The Psyche of Al-Qaeda #108 Posted by tahmed32 on
[[
Once we get this clear, we can get back to the subject - what is the psyche of a hoodlum. What childhood influences did he go through in saudi arabia that caused him to grow up to be a decoit.
]]

Your second statement gives a hint, but their group is much larger abd bigger than dacoits, and much better organized.
Psyche of al-qaida, if it was an individul, could not have been such an important issue.
What gives room for such individul "psyche" to fit in or become a large group psychology that works in an organized way? And for what do they work, what it the objective they set for themselves... How their "xyz" type of psychology gets that common objective?

Only a strong ideology can create individuals having such a comon group psychology, not just social environment.

Collective psyche of al-qaida is political Islam, where they find refuge for their any kind of social or political or individual shortcoming. Very few people are happy with politics of any state/nation, but they don't get such easy psychological asylum as political Islam, nor other things can move so freely under the global umbrella of a religion and with power of speaking God on their side.

Christianity has lost that power (because Christians ignored it) and can not any more controll state in a visible way, but definitly it is not happy about it.

The Psyche of Al-Qaeda
#102 Posted by muradbaig on
that was good analysis.... except

[[
All religions preach the faith of their founders
]]
this assumes that no religion or sect evolves which is wrong assumption, it depends on that sect and religion and what defines it..


In any case, it is important to tell people very clearly what is good and what is bad for them, irrespective of why it so happened...

Ideas develop when you have time (and hence mind) to think, not everybody has that luxury all the time and even when you have, you may not utilize it...

but again there is no democracy in truth or idea, the closer an idea is to truth the more acceptable it should be... if it isn't we need to create that environment..

The Psyche of Al-Qaeda thank you sohail...

i always thought good trolls are good for discussion:-)

The Psyche of Al-Qaeda You might have already noticed it is troll time...

...moral of the story...... part-2nd....

is what i said earlier, as "human rights" are are one of our objective, we can see which current system at least knows or identifies the same objective, here "canada" and "usa" will have less problem than "saudi arabia"..

then the next thing is to see which one is easier to support them... Again, USA and Canada not only identify them properly but they also uphold them at least internally... so those system are much closer to our objective state.... now do the estimates, budgeting, planning etc and start working...





===this i trolled earlier======


#58 Posted by pinku on November 7, 2008 7:22:59 pm
May be, add a few more things (no coercion for the time being):

For each of the categories you listed check
1. What they force you to do - their objective

2. How they force you to do - their means of force/coercion

3. How good or bad are their objectives

4. how good or bad are their means

+++
Imagine you are in-charge/administrator and think which one can be avoided:

1. just by better knowledge/ideas among your workers (people)

2. by ideas and some framework (like processes/infrastructure: what governments do)


obviously think about whole of humanity ...

there are more subtle issues, which can be discussed later. One of them is in which cases does this force/coercion becomes self propagatory (more for psychologist, he should analyze it here)

Once we are done we can step back and do a round of chorus or antakhshari depending on results..

====

"for discussion sake if we divide any community in three groups
...religious fundamentalists
...religious humanists...believers
...secular humanists...non-believers"

- secular fundamentalists.

The Psyche of Al-Qaeda ...moral of the story...... part-1st....

as always, you have following three:

1. current state of the system

2. system state that is your purpose/objective

3. what to do to achieve "objective" state in #2

For #2, if you are looking at whole of humanity, you need to think philosophically/mathematically.. or in simpler terms "truth" wise...

You can initially decide a perfect or close to perfect desired state and then current state and then can see how close you can go depending upon current state.... and by when??



But if you don't set an overall objective, things will remain confusing, arbitrary....
You can have any kind of killings, in any number and the one who kill is as right as the one who got killed....

What is it that we want? Just no killing? for how long? or something more than that? say something that lets ideas/truths evolve without killing or with little killings and your human rights etc?



Once we know what we want, we can think what is stopping us from what we want and waht can take use there..


hmm, i know everybody knows it, we do it daily in one way or other.... but sometimes loud thinking makes you feel, you are part of the system (or part of problem)..

The Psyche of Al-Qaeda #82 Posted by KaalChakra on
ok kal bhai,

I am not that intolerant a troll, they are most welcome, i will do my part..:-)


hope what I said (or will say) will give readers a good (or bad) base to understand what will follow...

