Topic: The Struggle (Read 4909 times)

Anthony Horvath · « **on:** March 11, 2006, 10:21:18 AM »

I'm not exactly sure how to put this or begin this. Its been awhile since I've argued politics on this board. Some think that politics and religion are distinct things. Also, they think that politics and ideology are distinct things, too. There is no such thing as a man's politics divorced from his values, though, so it has always been my position that politics and one's overall worldview are connected.

My worldview is that people tend to be naughty. Christianity calls this the doctrine of original sin. It is a doctrine I did not need Christianity to teach me. I can see it with my own eyes in the present, and it is clear as day in the past as well.

So, I submit this article here:

Click Here

Four Christians protesting the war in Iraq were kidnapped. One of them apparently was tortured and killed. Now, I sympathize with my Christian brethern of course, but as far as I know, they were there to PROTEST THE WAR. This strikes me as completely misguided. The irony of going to stand against Americans and with the Iraqis only to be kidnapped and tortured and killed by the Iraqis is crisp. But the question is, "What did they expect?" Clearly, their worldview did not mesh with reality.

Now, a parallel might be drawn between them and the famous Jim Elliot. Jim and his missionary friends were also killed by the very people who he came to minister to. However, Jim and friends weren't there under any delusions, either. In otherwords, this chap who has now been executed felt that the Iraqi's were being 'dehumanized' (see article) but in reality there probably was little done that's not expected in warfare, and the enemy pretty well deserved the labels ascribed to them. By refusing to acknowledge that sickening reality, he set himself apart from the likes of Jim Elliot.

Go and minister and evangelize and die for your faith in Iraq- I applaud that! But this was not dying for your faith. This was dying for the false ideal that people are by nature 'good' and that if you just talk to them nicely they'll come around.

Another irony is Jill Carroll, also mentioned in the article. She is a reporter who loves the Iraqi people and speaks the Iraqi language. If she expected any kind of special treatment because of her quest to accurately display the Iraqi condition, she too was a victim of her false idealism.

The people who are our enemies in Iraq do not care if a westerner is sympathetic.

The people who are our enemies in Iraq want to control the world.

Ideologically, this is the same as the communists of not too long ago who had the same aspirations.

Communism created many martyrs, Christian and otherwise, but not many of those martyrs had any delusions about the Communists, or communism, or the ultimate treachery of their designs. Nor did they pity the Communists because of the mean, oppressive, capitalistic and democratic nations, primarily, the US. They pitied the communists because they were people, and humans, but not at the sake of marginalizing the morality of opposing these same people.

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #1 on:** March 14, 2006, 07:33:11 PM »

Al-kida doesn't want peace. The four christians are infidels in their eyes. Al-Queda is on a jihad to kill all infidels. What should you expect? And hopefully i'll learn to spell. lol

Deep Thought · « **Reply #2 on:** April 04, 2006, 06:11:46 PM »

There is one matter that simple observation has taught me: all humans are born selfish. Any manner of anti-selfishness comes later. It's like Sigmund Freud's ideas on id, ego, and superego... some of his theories are a bit "ew..." but on this one he was dead on, as far as my eyes can tell.

FUSSCCJ · « **Reply #3 on:** April 05, 2006, 10:58:35 PM »

I agree with ya'll. It seems to me that those of us in "modern industrialized" society, or "western" society seem to think that if we just sit down and talk to people we can work out all our differences and everything will be just fine, therefore we never have to go to war. This ignores the fact that current groups who oppose our "liberal" western ideas aren't at all interested in compromise or negociations in good faith. They want to win and they want us to lose. Unfortunately, that give us only two options if we want to survive: destroy their system or change their system. This notion that everything can be solved over a table is unrealistic. We may have to choose between war or support for subversive groups.

Good example: Iran. Iran did not negociate in good faith with Europe, as evidenced by Hassan Rowhani, the mullah in charge of negotiations with the French, who said that Iran used the negociations to buy time for their nuclear program (London Telegraph, March 5th). Talking won't work with Iran, we either need to take out the government or foster a regime change if we want to deal with that situation.

