Posted on 10/25/2002 12:14:19 AM PDT by jennyp
The Recent Nightclub Bombings in Bali Illustrate Just What the "War on Terror" Is Really About
On the night of Saturday, October 12--the second anniversary of the suicide bombing of the USS Cole, a year, month, and day after the destruction of the World Trade Center, and mere days after terrorist attacks in Yemen, Kuwait, and the Philippines--two car bombs detonated outside neighboring nightclubs on the island of Bali, triggering a third explosive planted inside, and killing nearly 200 people (the majority of whom were Australian tourists), injuring several others, and redirecting the focus of the war against terror to Indonesia.
Also on the night of Saturday, October 12, the following bands and DJs were playing and spinning at several of Seattle's rock and dance clubs from Re-bar to Rock Bottom: FCS North, Sing-Sing, DJ Greasy, Michiko, Super Furry Animals, Bill Frisell Quintet, the Vells, the Capillaries, the Swains, DJ Che, Redneck Girlfriend, Grunge, Violent Femmes, the Bangs, Better Than Ezra, the Briefs, Tami Hart, the Spitfires, Tullycraft, B-Mello, Cobra High, Randy Schlager, Bobby O, Venus Hum, MC Queen Lucky, Evan Blackstone, and the RC5, among many, many others.
This short list, taken semi-randomly from the pages of The Stranger's music calendar, is designed to illustrate a point that is both facile and essential to reckoning the effects of the Bali bombings. Many of you were at these shows, dancing, smoking, drinking, talking, flirting, kissing, groping, and presumably enjoying yourselves, much like the 180-plus tourists and revelers killed at the Sari Club and Paddy's Irish Pub in Bali. Though no group has come forward to claim responsibility for the bombings, they were almost certainly the work of Muslim radicals launching the latest volley in the war against apostasy.
Whether the attacks turn out to have been the work of al Qaeda or one of the like-purposed, loosely connected, multicellular organizations that function in the region--groups like the Jemaah Islamiyah (an umbrella network that seeks a single Islamic state comprising Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore), the Indonesian Mujahedeen Council (led by the nefarious Abu Bakar Bashir), Laskar Jihad (which waged holy war on Christians in the Spice Islands before mysteriously disbanding two weeks ago), or the Islam Defenders Front (which makes frequent "sweeps" of bars and nightclubs, attacking non-Muslims, and violently guarding against "prostitution and other bad things")--will ultimately prove to be of little consequence. What matters is that the forces of Islamic fascism have struck again, in a characteristically cowardly, murderous, and yes, blasphemous fashion that must register as an affront to every living human with even a passing interest in freedom.
The facile part: It could have happened here, at any club in Seattle. It's a ludicrous thought, of course--at least as ludicrous as the thought of shutting the Space Needle down on New Year's Eve because some crazy terrorist was arrested at the Canadian border--but that doesn't make it any less true. That doesn't mean we should be looking over our shoulders and under our chairs every time we go to a show. It simply means that it could happen anywhere, because anywhere is exactly where rabid Islamists can find evidence of blasphemy against their precious, imaginary god.
Which brings us to the essential part: The Bali bombings were not an attack against Bali; they were an attack against humankind. In all the jawflap about the whys and wherefores of the multiple conflicts currently dotting our collective radar screen--the war against terror, the war on Iraq, the coming holy war, et al.--it seems worth restating (at the risk of sounding pious) that the war against basic human liberty, waged not by us but on us, is at the heart of the matter. Discourse has justifiably, necessarily turned to complexities of strategy, diplomacy, and consequences. The moral truth, however, remains agonizingly basic. We are still dealing with a small but indefatigable contingent of radicalized, militant absolutists who believe that every living being is accountable to the stricture of Shari'a, under penalty of death. As Salman Rushdie wrote, in an oft-cited Washington Post editorial, the fundamentalist faction is against, "to offer a brief list, freedom of speech, a multi-party political system, universal adult suffrage, accountable government, Jews, homosexuals, women's rights, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing, beardlessness, evolution theory, sex." If these were fictional villains, you'd call them hyperbolic, not believable. But they aren't fictional. Their code would be laughable if it weren't so aggressively despicable.
