Tell me about your mother....
Bravo, doctors. Much of what you say here is true...and we had better recognize it as a society.
oops - I forgot to end with "or else".
It is the 'or else' that is most relevant.
Is there a reason my comment about the two questions went away?
oh!
so THAT is what you meant...
I gotta think a bit.
I like some of what you say, with a lot of exceptions.
Saddam did not invade Kuwait or threaten Saudi Arabia because of Islam or any other racial "Arab" belief, either. It was a land/oil grab, trying to "repatriate" a "former province" of Iraq and take its valuable resources.
"Do we extend equal civil rights to those who's [sic] stated aim is to destroy us?" Yes, absolutely. Otherwise, we're just as barbarous as they are. That's not to say I don't think we should shoot the terrorists in the back of the head, but killing TERRORISTS doesn't justify restraining the rights of an entire race. Remember the internment camps in WWII? How'd that work out?
"Do we respect the sanctity of a Holy Shrine if it is being used to [sic] as a military base from which to shoot and bomb?" Yes, insofar as we don't carpet-bomb it. Tough as it may sound, we have to respect holy sites. Just as I'm sure you'd feel justified in defending the protection of the Vatican from bombing, even though it has its own police force. Plus, bombing the Ka'baa won't exactly win us too many new converts to the American Dream you tout as "a whole lot better than anything out there."
"Africa has had centuries of despair, and there are no suicide bombers." No, just genocidal armies trying to stamp out entire races of their enemies. Why aren't you advocating a bias against Africans, too?
"Sooner or later, we're going to have to deal with reality and deal with the problem clearly and substantively...." How? I await suggestions. How do we make "the Arab community deal[] with the reality and deal with the problem?" By restricting their rights? By suspecting them because of the color of their skin or their nation of origin? By excluding them from the American Dream so that they can contribute to it? I'm confused as to what you're proposing.
"Those to whom the message is passed, are the easily influenced, the poverty stricken ..., children or women somehow disgraced...." Yes. Add to that the functionally illiterate because their state and their religion doesn't deign to teach them to read. How do we turn this around, by more bombing and arrests? By more exlusivity to the American Dream? Or maybe by teaching them to read, giving them the tools to get themselves out of poverty, BY BEING NICE TO THEM FOR A CHANGE? Kill the bad guys, help the good guys -- and yes, there are many good "Arab Muslims" out there.
You noted yourself that the leaders -- the Imams and the moneymen -- influencing the anti-American hatred are in it for their own reasons, not those of their people. Why not just target them and their close supporters, and not the entire population of these leaders' communities? That would be like blaming all Catholics for the child sex abuse scandal.
I still think you're painting with far too wide a brush, and I believe that such thinking is dangerous.
Boomr- glad you allowed to keep the questions out there.
The first question:
Do we remain true to our values?
The second question:
What is our intent in the Middle East ( or any other country we intervene in)? Is it to subdue them or to give them a chance at seeing how our system works, and winning their hearts to do so?
Universal Laws? Some say that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was illegal and set the stage for any country to invade any other country without provocation. "Radical" Islam? Some would say the U.S. government is run today by radicals...fundamentalists...neocons...those who would like to blur the lines of separtation of church and state (which protects our freedoms to practice or not practice any religion) and bankrupt our social systems with the highest deficit in history.
Terrrorists are those who do not have an army. Historically they exist to fight foriegn domination whether it be through invasion or puppets governments set up by western powers. It's how Ireland got the English out of their country. Read up on the Penal laws if you want to understand why they took such drastic measures.
Saddam invaded Kuwait because Iraq was landlocked (borders drawn up by western powers) and Kuwait was drilling beyond OPEC quotas. Saddam got the word from our ambassader that we had no opinion on the dispute, which Saddam took as an okay to invade. Saddam was too unpredictable, not like OUR Shah of Iran who we installed against the democratic wishes of the people there and was also a dictator type who killed civilians.
Things are not as black and white as you portray. U.S. policies have a large part to do with why radical arabs hate us. Google Charlie Reese and read some of his newspaper columns on terrorism. He's a conservative from Florida, which maks his an interesting point of view.
Boomr you make some really good counter points.
I wonder, are we facing something different with regard to radical Islamism than we have faced from past tyrants?
I'm inclined to go with the Good Doctors on this one. I suspect that we face an insidious new evil. One more subtle than any we have yet encountered, which cleverly avails itself of our tolerance and seeks to use what is good and noble to hurt or even destroy us.
I agree that it is absolutely imperative that we continue to remain true to our values ( I think this is what you are implying, Ilona)...meaning, we don't carpet bomb mosques and hospitals and schools where murderous villians use the helpless and the innocent as shields. We must honor and recognize humanity wherever we find it.
But I'm not sure this is all we're called to do. I think, when other measures fail, we might have to actively stand against this new generation of tyrants. I think we might even have to continue engaging them before they engage us, as we've done in Iraq. I might have to get used to the idea that my daughters will go off to a war in the name of these ideas someday...and I will have to resist breaking legs, Miguel!
I'm not sure that we will ever again have the luxury of fighting a war without a nauseating loss of innocent lives and the embitterment of the people who live with and through its horrors.
Does this mean we cease the practice of this tolerance and magnanimity? To do so would allow our enemies a sweet victory - perhaps one even greater than subjugating us, since it would represent the internal collapse of something they truly hate. The icing on the cake would be the utter cowardice and moral emptiness that it would betray. Then, they could truly say, "Look at the shambles of liberty, freedom and democracy! Look at the high-minded social experiment that rotted from the inside out!"
We are never free from the obligation to practice kindness whenever misery and need present themselves.
Our challenge is to balance these obligations - how do we meet and engage evil in the world while exercising our power judiciously and extending aid to those who have been victimized by tyrants and wars?
Thank God there are far greater minds than mine thinking about how to accomplish these objectives every day. I think my obligation is to do what (I think) SC&A are trying to accomplish here - recognize that there is a wolf in the henhouse.
First, what are "our values?" If you mean equality, freedom, tolerance, the prohibition of a system of second-class citizens, and a recognition of human rights, then how do those "values" justify discrimination against an entire race (or multiple races) based on the actions of a very small percentage of such race? If you're talking about purely Christian "values," then I don't grant your premise that we, as Americans, necessarily share the same values. As much as some people (like colleen mentioned) may want otherwise, we do not live in a country governed by purely Christian dogma -- and, to be frank, I wouldn't want to.