Heretic · « **Reply #4 on:** April 05, 2006, 11:04:19 PM »

It's all about religion. If all these folks would just come to the realization that there is no God then disagreements can be solved "over the table".

As long as there are idiots promoting the idea that there is some great ghostly creator caretaker of the earth and we are to do his bidding under threat of eternal d--nation then there will always be idiots unwilling to settle matters in a civilized manner and kill in the name of their God.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #5 on:** April 05, 2006, 11:08:04 PM »

*cough* Pol Pot *cough* *cough*

Deep Thought · « **Reply #6 on:** April 06, 2006, 07:38:34 AM »

Quote from: Heretic

It's all about religion. If all these folks would just come to the realization that there is no God then disagreements can be solved "over the table".

As long as there are idiots promoting the idea that there is some great ghostly creator caretaker of the earth and we are to do his bidding under threat of eternal d--nation then there will always be idiots unwilling to settle matters in a civilized manner and kill in the name of their God.

On the other hand, take away those supposedly imaginary deities, and human beings are just as selfish and arrogant as they were WITH religion behind them. So they'd find a different reason to kill. God-questions are merely a complication in the matter, not a cause of the matter itself.

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #7 on:** April 06, 2006, 03:53:38 PM »

So theist should destroy theism so they cant have wars about god and they wont be the ones to blame, right? lol

FUSSCCJ · « **Reply #8 on:** April 07, 2006, 01:02:34 PM »

Harry, I'd say that religion is an excuse so that we don't have to blame ourselves. It's about power. For the Catholic Church for a long time (15th Century to 19th, if not longer), for certain Islamic sects now, for significant parts of today

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #9 on:** April 07, 2006, 01:12:09 PM »

A true democracy would destroy all that power, right?

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #10 on:** April 07, 2006, 01:12:40 PM »

I mean a constitutional democracy.

FUSSCCJ · « **Reply #11 on:** April 11, 2006, 09:54:30 PM »

I don't think so. I'm not really up on modern democratic theory, but I think it attempts to divide the power in such a way that disperses it and disallows concentration of power.

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #12 on:** April 13, 2006, 03:59:14 PM »

Power corrupts. Absolute power, corrupts absoulutely.
Rel. Joke: Of coarse you wouldn't believe in democracy, you believe in an all powerful God. lol

Dannyboy · « **Reply #13 on:** April 27, 2006, 08:08:12 PM »

Howdy,

My take on the Norman Kember et al thing, for what it's worth, is that they are a) brave, b) possibly foolish, and c) easily misrepresented by people who have strong ideological beliefs about what is and has happened in Iraq, i.e. at the last count, everybody.

i personally wouldn't go to Iraq now, were i asked to in a humanitarian context, purely because i would be scared to do so. It is a bloody dangerous place. The point however, which i think you may have missed out of your analysis Johnny, is that the reason for that is because we have made it so. Now, for us, sitting in our western armchairs, it is only a dangerous place for other people. People like Kember, who choose to remove that veil of security between themselves and their governments' decisions for the purposes of making a political statement (among other things) have my profound respect.

i do not (of course) know all the reasons these people chose to go to Iraq, any more than you do. Whatever they expected, i guess we can agree they probably did not expect to be tortured and killed. Still, the conclusion that you seem to draw from this (namely that 'people are naughty') doesn't really address the root causes behind the fact that westerners are not safe in Iraq.

The irony of going to stand against Americans and with the Iraqis only to be kidnapped and tortured and killed by the Iraqis is crisp. But the question is, "What did they expect?" Clearly, their worldview did not mesh with reality.

Any more than the people who told us that the war would be 'quickly won', and that the Iraqis would welcome us with 'open arms'? Any comments on the consequences of those misjudgements?

You suggest that Iraqis have little reason to react negatively to Western faces, saying that "in reality there probably was little done that's not expected in warfare, and the enemy pretty well deserved the labels ascribed to them." i'd like to refer you to this article:

http://vitw.org/archives/219

People who slaughter peace activists are pitiless thugs and their actions are their own responsibility, but let's not pretend that we havent contributed massively to making Iraq the sort of place that breeds these kind of people.

The people who are our enemies in Iraq do not care if a westerner is sympathetic.

