1. Comment #76117 by obscured by clouds on October 4, 2007 at 6:55 pm

Great job! It looks good, can't wait till I see it on the DVD.

Other Comments by obscured by clouds

2. Comment #76118 by Atticus_of_Amber on October 4, 2007 at 7:06 pm

Wow, this is interesting. Looking foward to teh rest.

The thing that shook me the most was the proportional comparison between the bloodiness of hunter-gatherer societies with the bloodiness of the 20th century.

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

3. Comment #76129 by Quine on October 4, 2007 at 7:52 pm

Thanks Josh, for putting this up.

Other Comments by Quine

4. Comment #76136 by tieInterceptor on October 4, 2007 at 8:04 pm

Amazing !



keep me awake up to 4:04 am!

thanks for uploading, favourite already

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

5. Comment #76146 by aoratos philos on October 4, 2007 at 9:57 pm

Thankyou, interesting and well delivered lecture.

Other Comments by aoratos philos

6. Comment #76148 by Veronique on October 4, 2007 at 10:42 pm

What a fascinating lecture from Thompson. I was riveted. I wrote down quite a lot while he was talking, and a couple of things stood out:

He spoke of the cognitive 'software' needed for apes etc to plan and successfully executive lethal raids on neighbouring more vulnerable others.

It reminds me a bit of Paul Davies' thesis of the concomitant 'evolution' of the hardware of the universe and the software of the natural physical laws. Essential components of the whole.

I started thinking of the brain as the hardware and cognition and the functions of mind as the software. Both evolving in tandem. Very neat. (Come on, pull it apart, please:-)).

He also brings us down to earth with his thesis of male bonded coalitionary violence that can be demonstrated to be older than before we and the chimps split off from our common ancestor.

I liked his neat way of arguing that religions are carefully constructed so that they hijack our cognitive mechanisms by decoupling cognition, redirecting reciprocal altruism and kin loyalities by erecting pseudo loyalties.

What a marvellous talk. Thanks Josh for posting it. You do very well by us here in the boondocks who can't get to events like these:-).

With gratitude
V

Other Comments by Veronique

7. Comment #76170 by Nick Good on October 5, 2007 at 12:50 am

Good lecture, with some interesting observations.

That said, I thought Dan Dennett's point was rather silly.

Dennett argued that the the Muslim brotherhood's leader - Saheed Qtub, was 'programmed'... was radicalised in an Egyptian jail. Dennett then went on to say that this is what the US is doing to the Jihadi prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.

I think he - Dennett - has it the wrong way around. Putting aside the illegal combatants, POW, 'due process' arguments. The 500 guys in Gitmo are there because they are Jihadi's, not Jihadis because they are there.

Dennett notably does not come up with other alternatives suggestions as to what to do with them.

Other Comments by Nick Good

8. Comment #76207 by scooternyc on October 5, 2007 at 4:26 am

Nick, yours is a great observation and one that my buddy and I made during the event when we attended last Friday.

The question I wish I had asked to Dennett later was, "What is it that you think we should do with these terrorists? Let them go; release them to their own countries where they may either kill more innocent people or soldiers; or better still they may be executed by their own nations?"

The Looming Tower is an excellent book that outlines the genealogy of this jihad network as far back as the 1950's - it's amazing.

The other aspect I took exception with was when 2 women spoke to the nature of the female violence inherent in those women who would seek it. The speaker attempted to credential his own work and disregard the women's points, which was a mistake.

Women can be just as prone to violence, the fact that the speaker hasn't researched it doesn't mean it isn't worth exploring and doesn't negate the potential or the reality.

"Have you ever seen a million dollars?"

"no"

"just because YOU haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist"

Great observation Mr. Good.

Other Comments by scooternyc

9. Comment #76211 by steve99 on October 5, 2007 at 4:54 am

The other aspect I took exception with was when 2 women spoke to the nature of the female violence inherent in those women who would seek it. The speaker attempted to credential his own work and disregard the women's points, which was a mistake.

It certainly was. It seemed to be he was trying to draw general anthropological conclusions (or at least responding to general questions) from an analysis of suicide bombers, primarily in male-dominated cultures.

Women can be just as prone to violence, the fact that the speaker hasn't researched it doesn't mean it isn't worth exploring and doesn't negate the potential or the reality.

Indeed. Although it was an excellent talk, there seemed to me to be a considerable confusion between evolution and culture. There was, I believe, an incorrect emphasis on a supposed male tendency to violence coming from evolution.

A quick Google search came up with this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6656661.stm

"Female chimps can become killers"

"Our research shows that, under the right socio-ecological circumstances, chimp gender stereotypes collapse completely"

This suggests that gender roles in violence are far more complex than implied in that talk.

Other Comments by steve99

10. Comment #76231 by Crazymalc on October 5, 2007 at 6:41 am

Thanks for the video. Appreciated.

I've become fascinated with the evolution of religion since reading "Breaking the spell" and I appreciated Prof. Thomson added to the ideas in the book

Other Comments by Crazymalc

11. Comment #76235 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 5, 2007 at 7:04 am

Scooter and Nick, Dennett's point was spot on, and the general consensus arrived at by those that have studied Qtub's life. He was radicalised by a brutal regime. The same pathology has been observed in hundreds of trouble spots around the world, not least my own country of birth.

