An issue of fan loyalty, or complete ignorance? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-29-2004, 06:37 PM   #16
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 07:41 AM
dlihcraw and A_Wanderer;

Since you guys brought up the whole comparing you to Hitler thing up, I would really appreciate it if both of you buried the hatchet on that one. dlihcraw, please control your temper and keep your arguments respectful. As you saw in the last thread that was terminated because of such a disrespectful derailment, it won't be tolerated here and it will only succeed in closure of yet another thread - the most unattractive thing to see in FYM, next to two people antagonizing each other to the point of outright insult.

No more references to Hitler or Nazism, please.

Ant.
__________________

__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 09-29-2004, 06:53 PM   #17
Refugee
 
-macphisto-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,401
Local Time: 07:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by indra


Wow. Now THAT is scary! And depressing.


As for this forum...the ideas and opinions expressed should be those of each individual poster. More interesting and fun that way.

ITS NOT SCARY OR DEPRESSING, BUSH IS THE MAN!
__________________

__________________
-macphisto- is offline  
Old 09-29-2004, 07:00 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 07:41 AM
A_Wanderer and I have had good-natured disagreements on the character of Middle Eastern politics. It's my contention that the people are generally too locked into a static world view that freezes the status quo and makes what we understand as liberal democracy impossible there right now. Just today the King of Jordan claimed that elections are impossible for Iraq right now. But heck, I'd love to be wrong. I'd love to see free elections in January that elected a Parliament or whatever. They have had peaceful demonstrations against violence and insurgency. It's not always such a bad thing to be wrong. In the end, we don't get what we want, we get what we need.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 09-29-2004, 07:03 PM   #19
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 07:41 AM
I find your view, verte76, that liberal democracy, or any form of democracy for that matter, is not something the Middle East is ready for quite accurate.

Ant.
__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 09-29-2004, 07:14 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by dlihcraw
When I think of U2, only their music comes to mind. True, I am aware of Bono’s campaigns against AIDs and third world debt, but to me this is outside of the band. I evaluate U2 songs subjectively and objectively. I am a Roman Catholic, so I am aware of all the underlying religious principles that are present in U2’s music. However, I keep the subjective interpretation to myself because not everyone, not even every Christian, agrees with the religious aspects of U2’s work. When I discuss U2 with other people, I do so objectively. In discussing “Beautiful Day”, I will make no mention of the biblical allusion to Noah’s arc. Instead, I focus on the objective message of the song, the belief that problems come and go but life always continues. One day might be ugly, but the next could be beautiful. Similarly, in discussing “Sunday Bloody Sunday”, I avoid its religious undertones and instead ask one simple question, “In the presence of violence, how long must we all sing this song?” I have made no assumptions about U2 other than those ideas implied explicitly through their music.

During the Oscars, a reference to the invasion of Iraq was added to “The Hangs That Built America”, which roughly read, “Someone’s son dies/Is he yours, or is he mine?” From this, I gather U2 is against the use of violence in Iraq, and I don’t think that assumption is farfetched.
The band actually is against the war in Iraq, but I don't think the added lyrics were a reference to the invasion of Iraq as the song already mentions the horror of 9/11, a day where so many people were unsure of whether or not their loved ones were ok or not.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-29-2004, 07:19 PM   #21
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 07:41 AM
Well, STING2, not to be nit-picky or anything, but don't you think the reference to 'desert' (though, granted, it was not in the quote dlihcraw used) is a relatively explicit reference to Iraq?

Ant.
__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 09-29-2004, 07:36 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Anthony
Well, STING2, not to be nit-picky or anything, but don't you think the reference to 'desert' (though, granted, it was not in the quote dlihcraw used) is a relatively explicit reference to Iraq?

Ant.
I did not see that, and yes it could be. Then again, 'desert' can mean a lot of things. I didn't see the performance or all the added lyrics, so I can't make a judgement.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-30-2004, 07:50 AM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by indra
Wow. Now THAT is scary! And depressing.

