Questions to Consider...
[In regard to Palestinians and violent Muslim extremism in general]
Could it be that the tribe accustomed to conflict and war, inured to violence and degradation, cannot peacefully live within borders governed by democratic civility?
Do we expect too much of people whose existences have been constrained by centuries of tradition both soaked in blood and the bitter dregs of personal hegemony?
How do children born of malice; whose meat has been assassination and honor killing, meekly accept political defeat and the slow progress of democratic statesmanship without resorting to AK's and suicide belts?
Has it been the greatest conceit of the West that she could change a millennia and half again of senseless brutality with a few elections?
Perhaps we expect too much of such unruly children...
And if that be the case, what is to be done about it? We can't allow it on our shore... How then do we contain the animal instinct? By caging ourselves in? Or by culling the herd and fencing in what remains, exercising a system as of yet unfathomed, by which they are kept perpetually in check? At what cost to us? And is it a price worth paying when one considers what is to be lost should the beasts proliferate and propagate their 'statecraft' within our borders?
Could it be that the tribe accustomed to conflict and war, inured to violence and degradation, cannot peacefully live within borders governed by democratic civility?
Do we expect too much of people whose existences have been constrained by centuries of tradition both soaked in blood and the bitter dregs of personal hegemony?
How do children born of malice; whose meat has been assassination and honor killing, meekly accept political defeat and the slow progress of democratic statesmanship without resorting to AK's and suicide belts?
Has it been the greatest conceit of the West that she could change a millennia and half again of senseless brutality with a few elections?
Perhaps we expect too much of such unruly children...
And if that be the case, what is to be done about it? We can't allow it on our shore... How then do we contain the animal instinct? By caging ourselves in? Or by culling the herd and fencing in what remains, exercising a system as of yet unfathomed, by which they are kept perpetually in check? At what cost to us? And is it a price worth paying when one considers what is to be lost should the beasts proliferate and propagate their 'statecraft' within our borders?
from the mind of... Eric | 10:04 AM
22 Comments:
Excellent questions! Exactly the questions to be asking, with the note that we don't want to sound or be paternalistic (how else can we expect children to act?).
Let me ponder on these questions.
Would that our leaders had pondered on them further.
Some preliminary thoughts...
1. I don't want to cage myself in. Life is to be lived, risks and all.
2. There are no "animals" out there. There are no soul-less, demons out there masquerading as humans.
3. Caveat to the former point: There are some out there with mental illnesses that have some serious issues. They are an extreme minority, though and not what we're talking about when we're talking about Muslim extremists, generally speaking.
3. All we humans (with the possible exception of the extremely rare mentally ill individuals) have our self-interests at heart. Just as there are no wholly innocent individuals, there are no wholly evil individuals - and certainly not peoples (groups of individuals). We are created in God's image and that's a good starting point.
4. Those who resort to horrific, despicable violence, do so for a reason. Usually pertaining to either their perceived self-interests but also sometimes due to their indoctrination.
5. Those who can be indoctrinated, can be reached and reasoned with. Those who are seeking only their self-interests can be reasoned with. It may not be easy, but it can be done.
6. For those of us concerned about ethical and reasonable solutions to problems, we ought to be dedicated to redoubling and retripling our efforts to reason with those who'd act unreasonably. The alternative comes to close to stooping to the level of the very folk who are so intent on our destruction.
7. We may decide at times that force must be met with force, but that should truly be a late alternative. As we can see in our example in Iraq, meeting force with force is a poor solution if we're interested in positive results.
Those *are* great questions. I think we lower ourselves when we refer to others as animals and such. They are humans. Odd that we tend to do that these days. I'vfe read where WWII officers painted the Germans to be bigger than life, real supermen, to get our forces to rise to the occasion. As for how to corral them. Geography is still our best friend. Distance makes Iraq as much a reservation as Pine Ridge and Standing Rock and others are to most of the rest of the U.S. As for those already here: Keep encouraging wealth accumulation and assimilation; nothing calms down a hothead like being treated equal to the dominant culture, and having a little scratch in your pocket.
You misread my use of "Animals"... think metaphor...
