Job Discussion Forums

[gaijinalways]

[thelmadatter]

Justin T wrote

[johnslat]

Dear themadhatter,

"I just hope the rest of the Muslim world (esp. the Wahabiists (sp?)) dont declare jihad on these "apostates".

The "extremists" have been waging war on Muslims who don't agree with their view of Islam for quite a while now.


"Honorable people like that are called saints... afraid not too many in the human race qualify for that status."

I'd say that "saints" may be too strong a term. While perhaps far too many are subject to the "I was only following orders" syndrome, my view of humanity is more optimistic than yours, I'd say.

Regards,
John

[arioch36]

John

[johnslat]

Dear arioch36,
Surely you don't mean this definition:

"A fanatic is someone willing to deliberately kill non-combatant individuals in order to advance whatever cause (usually religion or politics) it is that he/she espouses."

Regards,
John

[arioch36]

[arioch36]

Actually, we should say , "someone who is willing to kill civilians/non combatants to advance their cause is a fanatic" because their are other kinds of fanatics out their.
I would go even further, perhaps ... anyone willing to kill or bring serious harm to others (civilian or military) to further their political or religious cause is a fanatic.
To me, the Hezbollah who captured two Jewish soldiers just to promote strife and war, they are fanatics. Not a terrorist act by definition perhaps, but a fanatical act. Their was no immediate thought of ..., "we must do this to help Palestinan people have enough food to eat, or have the right to work. In fact this set back Palestinians having these things.
Not to stray to this argument, and some may have various sides, I am simply trying to give an example of an action of military or quasi military which is also fanatical.

Then you must enter a grey zone (brought up when remembering Dresden, Hiroshima, or Pearl Harbor), Fanatical leaders of legitamite organizations, armies ... and what the duty of the army member should be. A military can not function if members always wuestion orders. A military loses its soul if no one questions the orders.

Bush, Iraq 1, kicking Iraq out of Kuwait ... no one considered this fanatical. I totally agree we should not have conquered Iraq. It's not our business who the leader of Iraq or Bosnia or Nigeria is. (others disagree)
Bush 2 Iraq 2, some valid arguements of fanaticism, especially on Rumsfield... to me. Are they fanatics? Being in New York City on 911, and out of the country afterwards, I think for a while America as a whole was fanatical for a while. This is not Rumsey's war. The majority of the COngress agreed. I personally would apply the term fanatical, but could respect disagreement here.
Peace Corps and religiousnon-religious people willing to risk their lives to go to Iraq to try to help .. I wouldn't want to apply the term fanatical.

I am sorry for rambling, and enough posing on this tangent. I am in the state of musing and pondering at the same time I am writing this, which makes for unconcise writing.
My apologies

I am currently in China. The Chinese approach to the Olympics is literally fanatical

[johnslat]

Dear arioch36,
I never heard anyone label King as a "fanatic." But that doesn't mean no one ever did. As I wrote in an earlier post, one person's "freedom fighter" may well be another's "terrorist."
That's exactly why we're trying to pin down the meaning of "fanatic." But no matter what we might agree upon, there will always be others who will use the term "fanatic" in ways that we could consider inappropriate.
Who is an "extremist?" What is "normal" or, for that matter "insane?"
Heck, there are even arguments - and mighty big ones - over when life begins and what constitutes "legal" death.
Which is why I paraphrased Justice Potter's statement about pornography (yet another issue with many subjective interpretations) in an earlier post.

Regards,
John

[arioch36]

Don't mean to pry, John, how old?

I am curous, I can only stereotype some redneck fanatics from the deep south (the kind who went around wearing white sheets), back in the 50's and 60's calling King the fanatic.

It is important for us as a collective world society to reject fanaticism and terrorism even while not agreeing that not all agree which terms apply to which people.

heard that back in the states they arrested another "messiah" who also slept with underage girls. Fanaticism tends to repest itself in recognizable patterns.

Burke .. for evil to prevail all that is neccessary is for good men to do nothing

[Justin Trullinger]

[johnslat]

Dear arioch36,
I'm 65 (plus a bit). But those "rednecks" didn't call King a "fanatic" (the word wasn't as popular in common parlance as it is now), and those "fanatics from the deep south" - and, I might add, other sections of the USA - weren't considered "fanatics", either; they were "white supremacists ", often members of the KKK or, pejoratively, simply "rednecks."
Their most popular term for King back then would have been "uppity n*****."
I'm not so sure I'd call Wayne Bent (how eponymous) aka Michael Travesser a fanatic. A whacko, for sure, but for me, anyway, he seems to be lacking what I see as the necessary homicidal ingredient - the willingness, even eagerness, to spread his "truth" by any means necessary, including murder.
I could be wrong about him; he might indeed be a "fanatic", but although he's one very sick puppy who has likely ruined the lives of many, I suspect he may not be sick enough to engage in murder and mayhem to spread his version of ultimate truth.
What may save him from being a fanatic is that, from what I've seen, anyway, he's a sex-crazed wus.
Now Charles Manson - that's a different story.

The quote - similar to what has happened to Victor Hugo's quote

On r�siste � l'invasion des arm�es; on ne r�siste pas � l'invasion des id�es.

which has become "Nothing can stop an idea whose time has come"

or, for that matter, "Play it again, Sam" (in "Casablanca", it's "Play it, Sam")


- comes from Burke's: �When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.

but has been changed over time.

Regards,
John