supporters are rarely aware of the nuances. The leaders do excuse what they do with their religious talks. > My point was that the article you linked to makes the point (at least that was what i inferred) that IS is more 'reasonable'/rational than religious I don't agree. We can't equate the higher levels (leaders) and the voters, the supporters and the simple fighters. Only the leaders are those who (by necessity) understand the game (if I remember correctly Bin Laden had the full reports of the US think tanks in his library). The lower levels just religiously believe. Exactly like most of the common people in the US still didn't get that there were actually no WMD and no Al Quaida in Iraq at the time Dubbya Bush (the leader) initiated his war. On one (higher) level in the same political/religious side, there is rationality, on another (lower) ignorance. User gkya just wasn't able to be precise enough, as you see, it takes time until people who take part in the conversation start to understand one another. And I don't believe I'm elitist when I'm aware of these different levels, just as you've felt that it's important to note the obvious rationality of the leaders (even if you missed to make that difference in the second post).

My problem is not on the definitions, but the "name calling".

by afsina 11y ago

My problem is not on the definitions, but the "name calling".

acqq 11y ago

I agree that calling the leaders of fundamentalists "ignorant" is surely wrong and hugely underestimates their capabilities, as it's known that a lot of planning is involved in their work: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-files-show-structure-of-islamist-terror-group-a-1029274.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-file... And we also see how effective in working towards their goals they can be.

afsina 11y ago
Ok, perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. Why are you referring ISIS here? You were talking about Turkey and Turkish people I thought.
- acqq 11y ago
  Using the example of extreme fundamentalism we can see that the successful leaders and their close supporters shouldn't be considered "ignorant" even if we are aware how dangerous they are. I also don't claim that they are the only kind of fundamentalists possible. And if you look at the map, ISIS isn't that far from Turkey.
  - gkya 11y ago
    > And if you look at the map, ISIS isn't that far from Turkey. It's here already. About your argument on not considering fundamentalists ignorant, they are. First, ignorant does not mean idiot, or stupid. Ignorance is absence of objective knowledge. It's hard to believe that either a fundamentalist would wish to look at things objectively or one that does so would become anyhow a fundamentalist. There may be knowledgeable and smart people exploiting fundamentalists, to them I'm indifferent. All I care is the things that go, monuments, people, peace, the stuff the people are made of. Those are the things that bring tears to my eyes.
    - acqq 11y ago
      > Ignorance is absence of objective knowledge. I agree. > There may be knowledgeable and smart people exploiting fundamentalists, to them I'm indifferent. Don't be. They are the real elitists, the ones accepting the suffering of the millions of people as necessary in achieving their goals. Moreover, their beliefs are also often based on the ignorant premises (religious myths!). A good example of high levels that believe in religious myths are some US politicians: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/01/04/821847/-Republicans-Now-the-Party-of-Armageddon http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/01/04/821847/-Republicans... I'm sure you can identify the equivalent examples by politicians/activists closer to you.
      - gkya 11y ago
        I agree to your comment. What I do not like is talking about the secret puppeteers and the mysterious hands between the events. Here in turkey we like this sort of talk a lot. The Jewish rule the world. It's Americans' games anyway. Kurds want independence because there's petrol there. Illuminati. These may be true or not, but I'd rather deal with what I see. Speculations and conspiracies don't get you anywhere. Now I do not know if it's proved that the leaders of the ISIS are the people you say them to be, if such, all my comment is useless, but if not, I'd say that we first cut the tentacles, if we were to attack to the bad monstrous bug, then the head will have no room to escape.
        acqq 11y ago
        > Speculations and conspiracies don't get you anywhere. True, but also read once, if you haven't, 1984, the book, per Wikipedia: "Winston works at the Ministry of Truth, or "Minitrue", as an editor responsible for historical revisionism. He rewrites records and alters photographs to conform to the state's ever-changing version of the truth" Then try to find how many people know what the countries did before, like: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone Always do your own research, sometimes the things that the leaders like to be ignored as the "conspiracy theories" in the current political moment actually happened and give a very different view to the whole context.
  - afsina 11y ago
    All right I am lost already. Where did I praise, defend or reject the existence fundamentalism? And what is the relation ISIS being close to Turkey and OP's emotional name calling on Turkish people?
_nedR 11y ago
You missed the key point of the article you linked to: That IS is not really a group of religious fundamentalists (at least in the higher levels) - rather they are a bunch of Baathists including intelligence people, who are masquerading as religous fundamentalists and exploiting fundamentalists to get back into power.
- acqq 11y ago
  Can you please explain where you see I'm missing exactly the point you mention? I understand that you find the point important to you, but I haven't discussed these details specifically. Leaders are seldom constrained by the ideology they proclaim.
  - _nedR 11y ago
    Well, there is a lot of crosstalk here, so there might be bit of confusion. Earlier you were contrasting between religious fundamentalists and 'reasonable' actors : >"Fundamentalist" as in "religious fundamentalist." >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fundamentalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fundamentalism Compare their goals to then successful work of Ataturk in 20th century in Turkey: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atat%C3%BCrk's_Reforms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atat%C3%BCrk's_Reforms Then you cited IS as an example of religious fundamentalists and linked to an article. My point was that the article you linked to makes the point (at least that was what i inferred) that IS is more 'reasonable'/rational than religious in their calculations and actions (including their cruelty and brutality).
    - acqq 11y ago
      Note your statement in the message before > That IS is not really a group of religious fundamentalists (at least in the higher levels) I agree if it's about the higher levels, in sense that their goals aren't restricted to the religion but to the power. However even if they aren't secretly just religious they do use the motives of religious fundamentalism to support their actions and to motivate their supporters and followers, and their supporters are rarely aware of the nuances. The leaders do excuse what they do with their religious talks. > My point was that the article you linked to makes the point (at least that was what i inferred) that IS is more 'reasonable'/rational than religious I don't agree. We can't equate the higher levels (leaders) and the voters, the supporters and the simple fighters. Only the leaders are those who (by necessity) understand the game (if I remember correctly Bin Laden had the full reports of the US think tanks in his library). The lower levels just religiously believe. Exactly like most of the common people in the US still didn't get that there were actually no WMD and no Al Quaida in Iraq at the time Dubbya Bush (the leader) initiated his war. On one (higher) level in the same political/religious side, there is rationality, on another (lower) ignorance. User gkya just wasn't able to be precise enough, as you see, it takes time until people who take part in the conversation start to understand one another. And I don't believe I'm elitist when I'm aware of these different levels, just as you've felt that it's important to note the obvious rationality of the leaders (even if you missed to make that difference in the second post).