"How then do we contain the animals? By caging ourselves in? Or by culling the herd and fencing in what remains..."
Also, the questions are more directed at the U.S.'s policy of supporting the Palestinian government... not Iraq, though I admit they could be used to describe our efforts in Iraq as well.
Oops. Sorry.
Well, to be fair, the image of a neanderthal or monkey beating bones in the same topic of discussing extremists does seem to suggest that's what you're doing.
The picture was certainly not meant to be derrogatory. There was a Kubrick allusion in that comment. As well as a "Bill & Ted"
What it does suggest is lost because the comment that was to be first in line was somehow eaten by the Google Dog... I will try to recapture its essence when I have time. For now let me just say it illustrates the nature of inspiration... the possibility of the mundane.
Later... When I have time... We have taping this afternoon. Gotta run.
Okay.
Many people-- the Palestinians make it easy to do this --look at these folk and see ignorant savages little removed from their sixth century counterparts, but this is an extreme mistake. It's not that the Palestinians, and back-water muslims by extension, are ignorant (of many things they certainly are) but I think we confuse the term 'ignorant' with 'stupidity' which the muslim people most certainly are not.
Trying to repiece an idea several hours beyond remembrance, the difference between people whose very lives are surrounded by violence, degradations, blood and death, advancements in technology aren't viewed so much as an easing of their burdens, as it is for it's potential for violence or degradation, or the shedding of blood, or it's potential for easier more efficient kills... I speak of the terrorists here, and those falling into its clutches.
I was reminded earlier of Kubrick's imagery... primeaval man, having touched the black monolith is suddenly imbued with inspiration-- this comes from the book rather than the film: word carry more precise meaning, but imagery is often more powerful. Suddenly, the jaw-bone of a tapir is more than just the detritus of past hungers relieved, now it is a weapon. What now are the possibilities for man's advancement?
Another film that came to mind was Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure wherein two lackadaisical high school seniors travel through time collecting historical figures for a make or break history project. One such individual was Kublai Kahn, stolen from his yurt, and sent to a shopping mall in downtown Los Angeles, where he wanders into a sporting goods store. He see's the shiny aluminum baseball bat not as the implement of a popular sport, but as the potential for superior weaponry.
Technology has certainly helped the middle east but it has also provided a plethora of new and varied tool for war.
When we consider that muslims have been killing EACH OTHER for centuries, have we not then been supremely naive to think that a few elections would change how they view the world?
Animals? How about, "savages", or "heartless sons of bitches trying to kill anyone who doesn't abide their theology". We can use "despots" or "murderous villains" or "hateful vermin" or "the next dead asshole". Pick any name you want and "reasonable" won't fit.
We are now, as we do what we can in Iraq, finding the reasonable and influencing them. In turn, they are beginning to provide intel to help us fight the above, multi-named animals. But that's the key...dealing with the thugs first, and showing the remaining just who we are and what they can be. Not Americans or Christians, but decent Iraqis living life to the fullest without people dying right outside the breakfast nook every morning.
There is a line. Above the line is the scumbag whose ideology is a desparate request for death. Let us fill that request so that they don't take out one more innocent in their quest for glory. Below that line are the ordinary and everyday. These are the victims of the scumbags' insanity. They want only to live their lives. But the line between them is fine and one can't do nothing but seek out those below the line without too many good people being offed by those who are of the group above the line. Some people are simply going to side with whatever group allows them to live. They won't always be willing to take the chance that the new guy on the block will allow them to live, so they truck with the scumbags who have the power.
Don't kid yourselves that the extremists are insane or mentally impaired. They are fanatical and there's a difference. But they believe what they believe and you aren't going to change that. They are supported by the ignorant who have bought into the spiel. Somewhere down the pecking order is the line, but it's exact location is unknown. But those that have the most influence are too often the ones that are the least reasonable. For those there is no other choice.
Regarding Eric's point about growing up amongst such violence, I think the same dynamic prevails. Ultimately, containment will be the answer. For some, it will be voluntary, others must have it force upon them. Still others will assimilate into the world of live and let live. Unfortunately, containment is easiest when there is no will or desire to break containment. The will of the worst must be broken, or the bodies of them must be. There is no third option.