As regards those in Gitmo. We cannot meaningfully comment on their guilt or innocence, because they have never been tried. The comment the 500 guys in Gitmo are there because they are Jihadi's, not Jihadis because they are there. cannot, in absence of transparent legal procedures, reasonably be substantiated.

The ongoing imprisonment of those in Gitmo is a kind of modern day witch trial. With the entire panalopy of cognitive dissonance, truism and group think that characterises this kind of hysterical reaction.

Dennett was right, and I was very glad he made the comment he did. Scooter, I'd be intruiged to know what Dennett replied to your question.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

12. Comment #76254 by fullyladenswallow on October 5, 2007 at 8:37 am

I found Mr. Thomson's lecture quite fascinating, especially with reference to the chimp's social behavior regarding group raids on other groups of chimps. It seems to contrast the view painted by Oliver Curry, one of Richard Dawkins' interviews on the Root of All Evil? video where Curry observes the moral behavior of chimps as that of good citizens.

Other Comments by fullyladenswallow

13. Comment #76259 by eirik on October 5, 2007 at 9:08 am

briancoughlanworldcitizen,

hear, hear!

Other Comments by eirik

14. Comment #76264 by eirik on October 5, 2007 at 9:21 am

Quoted from the AAI website:

You may also purchase DVDs of all or part of the convention though the AAI website in October. The cost will be $25 for your choice of day/event or $75 for the entire disk set (plus postage).

Is it just me or am I right in being a little dumbstruck by the pricing of those DVDs? On the same page from which this quote is taken, they say that they want to reach as many people as possible. Doesn't quite fit if you ask me. But then again, no one did. ;)

Other Comments by eirik

15. Comment #76272 by 3legcat on October 5, 2007 at 9:49 am

the suggestion that conditions at Gitmo are similar to the egyption hell holes is mere piffle.

i don't like gitmo, it was/is bad policy, but they are clearly not the same, not in prisoner treatment, nor in their ability to "create" monsters (whatever that means).

many prisoners at gitmo have been cleared for release, if only some country would take them. perhaps an adoption program would be helpful.

Other Comments by 3legcat

16. Comment #76276 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 5, 2007 at 10:22 am

3legcat, I'm genuinely not comparing it. Merely noting that it at least has the potential to lead to similar outcomes. Certainly full blown torture seems unlikely to be going on (although there is some doubt even about this) but gitmo represents a major injustice.

That makes people want to kill other people, always has and most likely always will:-(

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

17. Comment #76286 by 3legcat on October 5, 2007 at 11:08 am

hello brian,

hope all is well with you,

"Merely noting that it at least has the potential to lead to similar outcomes"

Qtub lived in america in the 1950's and determined that we are a reprehensible, amoral disgusting culture and left, his evidence: we are devoted to lawn care and we allow women to dance with men in public. clearly the cheese slipped off his cracker long before he was tortured. the evidence tells me that there is more to qtub than a normal guy turned monster by torture.

there are many good reasons to oppose torture, i am certain we agree on all of them. i do think it unlikely that the US Gov is engaged in severe physical torture in such a high profile setting as gitmo (i do think it highly likely in the black sites and in third countries). i do not doubt that my threshold of humane treatment and that of the white house are vastly different.

"but gitmo represents a major injustice."

how so? what would you do with genuine terrorists, caught in the act of terrorism? not a part of a nation state in an endless war?

i wouldn't torture, i would allow visits by the red cross/crescent, it would be open to scrutiny, but yes i would hold them and i am not sure i would use the domestic justice system or jails? what would you do?

Other Comments by 3legcat

18. Comment #76306 by 82abhilash on October 5, 2007 at 12:15 pm

I think gitmo is the product of a failed strategy on an incompetent administration. It might as well be that the people in gitmo are radicalized muslims standing on the edge of the proverbial cliff. So was Sayed Qutub.

But locking them only pushes them over the edge and when they fall, it is most likely that they will pull down a lot of innocent people with them. That is what Dennett meant by telling the prisons help create such people. It acts like a spark to ignite their gun powder.

But what can be done? Can we just let them freely preach their radical ideas? Indoctrinate millions with their poison? If they ever come out they are more likely than they where before they got in, to perform acts of terror. In fact those among them who where mistakenly put there may also get convinced that the US is some sort of satan.

I have an unsettling thought. What choice do they have except death? Die as a suicide bomber, or die in a futile raid, or get killed in gitmo itself. Do you think they will have any desire to try and live a normal life, after this? What are the chances?

Other Comments by 82abhilash

19. Comment #76315 by Logicel on October 5, 2007 at 12:45 pm

I found this to be a very powerful lecture and agree wholeheartedly with Dawkins that Thompson delivered the goods. It seems that Thompson is working with the RDF, or at least approves of its aims to learn more about religion influencing our lives. If so, I find this very encouraging; we need psychiatrists to study how religion affects us, without tiptoeing around religious sensibilities.