As headlines about Bali cross-fade into news of North Korean nukes, and there are further debates about the finer points of Iraqi de- and restabilization, it's crucial to remember that there is, in fact, a very real enemy, with a very real will, and the very real power of delusional self-righteousness. How to remember? Consider the scene of the attacks (as reported by various Australian and European news sources):
It's a typical hot, sweaty, drunken, lascivious Saturday night. People, primarily young Aussie tourists from Melbourne, Geelong, Perth, and Adelaide, are crammed into the clubs, mixing it up, spilling out into the street. Rock band noises mix with techno music and innumerable voices as latecomers clamor to squeeze inside. Just after 11:00 p.m., a car bomb explodes outside of Paddy's, followed a few seconds later by a second blast that smashes the façade of the Sari Club and leaves a hole in the street a meter deep and 10 meters across. The second bomb is strong enough to damage buildings miles away. All at once, everything's on fire. People are incinerated. Cars go up in flames. Televisions explode. Ceilings collapse, trapping those still inside. Screams. Blistered, charred flesh. Disembodied limbs. Mangled bodies. Victims covered in blood. Inferno.
Now transpose this horrible, fiery mass murder from the seedy, alien lushness of Bali to, say, Pioneer Square, where clubs and bars are lined up in the same teeming proximity as the Sari and Paddy's in the "raunchy" Jalan Legian district, the busiest strip of nightlife in Kuta Beach. Imagine a car blowing up outside the Central Saloon and another, across the street at the New Orleans. Again, it seems too simple an equation, but the fact remains that the victims were not targeted at random, or for merely political purposes. They were doing exactly what any of us might be doing on any night of the week: exercising a liberty so deeply offensive to religious believers as to constitute blasphemy. And the punishment for blasphemy is death.
There is an ongoing lie in the official governmental position on the war against terror, which bends over backwards to assure us that, in the words of our president, "we don't view this as a war of religion in any way, shape, or form." Clearly, in every sense, this is a war of religion, whether it's declared as such or not. And if it isn't, then it certainly should be. Not a war of one religion against another, but of reason against religion--against any belief system that takes its mandate from an invisible spiritual entity and endows its followers with the right to murder or subjugate anyone who fails to come to the same conclusion. This is the war our enemies are fighting. To pretend we're fighting any other--or worse, that this war is somehow not worth fighting, on all fronts--is to dishonor the innocent dead.
Experience.
And so, for the third time, what is the series of logical operators?
PaWP=Persons who advocate the will to power.
Definition of like in this domain of discourse: [(A<>B) and (A is a member of PaWP) and (B is a member of PaWP)] or [(A<>B) and (A is not a member of PaWP) and (B is not a member of PaWP)] ==> A is like B ==> B is like A.
Tubas
Lightning
Joseph Stalin
Ron Paul
Hillary Clinton
Choose two entities, substitute them for A and B above, and crank the logic. In this domain:
Tubas are like lightning. Lightning is like tubas.
Tubas are not like Joseph Stalin. Joseph Stalin is not like tubas.
Tubas are like Ron Paul. Ron Paul is like tubas.
Tubas are not like Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is not like tubas.
Lightning is not like Joseph Stalin. Joseph Stalin is not like lightning.
Lightning is like Ron Paul. Ron Paul is like lightning.
Lightning is not like Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is not like lightning.
Joseph Stalin is not like Ron Paul. Ron Paul is not like Joseph Stalin.
Joseph Stalin is like Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is like Joseph Stalin.
Ron Paul is not like Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is not like Ron Paul.
You can crank the logic on additional entities if you like.
Why do you trust your experience?
Well, but I didn't ask about "additional entities" I asked if you could point out the chain of sorite(s) in this, or any, bundle of sorite(s) that demonstrates how the "like" operator could be used just as you've shown us numerous examples of the transitivity operator in action here.
