Morality of Extremists

[Holiday20310401]

How is it that somebody can be willingly indoctrinated into the absurd beliefs of extremists?!

[VideCorSpoon]

one person's extremist is another persons conservative. It all depends on the perspective.

[Grimlock]

Belief is a powerful thing; it gives us meaning, purpose, direction and motivation. The burden of human life is relieved for the "true believer". We could legitimately ask how could anyone not want this?

[Holiday20310401]

Ok and would you say that in history, extremism has been expressed by the extremists in a positive way? All the extremism ends up being is prejudice. All beliefs end up being are a certain level of bias to reconcile the emotions one feels.

[Dewey]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

How is it that somebody can be willingly indoctrinated into the absurd beliefs of extremists?!

Your highly pejorative tone indicates you’re not really seeking an answer to this question. Apparently, you just want people to agree with your notion that the beliefs of extremists are (usually or always?) absurd and to marvel along with you at the foolishness of those who listen to and agree with these extremists. Oh, and you title your message to remind us you also question the morality of extremists.

If my interpretation is correct, and I would be glad to hear it’s not, this needs to be said. You infer we should all be moderates and never have radical thoughts. Aren’t you forgetting the accomplishments of such extremist movements as women’s rights, civil rights, and gay rights? How about Gandhi?

It might also be well to remember with respect even to the violent extremists, such as Al Qaeda, that they are not irrational holders of “absurd” ideas. They know quite precisely what they want to accomplish. And I think a good case could probably be made for arguing that we helped to bring Al Qaeda down on ourselves by not listening to their extreme, but non-violent, predecessors.

[Holiday20310401]

Ok lets focus on the Al Qaeda for a second here. Are they doing good just by putting a rebel ideology out there, or rather, several. Yes... but why can't they go about it altruistically? Don't you think it might have more appeal?

And how do you define extreme? Is it changing from just ideological dividing lines to dividing people, cause thats what it tends to result in, right?

Hutus, Taliban, Al Qaeda. I'm not trying to denounce them, I'm just saying, persuade me through ways that aren't influenced by emotional stances as it would appear to be when deciding to suicide bomb a few other people. For what gain, might I ask?

Perhaps extremism is not the right word, but I don't want to target any ideology specifically, and I think we can get the idea of what I'm trying to say here.

[Dewey]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Ok lets focus on the Al Qaeda for a second here. Are they doing good just by putting a rebel ideology out there, or rather, several. Yes... but why can't they go about it altruistically? Don't you think it might have more appeal?

Holiday, I agree with you that hearing the ideology of Al Qaeda, articulated in the many statements of Osama bin Laden, is something we need to understand and use to improve our relations with the Islamic nations. In this respect, yes, they seem to be doing some good.

Why, then does Al Qaeda stoop to the violence and killing? Well, first of all, because the organization is rooted in and created by war. The Soviet-Afghan war was triggered by President Carter (ironically, the recipient later on of the Nobel Peace Prize). As a part of the Cold War efforts, Carter ordered the CIA to secretly support the Islamic terrorists in their opposition to the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. Osama bin Laden was recruited under the auspices of the CIA -- another irony. The Soviet invasion came some five months later.

Also, from the viewpoint of Al Qaeda, the violence has stirred the hitherto relatively compliant Moslem nations into more protective attitudes regarding their cultures.

Our real hope for cessation of the terrorism, in my opinion, is not in Bush’s naïve notion of “defeating” them. It’s in the gradual erasure of the Moslems’ and Western World’s perceived differences.

You are probably muttering to yourself something like: "I just asked a simple question!" If so, I apologise.

[Holiday20310401]

Its useful information, all it really says is that no side is showing any altruism when reconciliation is needed from both sides... which extremism doesn't really do, because it is 'extremely' one sided.

[Dewey]

Let’s look a little closer at the Al Qaeda example.

You and I seem to agree that their ideology, though certainly not their methods, has some good in it. If that’s so, then to some degree, as you put it, reconciliation is needed from both sides. I agree. But then you seem to say that, under such circumstances and to that same degree, neither side (a) shows any altruism or (b) is capable of reconciliation.

I submit that both sides show some altruism, though certainly not for one another. Sacrificing one’s life, even to attain Paradise, is somewhat altruistic. And, for an example of reconciliation between extremists, look no further than the current brouhaha in Congress over the credit crisis.

We seem to have slid past any real mutual understanding on this subject of extremism. But at least we can probably agree that if you have an extreme view you should constantly test its validity. The liberals should watch Fox TV, the conservatives should watch CNN, and both should watch CSPN. so to speak.

Good luck!

[Holiday20310401]

I was watching the second zeitgeist and was told from it that Al Qaeda do not actually exist. And then I googled it and was startled by the amount of info on the matter supporting the fact, but there wasn't much real evidence, just media blurbs. So I wonder if anybody can shed some light on the matter, or at least tell me what it means. I don't know as I believe much of the second zeitgeist, the ending, just sooo corny.