Author: davebrown

You got what you deserved, Big Liar [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 4

Post time 2005-7-19 13:14:13 |Display all floors

Mistrust

"As for your theory in point a., it is a lop-sided western thinking steeped wiith mistrust, quite understandably"

In what way is it lopsided? Are you saying that it is a western trait to be mistrustful of the government? How can that be when you have already claimed that we are brainwashed to be patriotic and believe in our governments, don't you see that as a contradiction?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2005-7-20 06:51:09 |Display all floors

There is no contradiction, Umagaman

On the other hand, I think you have forgotten what you said earlier.

It is not your own government that you do not trust.  It is the government of OTHERS that you mistrust.

Earlier you rejected the idea of a “collected West” but you spoke, in your last post, defending US’s brainwashing as a “we”, do you not see that you have “contradicted” yourself?


For your information, in my last post, I have actually pulled out a small part at the end where I said (accurately diagnosed) you guys are one and the same - “you cronies make no difference to us – pot and kettle."  

So with this, can we now safely conclude that we, Chinese, are not wrong to “talk” to you all as a “collected West”?  

POT AND KETTLE – geographical locations make no difference.  Yes, “trait” is the word I am looking for.


For the record …

umagaman
+ Send message
+ Posts: 37
+ Joined:
   2005-04-26
  Mistrust
"As for your theory in point a., it is a lop-sided western thinking steeped wiith mistrust, quite understandably"

In what way is it lopsided? Are you saying that it is a western trait to be mistrustful of the government? How can that be when you have already claimed that we are brainwashed to be patriotic and believe in our governments, don't you see that as a contradiction?

2005-07-19 13:14

---
Whampoa

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2005-7-21 00:03:24 |Display all floors

some corrections ...

It is DISTRUST ...

The word is "DISTRUST" and not mistrust.

***

"It is not your own government that you do not trust. It is the government of OTHERS that you DISTRUST."

---
Whampoa

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2005-7-21 04:27:32 |Display all floors

nah..

But since you raised the issue of sports, are you a little bit sensitive around "colonials" like myself with the English having just lost the one day cricket series to Australia and with the British and Irish Lions having been taught a comprehensive rugby lesson by the New Zealand All Blacks? (All in good fun!)

Yeah, its all good fun, but I got no time for those sports anyhow. I am more into extreme sports, something that gets the old adrenaline going.....I got aussie and kiwi mates and we always have banter, its par for the course, I am a whinging pom, they are bush tucker eaters!! It's all fun as you say, especially when mixed with lots of beer :)

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2005-7-21 05:31:04 |Display all floors

Yeah, we've heard of the English hooliganism ....

That's extreme sport of a sort.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2005-7-22 04:18:50 |Display all floors

自杀式袭击和恐怖主义

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


● 于时语

  “风萧萧兮易水寒,壮士一去兮不复还。”——荆轲《易水歌》

  这也许是世界上最古老的自杀式袭击者遗篇。引用这一“千古绝唱“,并不是要歌颂自杀式袭击,也不是要翻“感慨悲歌之士”荆轲的千古之案,而只是借此说明自杀式袭击有非常悠久的历史,并不是“反恐”前后出现的新现象。

  就连荆轲刺秦也不是最古的自杀式袭击。春秋晚期,在楚国逃亡政客伍子胥的策划下,吴国“壮士”专诸以藏在烤鱼肚子里的“鱼肠剑”,在酒宴上刺杀吴王僚,同时自己被吴王僚的的侍卫人员杀死,吴王僚的堂兄公子光因此夺权而成为吴王阖闾。这或许是有明确记载的最早自杀袭击。

  2001年九一一事件之前两天,阿富汗北方联盟领袖、传奇性的塔吉克族军阀马斯乌德(又译马苏德),遭到两名乔装成阿拉伯国家电视台记者的自杀式刺客借电视设备中隐藏的弹药暗算,重伤致死,是两千多年前专诸刺杀吴王僚的惊人重演,展现了人类历史的连贯重复。

  由于伦敦的七七惨案,以及伊拉克没完没了的肉弹爆炸事件,自杀式恐怖袭击新近成为全球关注的重点,西方媒体上的分析报道连篇累牍,大多将此看成是近年来伊斯兰激进主义的崭新恐怖主义利器,而无视这一现象在历史上的普遍性,未免有失偏颇。

  

自杀式袭击有悠久历史  

  

  即使是宗教激发的自杀式袭击,也有悠久历史。这倒是与回教直接关联,此即什叶派伊斯马义宗(也称七伊玛目宗)法蒂玛家族势力为了对抗逊尼派阿巴斯王朝和其他异己势力,而在公元11世纪末建立的著名刺客集团。

  据说其成员吸食从印度大麻提炼的麻药,也即所谓hashish,进入迷幻精神状态而从事自杀式袭击,因此阿拉伯语称他们为hashish吸食者,其复数变音成为西方语言中“刺客”assassin一词的来源。

  或许是历史的巧合,什叶派伊斯马义宗刺客集团曾经在包括现代伊拉克和伊朗等国的波斯湾大显“恐威”,除了其他许多受害者,还成功刺杀了两位阿巴斯王朝的最高领袖——“教宗”哈里发,令所有政敌谈虎色变。这一中世纪恐怖组织直到蒙古征服后才式微。

  这些事例显示自杀式恐怖袭击是回教内外皆有的常见历史现象,英国首相布莱尔近日将其归结为一种“邪恶意识形态”,未免是对人类历史上普遍存在、但特定社会原因和环境各不相同的激烈行为,作出道德价值上的简单诠释,对消除这一现象对现代社会的威胁并无太多帮助。