Thompson rightfully credits great courage to Dawkins, and others, to confront religion and its negative influence, but equally well, Thompson, a professional trained in a field that is overwhelming tolerant of intolerance stemming from religious beliefs, is courageous in being so clear, outspoken, and consistent about religion's adverse effects on humanity. I am bowled over by him!!!

In addition, Thompson goes even further, and questions the wisdom of allowing men to be in the position to act out on their biology. I have certainly in my 57 years encountered mutterings about women being more peaceful, but never from a professionally trained psychologist who is actually saying that we implement this knowledge.

I know just a little about this topic, but it seems that one can have the mental gender, while not possessing the actual physical gender--males with female minds/cognition, and females with male minds/cognition. This could explain Thatcher; after all, men in power would only warm up and support females with male minds and reject the guys with female minds. So, to me, what is important, is to select people with the right mental gender for certain jobs.

As Thompson said, females certainly can commit violence, but it is not coming from the same evolutionary basis of spreading their seed, but in conserving/protecting the results of their fruition--offspring, family, etc.

Though Thompson seemed sympathetic to the idea that religious belief is a form of mental illness, he was very clear in that it does not share the same level as with schizophrenia--a very important distinction. However, religious beliefs do seem neurotic, but are given full reign because they are religious!

Thompson also drove home the point that children need to be protected from religious indoctrination.

Thompson musing about Atran's conflation with jihadis with football stars was perfect. It is really hard to take Atran seriously after 2003--he wrote valuable information until then and then got silly.

Other Comments by Logicel

20. Comment #76321 by eXcommunicate on October 5, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Watched all three videos and loved them. Thomson surely is on to something here and his lecture, or perhaps a series of lectures in a more "commercial" DVD format, should be required viewing for all High School students in a social studies class. Likewise, the questions from the audience were very astute and informative in their own right.

However, as a lover of ancient history, ancient Greek history specifically, I take to task the comment from one of the audience members at the very end of the 3rd video that Spartans enforced homosexuality in their army to solidify the "brotherhood" aspect of coalition violence. This statement has no basis in fact when taking ancient sources into account. In fact, ancient Sparta had laws that would in effect condemn a homosexual to death if he was caught. Although we know little about Spartan law, that much is true. Although homosexuality in the ranks is a foregone conclusion, the idea that it was institutionalized in the army has no basis in fact. Now if the audience member had said something about pederasty and Athens or showed any knowledge on the subject beyond "Ancient Spartans=ghey, lawllzz!!!!11!" then he might have been on to something.

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

21. Comment #76325 by Richard Dawkins on October 5, 2007 at 1:43 pm

14. Comment #76264 by eirik on October 5, 2007 at 9:21 am
Quoted from the AAI website:

You may also purchase DVDs of all or part of the convention though the AAI website in October. The cost will be $25 for your choice of day/event or $75 for the entire disk set (plus postage).

Is it just me or am I right in being a little dumbstruck by the pricing of those DVDs? On the same page from which this quote is taken, they say that they want to reach as many people as possible. Doesn't quite fit if you ask me. But then again, no one did. ;)

No, it is not just you.

RDFRS will be releasing our own DVDs of the major talks, filmed by Josh and his colleagues, at a much lower price. More details to follow soon on this website, when Josh and Maureen have completed the editing.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

22. Comment #76340 by eirik on October 5, 2007 at 2:59 pm

Great!! Thanks! Don't know what we poor non-believing folks would do without you. ;)

Other Comments by eirik

23. Comment #76348 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 5, 2007 at 3:15 pm

i wouldn't torture, i would allow visits by the red cross/crescent, it would be open to scrutiny, but yes i would hold them and i am not sure i would use the domestic justice system or jails? what would you do?

Isn't it obvious? They should be tried or released. The Bush administration simply made up a class of combatant in order to detain these people indefinetly. Several of those released have been shown to be have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time, others were "sold" to coalition forces. How do we know that the same is not true for every other individual currently interned? We don't of course, we must simply take the word of the same people that unleashed a war that has to date probably killed a million people, several thousand of them americans.

That is why it is injust, and that is why it is breeding terrorism .... right now. Even the most cursory glance at recent British/Irish history shows how morally bankrupt this kind of stategy is.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

24. Comment #76352 by Matt7895 on October 5, 2007 at 3:26 pm

A good video. I wish I could show it to my theistic friends because it has a great argument against religion.

Other Comments by Matt7895

25. Comment #76356 by phasmagigas on October 5, 2007 at 3:34 pm

found Mr. Thomson's lecture quite fascinating, especially with reference to the chimp's social behavior regarding group raids on other groups of chimps. It seems to contrast the view painted by Oliver Curry, one of Richard Dawkins' interviews on the Root of All Evil? video where Curry observes the moral behavior of chimps as that of good citizens.

like people they can be both 'nice' and 'nasty'.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

26. Comment #76395 by BigChiefRainInFace on October 5, 2007 at 5:41 pm

Martha, if I'm not mistaken that observation was made with regards to the Milgram Experiment ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment ). It shows that we are disturbingly likely to go against our moral values when faced with instructions from an authoritative figure.