It's an understandable attribution error. They have had precious little experience of sympathetic westerners. i would not be too quick to criticise people who put themselves in danger in order to try and correct that trend.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #14 on:** April 27, 2006, 09:10:18 PM »

"Howdy,"

What took you so long. :)

"People like Kember, who choose to remove that veil of security between themselves and their governments' decisions for the purposes of making a political statement (among other things) have my profound respect."

They have mine- to a point. There were plenty of human shields that recanted after spending a little time in Iraq prior to the war. There's a reason for that.

"Any more than the people who told us that the war would be 'quickly won',"

That's an interesting comment, because I was paying close attention to the news at that time, and I did not hear that out of the mouths of anyone that mattered. I recall a sandstorm stalling the 1st Division for a couple of days and liberals quickly labeled it a quagmire. AFTER a FEW DAYS. Besides, let us be clear, in many respects, the war certainly was quickly won. If we are going to include the reconstruction time in the period of the 'war' then we are going to have to adjust the length of pretty much every armed conflict on record to this point. WW2 quickly comes to mind.

"And that the Iraqis would welcome us with 'open arms'?"

That's another one of those things that is out there. I'd be glad to hear you substantiate this perspective from anyone that mattered.

"Any comments on the consequences of those misjudgements?"

Who made these misjudgements? It seems to me that the whole thing was cast into those terms by the opponents of the war, as though the only standard for a successful campaign is one where the war was won quickly, nobody died or got hurt, and the people welcomed us 100%. Since this is a thread about the real world, I think it is appropriate that I at least never expected the war to proceed like that. This is the real world, after all. Its a war. People get hurt. Things come up. People die. Mistakes are made. Not everyone is going to give up. Now, those were MY expectations, and the expectations of quite a few people that I know. How did you come to think anyone thought otherwise?

I think what I said above sums it up: it was the opponents of the war that imposed those standards and expectations on the war, not the proponents. The record as I recall it seems pretty clear on that. At least, it is certainly safe to say that I recall many instances where people that mattered were much more cautious and realistic in their pronouncements then you allege.

Let me sum it up this way: I know a lot of conservative minded people, and none of us expected things to go off without a hitch or to be welcomed with completely 'open arms.' So, perhaps you are a victim of the liberal media?

You suggest that Iraqis have little reason to react negatively to Western faces, saying that "in reality there probably was little done that's not expected in warfare, and the enemy pretty well deserved the labels ascribed to them." i'd like to refer you to this article:

http://vitw.org/archives/219

First of all, if you think the things described in that article are not expected in warfare you are out of touch with reality, too, my friend. I could submit to you probably about a 100 books, and I'd make sure to include a good half dozen or so describing the Brits at war. Shooting an unarmed man in the back is obviously no good- a little context would have been great. How do we know an American did it? Who was 'they'? Firing on an ambulance is no good... I don't suppose its worth mentioning that there were folks using ambulances and other types of ruses as opportunities to blow up Americans? In fact, there was a well publicized episode here where an American was caught shooting a wounded man to death on video. It took several days of reporting for us to learn that the day before the American's friend had been killed as he tended to a wounded man (may have been dead) but the guy was rigged with a bomb.

That, too, is a common tactic in warfare. You don't want ambulances shot at? The solution is easy: tell the insurgents not to use ambulances to carry bombs. While you're at it, tell them not to attach bombs to wounded men. Or blow up children getting candy from Americans. Or cut off the heads of men trying to rebuild their country.

This is an indisputable fact: the quickest way to get America out of Iraq is to stop blowing people up and participate in the political process.

"I would not be too quick to criticise people who put themselves in danger in order to try and correct that trend."

I was not quick at all. In fact, I said that I would applaud such efforts within the right framework.

By way of analogy, there is a big difference between walking into a prison to try to help the people out there without necessarily condoning their deeds and walking into that prison to stand in 'solidarity' with the prisoners as though they are all actually just victims. The analogy isn't perfect, but its close. You can stand alongside the Iraqis without blaming even the beheadings on GWB.