  美国芝加哥大学的政治学者罗伯特·帕普在新近出版的专书中,将自杀式攻击归纳为有明确政治目的和行动逻辑的理性战略,是对西方列强和其他占领势力的一种抵抗行为,也是实力悬殊的不对称战争中的自然发展。

  代表自由派知识精英的帕普教授的理论受到许多保守派非难,但是他举出的若干例子似乎令人信服,例如自杀性袭击从1982到1986年在黎巴嫩多达46起,可是在美国、法国、以色列各自从该国撤军之后几成绝响。这样有实际数据的分析,比“邪恶意识形态”之类简单说教,更有助于理解这一愈演愈烈的暴力恐怖现象。

  美国的“反恐”战略特别是伊拉克“反恐”战争,至今还是以军力“震慑”为主。这种基于“人人贪生怕死”的西方价值观的战略,遭到自杀式袭击代表的“民不畏死,奈何以死惧之”非西方宗教哲学的严重挑战。

  回教极端力量自杀式袭击近来遭人诟病和厌恶的一个特点,是越来越多的无辜平民成为牺牲者。在这一点上,笔者完全赞同大多数人对自杀式攻击的谴责。

  但是我们也不可因此而忽视极端势力在这一题目上的自身逻辑。

  

借用西方的“附带损害”  

  

  这是因为伤害无辜平民,确实击中了现代西方公民社会一个要害和软肋。帕普教授因此结论:表面上非理性的自杀式攻击实际是回教激进势力迫使西方妥协的理性战略。回教激进分子因此将无辜平民牺牲看成是无法回避的“附带损害”(collateral damage)。可是这一强词夺理词汇,不仅是西方原创,也是美国在“反恐”战争中尽量轻描淡写的议题。

  西方世界对恐怖事件中西方受害者不厌其详的统计报道,而对“反恐”战争在穆斯林世界造成更大量的受害者漫不经心,尤其是作为“附带损害”的平民伤亡,至今没有任何西方政府的统计数字。

  如果再以“附带损害”并非西方有意军事目标来辩解,那么美军从二次大战到越战对城市地区的地毯式轰炸、在广岛和长崎投下的原子弹,以及近日美国国会议员提出必要时对回教圣地麦加进行核报复,无不以无辜平民作为“正当目标”。这样明显的双重标准使我们至少可以理解:穆斯林世界对自杀性攻击的谴责之声,为什么总是不及西方世界。

  由此牵扯到对自杀式攻击的道德评价问题。慷慨刺秦的荆轲被千古传颂,只有在文化大革命中,因为毛泽东自比为焚书坑儒的秦始皇,荆轲才被描绘为“历史跳梁小丑”。就连处处奉承毛泽东的郭沫若,也曾经在《棠棣之花》中极力称颂战国时代的自杀式刺客聂政。这些例子说明对自杀性攻击的道德褒贬,是个见仁见智、言人人殊的题目。

  回教极端分子的自杀式攻击尽管受到国际主流社会的普遍道德谴责,在穆斯林世界中却受到相当多民众的赞成,以至形成一种“烈士情结”,在巴勒斯坦地区甚至被许多儿童作为长大后的理想。

  如前引帕普教授指出,不去分析这一现象后面的思想和国际政治因素,单凭“邪恶意识形态”之类声讨,无法消除和防止更多的自杀式攻击。

  回教极端分子也并非唯一受到尊崇的“圣战烈士”。在“大东亚圣战”末日出现的狂热“特攻队”,是回教自杀式圣战者的先驱,以至法语中“自杀式攻击”一词依然是日语“神风”的译音。除了广为人知的日本空军“神风特攻队”,还有驾驶特制自杀潜水艇的日本海军“回天特攻队”。

  如同回教“圣战烈士”被许多穆斯林民众盲目崇拜一样,这些“特攻队烈士”今天仍然在靖国神社里受到日本朝野的顶礼膜拜。这也许是和回教自杀式圣战者同样应该令人警觉的现象。

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2005-7-22 06:28:12 |Display all floors

Hmmmm, not quite Whampoa....

You say

"Earlier you rejected the idea of a “collected West” but you spoke, in your last post, defending US’s brainwashing as a “we”, do you not see that you have “contradicted” yourself?


For your information, in my last post, I have actually pulled out a small part at the end where I said (accurately diagnosed) you guys are one and the same - “you cronies make no difference to us – pot and kettle."

So with this, can we now safely conclude that we, Chinese, are not wrong to “talk” to you all as a “collected West”? "

Absolutely not! How can you say you have proven anything at all? How have you followed any logical path to reach that conclusion? You are claiming that because I disagreed with your assertion that Western governments brainwash their own people then we must all be the same, how is that at all rational? If I said to you that the King of Tonga regularly beats all his subjects every Friday at 2:00pm and you disagreed would that mean that China and Tonga are in fact one and the same? It is the same line of reasoning as you are following. I already said that as far as nations go we are quite close with the US and Britain based on a number of shared values and political principles, that does not make us the same. In fact, a whole library of books could be written on the differences between western nations. I think that it is more likely that you are simply to lazy to bother making the distinction, it is easier to lump us all together instead of having to put thought into which nationality you are dealing with at any given time.
Of course I can use the term "we" in the discussion. It does not signify any permanent connection. If someone was to ask me "What are you and John doing today" and I replied "We are going to the pub to watch the Rugby" that is fine because it denotes a convenient grouping for that time, it doesn't imply there is a permanent connection between the two and that they must be referred to collectively forever from that point on.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.