Other Comments by BigChiefRainInFace

27. Comment #76407 by Martha on October 5, 2007 at 6:15 pm

To BigChiefRaininFace :-

As you may (or may not) see, I am barred from this website/forum.... my point is not about authoritative figures, its about AUTHORITARIAN figures. If you would like to discuss this further with me, my email adress is:
mother-ireland@yahoo.ie

Other Comments by Martha

28. Comment #76410 by 82abhilash on October 5, 2007 at 6:29 pm

I hate to burst the bubble here for a lot of people. But Andy's ideas have several shortcomings. And they came up again and again during the Q&A session. That is not to say all of what he said was trash. But it needs improvement.

One point I noticed markedly was his honesty. He didnot try to make things up. When asked a question related to his fieldand he didnot know the answer, he said "I do not know."

Maybe now he has new factors to consider when he fine tunes his ideas.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

29. Comment #76493 by Nick Good on October 6, 2007 at 2:02 am

briancoughlanworldcitizen wrote:As regards those in Gitmo. We cannot meaningfully comment on their guilt or innocence, because they have never been tried. The comment the 500 guys in Gitmo are there because they are Jihadi's, not Jihadis because they are there. cannot, in absence of transparent legal procedures, reasonably be substantiated.

Well, you're premise here, is seeing the criminal law model, as the appropriate 'tool' in this scenario. You clearly, for some reason, see as inappropriate, the 'tool' the US is employing. This is a variation of the Prisoner Of War model; commensurate with the fact that these Jihadis don't fit into the category of legal combatants in terms of the Geneva conventions, to which the US is party.

I don't have much interest in getting into that debate here.

What I will say is that the details of the US military tribunals that assessed these men individually, are in the public domain, as are details of a goodly few of the individuals held.

So is the fact that Qtub was an American hating, Kuffur hating Islamo-nutter, waay before he was send down in Egypt.

I think as strong an argument can be made that he wouldn't have turned nasty, if only Americans didn't mow their lawns, something he seemed rather hung up on.

Even the most cursory glance at recent British/Irish history shows how morally bankrupt this kind of stategy is.
I served for a couple of years in the British military in Northern Ireland in the early 80s, around the time of the IRA prison 'diet'. Internment happened for a short while in the early 70s. I just don't see the parallel of Gitmo with Internment in Northern Ireland. And anyway, whatever failings there were in the British policy, in their strategy and tactics in prosecuting CRO - Counter Revolutionary Operations, in Northern Ireland, and there were plenty; the British very clearly won that one. Though it took about 30 years! Even the Irish Republic's constitutional claim on the six British counties in the North, has been dropped.

The Malayan emergency - the British led fight against the MPABA (Malayan Peoples Anti British Army), Communist, mainly Chinese, guerillas, took a similar amount of time. Officially from 1948 to the year after independence - 1960, but it was still going on until the early 70s, and this was an almost text book perfect campaign by the Brits. These Counter Insurgency conflicts do take a long time.

I suspect the one against Islamo-fascism, will take considerably longer, because it's global and because it involves the fight for the minds of the Worlds Muslims, against the very core tenets of their religion, which has Jihad as the default setting.

Anyway, I generally am sceptical of arguments, that the 'root cause' of terrorism and extremism, is resisting it, is fighting against it. These arguments are really surprisingly common. Daniel Dennett's little speech on Gitmo - and I noticed it was a little speech, not a question - was, to my mind, just a variation of this oft chanted mantra.


Other Comments by Nick Good

30. Comment #76498 by Nick Good on October 6, 2007 at 2:15 am

82abhilash: But Andy's ideas have several shortcomings

Indeed, I think, as has been pointed out, Andy Thomson ignores female propensity to participate in and support violence, and the culture in which it is promulgated. To wit, the celebrating mothers of suicide murderers, ululating Palestinian women on the streets post 9/11, the Jerry Springer show, women handing out white feathers to men not in uniform in WW1, and so on.

Andy Thomson to my mind also touched rather too lightly, on sexual selection. A process in which females have significant stake throughout the animal kingdom. Over time, put crudely, females get to exert strong selection pressure, by having a strong say in who gets to shag them!

Richard Dawkins covers this thoroughly in some of his books.

Other Comments by Nick Good

31. Comment #76512 by scooternyc on October 6, 2007 at 3:22 am

Nick, once again I like your points.

I'm reminded of the questioner during Hitchens' talk that attempted to "ask a question" about Iraq by saying we "should have gone into Iran".

When Hitch confronted the man about using military force in Iran, the man ran from the idea of ANY military force, which unmasked his true feelings and Hitch, not only called him on this, but also then gave the guy the smack down he deserved - "talkin out his ass cause your mouth knows better". NO ONE commands the facts about this conflict better than he.

It's too easy to call the whole effort "failed" and recite anit-rhetoric. Public Law 105-338 and 107-234 clearly outline the U.S. responsibility way before the Presidency of Bush was a glean in his eye - 105-338 was signed by Clinton. And as a matter of record, Bush and Cheney both spoke about having to deal with Iraq and Saddam during their 2000 campaign.

But I care not about those details, we could debate them all day.

I care about our humanity as a people supporting those, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a brilliant individual and a more emotional welcoming she could not have had at the conference) being given EVERY opportunity at freedom/democracy that we can give.