Second, "our intent in the Middle East" is the big question. Is it really to bring democracy to the oppressed peoples of a large region? If so, why wasn't that the original justification of the two wars we've been fighting recently? If not, then it seems that our intent is to gain a political foothold (or, more to the point, a political puppet) in the region. That's great for our short term desires (military bases there, access to oil, a new market for our products, etc.), but how much antipathy will this intent engender in the locals over the long run? I don't necessarily believe this, but there are strong voices over there that will see our actions as a new version of imperialism seeking to subjugate the already-subjugated.
Third, "[A]re we facing something different with regard to radical Islamism than we have faced from past tyrants?" Only in terms of scope, not in terms of purpose and action. History is replete with bloody action in the name of religion used to free an allegedly oppressed people, even if such bloody action goes against the fundamental beliefs of the religion in question. To be totally honest, we as a nation have been complacent over the last 30 or 40 years, since most of our concentration was focused on the big Russian bear and the insidious specter of communism. Sure, the reds were bad, but they weren't the only baddies on the block, and we developed tons of intelligence assets in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union while virtually ignoring the rising tide of fundamentalism in the middle east. We even funded some of those fundamentalists, because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." That worked well for us in WWII (when the Russians were our nominal allies), during the Iran/Iraq war (when we armed Iraq), during the Russian occupation of Afhganistan (when we trained and armed the Taliban), and countless other instances since the middle of the last century. And now, we all of a sudden have a new specter in front of us, and we're wondering why. Answer: because we failed to stop it before it spread far enough -- and yes, because we fostered some of that animosity ourselves through our shaky foreign policies.
Of course, I'm not advocating totally open borders and no inspection of people from certain regions. What I am saying is that we can't use our own lazy fai
... failure to gain an intelligence foothold in the region to justify the discrimination against an entire populace that numbers nearly a billion. Go after the laundering financiers, the blustery clerics, the martyrdom-seeking footsoldiers for "the cause," the ignorance that feeds into such people. Use the CIA, Navy Seals, black ops, whatever it takes to bring them down, dead or alive. But don't go after the average guy in the street who just wants to feed his family without being stoned to death for letting his daughter show her ankles.
There's an old Southern expression, "Blood will tell," essentially a restatement of the old maxim "the sins of the father are revisited on the sons." Old though it may be, the expression is entirely false -- you can't brand a whole family with the mark of the criminal placed on only one member.
And, despite it all, I still believe it is not right to oppose force with brute force.
If you must beat your enemy to prove you're right, how right were you?
People die every day. Thousands starve. Millions have been killed in the name of all that's right and holy and good, and fair and democratic. But we do not cry here for them.
Do we now show concern only because it is our house that is threatened? Then let us say so, and be right, and just in defending ourselves. But let us not try to enshroud ourselves in all that's Holy--by whatever name.
You do not need justice to defend yourself, but to claim justice to do so (even when you are right) is just a waste of energy.
Do you feel so guilty that you must explain? Just act!
still thinking... not done deciding how i feel about this...
I have to say that there some sweeping generalistions in your post that I don't agree with. I think you are tarnishing all Arabs and all followers of Islam with the same brush, which isn't entirely fair. It's like saying all Irish Catholics are members of the IRA, and we know that clearly isn't the case. It's always easy to paint someone (or some cultural/ethnic group) as a despicable enemy because it saves us analysing our own actions, policies and beliefs, which may not be entirely blame free. And lets not forget that terrorism does not always come from without; often it comes from within. (I'm thinking of the Oklahoma bombing here, and, in Northern Ireland the countless attacks that have caused loss of civilian lives.)
You say that "there are no sons or daughters of Arab religious or political leaders to be found among the legions who claim to want to blow themselves and others up, in the name of Allah." But isn't it the case that there are no sons and daughters of Allied leaders enlisted in the USA armed forces (or British or Australian for that matter) currently "fighting" in Iraq?
That aside, you might be interested in seeing an excellent, albeit controversial, three-part documentary, called The Power of Nightmares, which screened on the BBC last year. It sheds some light on many misconceptions about terrorism in the modern world. Its main point is that al-Qaida is not an all-powerful, organised, international terrorism network. Furthermore, Islam and Christianity are two sides of the same coin. You can view the documentary here:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/
arti...fnightmares.htm
I'm sure you will find it incredibly thought-provoking.
Kim, you said, "You say that "there are no sons or daughters of Arab religious or political leaders to be found among the legions who claim to want to blow themselves and others up, in the name of Allah." But isn't it the case that there are no sons and daughters of Allied leaders enlisted in the USA armed forces (or British or Australian for that matter) currently "fighting" in Iraq?"
Michael Moore notwithstanding, there are relatives of legislators in Iraq and Afghanistan. Further, My remarks are not sweeping- I have acknowledged there were millions of Muslims that are moderates- but again, it's a matter of triage. Until they focus on cleaning their house, they cannot sit at the table as moral equals.
Simply changing the subject or ignoring reality doesn't change a thing.
The operative word is "our". Our values as a nation governs how we interact within our country and without.
I would think ideas based on Lex Rex would be a giveaway. We have some moral values we agree on as a nation, these are built into our national debate - for instance we have problems with ideas of torture, etc. That is a moral value.
If I had meant solely Christian, I would have stated that.
I don't think our intent is clearly defined at this time, I think it is in transition. Our original intent was to answer terroism and its power base, but with the additional intent to give Iraq a chance at a democratic society.
whether that is/was wise...another question. What our present intent is? I think this is in formulation.
Also, I think it is a problem to see "ignorance" as it is equated with religious conviction in some of these conversations.
If it is a religious conflict we are looking at- it doesn't just go away when you get rid of the "troublemakers". There usually needs to be a religious discussion both internally and externally to the religion.
To have more options to think about is educating someone, but it doesn't guarantee an outcome.
Boomr, lets make it easy- do you really want to play the comparison game? That has nothing to do with religion. We do not condone FGM. We do not condone slavery, today. We do not condone forced conversion and forced circumcision and nor do we condone the rape and dismemberment of children, as the GIA did in Algeria. Are we perfect? No. But as I said, the comparison game is a waste of time and effort. If they want the credibility as they excoriate our values- well, their own house needs a bit of cleaning.
