Question that perplexes me

[Hans Talhoffer]

The conflict in Northern Ireland wasn't won by strength of arms, but through a long peace process built around political processes and a decisive, poignant LACK of military interventions. That particular case actually bolsters my argument.

Riiiight... so the para regiment was just there on holiday. My bad.

 

[Montalban]

At the root of all of these troubles is the one thing the neo-cons never quite seemed to grasp: you cannot promote liberty and human rights at gun point. Nor can you eliminate terrorism with military invasions.

I would not have liked to see you 'negotiate' with Himmler on the human rights abuses against Jews.

Liberation at the point of a gun was in fact what the prisoners welcomed when the camps were liberated

 

[Montalban]

I was thinking of 2 19th century examples, but the 3rd is purely 20th century. Who won in Northern Ireland? (Hint, not the terrorists)

I agree with your position, but not your example.

Northern Ireland's peace was brought about by both sides exhausted by the violence. One side wasn't 'forced' to the peace table by the other.

Both sides saw that military/violence was not the solution.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I would not have liked to see you 'negotiate' with Himmler on the human rights abuses against Jews.

Liberation at the point of a gun was in fact what the prisoners welcomed when the camps were liberated

Nazi Germany is not an example of international terrorism. It was a traditional nation state - and a European nation that had already been striving for democracy and human rights before the dictatorship took over.

Even if we ignore the differences between a criminal organization that is not bound to a certain country and a national infrastructure with its clearly delineated administration, we are still talking about a nation that was not only already familiar with democratic/humanistic values, but had in fact been partaking in the development of the same, prior to their descent into jingoistic madness.

Oh, and on a completely unrelated tangent: I hope you do not believe that the allies entered the war because of the death camps. They did not. At best, they were a secondary or even tertiary concern - but one that could be paraded around afterwards, making the war all the more heroic, of course.
Sadly, innocent human lives were never much of a concern when it came to wartime politics, and we shouldn't forget that anti-semitism was neither a german invention nor confined to its borders.

 

[Montalban]

Nazi Germany is not an example of international terrorism. It was a traditional nation state - and a European nation that had already been striving for democracy and human rights before the dictatorship took over.

Nazi Germany instigated state terrorism, just as (to a much much lesser degree) the US has done in toppling governments around the world. Terrorism conducted by a state is no less a terror to the victim.

The Nazi state was not traditional in the sense that it saw itself as a radical even revolutionary state bent on a particular agenda (it was traditional in the sense that it was a state that undertook treaties, exchanged diplomats, etc. but so did the PLO before Palestine was a state).

And here's where your rebuttal fails, I believe; the PLO, a recognised terrorist organisation were believed by some to be the legitimate voice of the Palestinian 'state'.

The IRA conducted terror within Ireland in order to be recognised as the voice of the 'republic' in the 1920s. Eamon de Valera sought recognition of his people as the 'government' of Ireland - he tried to get the US to recognise him as President.

Even if we ignore the differences between a criminal organization that is not bound to a certain country and a national infrastructure with its clearly delineated administration, we are still talking about a nation that was not only already familiar with democratic/humanistic values, but had in fact been partaking in the development of the same, prior to their descent into jingoistic madness.

Oh, and on a completely unrelated tangent: I hope you do not believe that the allies entered the war because of the death camps. They did not. At best, they were a secondary or even tertiary concern - but one that could be paraded around afterwards, making the war all the more heroic, of course.
Sadly, innocent human lives were never much of a concern when it came to wartime politics, and we shouldn't forget that anti-semitism was neither a german invention nor confined to its borders.

I certainly don't maintain that's why they entered. Britain's traditional foreign policy (so traditional it's lampooned in Yes, Prime Minister!) is to make sure not a single power dominated Europe and Germany's invasion of Poland assured Britain that this was Germany's intent.

However despite all the bad things the British did I firmly believe that they were heroic against a diabolical force, even whilst the US was still firmly wrapped in isolationism.