Others sacrificed for our accomplishment in that endeavor and it does become a responsibility to support others, at the very least as an act of reciprocity - which is inherently part of our evolution of morality, as stated by Dawkins and others.

I know a lot of you don't agree with this, hopefully, you still allow dissonance, as Ms. Ayaan would say, on this subject without it declaring jihad on me. LOL! : )

I'm a big boy though, I can take it. I'm solid in my resolve on this issue.

Cheers,
Scooter

Other Comments by scooternyc

32. Comment #76521 by Nick Good on October 6, 2007 at 4:00 am

Scooter wrote And as a matter of record, Bush and Cheney both spoke about having to deal with Iraq and Saddam during their 2000 campaign.

Indeed regime change in Iraq became US policy in 1998, 2 years before Clinton left office, following a bipartisan congressional vote. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:

It's worth printing it off and comparing it to the bipartisan congressional vote taken 4 years later under Bush-2 -
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243)
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

Here's a You Tube clip of Al Gore in 1992, doing quite a convincing Hitchens impersonation, definitely worth watching for shits and giggles..it's hilarious!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDitSbkQKIs

Other Comments by Nick Good

33. Comment #76683 by THWOTH (the blind) on October 6, 2007 at 5:15 pm

Thank you very much for posting this lecture, it is most stimulating and informative. I look forward to more provacations from the AAI conferenc.

Although Andy Thomson's emphasis is on the expression of the ideas of 'retaliation bargaining' and 'male coalitionary' behaviout as motivational factors for suicidality within a fundamentalist Muslim context, they could also be applied as motivational factors in the Bush/Blair project in Iraq - as a mass or social expression of suicidality within the context of what might be called (for want of a better term) Evangelical Christian Endtimeism.

Could the evolved cognitive and psychological structures which predispose males to be subverted by organised religion into suicidal action, and other deleterious behaviours, not apply to political ideologies too?

I'm thinking of a line from 'The Magus' by John Fowles in which the character of a retired Nazi says in relation to the rise of fascism in Germany (and I'll have to paraphrase I'm afraid), "It's not that the German people had the courage to be evil, they just didn't have the courage to be good." This could apply to Stalinism and other charismatically led political, or even criminal or corporate organisations.

What Andy Thomson presents here is extremely thought provoking, not only in terms of extreme forms of religiosity but also in terms of the definition of 'manliness' in general.

:¬)

:¬)

Other Comments by THWOTH (the blind)

34. Comment #76694 by Pertel on October 6, 2007 at 6:26 pm

Is it just me who has a problem getting the second video to play? The first an third works fine, but the second never seems to start.

If anyone has a link to the 2. part hosted on another server than youtube, or knows of a way to fix it, it would be much appreciated.

Other Comments by Pertel

35. Comment #76701 by Veronique on October 6, 2007 at 7:30 pm

I am watching Paradise Now and had to take a break from it for a bit. I am seeing some of the things that Thomson remarked on. It is a frightening film (at least for me. I don't watch movies very much. And violent ones make my heart beat faster than it reasonably should be expected to on a Sunday morning. Syriana is next. Christ! What am I putting myself through:-).

One small point about Bush/Cheney and history which they clearly don't read. The British considered Iraq un-governable and pulled out in 1932. A pity Bush/Cheney didn't read that the British mandate collapsed and that Iraq was granted independence.

They, both of them, are responsible more than anyone else for the massive rise in suicide terrorism that is engulfing the Middle East. They have to accept this responsibility for their actions.

Dr Benway said a few threads back, and I am sort of paraphrasing because he was referring to religion, People ought to feel responsible for the ideologies or political platforms of their organisation's stated values and objectives.

OK, got that off my chest. Back to Paradise Now
V

Other Comments by Veronique

36. Comment #76705 by detox on October 6, 2007 at 8:16 pm

Scooternyc and 3legcat: whether Dennett's point about Gitmo was silly or not the real answer to the question of what to do with them is to try them for a crime in a recognised court of law and if guilty, imprison them, if not guilty, release them. Holding them without justification (as decided in a court of law) is the most brutal violation of human rights imaginable and whatever wrongs you perceive they may have done to your country, unless you can prove that they have actually committed a crime then you cannot, in all conscience, detain them.

Since your government doesn't subscribe to the authority of the World Court (ICC or ICJ) then it isn't entirely surprising that it sees fit to deny fundamental human rights.

You say:

I care about our humanity as a people supporting those, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a brilliant individual and a more emotional welcoming she could not have had at the conference) being given EVERY opportunity at freedom/democracy that we can give.

If you care so much about your 'humanity as a people' then you should direct your efforts towards giving the detainees at Guantanamo the opportunity for freedom/democracy.

Blind faith in 'brand America' is as obnoxious as blind faith in the god of the old testament. I have no right to lecture you about your government's activities when I am not proud of the activities of my own but when you exhibit such blatant hypocrisy, for all the apparent bonhomie expressed in your many posts, you come across as having the sincerity of a used-car salesman.

