The US, UN & Iraq III

Somehow when Lola uses big words like "PATHOLOCIAL NARCISSISM---IT SEEMS TO MEAN SOMETHING BUT WHEN AN ARTIST USES THEM----well I guess I'll postpone that second look.

Lola should know more than any of us that are not in psychiatry as professionals about "pathologic narcissism." The symptoms are there...she knows the symptoms.

VNN

I concur----since I just passed my GED for High School I depend on Lola for all those definitions

Well, hi there, VNN. And, if memory serves, isn't that part of your background training and work, too? With the added bonus of working at this in war?

Patholgical narcissism - nether are big words, and perhaps looking up the definition would be helpful. It might explain to you, perception, what so many of us are talking about. But then......maybe not.

I've started reading some on the history of Islam again, and have come to some conclusions. Nothing earth-shaking; all sort of common sense.

First, the definition of democracy. It's always interesting to hear the flag-raisers tout the republic that exists here as the democracy everybody else in the world should have. It's a lazy way out. It's what the Bush people have done, or assumed that stupid Americans would follow in what theyve done. A study of Islam shows that there are other forms of government that can work. The Moors, after all, arose in the 600's, by the 700's had invaded the Iberian Peninsula on their way to a great deal of Europe. Along the way, they gave us mathematics, practical architecture, a sense of the importance of water in our lives, and a way of governing that was uniquely theirs. And they lasted 700 years, which is longer than we've managed so far.

I think even a dim wit can comprehend that one cannot invade a foreign culture and announce that it would be better for them if they adopted the invaders' culture. There are questions about who benefits, and how.

And a look at our country, from the Iraqi side, does not offer proof positive that everything is so terrific. Obviously, more and more of them do not want to be like us, do not think that everything we say and do is that much better. We have a reputation that we are built on the promise of making money - but that s not everybody's idea of the good life. Apparently, a lot of our troops are beginning to take another look, also.

But the Bush people go merrily along, pretending and playing their war games, seemingly blissfully unaware that they are not world-wide heroes or saviors, or liberators. Or that an increasing number of Americans are now beginning to question.

I think with Bush the package is the whole story. He's not real, he's a reflection of what some others desire, each trying to use him. Karl Rove wants him to be the big, tough cowboy type. Rumsfeld wants him to be the guy who says Rummy is our hero. And - maybe Cheney is beginning to wish he'd go away?

I have a question for all you experts on Islam. Back before the creation of Islam some where about 600AD, what was the predominant religion and who hi-jacked what when Muhammad the majician waved his wand.

Percepion - perhaps a little study of Hindu, Shinto, Buddhism might help? The Moors had traded wit te far east for many centuries, and were the ones who brought back the start of modern cermics. In their travels they met up with many religions. It sounds like you're trying to say Christianity, but the Christians derive from the Jews, who, in turn, derive from others. And even today, Christianity is not the major religion in the world.

Your question (?) makes no sense. Nobody hi -jacked any religion from another. In the Judeo-Christian-Islamic progressions, there was almost a natural order. Good lord! To suggest that the Muslims are more fanatic than anyone else is to beg history.

Mama wrote:

To suggest that the Muslims are more fanatic than anyone else is to beg history.

Heaven forbid mama---I sure hope our official historian Setanta, shows up to settle the dust .

That would be Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, and Isis worship. Christianity hijacked them and rolled them together in the period 60-400C.E.
The predominant religion in the Arabian Penninsula in the 7th Cnetury CE was a species of polytheistic animism. Islam itself is probably a hybrid of post-second temple Judaism,and Arian Christianity.

Hobitbob wrote:

Christianity hijacked them and rolled them together in the period 60-400C.E.

I should have guessed it----everything is the fault of Christianity and the USA

This is your comment, not mine. I wasn't aware the US existed in the 1st century. Christianity shares a violent past with Islam, this is true. I have a suspicion that you do not know a great deal about the history of either Christianity or of Islam. I havhv the advantage of being a graduate student in Medieval history,and of having as minor fields late antiquity and medieval Islam. These are my specialties. I also have the advantage of not being ideologically driven. I don't consider any religion to be more "right" than any other. Study of the history of religion(s) tends to disabuse one of such notions as any "one true faith." But by all means continue trolling.

You know, Perception, I've been perusing various threads which seem to be disintegrating into anger and in each case your posts have been provocative and angry and/or snide causes of the problem. Can't you just give it a rest?

Hi there perception,

Were you saying you'd better take a second look at me or GW? I suppose both of us could use another glance or two.

