the peacemaker
One word is sufficient for the 100 plus spineless murders on November 13, 2015.
Bastards.
That’s right, spoken clearly in the English tongue and in the true meaning of the word.
Illegitimate children masquerading as disciples of light. Bastards. And to you who will somehow equate these senseless killings with Christianity, save your breath lest you be embarrassed. Bastards. (Colorstorm)
Like almost everyone else, I’m horrified and distressed by yesterday’s events in Paris. I’m horrified that people are killing people in seemingly endless cycles.
But my horror is compounded by another spoke in the endless cycle: mindless fury and blinkered condemnation. The soundbites and anger. The refusal to seriously look at motivation, and the sheer lack of interest in looking for deeper ways to cut these cycles.
- Religion is the problem. As long as people in power and people on the ground are acting out what they believe is the will of an unseen spirit being, we will continue to see people willing to die and willing to kill others for … nothing.
- Casting the poor, misled people who committed these atrocities as monsters, demons, bastards, or whatever other nameless and empty mask we give them, is foolish in the extreme. It compounds the cruelty of their actions, and intensifies the pain they’ve caused. They were people. People with lives, loves and a series of truly unfortunate experiences that led them to make horrific choices. Horrific choices that are unacceptable for the majority of the human race. Horrific choices that were made on the back of atrocities committed, and still being committed, in lands that mean something to them.
- Let’s never forget in times like this, that we are only seeing a drop in the ocean of the kind of terror and violence that many of our own governments have spear-headed, supported and contributed to with self-serving meddling in recent times. Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Syria to name a few.
Like most of my posts, I don’t have personal experience or expertise in this area. So I’ll leave the final word with Diane Foley, mother of American journalist James Foley, who was interviewed the other day following the airstrike that killed her son’s murderer, known as ‘Jihadi John’:
It saddens me that here in America we’re celebrating the killing of this deranged, pathetic young man. Had circumstances been different, Jim probably would have tried to befriend him and help him. It’s just so sad that our precious resources have been concentrated to seek revenge, if you will, or kill this man when if a bit of them had been utilized to save our young Americans. That’s what our country should be doing, I think, is protecting our citizens and the vulnerable, the people who are suffering, not trying to seek revenge and bomb. Jim would’ve been devastated with the whole thing. Jim was a peacemaker. He wanted to know how we could figure out why, why all this is happening.
“Human violence is inevitable as long as those of us who are practitioners of competing faiths give legitimacy to violence-of-God traditions” (Nelson-Pallmeyer, Jack, 2003, Is Religion Killing us? Violence in the Bible and the Quran. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity International, Xiv)
LikeLike
Oh, I don’t know. I’m sure it’s inevitable anyway. Religion certainly doesn’t help though, and for ColorStorm to get all indignant about his invisible god is laughable.
LikeLike
You should read the Religion chapter in the book.
LikeLike
I’ll get there! Just have to process 100,000 adjectives on the way. Honestly, you’ve uncovered my own form of dyslexia. It’s more difficult than poetry – and I really struggle with that.
But religion. Yes, it gives these particular people a reason to mindlessly kill themselves and others. But violence in humans can be triggered by more general things like jealousy, misunderstanding, hunger, fear etc. I think it’s silly to suggest that religion is root of all violence – there are lots of other potential reasons.
LikeLike
Agreed
LikeLike
CS’s post is a good example of why secular people need to do a better job of explaining how we mean that religion is a contributing factor to what happened. Already there is an attempt to frame the discussion that thinking about how religious beliefs contributed to the attack is unreasonable.
Notice the priority of the piece. Condemn the attackers. Condemn the people who would blame his larger brand of faith. Condemn the step-brother to his faith.
After the condemnation we have the justification for gun ownership.
Then we have a lament for how Islam will not be blamed enough for the actions of the perpetrators (yet somehow the Westboro Baptists are not real Christians).
Near the end, we have the epithet hurled at I don’t know who, most likely the perpetrators again.
Before the postscript, nine words: “Hearts go out to the families of the deceased.”
At least the postscript acknowledged that his epithet was off-base for his beliefs.
If he was considering his words, he might have noticed that his need for a postscript is the same reason why we need a public discussion about criticizing religion’s flaws. Some people act out of anger and write things that are more extreme than their consciences allow. Others don’t walk themselves back, and they go further into a dark place where they will never return.
LikeLike
Excellent analysis. I was distracted by the bastards running through the post and didn’t even notice the appeal to the notion that guns are saving lives. These people are like moths to the flame of nonsense, lies and all things illogical.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Casting the poor, misled people who committed these atrocities as monsters…”
Violet, your naivete startles me sometimes. Have you seen nothing of the world, do you not understand the nature of human beings and the atrocities we are capable of?? These are not poor misunderstood victims, these are fully functioning human beings who made a choice to kill and maim innocent people. Yes, monsters committing monsterous evil.
LikeLike
Maybe you could think of it like I have 3D glasses when I look at people, and you have chosen to limit your viewing to just one dimension. It’s easy to see pain, turmoil, rejection and insecurity under any mask of rage and nastiness. People commit atrocities – but there are always reasons for their lack of empathy, be they environmental or biological – and as a progressive species generally wanting change and peace, we should be looking for answers and ways to make productive change. Not responding solely with our gut reaction of fear and outrage.