Nick Good:

Well, you're premise here, is seeing the criminal law model, as the appropriate 'tool' in this scenario. You clearly, for some reason, see as inappropriate, the 'tool' the US is employing. This is a variation of the Prisoner Of War model; commensurate with the fact that these Jihadis don't fit into the category of legal combatants in terms of the Geneva conventions, to which the US is party.

I don't have much interest in getting into that debate here.

You're embarrassing yourself here, Nick. A variation of the PoW model? Geneva Coventions? Why do you think the detainees are held outside the continental united states?

I know this is getting way off topic - I thoroughly enjoyed Andy Thomson's lecture - but I have to say that when you try to defend the indefensible you display the same level of delusion that this forum is striving to overcome.

Apologies in advance to disinterested parties - I have no intention of initiating a flamewar on this subject but when your hackles are up....

Other Comments by detox

37. Comment #76741 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 7, 2007 at 12:58 am

I know this is getting way off topic - I thoroughly enjoyed Andy Thomson's lecture - but I have to say that when you try to defend the indefensible you display the same level of delusion that this forum is striving to overcome.

Detox I completely agree and it drives me bonkers.

Nick : the British very clearly won that one. Though it took about 30 years!

That was exactly my point. The British "won that one" primarily through restraint. The lack of restraint in the 60 and 70's is what fueled "the troubles" in the first place.

Simply inventing a legal system by fiat, and then applying it to anyone you choose, will no longer wash in a in a connected global world. According to Bush he can arrest and imprison you, or me or anyone for no reason whatever. That at root is what is endorsed by the casual acceptance of gitmo. Hence I have "issues" even if they are now wildly off topic:-) Apologies to all.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

38. Comment #76744 by d4m14n on October 7, 2007 at 1:38 am

Interesting article from Times Online about suicide bombers:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2604119.ece

Other Comments by d4m14n

39. Comment #76748 by Veronique on October 7, 2007 at 2:01 am

This is probably extremely cynical of me, but forgive me, I am old:-).

If any of you really think that international justice is going to operate within Guantanamo walls (chain and razor wire fences), get over it. At least for the nonce. It will not happen.

How long did it take Australia to retrieve David Hicks? 5 years and our pollies did nothing except lick Bush's boots for those years. This fellow will spend x number of years looking over his shoulder for the assailant with a weapon. And what about his mental health? Does anyone give a flying fuck? Not on your nelly. We have a confused young man due to be released from prison who no longer trusts anyone (and he used to be an idealist). Good one, I don't think.

I am distressed that people can be held in appalling and inhuman conditions, subject to torture and deprived of any legal representation. The US attorney Michael Mori is some bloke. His defence of Hicks has soured his promotional road through the Marines.

For fuck's sake, these detainees are people, they are part of the human race; they may (or may not) have similar values to those who detain them. Have you seen the videos of these people in that hell-hole? Did you see the videos of these people smeared in their own (and others) excrement; their genitals exposed and vulnerable; cigarette burns etched into their skin? These atrocities were executed by the US army and marine regulars and FILMED.

And you want to sit here and have a philosophical chat/debate in your lounge room about the rightness of holding political prisoners in Guantanamo… while you have a drink?

You give me the shits, all of you. You haven't even got the balls to warrant a wank.

Simply inventing a legal system by fiat, and then applying it to anyone you choose, will no longer wash in a in a connected global world. According to Bush he can arrest and imprison you, or me or anyone for no reason whatever. That at root is what is endorsed by the casual acceptance of gitmo. Hence I have "issues" even if they are now wildly off topic

Thank you Brian. Wonderful to hear from you again:-).

We haven't come far in 10,000 odd years if you ask me (and, of course, you won't. I am not referring to you Brian:-)).

I am fucked off with petulant, precious fucking bullshit. You guys need to get a life. For god's sake read Henry Vth and understand what Thomson is actually saying. Stop doing the cherry picking that you accuse all religites of doing.

Ha - Yorker's not here, so I feel the need to take up a double cudgel. I bounce well and will survive.
V

Other Comments by Veronique

40. Comment #76753 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 7, 2007 at 3:48 am

Wow Veronique!!! Great rant, and thank you for your kind sentiments:-) It has been a while hasn't it? Here is an example of what I've been up to : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0lRffYTStw

In my travels on the interweb tubules, I often bump heads with a particular minority within the "atheist camp". Basically those who although they have dumped the God delusion, still fully embrace the nationalist delusion. This is basically the same thing, but the focus of worship has transferred to a nation (America) or ideology (Free markets). Really nothing more than a subtle variation of Stalinism, or Emperor worship. Americans are especially prone to this, and it is so ingrained, so relentlessly butteressed by their culture, media and educational system, that it is truly a bugger to help them see it.

It generally manifests itself in support of American militarism, violent opposition to taking action on global warming (although here, realisation is finally dawning on even the most pathologically resistant) and a kind of subliminal indifference to the fate of anyone who isn't part of their particular ingroup, which rarely extends beyond North America, or the EU.

I now feel compelled to reject it when I see it.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

41. Comment #76877 by Nick Good on October 7, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Veronique wrote: They, [Bush Cheney] both of them, are responsible more than anyone else for the massive rise in suicide terrorism that is engulfing the Middle East.