It was their finest hour

 

[clirus]

You ask an interesting question, one that is not easily answered.
When the Soviet Union was there the Taliban were the good guys, worthy of our praise and backing, hearty fighters defending their homeland from the evil red empire.
The Russians are gone and the Talib just want to go back to the life they have known for hundreds of years. Follow the Koran, as they understand it, to include preventing the growing or poppies. Unfortunately, the Talib form of leadership (and life) does not fit into the mold accepted by the US.
Now, throw in OSB and his associated groups, their basic belief that the United States wants the world to be Christian and wants everyone else to live their life according to their rules, which are so very, very different from what they believe the Koran tells them, and we have a big problem.
Some may say that there is the profit motive in play here because both countries are largely untouched when it comes to natural resources. I don’t buy into that.
OSB and his associated groups are well funded and believe in what they are doing. Their mind set is very different from ours. Their view is black and white. Hard feeling go back to the middle ages, the very existence of Islam is at stake and it is their duty to protect and defend it and their world. If to protect and defend was their only desire I believe we could li e in the same world. However, to defend Islam they must remove ALL the things that oppose and offend Islam, this includes the United States itself!
If the Taliban control the country they will be able to provide a protected operating base for OSB and his organization. Provide a Talib run country and provide a country to develop and train fighters, starting in the crib. Remember, as Americans we believe that ALL people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…. The Talib life style is totally opposed to that, despite the fact that the Talib believe that the Koran justifies their life style. Throw in the cultural differences, like honor killing, and we have a clash of cultures that will never end…the Talib and OSB will never compromise.
Unfortunately, we will not win in that part of the world, we learned little in Viet Nam, we learned little from the Soviet defeat. Unfortunately, you cannot force freedom on a people, nor can you force a Southern Baptist to be a RC, heck, Lutherans can’t even agree on what Martin Luther believed.
What do you believe the answer to your question is?

I believe the answers are as follows:

When the Soviet Union was there the Taliban were the good guys, worthy of our praise and backing, hearty fighters defending their homeland from the evil red empire.

Response

America was concerned about the Russians taking control of the Middle East Oil and the world. America had no love for the Taliban other than the Taliban hated the Russians. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Hard to deal with this issue from a religious perspective, since it was certainly a choice of the lesser of two evils.

-------------------

The Russians are gone and the Talib just want to go back to the life they have known for hundreds of years. Follow the Koran, as they understand it, to include preventing the growing or poppies. Unfortunately, the Talib form of leadership (and life) does not fit into the mold accepted by the US.

Now, throw in OSB and his associated groups, their basic belief that the United States wants the world to be Christian and wants everyone else to live their life according to their rules, which are so very, very different from what they believe the Koran tells them, and we have a big problem.
Some may say that there is the profit motive in play here because both countries are largely untouched when it comes to natural resources. I don't buy into that.
OSB and his associated groups are well funded and believe in what they are doing. Their mind set is very different from ours. Their view is black and white. Hard feeling go back to the middle ages, the very existence of Islam is at stake and it is their duty to protect and defend it and their world. If to protect and defend was their only desire I believe we could li e in the same world. However, to defend Islam they must remove ALL the things that oppose and offend Islam, this includes the United States itself!

Response

I believe that both Christianity and Islam feel that their respective religions are the best. The question is which is the best. I can present you with the reasons that I believe Christianity is superior to all other religions (the key difference is the word tolerance - but not unrealistic tolerance). But the major question is how to spread the religion. Islam advocates that violence is an acceptable way to spread the religion. In the past, Christianity also used violence to spread the religion, but that was never the policy of Protestants that formed America. America has never used violence to spread the Christian religion and even wrote into the Constitution that there was never to be an established religion. America has used violence for self defense .

America has not been a perfect nation because there are many "lesser of two evil" decisions. There has always been the question of "preemptive strike" on what is felt to be a "clear and dangerous threat". I believe America should destroy the Iranian nuclear bomb efforts because that is a "clear and dangerous threat", but even that is debated in America instead of dictated.

---------------------------

If the Taliban control the country they will be able to provide a protected operating base for OSB and his organization. Provide a Talib run country and provide a country to develop and train fighters, starting in the crib. Remember, as Americans we believe that ALL people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…. The Talib life style is totally opposed to that, despite the fact that the Talib believe that the Koran justifies their life style. Throw in the cultural differences, like honor killing, and we have a clash of cultures that will never end…the Talib and OSB will never compromise.

Response

I agree there are lifestyle, cultural and religious differences between Christianity and Islam which will never be resolved.

I believe all things need to be dealt with as follows;

I believe the Bible teaches all things should be dealt with by the following three levels of action;
1) If it is good - accept it and nourish it.
2) If it is evil - rebuke it but tolerate it.
3) If it threatens your existence - destroy it before it destroys you. This is self defense, which both the individual and society have a right and responsibility to do.