Re, "But they believe what they believe and you aren't going to change that."
I KNOW people like that!
EL, MA makes you look liberal by comparison! Hee hee. Don't be offended! And I'm sort of pokin' at ya both. But we all have people who make us look conservative by comparison.
And at the end of both extremes, the last person in line looks like -- the one standin' next to the devil himself. That son of a bitch.
The problem we face, across the moat and the steel bars of the enclosure, is not the barbarism and brutality of Islam... that will come in time. Instead, the caged-- which is an illusion we prop up to make ourselves feel safe --seek first in EXfiltrate.
Dubai for example. Dubai has just bought the Queen Elizabeth II for roughly 50M pounds, or somewhere in the neighborhood of 100M U.S. dollars. What are they going to do with it? Park it at a specially designed dock and use it as a luxury hotel and tourist attraction.
Dubai has been in the news a lot the last couple of years, seeking to buy up whatever they can. Hollywood moguls, actors, even Jews, go there seeking financing, and if you or I were to go there we would discover no real language barrier. English being spoken. We would see signs in English, we would meet many people-- native AND foreign --who speak English, and our money would be very welcome.
The problem, however, is that Dubai will turn any one of us away the moment we produce a passport that has an Israeli entry stamp.... they promote anti-semitism, and yet they seek to buy up all they can of the West, and want us to spend our money there as well. And everyone who does promotes antisemitism every bit as much as those who traveled to South Africa in the eighties promoted and supported Aparteid with their tourist dollars.
Hmmm. This is just one example. There are others.
But my point is this. While we fight to make the uncivilized civil, there is another front, the one that welcomes us, saying all the right things, doing all the right things, acting in just the right manner, seeking to escape the cage we naively think are keeping the animals in their cages. What we don't realize is the animals already know how to get out; but why leave when we're feeding them, and quite well? The time will come when the natives won't be content with our charity. They'll want it all. And they'll have already done the hard part... they will have sofened us up by making us believe our ideological differences aren't a hindrance to peaceful coexistence. And therein lies the danger.
Those who have sought to convince us there is no danger may not themselves seek our hurt, but they're only the distraction. The real danger lies within the Mosques and the fatwas of the criminally muslim.
...And those who will trust and obey every word that comes out of their diseased mouths.
One word for Dubai:
Mammon.
It's the natural god of the free market. If the Chriatians in this country have pissed away their birthright, this is what for:
The idol of The Free Godless Market.
A free market of mostly Christian buyers and sellers, as raucous as it can be, beats a free market of utterly selfish free marketeers.
The sgared faith itself acted as a hedge against the market. But we've mistaken the freedom to trade for the gift of freedom itself!
We will be done in by those who take our economic mechanics while disdaining our traditional conscience.
Personal selfishness, as corrupt and as bad as it can be, is nothing compared to the institutional faux "freedom" of the unfettered market.
The result of the ultimate Americsn myopia (sp?) of "Christian capitalism," a large oxymoron.
Wow! I agree with you on everything expect the whole 'Free Market Capitalism is Bad' thingy. It's not bad in and of itself, but our distortion of it is.
Every sin in the universe can be boiled down to a distillate of Selfishness.
"I KNOW people like that!"
But how many of them want to kill you and will at the first opportunity? It is far better for you that MY beliefs won't be changed than it is that THEIRS won't be. (Mine, of course, can be with a logical and reasoned argument. Anytime you're ready.)
In addition, I don't see as my previous post shows which way I lean. It's a pretty cold, objective description of the situation as I understand it. This is important. What we want to do, or would like to see happen in that part of the world, needs a plain and unadulterated perspective, to see things as they are. Kumbaya notions of diplomacy will only result in death to our people. Pretending the worst are not what they are won't help anyone.