Really, "more than anyone else"... more responsible than those actually perpetrating the suicide terrorism? The vast overwhelmingly bulk of which is directed against fellow Muslims...all be it 'Kuffar' in the terrorist's eyes, simply because the targets of their terrorism come from another sect (most suicide terrorism is Sunni on Shia, with the exception that very few Kurds, most of whom are Sunni, are involved in suicide terrorism. There is also a hard core of Sufi suicide terrorists - eg the Beslan atrocity in Russia, was committed by Sufis, as was the Moscow theater attack).

Bush and Cheney more culpable than those training said terrorists, supplying them with explosives, giving them specific targets? Bush and Cheney more culpable than those individuals, organisations and states mindfully providing the direct financing and logistics support of suicide terrorism? Bush and Cheney more responsible than those giving the terrorists the motivation to carry out such attrocities...the promise of money for their families, the Mullas with their Koranic invocations... 72 virgins, "boys, pretty as pearls", promise of heavenly reward for their immediate kin?

Do you honestly think Bush and Cheney are more culpable than this lot....really....honestly? Because that's what you, and all too many others, are EXPLICITLY asserting.

Candidly, to me, this comes over as some kind of lefty racism...the racism, all too common on the hard left, that of low expectation. 'They can't help it', 'they don't know any better'...'they can't help themselves'. The terribly condescending - 'Muslims as puppies crapping on the carpet' school of discourse.

I don't buy it. I hereby charge you with rampant Bush Derangement Syndrome!


Other Comments by Nick Good

42. Comment #76882 by Veronique on October 7, 2007 at 3:07 pm

41. Comment #76877 by Nick Good

Bush/Cheney are the initial and ultimate enablers. And therefore responsible.

Candidly, to me, this comes over as some kind of lefty racism...the racism, all too common on the hard left, that of low expectation. 'They can't help it', 'they don't know any better'...'they cant help themselves'.

Don't be daft - your take, not mine.Your comment smacks of superiority.
V

Other Comments by Veronique

43. Comment #76886 by USA_Limey on October 7, 2007 at 3:27 pm

BCWC: nice vid.

You are correct of course that nationalism / patriotism are as bad, and possible worse than religion. Like religion though, I don't really know what we can do about it.

Alien invasion anyone?
_________________________________________________
Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!

~ Logan

Other Comments by USA_Limey

44. Comment #76895 by MaxD on October 7, 2007 at 4:24 pm

Steve99 posted this waaaay up at the top of this comments section.
"Women can be just as prone to violence, the fact that the speaker hasn't researched it doesn't mean it isn't worth exploring and doesn't negate the potential or the reality.

Indeed. Although it was an excellent talk, there seemed to me to be a considerable confusion between evolution and culture. There was, I believe, an incorrect emphasis on a supposed male tendency to violence coming from evolution."

I don't know if this has been addressed. But I would like to take a swipe at it.
The question wasn't whether women could become, under certain , rather particular circumstances, killers or suicide bombers. Clearly they can. The speaker noted the unique circumstances inwhich this happens. But simply because women can become violent, dangersous types, it says nothing whatsoever about thier statistical tendencies. Thus to say "women can be just as prone to violence as men" seems patently absurd. There is no statistic that supports that claim.

Violent crime is predominantly a male phenemenon. That is an heirloom of our evolutionary history seems in little doubt. Our species' sexual dimorphism does more than hint at a past in which men fought with men. Indeed this is the story of sexual dimorphism, the larger sex wins mating privilages by combat. It would be a unique thing indeed if human sexual dimorphism was somehow an exception.

That every culture exhibits this trait, violence being committed by males far more often than females is also a strong support in favor of an evolutioniary origin of the trait. That males tend to engage in a form (of violence (male coalitional) that is also favored in our closest cousins, the chimps, doesn't seem easy to ignore.

Another line of evidence that I think favors an evolutionary tendency toward violence in males is the demographics of violent or combative sports. I am not saying that women don't engage in them, but most women do not. And I've yet to see a father or mother deny a kid an opportunity to study Judo, or Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu simply based on the number of X chromosomes they have. In fact most parents want their kids to learn such arts, but the girls tend to not stay in the styles that involve intense matches, where things like cauliflower ear accrue. Where are the female wide recievers? Why are women boxers so very, very few when compared to male boxers?

I think that is a small sampling of the evidence that supports at least some element of an innate tendecy toward violence in males.

Other Comments by MaxD

45. Comment #76953 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 8, 2007 at 12:06 am

Do you honestly think Bush and Cheney are more culpable than this lot....really....honestly? Because that's what you, and all too many others, are EXPLICITLY asserting.

Suicide bombers kill tens, hundreds and in a single case thousands of people. Bush, Cheney and Blair are ultimately responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and perhaps as many as a million human beings.

Call me crazy, but in my book, launching an invasion on a trumped up pretext which immediately and directly results in tens of thousands of dead, and indirectly in hundreds of thousands, clearly trumps the sum total of suicide bombing deaths in this war to date, including 9/11. Although I'll grant you, that there is plenty of culpability to go around, and at this state of "play" attributing blame gets fuzzy around the edges:-(

There is also the question of relative power. The most powerful nation state in history, has exponentially greater recourse to options other than brute force.