The first two are from the New Testament of the Bible and represent the Law of Love. The third is from the Old Testament of the Bible and represents the Law of Purity/Self Defense. The New Testament deals more with personal responsibility and the Old Testament deals more with the preservation of society. The Old Testament and the New Testament together present God's Law, a means of survival for a person, a nation and a world. No one should be forced to be a Christian, but all should be judged by Civil Law based on Christian Principles.

It is the decision to move from tolerance to violence/justice that I believe is the difference between Democrats/Pacifists/Socialists and Republicans/Christians/Capitalists. I believe Democrats/Pacifists/Socialists are too tolerant and evil is flourishing in accordance with the concept, "The only think necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." Democrats/Pacifists/Socialists would say Republicans/Christians/Capitalists are too violent in accordance with the concept of "Give peace a chance."

----------------------------

Unfortunately, we will not win in that part of the world, we learned little in Viet Nam, we learned little from the Soviet defeat. Unfortunately, you cannot force freedom on a people, nor can you force a Southern Baptist to be a RC, heck, Lutherans can't even agree on what Martin Luther believed.

Response

You are correct that we will probably not agree, but that is why discussion, voting and political participation are so very very important, especially to Christians. I believe Atheists and Democrats/Pacifists/Socialists understand the importance of politics and are actively involved, but too many Christians need to both pray and act.

Summary

I believe in tolerance within reason. I believe America has been tolerant of Muslims, even though they have hijacked plane, attacked America on 9/11, and are now trying to destroy Americas economy by suicide bombers and oil manipulations.

I believe America has the right to violence/self defense.

I believe in tolerance within reason, but I am opposed to the liberalism/socialism that has take a foothold in America. The adultery and homosexuality of liberalism/progressives has led to so much disease, death, destruction and poverty that there is now a need for massive health care/welfare/entitlement programs that are crippling the American economy.

I believe America must phase out all entitlement programs.

I believe the Republican Party is better able to deal with the problems of America and the world because the Republican Party advocates Democracy, Christianity and Capitalism instead of the Democracy, Atheism and Socialism advocated by the Democratic Party.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Nazi Germany instigated state terrorism, just as (to a much much lesser degree) the US has done in toppling governments around the world. Terrorism conducted by a state is no less a terror to the victim.

With all due respect, I think you are missing the point. Of course, a military action can be an act of terrorism if its intended primary goal is causing terror.
(Deliberately carpet bombing civilians would be such an action, or tearing down a whole city in response to an uprising.)
But I think you are unduly diluting the term "terrorism" here, if you use it to refer to any military campaign. Even more important in terms of missing the point, however, is the paragraph below:

The Nazi state was not traditional in the sense that it saw itself as a radical even revolutionary state bent on a particular agenda (it was traditional in the sense that it was a state that undertook treaties, exchanged diplomats, etc. but so did the PLO before Palestine was a state).

Ideology is completely irrelevant here. The thing is: in battling the nazi regime, you had a clearly delineated enemy territory in the shape of the German state. you could trace its geographical boundaries, its economical infrastructure, its administration - everything. Attacking Germany meant attacking the Nazis (although we might dispute whether bombing civilians was really the way to go).
The same does NOT work with the Mafia, or Al Quaeda, or even the PLO.
There is no state called "Mafialand" that you could just declare a war on, invade and neutralize. Criminal organizations (and these include terrorist networks) are not bound to a specific territory - not even in the case of the PLO, who are fighting for a very specific stretch of land. A military occupation of Italy, or Afghanistan, or Palestine would contribute very little to the elimination of these organizations.

And here's where your rebuttal fails, I believe; the PLO, a recognised terrorist organisation were believed by some to be the legitimate voice of the Palestinian 'state'.

Terrorist organizations can be nationalistic, but that does NOT turn them into the equivalent of a country. They operate from the underground, hidden among the general populace, and cannot be engaged in the same manner as, say, the German Wehrmacht.

 

[Montalban]

Not at all the whole being of Nazi Germany was based on terror. Not just that they occasionally used terror as part of a campaign

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Not at all the whole being of Nazi Germany was based on terror. Not just that they occasionally used terror as part of a campaign

And you are *still* missing the point.

This is Nazi Germany in 1944.

And this is who you had to engage in combat if you wanted to assault that territory and combat Nazi terror:

Now, let's try the same thing with Al Quaeda.