When you use the sorite(s) form, rather than predicate calculus, it handicaps your capacity to understand what you are doing by quite a bit, but what you're doing, in saying something like:
A implies myxlpxl b
B implies myslpxl c
Therefore,
A implies myxlpxl c
is applying the logical axiom of transitivity to the domain containing myxlpxl. Nothing is thereby proved about the internal nature of myxlpxl. And please note that the logical law of transitivity applies BETWEEN predicates to produce a new claim, which can be subsequently treated as a predicate in a new sorite(s). All you know is that you have assumed myxlpxl is part of a well-formed set for which the laws of logic, such as transitivity, hold. No amount of such predicates, and no matter how you hold your tongue, will reveal anything else about the symantic innner mystery of myxlplx.
What you must do, is domonstrate how "like" (as in "ice is sort of like diamonds") can be used like I've just used the transitivity operator, if you want to claim that "like" has a basis in logic.
I have not claimed "like" is an operator. It is a family of functions in the form fLike(A,B)=(A is a member of S1) AND (B is a member of S1) AND...AND (A is a member of Sn) AND (B is a member of Sn).
...just as you've shown us numerous examples of the transitivity operator in action here.
Transitivity is not an operator. It is a property of some logical operators and some logical functions, including the "like" family of functions. And I did not utilize the property of transitivity in my examples in post 1522. Transitivity requires three terms and two predicates to get a third predicate. I used two terms and a function to get two predicates, and did that ten separate times, resulting in a total of twenty predicates.
And please note that the logical law of transitivity applies BETWEEN predicates to produce a new claim, which can be subsequently treated as a predicate in a new sorite(s).
Wrong. Lemon pie is not a metal. Metal is not a dessert. Try applying the "logical law of transitivity". Lemon pie is not a dessert? Or this: 2+2=5 or 1+3=4. 1+3=4 or 4+3=9. 2+2=5 or 4+3=9 is true?
What you must do, is domonstrate how "like" (as in "ice is sort of like diamonds") can be used like I've just used the transitivity operator, if you want to claim that "like" has a basis in logic.
See above.
You better look up your math prof's office hours--you've got a long way to go.
I don't.
I don't.
So (by transitivity) you don't trust your avowed perception that there is no such thing as faith?
If you want to do proofs in predicate logic it is: when you apply a law of logic as an operator, it takes the left hand side of the equivance representation of the statement of the law, substitutes the actual terms you are using in the proof for the sybolic terms in the statement of the laws, and then produces the right hand side of the equivalance representation of the law with the substituted terms.
For example:
Law of Transitivity: (A->B) AND (B->C) = A->C
so if my predicates are:
All apples are green AND Golden Delicious are apples
Than applying the transitivity operator produces the following lemma:
Golden Delicious are green
. I used two terms and a function to get two predicates, and did that ten separate times, resulting in a total of twenty predicates.
I don't see the resulting predicates. Perhaps you could write them out, so I could differentiate your post from a chain of meaningless drivel, ordered so as to give a visceral appearance of being a logically formal argument.
This isn't a math problem, don't change the domain of discourse. The word 'trust' does not apply. There is no trust or not trust involved. The realm of the senses cannot be denied and survive. period.
Could you cite the mathematicians you consulted who didn't recognize the phrase "well-defined domain of discourse?"
I thought the whole world was your domain of discourse. Are you acknowedging that logical laws make little sense unless they are being applied to a well-ordered domain of discourse? The realm of the senses is denied all the time, and it has been observed that fatalities are not the automatic result.
The realm of the senses is denied all the time, and it has been observed that fatalities are not the automatic result.
LOL! Indeed, the realm of the senses is routinely ignored by instrument-rated pilots who wish to remain alive.....
Actually, in that case, it's a matter of deciding which senses to believe (what you see on the instruments), and which to reject (what your balance says is happening). This suggests a broader observation: that our senses do not necessarily guarantee us a true observation of reality. Any of our faculties (I include reason here) are good enough for most of the conditions in which they've been designed/evolved to operate (i.e., the domain of discourse).