Your remarks on intelliegence however, are indeed well taken- and relevant.
Sig, Don't you think that they need to be at the table because you cannot deal with the problem they are such a large part of without them?
No Ilona- a place at the table has to be earned.
Point of clarification, doctors. Are you talking about the civil rights of Arab Islamics in this country, or are you talking about in other countries where we have influence, or both?
From the essay, it seems to be those in this country, but I'm not sure. . .
Actually, Carson. I'm referring to both.
Is this the same "moral table" that thinks its OK to lock people up FOR YEARS AT A TIME without trial on the basis of "suspicion" of terrorism? The same table that complete ignores the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war and a host of other human rights legislation?
Kim, as I said- do you REALLY want to play the comparison game?
As I have said, we are not perfect- but we are more perfect than those calling for our destruction, eradication and subjugation- and more perfect than those who tolerate, promote ot excuse such behavior.
Pointing the finger back at ourselves is putting our heads in the sand.
WOW!!! how did I miss this great debate. That is the last time I actually do work while I am at work.
I would like to throw something out there since all the insightful things have already been said:
For many centuries, Christian/western culture (Europe) was the ignorant intolerant barbarians while the Muslims nations were the cultures of scientific learning and religious tolerance. While Europe was in the "Dark Ages", Muslim culture was in its renaissance. Moorish Spain and Sicily were some of the most open societies at that time while the the Spanish inquisition was coming around.
My point? Glad you asked... Just like nations, civilizations and Religions rise and fall, mature and decay. Christians and/or western culture is not immune to falling into the same state as current Islam. Nor is current Islam relegated to perpetual instability.
No, a "place at the table" does NOT have to be earned, especially when the people you want to bar from the table are the very ones whose lives are being discussed at the table. What an incredibly paternalistic thing to say, that they're not "moral equals" in a discussion that involves their futures! They've got more of a "moral seat" at the table with regards to their own lives than we do. Of course, when they start messing with our lives, then we get to mess back -- but don't tell them they're so amoral that they aren't allowed to determine the course of their own lives.
And ilona, "our values" are clearly up in the air, even with respect to torture, since we have a new Attorney General who has justified the use of torture in the war on terror. Practicality of the practice aside, it's generally considered a crime against humanity by international law, but yet our administration -- and the allegedly moral mandate that comes with its second term -- puts a man front and center who condones the practice.
Dingo's right -- what's going on now with the fundamentalist Islamics is the same thing that was going on during the Crusades and the Inquisition. It, too, will pass.
That is, it will pass if we don't keep throwing fuel on the fire.
Dingo -- SC&A are essentially putting forth the same argument I did when we mistakenly drove to Canada...
As Boomr says, you don't earn the right to sit at the "moral table", especially if you're discussing how to move forward, how to achieve peaceful co-existance. To understand variant and diverse interest groups EVERYONE needs to talk. When you start excluding people from the discussion that is what I call putting your head in the sand.
Boomr, I hope you are right. The difference now, though, is that a single lunatic can do a lot of damage to a lot of people- a whole lot more than a nutcase with an axe in the middle ages.
"To understand variant and diverse interest groups EVERYONE needs to talk. When you start excluding people from the discussion that is what I call putting your head in the sand."
Kimbofo, I wasn't being literal- but by the same token, we cannot consider those who hold such views as equals.
Dingo, I'm not saying we didn't have our Dark Ages.
The difference is that now, they havoc and destruction that can be had is far greater.
Secondly, our dark ages happened a long time ago. Today, we all know better and differently- and still, we hear, 'slaughter them all!' from religious pulpits and secular podiums.
"This is not, and has never been about a religious endeavor. It is the misuse of a religion, a calculated attempt to realign a religion to serve the needs of a few evil men."
I think it's worth pointing out that fundamentalism has arisen in every major religious tradition. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, even Buddhism. It also follows the same pattern: the encounter of religious tradition with modernity and/or colonialism. In that respect, it is very much a religious endeavour and to claim that it's a "misuse" of religion is misleading. Moreover, it is not a political phenomenon that has hijacked religious rhetoric, nor is it the product of a "few evil men," it is specifically a group phenomenon. It has leaders, yes, and frequently political ambitions, but these things do not cause or define it. These facts, taken together, clearly legitimise the use of much larger bombs to deal with the problem.
Further more, while some have commented that it would be against our own principles to bomb the living shit out of the scary-different people, I think it worth comment that the chief principle in our society is a thoroughgoing scientific materialism. From this, it is clear that principles, in so much as they have form, exist only in the minds of peoples. Our institutions and our actions can only be principled, inasmuch as they are created by conscientious people of principle. Given this, it is clear that principles exist in neither the bomb (which is incapable of having principles) nor the Iraqi (who did not have the good fortune of being born American) and that if their confluence should produce a flowering of principles in the minds of others, this will indeed be a principled action.
"We cannot consider those who hold such views as equals"
Isn't that what the Nazis said?
How come we (the western world) gets to take the moral high ground on this? How come our views are the "right" views?
Kimbofo, I'll say it again- Do you think that those who REFUSE to deal with, tolerate or condemn female genital mutilation are your equals? And that's just the starting point. We can discuss slavery, forced conversions/circumcisions and rape as aceptable- even mandated.
Good doctors, of course not, but they are still human (despite whatever atrocities they have committed) are they not? As soon as we start treating people less than human because they have treated people less than human then we are no better than the people we seek to condemn.
We are not in disagreement, Kimbofo- but to simply say that we can deal with those who commit, tolerate or ignore these realities is mistaken- especially when theit objective is FURTHER destruction and hatred!
"Today, we all know better and differently- and still, we hear, 'slaughter them all!' from religious pulpits and secular podiums."
Com'on, you are giving us way too much credit. Every generation of every civilization looks back and holds themselves as higher in morals and knowledge than past generations, but yet war, genocide, intolerance, hate, etc is just as present today as it was 1000 or 2000 years ago. We don't know better, we haven't learned. You know better. I know better. Obviously most of the other people on this blog know better. But the majority of humans don't. 1000 years ago, there were people like us who sat around the hearth and said, "But Today, we all know better and differently- and still, we hear, 'slaughter them all!"
and in another 1000 years, out great-great-great-great grandchildren will sit around and say "Today, we all know better and differently- and still, we hear, 'slaughter them all!"