Please pinpoint who's a terrorist in this picture, and who's a civillian:

And once you're done doing that, please be so kind as to delineate Taliban country on a map, so that we know exactly where we need to attack in order to engage them in combat.

 

[Montalban]

Nazi Germany's very foundation was terror. You choose to picture them 'at war', and ignore that they were 'at war' with elements within their own nation that they used terror against.

That they had armies and organised terror externally doesn't negate this.

Your picture is like me selectively choosing a picture of a Nuremberg Rally and asking you to point out which people were active members and which were there simply at the invitation of a friend to go hear Hitler speak.

Selective use of evidence leads me to believe your argument is based on sand.

Al Quaeda also have 'apparent' supporters too...

On another note, I find this picture interesting...

 

[Ar Cosc]

The conflict in Northern Ireland was ended when a compromise agreement acceptable to both parties was negotiated. If anything, the people who "won" were the Nationalists, as an end was put to the gerrymandering of constituencies and systematic anti-catholic discrimination of the Northern Ireland devolved parliament prior to the Civil Rights riots of the late 1960s. In any case, the current, largely peaceful situation that exists now certainly doesn't exist due to a massive military campaign by the British.

I sometimes wonder could the same approach apply in Afghanistan or Iraq. Try to negotiate a compromise acceptable to the majority of Iraqis, for example, have a constitution that enshrines democracy, forbids honour-killings and the murder of apostates, and guarantees equal rights for women, but still have an "upper house", like the House of Lords in the UK, comprised of various religious and ethnic leaders, who are left to determine whether the laws passed by the lower house not expressly laid out in the constitution are congruent with their beliefs.

It's clear that the current no compromise method is really not working anyway

 

[razeontherock]

Whatsamatter Ar Cosc - are you for peace or something?

Good points and Merry Christmas!

 

[razeontherock]

On another note, I find this picture interesting...

Zoikes! [/Scooby Doo]

 

[Montalban]

The conflict in Northern Ireland was ended when a compromise agreement acceptable to both parties was negotiated. If anything, the people who "won" were the Nationalists, as an end was put to the gerrymandering of constituencies and systematic anti-catholic discrimination of the Northern Ireland devolved parliament prior to the Civil Rights riots of the late 1960s. In any case, the current, largely peaceful situation that exists now certainly doesn't exist due to a massive military campaign by the British.

I sometimes wonder could the same approach apply in Afghanistan or Iraq. Try to negotiate a compromise acceptable to the majority of Iraqis, for example, have a constitution that enshrines democracy, forbids honour-killings and the murder of apostates, and guarantees equal rights for women, but still have an "upper house", like the House of Lords in the UK, comprised of various religious and ethnic leaders, who are left to determine whether the laws passed by the lower house not expressly laid out in the constitution are congruent with their beliefs.

It's clear that the current no compromise method is really not working anyway

Some in Iraq and Afghanistan don't want compromise, nor democracy.

It's a very modernist liberal idea that everyone wants the same thing as yourself.

The Americans made the same mistake in Vietnam, trying to establish a 'democracy' that the majority didn't want.

 

[Ar Cosc]

Some in Iraq and Afghanistan don't want compromise, nor democracy.

It's a very modernist liberal idea that everyone wants the same thing as yourself.

The Americans made the same mistake in Vietnam, trying to establish a 'democracy' that the majority didn't want.

Of course some don't, just as some in Northern Ireland are still stuck in the past and like to throw petrol bombs at police cars, but when you have a situation that is acceptable to the vast majority of people, it's a lot harder for the nut jobs to operate.

 

[Montalban]

Of course some don't, just as some in Northern Ireland are still stuck in the past and like to throw petrol bombs at police cars, but when you have a situation that is acceptable to the vast majority of people, it's a lot harder for the nut jobs to operate.

But that doesn't mean that they have to have democracy.

Iraq under Hussein didn't have this kind of violence (true they had other forms).

 

[TheReasoner]

I saw a poll on FOX news ( I think... it may have been CNN) that said that 30% of Afghanis considered it just to fight the American forces there.

If someone invaded your country, chances are you'd feel the same I suspect. Probably even if it was an invasion sanctioned by the UN. It's difficult to see anything but the terrible nature of war when one's country is in one. And by that I mean fighting within it's borders.