The Psyche of Al-Qaeda #80 Posted by KaalChakra on

Unfortunately, I am the troll on duty..
[[
Does tolerance necessitate accepting the equal validity of intolerance? Is intolerance of intolerance intolerance?
]]



Part-1

Kaal, as i said earlier you need "mind" to decide these things? And mind works only on "reason" and reason works only on "truths"..

If anybody really want to understand what you asked, it has to fit in the framework of this truth-value system.

Part-2
The second part of the puzzle is that truths are truths, they are big or small as per your objective or how they help in it. Otherwise they are just truths (infinite but each so difficult to find and define). The only grand objective we can set for whole humanity is "searching, living and enjoying truths" and keeping that environment alive.

Part-3
Answer to your question is..

The intolerance of intolerance of "truth" can be considered as tolerance if it helps in objective defined in part-2.
If you define some absurd objectve in part-2 then you can use any combination of "tolernace" and "intolerance" to create your statement and consider it to be ok.



I know people won't like my constant interruption, but then I am not generally that tolerant..

The Psyche of Al-Qaeda

#78 Posted by pinku on
And for truths there is no such question as "whether they are equal or not"

The Psyche of Al-Qaeda #77 Posted by khurram on
Dear Khuraam and Sohail

sorry for disturbing you for a while, but don't fight with me if you know my self-serving rights

[[
To say that all beliefs are equally valid is ALSO a belief. You are being self-contradictory when you privilege it over and above the belief that all beliefs are NOT equally valid.
]]

Talking about beliefs and handling them as truths is quite meaningless and tend to be stupid. If you guys are going in this direction, you can remain in your big or small circle (depending upon how much you discuss) without understanding anything significant.

Talk in terms of truths, if it seems too difficult to understand what is truth or when something is truth than think about that.

A belief can be anything, true/false, benign/malign, extraordinarily dangerous, amazingly ridiculous or whatever. So talking about their equallity or inequality means nothing. You have to find truths in those beliefs to compare them. There are infinite truths in this world, with infinite contexts, but none can invalidate other. But this is true only for something which is as good as truth, not for "beliefs".

So extract your truths out of your beliefs and compare them to analyze if they are equal, or which one is better. They may have different set of truths, some truths may not affect us at all. For example if a belief says "water molecule is made up of 10 quarks and not H2O, while stating quark correctkly" it is in conflict with a truth but the conflict doesn't seem that bad.

Technically, it is better to let people defend some ideas (if they want to) and give them full freedom to give arguments if they feel they can.

The biggest problem with religions is "talking God", because here going by the definition of God, you are not left in a position to do anything if the fake talking God says something bad. And the first thing to be given for defense is "do you think your book has word of God and it is God who said all those tings"?

If you are not talking about religions than "belief" mean nothing. I believe is as good as saying, i think so do you think I am wrong, give me reason?

That is where you should start.

Anyway, you guys are more aware so you know what to discuss, much better then me!

The Psyche of Al-Qaeda #75 Posted by drsohail on
[[
ps...i hope kalchakra and pinku are happy to read our dialogue.
]]

I hope you are happy reading mine and I will be happy till you don't give up reason and don't give in to religion...

tools to explore truths may be many, but your (or mine, or individual's) mind is the only tool to understand truth and reason is the only language, to help you or me (our mind) do it

rest is fine as weather is..

Yes we can, Obama!

add to #30 Posted by pinku on
On second thoughts
[[
out of place comments only reflect upon the forum and the one who posts those,
]]

forum/articles can not be anywhere perfect, nor they can achieve anything important by remaining ultra clean.. Ideas are what matters.. and we are not that high IQ that we know for sure how these ideas, some good and some bad, can interplay in different conditions.... but in general as long as trolls let you give your good ideas there bad ideas may actually help you and them as well.. and that is the purpose.... I have been reading these articles and discussions for quite some time here.. so i know a little bit about them.. it is simply wrong to suggest that trolls can stop anyone from expressing their good ideas... there is so much time and if people are so affected by such trolls it seems they hardly have significant ideas and/or sincerity to carry on with them...I have not so far said anything properly about it, but you can give it a thought..

for the time being, I am just trying to set higher standards for "trolls":-), which seems to be a good deed (till writing proper comment is out of reach for me)??...