In the end, it is same shit, different day.
Dingo, you are reinforcing my point. The status quo cannot stand. As for SSDD, as Ive said, there is a whole lot more potential destruction out there today than there was a thousand years ago.
"there is a whole lot more potential destruction out there today than there was a thousand years ago."
Yes, but a hell of a lot more people. I am sure in the end, it is proportionally the same.
"The status quo cannot stand"
yes it can because you can't change it. I know it sounds defeatist, but true. There are always a handful of people who try to change the status quo, and they do, but the problem is, they never change human nature.
Aristotle complained about how the youth of his day were out of control and showed the pending doom of society... it survived, but it didn't change. You are fighting a battle that is virtually unwinnable. But, I will keep fighting with you because thats my human nature.
Dingo, chem/bio is not a proportional progression that you can relate to population growth.
Further, Ali Rafsanjani (former pres of Iran) said Iran SHOULD use a nuclear weapon, first. The respone in Iran? Thunderous applause.
The response in the Arab world?
Silence.
The Inquisition?
The Inquisition?
Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition!
I'm so happy to see that because they can kill more of us now, we can safely forget we killed some of them then.
makes me feel a lot less guilty.
and safer in my bed.
i'm SURE they agree with me.
Thanks Miguel... now I have a cross between Monty Python and Mell Brooks running through my head.
Siggy,
don't forget about the number of Americans who advocated first strike against the USSR. Instead of Christian vs. Islam, it was capitalist vs. communist.
There is a difference, Dingo- for one, there was never an 'opening shot'- lots of posturing, threats, etc., but nothing really happened.
Now, we have faced terror and murdering dictators for a long time- and it isn't getting better. No detente.
The final thought to the essay--that we are not their biggest problem--is true. The questions being asked here relate to the social contract between people and governments, and between the governments. A contract implies that both parties agree. (The party of the first part being us, and the party of the second part being them.) When one of the parties breaks the contract, in the US there are usually consequences. (Like jail time.)
THe real question is if the social contract still holds when people don't even speak the language that it's written in. Freedom? Respect for others? Plato spoke of justice as a pact among rational egoists. Again, there you have the implication that it's agreed upon. If a group, however formal or informal, has as its goal the annhialation (can't spell, too late for me) of another for no other reason than it exists, can the two groups have a pact?
There also exists a social contract between nations. The US broke it by invading Iraq. But had Iraq already broken it? What about the other nations in the "Axis of Evil"? Should nations enforce the social contract? If yes, then how? How do you enforce the pact with leaders of a country without penalizing the innocent born in the wrong place? (Oil for Food?)
I'm just asking the questions, I have no answers.
But I do know that if someone comes up to my daughter and strikes her because they don't like left-handed people, I'm gonna strike them back. And the next time I see someone with one of those "I HATE LEFTIES" tee-shirts on, if they make a wrong move, they have me to deal with. Do I extrapolate to anything larger than mommy protecting her family? And how much does my protecting my family demean me?
Sorry if I'm not making sense. But these are the questions that I'm thinking of.
Excellent comment, Carson- Excellent.
Another post is in order.
Goddammit, I wish I had been in this thread when it started. SO many points in the comments to counter...
Tough as it may sound, we have to respect holy sites
THEY don't respect their own holy sites! The question was when they are using it as an armory or a "trench", do we leave it alone because its intended use is a religious site? NO! They want to play war from there, they'd better be ready to rock there.
...just genocidal armies trying to stamp out entire races of their enemies
But we're talking about those who want US dead. Which Islamic radicals explicity do--no matter how much you try to "understand" and "empathize" with them. In fact, the American apologists for Islam are generally the ones to whom they object the most (for secular, liberal values).
"BY BEING NICE TO THEM FOR A CHANGE?"
Despite what the Islamic apologist propaganda machine (and MSM) may be feeding you, we ARE doing just that; our troops are building and equipping schools and doing monumental work with outreach in Iraq. All this while trying to maintain security AND defend themselves and the Iraqi people. You really have to have no faith in American humanity to believe that Americans went to Iraq just to wax a bunch of brown people.
Why not just target them and their close supporters, and not the entire population of these leaders' communities?
Again, war is messy, but it's a hell of a lot cleaner than it used to be, thanks to technology advancements in the defense industry. NO ONE from the President down to the newest enlistee WANTS to harm innocents. And it's not just the leaders and CLOSE supporters who are targeting us, anyway. Saddam/Osama/Zarqawi/Hamas/Rafsanjani aren't out there laying mines or firing on us, it's Joe al-Schmo. Nor did the House of Saud board three aircraft in the early morning of 9/11, or do Madrid, or take hostages, or kill Israeli Olympians in Munich, for that matter. It's a way of life for many of them, and that's a fact. And I know it isn't ALL of them; I lived in Turkey for a year and a half.
(more...)
Do we remain true to our values?
Yes, and among those values is self-defense. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness--that includes keeping our lives secure. It's the most fundamental purpose of rational government--protecting its people.
subdue them or to give them a chance at seeing how our system works...
Subdue the terrorists, YES. They can see perfectly well how our system works, and that's precisely what they object to. We're not an Islamic theocracy. As far as Joe al-Schmo goes, we give them the opportunity for democracy, because democracies don't go to war with one another for one thing; and as a bonus they get freedom--which is a fundamental human value. Not just an American one, an homo sapiens value and right. But as we all know, freedom isn't free. Never has been, and as Dingo said, that won't change.
Sorry, but Colleen's argument is so outrageous, I'd have to write ten posts to knock that one down. Not even bothering with that, because sanity precludes even taking it as a serious comment.
As much as some people (like colleen mentioned) may want otherwise, we do not live in a country governed by purely Christian dogma-
That's right, and Colleen is doing the greatest generalizations on this thread by implying that we're headed toward a theocracy. Frankly, that's just paranoid and ridiculous. Furthermore, I seriously doubt even James Dobson and Jerry Falwell want us to have a theocracy; their (and other religious dogmatists) wish is for us to live by Christian values because we want to, not because we're forced to--and to stop trying to stifle all references to G-d, because it's honestly oppressive to Christians to do so (and I'm not even a religious type myself). It's not like we've banned public praise of Islam, for crying out loud! People go nuts when Bush refers to his own practices, but there's not a peep when he says things like "Islam is a religion of peace". What gives???