Dannyboy · « **Reply #15 on:** April 27, 2006, 10:10:05 PM »

What took you so long. :)

Well, i've been busy.

i'm also quite sleepy and not currently up to finding and referencing the quotes i alluded to (bad form, i know). We could argue our respective recollections of the propaganda (both pro and anti-war) in the run up to the conflict, but both of our recollections are likely to be biased by our own views, so let's not.

The conduct of American and British troops in the execution of this war is also something we could argue about if i had more energy. White phosphorus, extraordinary rendition, beatings and humiliation etc. i'm sure you have answers for it all. Over 100,000 Iraqis have been killed in the invasion, most of them non-combatants, and Iraq is still an occupied country (which can't, therefore, by any real definition, be a democracy).

The quickest way to get America out of Iraq is to stop blowing people up and participate in the political process.

Recognise the circularity. An Iraqi might say, 'The quickest way to get us to stop blowing people up is to get out of Iraq and stop interfering with our political process'. That way no one needs to take responsibility for their actions. Hurrah!

By way of analogy, there is a big difference between walking into a prison to try to help the people out there without necessarily condoning their deeds and walking into that prison to stand in 'solidarity' with the prisoners as though they are all actually just victims. The analogy isn't perfect, but its close. You can stand alongside the Iraqis without blaming even the beheadings on GWB.

Very true. However, the fact that someone is not innocent does not mean that they cannot also be a victim. We also don't know which perspective was taken by these activists do we? They were trying to help by being there, and they had certain views about the legality of the occupation. The two don't necessarily mesh.

Ah i don't know. We can probably agree that they were brave, so let's celebrate these small triumphs where we find them eh?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #16 on:** April 28, 2006, 07:32:11 AM »

"Recognise the circularity. An Iraqi might say, 'The quickest way to get us to stop blowing people up is to get out of Iraq and stop interfering with our political process'. That way no one needs to take responsibility for their actions. Hurrah!"

But of course, my statement was a true statement while this one is false. The purpose of the insurgents is fairly clear, really. They don't merely want the Americans out, they want them out humiliated. A good sign of such strategery is the more recent attempts to foment a civil war by the insurgents. For years the liberal media has been worried about 'a civil war' but there wasn't any sign of that. So, now insurgents (you cannot be so certain that they are actually Iraqis, my friend. certainly some are, but be fair), who are not stupid, are trying to set Iraqi against Iraqi. They are getting their cues from the liberal media. First, they saw the expectations of 'quick war' 'open arms' set by the libs and tried to falsify them. That didn't work. Libs were always worried about a civil war, so now they are trying that.

Upshot: It is the liberal media that is responsible for every extra day required in Iraq, for it, and it alone is providing the playbook for the insurgents. Track the news. You'll find that there is an eerie parallel.

And when America is out, what then? Will the beheadings stop? Only if...

"Very true. However, the fact that someone is not innocent does not mean that they cannot also be a victim."

Thus my Jim Elliot comment.

"We also don't know which perspective was taken by these activists do we?"

Yes, we do. It was described in part on one of the links I provided.

Oh, btw, did I tell you that their kidnapping had actually been completely staged?

SML · « **Reply #17 on:** April 28, 2006, 09:08:12 AM »

above link no longer works - any suggestions?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #18 on:** April 28, 2006, 09:25:58 AM »

Well that is no good. I can't seem to find a comparable.

Maj, you strike me as someone who might be of a conservative bent. Did you expect the war to be easy and for the US to be universally accepted?

cimics · « **Reply #19 on:** April 28, 2006, 09:58:59 AM »

Dannyboy (and anyone else interested) --

Quote

Still, the conclusion that you seem to draw from this (namely that 'people are naughty') doesn't really address the root causes behind the fact that westerners are not safe in Iraq.

NO ONE is safe in Iraq. Sunnis kill westerners and shiites. Shiites kill sunnis (sometimes they're the insurgency and sometimes they're not) and sometimes westerners too. Zarqawi's group kills just about everybody. And of course westerners kill a variety of Iraqis, mostly insurgency and terrorists but sometimes innocents who get caught in the crossfire. About the only large group of people who don't seem to be killing a lot of people are Kurds (but then perhaps they just get better PR.....)

Author Topic: The Struggle (Read 4909 times)