So yes, it is self evident to someone thinking clearly, that those who unleash the entire resources of a state to wage indiscriminate war on millions of innocent individuals, are at least as culpable as an individual who simply follows orders, however depraved or deranged.

If merely putting the gun up against a head and pulling the trigger, was the requirement for guilt, what war criminal could ever be tried?

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

46. Comment #76966 by zoltix on October 8, 2007 at 1:25 am

Veronique > Bush/Cheney are the initial and ultimate enablers. And therefore responsible.

This is nonsense. The initial and ultimate source is the political ideology of islam.
This has been around for 1400 years. Nothing has changed in the principles of jihad.

There have been setbacks, 732 Charles Martel, 1683 Vienna and the end of the caliphate; but oil wealth has re-ignited the mohammedan vision of an islamic world.

Because the free world is superior economically, technologically and militarily the jihadists do not have an army to conquer dar al-harb.
Suicide bombs are just the current tactic of certain jihadists. In parts of Europe, demographic jihad is the method or relentlessly agitating for religious concessions.
The koran can be used to justify any of this, because the ultimate aim is a world united under allah in the straitjacket of sharia.

Totalitarianism is the real danger and currently, islam is the leading exponent. The unreformable koran can be used to justify any action against any non-muslim. By definition, non-muslims are not innocent, because they are guilty of being non-believers.
If the west completely disengaged itself from the muslim world, jihad would not stop.

The old hard left reactions of anti-US, anti-capitalism is of little value in this war.
Sooner or later you are going to have to decide "Which side are you on".
Under sharia, grumbling about the US will not save you. You are a non believer and hell awaits you.

Other Comments by zoltix

47. Comment #76974 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 8, 2007 at 2:02 am

46. Comment #76966 by zoltix on October 8, 2007 at 1:25 am

Lets take a step back shall we? Does Islam, "they" if you prefer, represent an existential threat to "us". Really, honestly and truly?

The only reasonable response to this question is an overwhelming and obvious no, and this simply collapses your entire position. That is, unless you endorse the idea that killing "them" merely to limit risk to "us" is acceptable. This view, although also flawed, can at least be construed as rational and entirely consistent with the in/out group paradigm.

I do not endorse that view because I see the problem holistically, there is no "them" and "us", except in the sense of groups that are at risk. To limit deaths on one side, we must balance the equation with risk on the other, this is what you subliminaly, or perhaps even overtly, reject.

Is islamic terrorism dangerous? Yes. Is it even very, very dangerous? I'm afraid so, but it is a global law enforcement problem, not a cause for "Totaler Krieg".

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

48. Comment #76988 by Veronique on October 8, 2007 at 3:34 am

40. Comment #76753 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

Shit, I have missed you. Nice to see your revolving changing face:-)

Thank you for appreciating (if not necessarily endorsing) my rant.

I have realised that I am getting pissed off with the cappucino set. No wonder Yorker has gone. I loathe pussy footing pretend philosophy on the chaise longue.

I like Russell Blackford and don't have to agree with him - mighty fine.

The wankers trying to post pseudo-erudite comments get up my nose. There are heaps of them, my dear. I prefer people who actually do something rather than those who pontificate.

But that's me - and a lot try to take me to task. I am not subdued yet. And am unlikely to be.

Good vid, Brian. And good on you.

My best (glad to see you back)
V

Other Comments by Veronique

49. Comment #77007 by 3legcat on October 8, 2007 at 6:45 am

Detox: Scooternyc and 3legcat: whether Dennett's point about Gitmo was silly or not the real answer to the question of what to do with them is to try them for a crime in a recognised court of law and if guilty, imprison them, if not guilty, release them.

and what if they are being held for merely participating on the other side of a war? we don't have trials for prisoners of war because merely participating (on the other side) isn't illegal. so we hold them till the war ends. so you are arguing either, shooting at american soldiers is a war crime OR we should always kill enemy combatants because holding them is illegal?

if someone in another country shoots at an american soldier, and is then captured alive, they should be brought to an american court and put on trial? for what? attempted murder? wouldn't that be self-defense? should our captured soldiers be held or tried by their courts?

detox: unless you can prove that they have actually committed a crime then you cannot, in all conscience, detain them.

the point of the Geneva conventions is to hold (humanely) enemy combatants without trial, in all good conscience... being a soldier is expressedly Not a crime. or are you arguing that the rules only apply to nation states?

Other Comments by 3legcat

50. Comment #77010 by steve99 on October 8, 2007 at 6:59 am

Thus to say "women can be just as prone to violence as men" seems patently absurd. There is no statistic that supports that claim.

It was very badly worded. What I should have said is that women have a capacity for violence as well. But the question of whether or not that is expressed due to primarily evolved factors or primarily cultural factors seems to me to be an interesting question.

That males tend to engage in a form (of violence (male coalitional) that is also favored in our closest cousins, the chimps, doesn't seem easy to ignore.

I certainly wasn't ignoring it. Indeed, I posted a link to some research that showed how easily supposedly fixed gender roles (including violence) could be changed in chimps.

Other Comments by steve99