Anyway, freedom, life, liberty, happiness--those aren't just "Christian values" or solely American values, but they are values upon which this nation was founded. If those values are incompatible with an American's point of view, then might I suggest they would be happier in a country where such things aren't given such a high value? I'm not being smartass and saying "love it or leave it," I'm being serious.
(skipping a bunch and moving on with more...)
Com'on, you are giving us way too much credit. Every generation of every civilization looks back and holds themselves as higher in morals and knowledge than past generations, but yet war, genocide, intolerance, hate, etc is just as present today as it was 1000 or 2000 years ago.
This is true, because we're human. But should the human race constantly have to repay ancestors' mistakes? Are you and others saying that we deserve what we get because of The Crusades? Why stop at the Crusades, then? How about justifying Israel attacking Germany? Or how about a zillion other examples?
Furthermore, we HAVE learned; we aren't conducting the Inquisition again, after all. The Islamists are having their own Crusades. It IS the goal of Islam to Islamicize the world, just ask 'em. Certainly Christians have missionaries, but I hardly think you can compare missionary work with violent overthrow of secular governments, as the Islamic radicals would have it. And YES, it is fair to make the comparison--relativism is for Utopia, in other words, fantasyland.
If their religious crusade is "valid", then how can you possibly NOT say that ALL violence and wars are valid and legitimate?
Some here have also referred to "ignorance." I, for one, don't think they (Islamists) are how they are because of ignorance, I think they are fully aware of what they are against. I also think that their goals are EVIL. Colleen, etc. worry about Christian fundamentalists "forcing" them to Christianity (which is hilarious, by the way) and say the "theocrats" are wrong, but how can you say that and NOT say that the Islamists are wrong? There's a universe of difference between today's Christians/Jews and today's Islamists, anyway--and if you can't see it, you just don't want to. Honestly, I see such arguments as plainly partisan ideological regurgitation, because the arguments presented against the war in Iraq are easily the same arguments that can be used for it. You're just substituting the actors with semantics.
About watching the BBC flick; a three hour movie honestly isn't going to change firmly committed core values. Such things exist to reinforce one's already-established beliefs. I wouldn't suggest you would change your mind by watching a movie with a bias in my favor, either. "Documentary" does not mean untainted, unbiased fact--it's only three hours of cut footage.
Too many other things to respond to here...I'll continue if necessary but not now.
If I remember correctly, that ideal of not having a place at the table without having "earned" -with the defined terms of earned being whether its gentlemens club membership was in good standing is exactly how the English originally handled the Middle Eastern area in times past. I think this old Europe way of divvying up power according to its own conclaves has caused deep distrust and problems. Not a little injustice.
I don't relish continuing that type of policy.
All participants ought to be present at the table and if you want to weight the morality let that be in the negotiation process.
-------
I appreciate Beth's points on Christianity.
--------
No matter what is thought about the nature of the religion you can't veto the whole of a people that adhere to that religion from having a say in things that impact them. Not unless you are at war with all of them. I think we know we are not at war with all Muslim people.
We want to encourage good citizenship whether it is in our country or global, not eradicate Islam or control its variations. People with no hope of representation aren't given to cooperation.
that seems mighty familiar in circumstance..... ohyeh. American History.
The boot seems tempting, but the boot isn't conducive to freedom.
Boomr, that there are examples of breach in morals does not mean that morals are necessarily up in the air.
I agree we are in moral struggle in the West. But some things are yet intact, it is foolish to think we don't abide by many traditional mores, or that our laws are not infused with them.
Now. Since that has been brought up- we ought to think good and hard about what our mores, as Americans, are in the political context. In someof these things itis just which end happens to be up at the time. Interventions in the Balkans, and no intervention in Rwanda.... the topsy-turvy time of Somalia.
We do have core values, however. They are usually taught in civics class.
====
Self-defense is an action, not a core ethic; importance of liberty is a core ethic; that all men are equal under the law is a core ethic; things like that. We believe in the right to defend self, but we temper that with ethics... when and how.
I, for one, don't think they (Islamists) are how they are because of ignorance, I think they are fully aware of what they are against.
I think in societies where there is government controlled media and fundamentalist run schools, other such institutions and disenfranchised youth, ignorance is an inevitable part of the mix. I really don't see how it could not be. How much it is a part of the mix is debatable, but to say it's not a factor at all is highly questionable, IMO.
As to Christian extremists I don't think they're quite so generous as to be sincerely interested in persuading the non-Christians over to their side of the equation. If they are they need to go back to Persuasive Writing and Public Speech class to work on that. In spite of this I wouldn't equate them with Islamic radicals of the stripe we're discussing.
I thought I heard "slaughter them all" from the voice of the secular materialist represented here......
Why can't we all just be the same?
it would make matters SO much easier!
oh, wait, it's because that pesky Creator insists on free will... darn it... i wish he'd take it all away and put us all right back into Eden.
All kiddin' aside, it would make life easier. i'm ready for a little easing of the tension.
First, I would like to say, this is one of the best on-line debates I have ever seen. Everyone is putting forth some great points. This re-instills some of my faith that there is hope for the human race 
Beth - "Are you and others saying that we deserve what we get because of The Crusades?"
No, not at all. That was not the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that no culture is immune from this type of extremism. And I make no apologies for Muslim extremist either. Nor am I a pacifist. I completely backed the war in Afghanistan. Without question, they broke the social contract between nations. And, without question, Saddam broke the social contract he had with his own people. My argument with invading Iraq is strategic. Nations like Libya & Lebanon were already moving in the direction of reform prior to the Bush administration. We could easily exert pressure on Saudi Arabia without invading Iraq. And, it shows nations like Iran and North Korea that their only assurance to self-preservation IS to develop nuclear weapons.
Wow, I really need to get an internet connection at home so I don't miss so much at night....