Pathological Narcissism is a diagnostic term (and I am not offering any professional diagnoses here, it would be entirely unethical. I'm simply speaking as one citizen making observations.) Narcissism in and of itself is not pathological. A reasonable level of narcissism is healthy. We must all love ourselves enough in order to conduct ourselves with confidence. The term is commonly used to mean too much narcissism. But in fact it means quite the opposite. It means too little narcissism. That is, a person feels so unsure of himself and has such shaky self esteem, he is narcissistically vulnerable to destabilizing levels of anxiety and an over dependence on mechanisms of defense which seek to over simplify complex situations and to chronically look outside of themselves for the cause of anxiety. Blame, rather than an attempt to understand, becomes the focus of the pathologically narcissistic. Actually I don't much like the term and apologize for using it, because it suggests an overly simplified explanation for what in reality are complex psychic forces that are best understood, in my opinion, as over determined, or multiply determined (serving many psychic functions at once, sometimes contradictory.) Well, I'm sorry, I'm getting overly technical. (Just trying to get myself out of a bit of sludge caused by my use of a label which, while it may apply, doesn't do justice to the depth of the real problem.)

Maybe it would be easier to say that GW is well known to behave like a terrible jerk most of the time. He is often very close to being out of control of himself and his judgement about such matters is appalling. Notice how he is so seldom allowed to speak unsupervised or without a written script. When he ad libs, he almost always sticks his foot right in his mouth and bites down hard. Poor man, really, if he weren't so dangerous, I'd be more sympathetic.

But perc, I can't tell you how many times I've heard first hand versions of the picture of Bush in this interview. The sadistic grin is classic. (I have some first hand experience with GW. If you want to know more about it, send me a PM and I'll fill you in privately.)

In any case, Bush and his "advisors" (more accurately his handlers) are jeopardizing the stability of the entire world based on their Machiavellian point of view. I've been horrified as I've watched them take over and I'll only feel safe when they're out of office.

I hope this doesn't mean you and I aren't friends anymore. But on this subject, it appears we disagree.

Ya know it's a sad situation---Walter can be sarcastic but I can't -----Tartarin can alternatingly be cutting, insulting, and just plain bitchy ---but I can't respond-----Bobitbob can be arrogant ,nasty and insulting but I can't reply----same old lefty syndrome---if you can't beat---whine and then shout' em down.

You don't want controversy and debate---you want subservience and agreement.

I'm gone---- bye

Lola

Sorry that last post was supposed to appear before your very eloquent description of Bush----there are certain people here that I have great respect for and you're one of them. The others take verything way too seriously---bad for your blood pressure. I'm gone for a while.

Perception, I don't think anyone is trying to chase you away, all they are asking is to dull the edges of your sharp tongue a bit.

If you find it easier to just go away then to change your mode of communication, so be it. I'm disappointed that you choose the easy way out. Having another point of view gives a breath of fresh air to the debates here. We just don't need the jagged edges ripping everyone to shreds when we inhale.

I hope you'll reconsider, tone down the acrimony and continue posting here.

Wow! Just got back from Canada, and this forum is still stringing along on the same character analysis syndrome. Just finished reading this page, but will need to back track to the beginning of where I left off. c.i.

Welcome back from vacation, c.i. Missed ya. Was it you that unplugged the lights?

hobitbob, I was interested in your posts. I have read the history of Islam and it follows closely upon Jewish and Christian revelation. In fact, the thought was that Islam was the resolution of the revealed wisdom, and that Muslim thought is, or was for centuries, considered to be the final revelation.

Hey, Hey, Hey...what happened to Clipboard?? I could stop mid thought until now and continue later.

This is a new A2K world.

Islam is likely the synthesis of the Arian/Nestorian christianity that existed in the areas of Syria and Egypt,and the newly rabbinical Judaism, with some Mithraism thrown in. Here is a list of sources I compiled for another member on another thread:
I would reccomend the following works:
Gregorian, VartanIslam: Mosaic, Not Monolith New York, Brookings Institute Press. 2003
Patai, Rafael, Inside The Arab Mind New York, Hatherleigh Press, 2002,
Brown, L. Carl, Religion and State: The Muslim Approach to PoliticsNew York, Columbia University Press. 2001
Hourani, Albert Habib, A History of the Arab PeoplesCambridge, MA, Havard. 1991
Armstrong, KarenThe Battle For God: Fundamentalism in Judaism,Christianity, and Islam. New York, Ballantine. 2001
Moore, Robert, The Formation of a Persecuting SocietyNew York, Blackwell. 1990
Nirenbirg, David, Communities of Violence:Persecution of Minorities in the Middle AgesNew York, Princeton. 1998
Nosser, Sayyed Hossein, Islam: Religion History and CivilizationNew York, Harper. 2002
Said, Edward, et. al., Covering Islam:How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the WorldNew York, Random House, 1996
Gerges, Fawaz A. America and Political Islam:Clash of Cultures or Clash of Interests?Cambridge,1999.
Esposito, John L. (ed), The Oxford History of IslamOxford, 2000.
Huntington, Samuel P. , The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World OrderNew York, Simon and Schuster. 1997.
Hunter, Shireen T. The Future of Islam and the West: Clash of Civilizations, or Peaceful Co-existance?New York, Greenwood. 1998
I would also reccomend a good trranslation of the Koran.
This is a short list of background reading on the subject. I hope that this helps.

_________________

hobitbob, A quick response to your effulgent post, for which many thanks.

I have read all of Karen Armstrong's works. I am well behind you in comparative religion but it is a subject that is among the most interesting to me.

I am copying your list, to follow up.