I remember how Ecuadorians felt about the war with Peru back in '95 when I lived there. The sense of nationality was extreme. Flags everywhere. Hatred for the Peruvians on everyone's lips. And these were only border skirmishes. Not a full scale invasion by someone from a different corner of the earth

Besides it's easier to hate and fight people of a different culture, creed and nationality than people who share your religious beliefs, culture and nationality. How can you fight with random strangers against your own neighbor? That cannot be easy. Add to that the history the US has in the middle east and I am very surprised the number isn't higher. Not saying we shouldn't do something about Al Quaeda. But I think it would be better if the main forces fighting there were for example Pakistani, Egyptian or Irani. That way they might feel less the victim of an unjust war and more likely to see the danger of Al Quaeda.

 

[Ar Cosc]

Yep, you can't exactly blame the people of the Middle East and Afghanistan for not trusting the West, after the hijinx Westerners have gotten up to over the last few centuries

 

[Montalban]

Yep, you can't exactly blame the people of the Middle East and Afghanistan for not trusting the West, after the hijinx Westerners have gotten up to over the last few centuries

Another of your modernist liberal ideas.

I see this self-loathing quite a bit. It's easy to ignore centuries of history and pretend that their hatred is a reaction to we bad westerners.

Islamic hatred of non-Moslems starts in the Koran.

It runs on a bit of internal logic.

For Muhammed to come along with a mission from his god he either needed to bring a new message or reform the old. In the case of Islam he claimed to present the same message as previous prophets and therefore as a type of 'reformer' or a person bringing a renewal of the old message one asks what happened to the message when it was previously given.

And there the Koran is full of passages about the Jews and Christians hearing al-Lah and turning their back on him.

And what kind of people would do this? Well there'd have to be something wrong with them.

The Koran thus also says not to take a Kaffir as a close friend.

Islam burst out onto the scene against two near exhausted empires; the Roman and the Persian. With a military zeal they have been at war with the rest of the world on and off ever since.

I don't agree with everything Ibn Warraq writes, but you might want to take a look at Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said's Orientalism

All these people in the Middle East who claim we're corrupt, debauched, etc. all want our products; computers, tvs, cars, mobile phones etc.

 

[TheReasoner]

Another of your modernist liberal ideas.

I see this self-loathing quite a bit. It's easy to ignore centuries of history and pretend that their hatred is a reaction to we bad westerners.

Islamic hatred of non-Moslems starts in the Koran.

It runs on a bit of internal logic.

For Muhammed to come along with a mission from his god he either needed to bring a new message or reform the old. In this case he claims to present the same message as previous prophets and therefore as a type of 'reformer' or a person bringing a renewal of the old message one asks what happened to the message when it was previously given.

And there the Koran is full of passages about the Jews and Christians hearing al-Lah and turning their back on him.

And what kind of people would do this? Well there'd have to be something wrong with them.

The Koran thus also says not to take a Kaffir as a close friend.

Islam burst out onto the scene against two near exhausted empires; the Roman and the Persian. With a military zeal they have been at war with the rest of the world on and off ever since.

Interesting how you would take an analysis other than your own as "self loathing". I wonder why.

Yes, Islam contains some aspects that are dangerous in my opinion. But does this invalidate the natural human response to feeling threatened by an outside army? And how is their justification any better than yours? We in the west are not saintly innocent you know. We are guilty of much evil as you probably know. Do you think the Incas thought the Spanish a welcome force? Some did, for a while. Most did not. The Aztecs? Or what aout the various African tribes and civilizations?
Why is it "self-loathing" to acknowledge that we're not innocent? Why is it "self-loathing" to acknowledge a rather central aspect of the human psyche and indeed nature - the sense of belonging and cultural identity that is.

It seems to me you are being a little ethnocentric. We aren't right by virtue of who we are. Nor are they or any other human group. If someone invades your nation and does what the invading forces are doing in afghanistan now to your neighborhoods, shooting up small towns in your own country it is very far from impossible you'd want to fight them under some rationale not unlike the justification you just gave for fighting the muslims.

See I would say that not only are you ignoring centuries of history, you're ignoring rather important facets of the human mind, the complexity of the situation and not least of all rather important Christian tenets such as doing good to your enemies. But at the same time I do agree that Islam is a potentially VERY dangerous ideology. Still, I don't think that means we should invade every Muslim country and kill them like flies. One does not hold a lit cigarette to a pile of gunpowder if one wants to avoid ignition of said gunpowder.