Because the number is still too low....
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-30-2004, 07:53 AM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:41 PM
This is an interesting thread. I am not sure what is gained by mixing in the personal political beliefs of U2 in our arguments. First, it is fairly clear that we can't fully articulate their beliefs because we don't know them. Second, we end up simply projecting our own beliefs as theirs. Third, nothing is gained to say "Bono doesn't agree with you on this one".

BVS spelled it out best. We are fans of music, not everything musicians do.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-30-2004, 08:03 AM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 07:41 AM
That's right, we don't even know what positions Bono has taken on some issues, and I would imagine he doesn't have positions on U.S. domestic policy at all because he's not a U.S. citizen. No one is going to ponder their position on the issues and wonder if Bono agrees with them. Well, I'll speak for myself, I won't. It's true he's not a pacifist. I used to be a pacifist myself, I changed this on the Bosnia issue. Then I supported both the Kosovo mission and the Afghanistan mission, but not the Iraq invasion.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 09-30-2004, 11:02 AM   #26
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 199
Local Time: 07:41 AM
Quote:
I support the War on Terror when put into context. Any suggestion that no initiative be taken against terrorists is ridiculous, but a clear and united understanding of who are the terrorists must first be established, and initiative could and should include combating poverty, disease and global inequalities, not cultural differences. The Americans condemn the Russians for suppressing Chechen rebels, but the Russians condemn Americans for suppressing Iraqi rebels. The War on Terror is as much about realizing universal objectives as it is about eliminating terrorism. The war in Afghanistan is considerably more justifiable because it was legally sanctioned by the United Nations. Security Council problems aside, no such agreement was made to legitimize the war in Iraq, not even in the General Assembly.
I have before shared my views on the War on Terror. Please, do not assume political positions for me.

Islam teaches modesty, conflict is to be avoided. If you are to know anything about Muhammad, let it be known that he was a very fair and balanced negotiator. That being said, in the founding days of Islam there was widespread belief in pagan religions. Islam tried to unite the Arabic people under a single god, Allah. Up until the emergence of Islam, the Arabic people were a collection of family tribes wandering the dessert and had few central meeting places. The tribes would often fight with each other for valuable resources like food and water. Islam was the tool needed to unite these tribes and put an end to tribal warfare. However, because Islam taught moderation, it could not advocate war. This is where Jihad, or Holy War, comes into effect. Jihad allowed Muhammad to use force in converting the pagans when necessary. Muhammad did not begin using Jihad until he was attacked by the pagans and forced to leave Mecca.

Jihad allows the killing of infidels, or those that jeopardize the continuation of Islam. For Muhammad, the pagans were a threat to Islam only once they became hostile. For Islamic fundamentalists, there a serious of historic events that outline their cause. Prior to the crusades and European Renaissance, the Islamic Empire was the most powerful political entity in Europe. The empire focused on intellectual endeavours, such as science and recovering the work of the ancient Greeks, while the northern Europeans focused on warfare. If it was not for the Islamic Empire recovering ancient Greek texts, the western world, which took such works when it raided Islamic cities in Spain, would have no strong understanding of Socrates, Plato or Aristotle. The decline of the Islamic Empire corresponded with the expansion of European Imperialism. With the decline in European Imperialism after World War II, several harmful effects were left in the middle-east. First, Britain unfairly distributed the land it possessed in the middle-east among several nations, equivalent to dividing Europe by placing the French people in Spain, the Spanish in Italy, the Italians in Germany, and the Germans in France. Each nation had a geographical claim that was ignored. Secondly, the United Nations created a Jewish state, Israel, over an already existing Palestinian state. An equivalent for this action would be imposing a communist state over Kentucky without impute from the residents of the state or surrounding areas. Israel placed the infidel directly in the middle-east and several consequent wars erupted. However, the Israelis could not be defeated, and this applies even to the present Israeli nation, because they were being supplied military weaponry and information from the west. No army could be raised against the Israelis because, a) they had already defeated several armies and in the process gained more territory, and, b) they were using superior weaponry. The question among Islamic fundamentalist arose, “How can we defeat the will of a superior enemy?” The answer was to use unconventional warfare tactics, which can also been observed in the American Revolution, World War II Japanese kamikaze pilots, and the conflicts in northern Ireland to name only a few.