To Beth, since most of her original comments were directed at some of my comments:
Holy sites: Speaking not from a moral outrage standpoint, but an international-law-of-war standpoint, we are required to prevent through all possible means the destruction of cultural and religious artifacts. Some of these places and things are important not just to the culture that spawned them, but to the entire world (for instance, how many of us follow the religions of ancient Egypt or Greece, and how many of us still wonder at the art produced by them?). There are designated "world heritage" sites that should be safe from military action -- and that some of them use such sites as refuges does not justify our bombing them. There are other ways to kill the enemy.
Genocidal armies vs. terrorists: Oh, so we're only in it because the U.S. is threatened? I thought this was a campaign of morality, intended to bring democracy to the undemocratic and freedom to the oppressed. Or is that concept only good for the regions that can give us oil? What about Korea? Malaysia? Cuba, for god's sake? We can't take the stance that we're on a higher moral plane than our adversaries but only assert those morals when there's something for us to gain from it.
Being nice to them: Of course I know that our troops are doing a damn good job of "winning the hearts and minds" over there. I get a weekly email log from a soldier proving just that. So, let's drop the "we bomb them, then we help them" rhetoric. My point clearly was that after 50 years of cold war concentration on other regions, support of Israel at all costs, trade sanctions, and scavenger tactics by oil companies based in the West, perhaps the Joe al-Schmo on the street over there doesn't really think we have THEIR best interests at heart when we walk across their threshold. Rather than a choice between war or sanctions, why not increase aid in the form of education, food, medicine -- i.e., help the people who are directly hurt by our government's policies in response to their government's recalcitrance. All Iraqis did not invade Kuwait, yet all Iraqis were hurt by the decade of sanctions imposed after the war. Didn't we learn our lessen with Germany after WWI?
Targeting supporters: No, The House of Saud didn't board the plane. It just financed the mission, allowed wahabbism to run rampant in its country, accepted the good graces of our administration (and many before it) while supporting clearly anti-American policies in the shadows. Do you think 9/11 really would have happened without the moneymen behind it? Without a small group of radical clerics indoctrinating the uneducated men (most of whom had probably lost family members to some sort of conflict in the past, and were thus easier to convert into murderous zealots)?
Continued from above
Democratic peace: Democracies don't go to war against each other? Let's not forget the period of about 1937-1945, when Germany ELECTED Hitler, when he suspended most citizens' rights THROUGH VALID PROCESS OF LAW, then led a campaign of invasion of a number of other democracies in Europe. I agree that democracies are MORE LIKELY to use diplomacy over war, but let's not speak in absolutes here.
Colleen's arguments re: theocrats: First, dismissing someone's arguments as "outrageous" without comment is just plain insulting, especially given the back-and-forth nature of this particular forum. Second, her argument regarding the religious bent of many elected officials (and for that matter, the electorate in general) is not misplaced. The two biggest predictors of how someone was going to vote in the last two elections were (1) how often they went to church (more = Republican); and (2) how much education they had (more = Democrat). Elected officials, like DeLay, have clearly espoused a desire to have the country run by Christian dogma -- he stated just a few days ago that he believed that the separation of church and state was not a constitutional mandate and that he thought government should be run by Christian values. And yes, I do think people like Falwell and his ilk want to force Christian values on us -- see the constantly raging abortion debate, the fact that one state (Michigan? Illinois? I can't remember) just passed a law that allows doctors to refuse treatment to patients based on moral or religious grounds, the constant repetition of the word "God" in politicians' speeches. At the very least, you have to admit that some people out there want to make this country 100% Christian, and some of those people are in Congress.
"If those values are incompatible with an American's point of view, then might I suggest they would be happier in a country where such things aren't given such a high value? I'm not being smartass and saying "love it or leave it:" Sure you are. You're saying "you don't believe what I believe, therefore you don't like this country, therefore you should leave it and find another state." And you say that in the same sentence in which you reference the values of freedom, life, liberty, and happiness, in the midst of a larger argument in which you and SC&A argue for reducing the freedoms and liberties of an entire race of people. Hmmmm....
"Ignorance" vs. "evil:" Saddam Hussein was a bad, bad man, but he ruled over a largely SECULAR state, that had the highest literacy rate of the Muslim world. How often did we hear about Iraqi terrorists (other than Saddam's own henchmen acting on his own people)? Never. The terrorists we hear about are Saudi, Yemeni, Omani, Afghan, etc., and are almost universally products of cultures in which men are educated poorly or not at all, and women don't even get to set foot inside a school. So, you have an illiterate popu
... population, in which the only people who can read are the religious leaders, who are themselves not run by any hierarchical church structure, but are allowed to form their own interpretations of the Koran without a whole lot of input from other religious leaders. So would you agree that these religious leaders in small, illiterate villages have a greater degree of influence than, say, a Christian missionary? Or do you really think that an entire race of people was born "evil"? Let's not forget, this entire thread centers on the argument to reduce the rights of all "Arab Muslims," not just the ones bent on destroying us.
To Ilona: To what "traditional mores" are you referring when you say "our laws are ... infused with them?" I always cringe a little when I hear someone use the vague term "American values," because not all Americans share the same values. Sure, civics class teaches us that "all men are created equal," yet there's still institutional racism, sexism, discrimination against the aging and those who may have a different sexual orientation, protection of corporate "citizens" over the human ones, and a whole host of other practical realities that disprove the civics lesson. So what are the "traditional mores" that ALL OF US share? I'd like to know.
I'm sure there's more. I hope the debate continues, and thanks to all who have participated.
I think this is an overgeneralization-
"Until the Arab community deals with the reality that we are not their biggest problem, they cannot possibly contribute or achieve the American Dream, imperfect as it may be, but a whole lot better trhan anything out there."
It sounds like Daniel Pipes, and it sounds too pessimistic. I think you are actually doing what you are analysing as a fault-focusing too much on Israel.
One example of an overfixation on the Israeli- Arab conflict is spotted in a little battle over how National Review responded to CAIR on a anti-Islamist book written by a Serbian author.
Hate to say this but as a Croatian Catholic-sorta- I was immediately suspicious of the last four letters of his last name. Sorry but that is how it is when you come from this area. Heck I am kicking myself for thinking I gave a break to Vionovich visa Bolton just because I felt he had lived in Ohio long enough{I'm joking to make a point} Ya I am doubly messed up because my French/Canadian/American relative was ambassador to Rwanda. Tried to study up on it in the late 80's of all places at CU-and instead the "Third World" professors wanted to harp on South Africa-the "latest" book they were writing.