Yes we can, Obama! #29 Posted by MatloobZaman on
That was perfect. I am a chowkidar/chaprasi in my own rights for myself, what you see as hatred is my chowkidaari. It belonged here at that time, for more than one reason. As a sincere troll/chowkidar I keep checking where i need to show my own brand of idiocy ( and in what amount).

Believe me, i understand that your concern is proper, but you assume that everybody who comes to this article page has same psychological condition. But my chowkidaari starts at the periphery of most of these articles or their subjects.

The Capture of Christianity
#115 Posted by laddu on
It is just so different:-), A few Iranians that I know never talk about religion, while pakistanis are so much interested in religion but don't know what to say:-)

Raj Kareaga Khalsa aaki rahe no koi
khoaar hoae sabh milainge bachay sharan jo hoae

(I used to think it is" baki rahe na koi" and "paar huae to milenge":-))

Waheguu Ji Ka Khalsa
Sri Waheguru Ji Ki Fatah
ek omkar

Seems sikhism was a solid martial sect to give equal footing against Islamic warriors but still keeping it close to Hindu softness/openness when it comes to God....

Actually, lot is ok till you don't let God speak for himself.... Kuran could be dangerous only because of that and Gita would have been very dangerous if it was stupid.... Hindus should feel fortunate that Gita was written by an intellectual pehalvan of sorts... and plus it came along with Mahabharta.....but making God speak is always dangerous.... or it always has potential to go wrong, but it adds to drama and you can use "verily" "O! .." "Lo ...." "behold" and all other possible exclaimations...... think how good you will feel if you start speaking on behalf of God:-)

Think if God speaks like this:
O! Jang, Behold thine tongue?
Verily! I am the one who knows all reason
I gave you the 5 Ks and the turban
Verily! You come to me, when you've question

And then you are ever bound to binding of that book, because whole psychology is crippled (God is all powerful, all knowing and he said so)?

Non speaking God, makes life easier...

Yes we can, Obama!
#26 Posted by MatloobZaman on
Sorry MatloobZaman,

I don't give any right to anyone about what i will discuss on public forums.. the moment you say something publicly i reserve the right to respond... I do try to not to hurt that much emotionally and be civilized in my own way, but it may not be as per your standard or any other arbitrary standard..

though it was against somebody's comment but i don't even follow a rule like you can say only something that somehow relate to the article ..

if you have been hurt by my comments you can ask chowk to ban me....

let me create an ilog with it, so that people do not ask anything like this unless they think they can convince me

The Psyche of Al-Qaeda
should have been:
So instead of accepting anything as truth, it is freedom of saying "no i don't think so" which is more important.

The Psyche of Al-Qaeda #63 Posted by drsohail on
Perfect summary..
ideologies themselves can be self propagatory but if you add "God" to it, they become resistant to any change and that is when anything bad in psycholoy or ideology becomes lethal.

[[

I believe we need to respect other people's truth individually and collectively even when we disagree with them.

]]

This is wrong, truths are never that conflicting, even when we are not close to truths they are not that conflicting. It is only when as a society we start accpeting anything as truth that people in general lose sense of what is truth and what is not. If group ideologies are pursued by large groups and actions keep emnating out of them, the concept of "respect" and expecting good out of it is wishful thinking and wrong.

Exmple is, it is of no use today to cry over how many people were killed by any ideology if all we suggest is that we should have respected it. There is something that has to be corrective and should come out of society itself, without much effort. The simplest is to not to accept things which are not truths peacefully.Just say that forme it is not truth. Don't accept it. That will not only reduce conflict in future, it gives the best democratic infrastructure to keep things close to truth. So instead of accepting truth, it is freedom of saying "no i don't think so" which is more important.

If you know something is wrong or not true, the day you know it for sure, you should stop supporting that "false truth", not just religious, even if it is scientific. Only reason for supporting an idea should be that your mind still has some valid argument for it and is not convinced, not ego, not mere respect for somebody else's ego.

Not suporting an idea can still be respectful, at least shouldn't try to harm those who support it, till they try to harm you. You don't need convoluted ideas of respect to keep confusion over things for ever or to help spread confusion and chaos.

If Islam was able to digest "simple" "NO"s, you wouldn't have seen somany people feeling ofended by it and so much against it,doesn't matter what it says, whowould have cared???