EL when you-re discussing Christians or conservatives you have great clarity. You can look at all the Christian denominations and say they each have their own path, but share a common religion. Yet when it comes to Islam, you just drop all the sects and gradations into the most extreme violent category. What if I lumped all Christians into the church of Fred Phelps? Or Benny Hinn? What if I wrote that one day those extreme Christian viewpoints would take over the world and all the moderates or even less fanatic believers would jump at such ideas? Would you roll over for Benny Hinn to lead all Christianity? What makes you think moderate Muslims will fall in line with extremist positions like Hamas or Muqtada Al-Sadr? It is only if this conflict degenerates into a battle of Christians against Muslims that moderates in both religions will be drawn to more extreme positions.
Wipe the spittle from your chin, BenT. I clearly and distinctly singled out the radicals... not the whole kit-n-kaboodle that is Islam.
"And those who will trust and obey every word that comes out of their diseased mouths." You were talking about moderate muslims listening to radical clerics weren't you?
I've never said that christians legitimize Fred Phelps when they don't preach and protest against him every Sunday. That is exactly the argument you're making.
Let's look again at the quote you've chosen to beat me over the head with...
"And those WHO WILL trust and obey every word that comes out of THEIR diseased mouths."
Please note that 'those who WILL' carries in its pocket the implication that there are also 'those who WON'T'. I am not speaking of moderate muslims, only those who are predisposed to believe violence and bloodshed are acceptable means of protest.
Please note also the phrase that immediately precedes your chosen bludgeon:
"The real danger lies within the Mosques and the fatwas of the criminally muslim."
That's 'Criminally' muslim... not 'Moderate'.
Not all mosques preach lunacy, just as all churches do not preach heresy. If a church doesn't speak out against men like Phelps when it's appropriate, then shame on them, but in case you didn't know, churches aren't in business to condemn every heretic who opens his or her mouth every time the church doors are open. No. The church exists to convert the lost and feed the flock... to teach the Christian how to live for Christ and encourage them to remain steadfast in their studies, witness, and personal ministry.
...
If you can't even get this much right, how on earth can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you claim to know what I'm thinking? Or what argument I'm making?
"...a battle of Christians against Muslims that moderates in both religions will be drawn to more extreme positions."
Completely off topic, your 'Christian vs Muslim' tack. And utterly wrong in at least one respect:
Christianity Cannot be drawn down to Radical Islam's level. Christianity has far more respect for life and the souls of the lost than does Islam.
Now let's get BACK to topic...
Do you have anything to say about the questions I posed? Or would you rather content yourself in sifting through my every post to find something to club me with?
And for the record, that's "Frustration" speaking. Nothing more, nothing less.
"Has it been the greatest conceit of the West that she could change a millenia and a half of senseless brutality with a few elections?"
A few more thoughts.
1. Ben, I don't think Eric was talking about Muslims in general with this post, but rather, as he said at the top, "violent Muslim extremism."
2. Eric, when you use terminology such as "unruly children," "beasts" and the type of sentence I quote above, it sounds like you're speaking paternalistically of Muslims in general. As if the last 1500 years in the Muslim world has been nothing but "senseless brutality." Those poor, unthinking (or deceived) brutes.
There has been, of course, much greatness in the Muslim world during that time period, as well as great brutality in the "christian west" during the same time period.
If a Muslim extremist said, "Are we being fools to think we could change the last two millenia of senseless brutality and hedonism of the West with a few attacks?", Christians may rightly take some offense.
3. It is very conceited, or simply foolish perhaps, to think that we can sweep in with a show of superior brute force and remake a very complex nation (as most nations are), by force, into something it isn't currently. Especially given the questionable circumstances of our invasion of Iraq (I'd suggest legitimacy matters). Especially with not much more plan than, "The people will embrace us!"
We do have some models for near-overnight change of systems - the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, for one. But in that case, it was driven from within. The people were demanding change.
But what of Japan post-WWII? There's a case where a militarily-defeated nation emerged from the experience peacefully. What do you suppose the difference is between Japan and Iraq?
Here's one group's thoughts.
"That son of a bitch."
Didn't you invite him to speak at your "affirming" church last year?
Devils are angels too!
Let's not be too hard on the Lucifer-dude, Reverend. Compassion....gotta have it!
Post a Comment
<< Home