Anyways back to the I hate Muslims at all costs. Jewish blogs aligned with a Serbian lawyer for Radic who denies that there was a genocide of Muslims in Bosnia in his other writings. Heck piss off Croatian Catholics in the process. We did some bad stuff with Hitler. Throw us on a guilt trip about that-it works well with Catholics-you have our number when you do that. Tell me that French Canadians are anti-semetic gheez because I am sorta one and have low self-esteem I'm with you on that one. But start telling me that my Spainard and Italian Catholic brothers are anti-semetic, and well buddy I want to beat the ever liven hell outta ya. Right after I learn ya about self-fulfilling prophecy. think I am anti-semetic/ Then why do I want to beat up a guy named Wellesley because he messed with my boyfriend David Frum? Actually General Clark pees me off because he hates the Air Force so much he wants to send the overextended US army into Darfur. Being AF I am feeling a little guilty about all those no fly zones we are not enforcing.
Ok so a Catholic Croatian is mad? Pretty small group to make upset. Gheez if you wanted us to pull out of some territory the US could make us pay friendship dues and we would probably have to do it without complaint. Who is afraid of the Croatian Catholic voting block? Heck we are such a small group we can't afford to be all fractured up like the Israeli Knesset. We don't ask for dual-citizen voting rights- we just vote American first. So ya maybe I lied maybe I have become anti-semetic. Tell me one more time how Bush and Clinton are no different and ya I think even the people at the Democratic Underground would say what the hell? Where the hell do you come from? America? Hey call me a h
Hey call me a hypocrite-that just means I am human.
It's hard to read all this small print. I've been trying to skim it all...but I will take a stab at saying something further.
It seems that Beth is quoting a response to my response. I don't claim "theocracy" as my arguement...I actually said people in power are trying to "blur the lines on the separation of church and state." My point is more about this: The US is like a strict authoritarian parent weilding it's super power status. As a parent myself, I know that strict authoritarianism doesn't improve kids behavior in the long run (although it might temporarily). Eventually it tends to make them go underground, become more skilled at not getting caught and doing stuff behind your back. Authoritarianism usually boomerangs. I was firm with my kids when it was needed and bad behavior had consequences, but diaglouge, modeling the right behavior, building respect worked better to teach them self-discipline (wanting to have good behavior because they cared what I thought). Our policies around the world (often authoritarian) have consequences. We won't stop terrorism until we look at the roots of it. Also there is this thing called "projection" in phychology...whereas what we can't own in ourselves (or aren't willing to see) we tend to create an "evil other" to project it onto. Tom Delay is a good example of this. He harshly scolds what he calls "activist judges" (mostly conservative mind you) and some would say he has "threatened" that they will be held accountable or punished. But he himself is the one that needs to be held accountable for his ethics problems and he is in denial about it.
Also, I don't understand comments made (to paraphrase) that we had to stand down terror so we invaded Iraq...Iraq was not a sponser of terrorism. Of course the terrorists have flocked there and new ones are joining daily as a response to what many view as an illegal invasion. Iraq is riddled with fractions that have a long history of hating eachother...the borders of Iraq were drawn up by western powers and are not natural. Saddam's brutality was about keeping the uprisings of waring fractions in Iraq down. I'm not defending him, just looking at the roots of it. The US was naive to think we could go in there and stir up the hornets nest and make honey (privitazation of Iraq's resources by western powers.)
"Iraq was not a sponsor of terror." That myth has been long debunked.
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
Are you talking about Saddam's support of the Palestinians? Many Irish Americans sent money to Ireland to support their cause...not so different. I meant there were no proven ties to religious fundamentalist groups like Al Qaida in Iraq (in fact they were add odds).
As to fine print, you can use the Ctrl and the "+" sign to increase font size if you wish. It's what I always do.
(I am the master of inconsequential interjections.)
No Colleen, I am referring to saddam supporting the murderer of Leon Klinghoffer, wheelchair bound American off the Achille Lauro, for starters.
See this.
http://hudson.org/files/
publicat...ddamarticle.pdf
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/02...01s03-
woap.html
Coleen, you have inspired another post, if for no other reason than to clarify misconceptions and mistruths.
Further, that the IRA committed terror in no way justifies Arab terror.
Lastly, the crusades were in large measure a response to the Muslim invasion of southern Europe, one of the most horrific events of it's era. But as I said, I shall post on these and other issues. Thanks for the inspiration!
But the terror in the Middle East is back and forth (Israeli/Palestinian) both sides are engaged in it...one has an army and one doesn't. I wasn't justifying terror, just talking about the root causes of it and the historic progression of it.
BOTH sides are engaged in terror??? Are you SERIOUS??
As to the root cause, the Israelis won a war started by the Arabs- who threatened annihilation and destruction. They lost. In 67, the Israelis offered the land back- in exchange for peace. The Arabs said no. They reiterated that choice in the Khartoum declaration in 68.
Finally, be assured that if the Israelis wanted to really kill Palestinians, they could. They have been remarkably restrained.
Destroying the homes of suicide bombersd is by no means equal to the loss of life.
Alas, I missed it all again, but I do need to point one thing out to SC&A. The conflict of palistine as an "arab" nation goes back to way before the UN creation of Isreal after WWII.
The history goes like this. I was controled by the Ottoman empire. During WWI, the British and French promised the area to the Arab palistinians if they faught on the side of the allies against the ottomans (that is the story of Laurance of Arabia). After the fall of the Ottomans and the end of WWI, The Brits renigged and the league of nations set up a Jewish homeland much larger than the current palistine/isreal combined. But because of the problems this caused with arabs, the Jewish state never evolved as planned. After WWII, Isreal was created somewhat close to the size (but not exactly) the Palistinian lands were annexed by the surrounding arab nations (egypt, lebanon, jordan) and then the resultant wars transpired.
It was kind of like promiseing the same peice of cake to two different kids. I fully support isreal and its right to exist, but claims by arabs to that land are not entirely illigitimate either. Arabs faught and died in WWI for that land at the request of the allies and than it was denied. Sir Laurence even refused a medal from the king in protest for the British's breaking its word to the Arabs (sort of like Kerry throwing away his ribbons...ok, not really, but you get the point) and resigned his post in the British army.
sorry for any spelling errors. My brain is dead.