“Islamism” is to Islam what patriot is to “Patriotism” and “Commercials” is to commercial. I have already caught you A_Wanderer in several lies based upon false definitions or improper understanding of the concepts being discussed.

Today, with television and the internet, the infidel is all around Islam. The western world required decades and arguably even centuries of intense debate to extend voting rights to woman and later minorities. For Muslims in most countries, such a concept as equal rights among the sexes has not naturally appeared. Naturally is said because with the flick of a switch Sex In The City comes on television and tells young Islamic woman that not only do they have equal rights to men, but they can freely discuss and have sex with men, even other woman in they chose. Websites are no better, offering anything from grotesque western sexual appetites to western hate groups. Over night, not over a long and continuous process debating the fundamental rights of all people, did Islamic woman discard their veils for miniskirts. The Islamic fundamentalist feels his or her faith is in constant danger. How would Americans react if television and the internet displayed predominantly Islamic values? How would Americans respond to such a remote and superior enemy? The Islamic fundamentalists asked the same question ask before, But put it into a global perspective this time, “How can we defeat the will of a superior enemy?”

What you, and many others fail realize is that the problem exists both here and there. Islamic fundamentalists preach the murder of infidels. Western values encourage the cultural extermination of all other societies. Ask yourself, “Does a MacDonald’s or Starbucks in the middle-east aggravate or relieve the Islamic fundamentalists fight? Why are we even in the middle-east?” Oil doesn’t require the exportation of our cultural norms to the middle-east. Something else is occurring, and saying that such (most) people are backwards because they don’t understand our “higher” values is counter-productive. Again, hurtful or not, you view on the terrorist situation is entirely from an ethnocentric position. You make no attempt to permit cultural relativism. Social change can and will occur in the middle-east through innovation, discovery and diffusion, but unlike a UPS package, does it need overnight delivery?

The problem of terrorism is as much ours as it is Islam’s, our enemy is as much as terrorist as are we. Until cooperation is initiated, only pain and suffering of all kinds will exist.
__________________
dlihcraw is offline  
Old 09-30-2004, 11:04 AM   #27
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 01:41 AM


This thread makes no sense.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 09-30-2004, 11:09 AM   #28
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 199
Local Time: 07:41 AM
I attended a Roman Catholic high school. The emphasis of the school was not on theology, but on understanding the role of Catholicism in the world next to other religions. Extensive understanding of Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism, as well aboriginal religions, was taught. The end product a sense of cultural moderation and cooperation.
__________________
dlihcraw is offline  
Old 09-30-2004, 11:59 AM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:41 AM
Muhammad was a fair and balanced negotiator? I have tremendous respect for him, and that respect comes from the fact that he negotiated for peace when he knew he could not win. He would very often cancel the treaty over something minor, when he knew his military stregnth was superior.

This is what many islamofacists are preaching today.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-30-2004, 02:44 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 07:41 AM
You're right about the transmission of knowledge, particularly Aristotle. But Europeans helped with the transmission of Aristotle in European academia. In the twelfth century there was only one text of Aristotle available to European scholars, a book on dialectics which had been translated by the sixth century scholar Boethius. Then a whole slew of European scholars went to Moorish Spain and worked with the Moors and translated the whole corpus of Aristotle from Arabic to Latin. Latin was the language of scholarship in medieval Europe. After this the universities overcame institutional hostility to Aristotle. They had had the works of Plato; in fact, early European thought was dominated by Neo-Platonists because St. Augustine of Hippo was a Neo-Platonist. At first the popes and academics were hostile to Aristotle, who was very different philosophically from Plato, and it took until the early fourteenth century for the "establishment" to accept Aristotle. The transition came with the emergence of value placed on individuality and personal worth, as opposed to the dwelling on man's insignificance and sinful nature of the earlier Middle Ages. Peter Abelard wrote his autobiography in the twelfth century. I have an Internet link to a text of it on one of my history sites. He and other academics openly questioned the sacrosanct notion of Neo-Platonic universals. A storm of controversy ensued. But there was no blocking the change in Europe's intellectual climate. This paved the way for the Renaissance.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com