But there doesn't seem to be any basis for us to assume that reason or any other faculty is capable of letting us observe "real" reality in every instance, much less recognize it for what it is in all cases.
In reality, our senses and our reason can only give us a pretty good idea of effects, and a far less perfect idea of causes. For the most part humans do well enough with this to survive -- which merely shows that you don't need to know objective reality to survive.
Which brings up the real question: can we even reliably define "the realm of the senses" in anything approaching an objective fashion, or are we limited to do our best to explain something that exceeds what our senses can handle?
oxymoron
which merely shows that you don't need to know objective reality to survive.
This is why I gave up on you. Anybody who can say anything this stupid isn't worth my time.
I live where there are a rather lot of schizophrenics. They seem to love beach communities. I have seen such people, who cannot dress themselves, who cannot put together two rational sentences, who speak for hours with invisible beings at their side, wait patiently for the light to turn green before they cross the street. At heart, they understand. Reality is that which you cannot deny.
That instruments in airplanes require greater thought, greater logic, greater thinking ahead, proves the absolute dependence upon logic, which is how we know the instruments are more accurate than our immediate senses, and proves the absolute morality of reason and logic. You make my point, not refute it.
Sigh. It was merely a quip -- and I addressed your objection in the very next paragraph. Reading for comprehension -- you should try it. And anyway, it's not a "contradiction in terms."
This is why I gave up on you. Anybody who can say anything this stupid isn't worth my time.
LOL! Just because you can't understand something, or because something doesn't fit your preconcieved notions, doesn't make it "stupid."
You are, of course, correct; “Tubas are like lightning” is not a formal predicate. I even said so myself in post 1504. Thanks.
I’ve been reading the other thread. Posts 686 and 687 (which is only near the beginning of the dialog between yourself and LogicWings about logic and domains of discourse) stood out for me in that they clearly delineate the two sides.
In particular:
donh, post 686: In this case, it is painfully obvious what the swindle is: you picked a version of God the God defined as "having no trail of material evidence". And demonstrated that this definition of God can't, by definition, exist. Unfortunately for your argument, other people who are listening have other versions of God in mind, some of which subbornly exceed the parameters of your rather quaint, unhistorical definition.
LogicWings, post 687: I'm sorry, but how do you know that logic supports only 2 of the 16 boolean operators? Is this an absolute fact determined by Aristotlean logic, just something you 'feel' is true, or something approximately true between the Absolute and subjective morass? How did one arrive at those modern, usually table-driven versions of boolean algebra without identifying operators that have meanings that cannot include their opposite, i.e., formal logic, as the basis for their definitions.
It all comes down to definitions. But just because “like” represents different functions at different times does not mean logic doesn’t apply. Contrary to your assertions that different domains of discourse are forever separate, “like” in one domain can be related to “like” in another domain, thus demonstrating that the two domains are really one and the same. There is one overall domain, the domain of thought. And logic is the only way to operate properly in that domain.
There is much more to say, and I think I can show the formal relation between “like” in two separate domains, which you have a right to expect of me based on my claim. I will work on it. And also continue reading the other thread. But I have to put a cap on the amount of time I’m spending on this, which isn’t so bad, since I get more time to digest things away from the computer as I proceed, and hopefully get things straight.
I believe the two sides can be reconciled. Crossing domains is possible if definitions are made clear enough. The apparent separation of domains is a result of the Fall and mankind’s unwillingness to reason correctly.
“I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” –Ephesians 4:1-8
“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.” –Romans 12:2-3
As I have indicated, I think analogous reasoning is precisely the mixing of logically unrelated domains of discourse. Pick any poetic metaphore in common usage for an obvious example. Thank you for your reasonable response. Good luck in your hunt. I don't think you'll find what you are looking for, but you may find something equally valuable.
oxymoron
hydrogen-cephelopod
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.