They both kill civilians. I think anytime you draw up man made borders and put people were people already are, you will get war (thinking of what happened with the Native Americans here). I guess we just have different world views on this (maybe representing the two divided halves of the country) and hopefully we can agree to disagree.
"They both kill civilians. "
Do they both target civilians? Is targeting civilians trying to buy groceries morally better, worse or equivalent to trying to kill a military target who has surrounded himself with civilians?
Does a nation have a right to defend itself?
A few points where many are called for in this debate: (a good one btw to spawn probing questions)
To begin, I'd like to comment on our tightly held beliefs with which one is identified. We all have them; mine is mainly that I have a thing for ALL of humanity. This debate reaches deep into the implications about the goings on in the middle east, which I "believe" will spread to the entire planet. It IS that big.
That being said; think of this, a quote from Joe Quinn:
To eradicate "terrorism", Israel finds itself in the paradoxical position of NEEDING a permanent threat to its existence in order for it to continue to exist and expand its borders into Arab lands.
from: http://signs-of-the-times.org/
cg...riri_mossad.htm
And think too of this:
"By way of deception thou shalt wage war" the Mossad's motto. It gives us clues we should not ignore. Think of "black propaganda" operations. Think of covert actions that are designed to create suspicion and inflame animosity between Israel's perceived enemies in the Middle East and Americans, the purpose being to damage the image of Arabs and Arab states.
Their mode of operation is to infiltrate the country *long before they plan an attack.* The USA has learned much from their trusted ally, I do think (hint: 9/11), but I won't go into that tonight.
I will though use another quote, this time from Greg Felton, a writer at http://world.mediamonitors.net
"The propagandist’s greatest asset is the perception of reasonableness, because his power comes directly from the public’s willingness to believe what it’s told."
Perhaps a research on Ethnic Specific Weapons would help to enlighten. The idea being that the Israelis are developing weapons that can target victims through their DNA. Now who exactly would they want to use this kind of weapon on?
Outrageous you think? Then think of the mysterious deaths of many scientists (or shall I say "suicides"?) specifically, Dr. David Kelly who was involved with ultra secret work at Israel’s Institute for Biological Research. What was he working on? Hmmm? Could it be possible that SOMEONE wants to target the Arabs? http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/
...1998111619.html
Note too that since the Holocaust the ploy to equate anti-Israelism with anti-Semitism serves to increase the temperature of the conflict in the middle east and embroil it in a conflict of proportions unseen in our recent history.
Are you getting the picture?
Good night, Ben
This is close to the stupidist comment we've ever gotten.
Sourcing Arabic News? Please. We're surprised you negelected to mention the blood for pastries piece. If we're not mistaken, there was a similiar story about how South Africa wanted to do the same. Now pay attention moron, and learn an irrefutable truth- the Israelis aren't obsessed with Arabs- it's the other way around. The Israelis don't give a rats ass about the Arabs. They just want to be left alone. They'd be happy to trade with Arabs like they do with the rest of the world and makes lots of money. Rule ONE in economics- you dont kill your customers.
Lastly, save for a few zealots, only a certifiable IDIOT would believe that Israel wants to take over Arab lands. The couldn't even if they wanted to. It's in the numbers, moron.
Love the link you have in your post, fruitcake...
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/i...cass/
index.html
Unbelievable. Another whack job.
Okay, I can handle be called a moron. Actually I am that and probably insensitive too for having used the links I did in my rebuttal. Throw them aside then with my apologies and then answer some of my other points if you will.
Ben
Your points? WHAT points? Unsubstantiated assertions? Talk about the Mossads MOTTO?? They are SPIES, you IDIOT!
Im sure you are a very nice kid- really. You need to stay in the sandbox, until you learn that assertions aren't FACTS, and OPINIONS are like assholes.
Dumbing down rears its ugly head.
Sigmund Carl and Alfred, tell the truth, you are much more enamoured by Sigmund than the other two. And who can blame you? After all, he correctly identified and named the oedipus complex that you are clearly suffering from. Israel is your mother, the Arabs are your father, including the little Palestinian schoolgirls.
You last post was a real doozie, it was right up there with the musing of the twisted Neocons who now believe themselves to be "creating their own reality". What leads a person like you to express such utterly ignorant, narrow-minded and crass opinions about the state of the world?
Was your father too authoritarian? Are you racked with guilt that will never leave you in peace? Is it rage? Is there a big hole right through the middle of you, that no amount of killing and suffering can fill? Do you want revenge for being born or something?
If I might be so bold as to suggest a remedy for your condition; go read some history. Not the bullshit kind though.
"stupidist comment, moron, IDIOT, fruitcake, whack job."
Looks like u fellas got more Dubya in ya than Jung or Freud.
Grow up! Is that what passes for debate on your blog? Someone posts information that you disagree with, and you turn into a gall darn wolverine! Debate the message, don't shoot the messenger.
Tiny- actually, we learned that from Michael Moore. Know what we mean? SURE you do!
Pep. PRETEND you are not an idiot. BACK up your assertions with facts. If you can't go back to the childrens table.
You said nothing. Maybe mommy or daddy will tolerate your stupidity, but we won't. Im sorry, are you FEELING HURT? We;ll just give you a trophy, OK?
Your comments to Ben Gal has made your hypocrisy quite visible. Facts for you are not really 'facts' because you will always find a counter fact to support your personal bias. Your bias is well represented in your name calling. So your personal bias is all that really matters to you. Facts don't really matter. Opinions don't really matter (as you so 'eloquently' noted) . All that really matters to you is your own personal bias and your name calling clearly substantiates that fact. So there's a FACT for you.
Opinion is a good handle for you. Again, NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE on your plate. You OFFER NO FACTS- just opinion-whereas I can back up what is said here. I can undedtand why focusing on me is so important to you, as you incapable of actually making any relevant contribution.
In other words, you remain what you are- an idiot. I suppose you will want your trophy engraved. That's the least I can do- after all, you only highlight your irrelevance.
Now, since you aren't made to 'FEEL' good, feel free not to return. Go play in the kiddie sandbox.
phentermine 37.5 cod phentermine 37.5 cod phentermine 37.5 cod // gateway pharmacy phoenixville gateway pharmacy phoenixville gateway pharmacy phoenixville
Commenting by HaloScan