Obviously in this case, one of the major problems is belief in obviously nonsensical religions. Do you believe Mohammed went up to heaven on a winged horse? I doubt it. Yet you’re quite sure Jesus ascended to heaven on a cloud. We will progress in many respects (not all) when we can be open about the history of our religious traditions and the lack of evidence for any of them.
As you know from the stories of your man-god, Jesus, who looked for ways to see the person behind the stereotype – the soul behind the crime. We need think only of the man ‘possessed by demons’ – a clear metaphor for looking for reasons behind atrocious behaviour. Or the reviled adulteress, whose crime was seen to be so evil that people wanted to murder her on the spot. In the story, Jesus received her with love and forgiveness. Or the healing of the lover of the centurion – the gay enemy who would have treated many Jews with violence. Jesus loved him. I just can’t see any of that in your attitude. It’s quite baffling, and as I said on your post, makes me question how Christian any of you actually are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And what would you call the perpetrators of drone killings where a great deal more innocent people have died – collateral damage?
To quote you:
Perhaps you should do a little research and eat a little more humble pie?
And while you’re at it, why not research where the arms these maniacs use come from.
US and Russia are two major contenders, but I’m just guessing of course.
Then go back in your history and find out what the Christians did and still do is some countries.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark advising someone to eat more humble pie is a bit like a player lecturing someone about the value of chastity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another little sidestep, IB?
I would ask, haven’t you even got the balls to acknowledge the historical Christian role in much of this, but then, based on the history of your comments, you haven’t, of course.
Read down to the comment I left your Dickhead chum, Colorstorm.
Maybe that will sober you up a little?
LikeLike
Here’s something else for you, IB.
Just consider the children …
How’s that make you feel, IB?
What was Colorstorm’s word? Bastards.
How’d you like them apples?
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then …
”A new analysis of the data available to the public about drone strikes, conducted by the human-rights group Reprieve, indicates that even when operators target specific individuals – the most focused effort of what Barack Obama calls “targeted killing” – they kill vastly more people than their targets, often needing to strike multiple times. Attempts to kill 41 men resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1,147 people, as of 24 November. ”
LikeLike
I suppose what happens in the aftermath of such tragedy is that all of us are tempted to use it as a means of pursuing our ideological agenda.
This applies just as much to people of no faith as to people of faith.
It applies just as much to those who favour arming the population as it does to those who favour disarming the population.
It applies just as much to those who want Governments to intervene in other countries militarily as it does to those who consider Governments should stay out of other countries.
I could go on, but I know from looking at myself that I am just as prone as others to use such a tragedy to support my underlying ideology.
So what can those of us with different ideologies agree on?
I suppose we can agree that it was a tragedy, an atrocity, and something which no ideology can justify.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Great comment Peter, couldn’t agree more. I still find the ‘Christian’ attitude I’m reading on a lot of posts kind of puzzling. Their reaction is completely at odds with the general message of the character Jesus. And they simply won’t admit it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear Violet, that is where I think you are “part of the problem”. “Religion is the problem” you say, but religion can be part of the solution: “Turn the other cheek”. Every Christian, every one of us, has heard that and thought about it. Both religious people and atheists can divide the world into Good and Bad, project all the Bad onto the Outsiders, and attack them.
Here we both are. We have reached a certain stage of maturity, and seek to understand the alleged enemy, even the Islamic State, which responds like Pol Pot, seeking to destroy everything Other. You are atheist, I am Christian; both of us can do this “Understanding” thing, much of the time; and then we have little blind-spots, and revert to the Projecting.
LikeLike
I don’t know, as long as people are willing to die or kill others on what they believe are the wishes of invisible beings, we have a problem. I did say to ColorStorm on another comment that I’d be perfectly happy for him to try and convert Muslims to Quakerism. Pacifist religions that are open to thinking about issues aren’t much of a problem. But I can’t retract the idea that religion is a key part of the problem with regards to the Paris attacks.
LikeLike
They were people. People with lives, loves and a series of truly unfortunate experiences that led them to make horrific choices.
Unless and until we tackle the thorny issue of why respecting religious belief because it’s religious is the source for such atrocities, our rationalizations and justifications merely add not to peace and tolerance of differences and respect for real people in real life but to the fuel load of tyranny.
The simple question is, would this attack have happened if not for religious beliefs? And the answer is as obvious as it is honest: no, it would not. The source of THIS atrocity is fully religious… not because of the skewed scriptural interpretations of a few ‘bad apples’, not because of unfortunate experiences, not because of societal pressures, not because of colonization, not because of economic policies, but for the fundamental nature of a religion that neither recognizes nor respects the autonomy of individuals but demands a totalitarian adherence to be subjects/property/slaves/sheep of some god or gods as enforced by righteous believers. Any righteous believer who wishes to subjugate others to their religious beliefs -m whether by law, governance, or public policy – is as guilty in principle as the men who carried out this attack in practice. This is the inevitable result of exercising religious intolerance under the banner of exercising individual rights and freedoms. They are incompatible values and each of us must choose one side or the other.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree that the specific nature of this attack is bound up in religion, and I think there needs to be a louder critical atheist voice. I’m dismayed by the number of politicians ‘praying’ for Paris, instead of attacking the clear main root of the problem – belief in invisible gods.
However, it’s obvious that given the power struggles and problems in the Middle East, and given the meddling that western powers have done historically, violent struggles would still be going in the absence of religion. People will find something to get viciously tribal about – land, power and oil are enough to keep all these disputes inflamed even in the absence of belief in gods. Removing or limiting people’s right to religious expression would only prove to be another recruiting angle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trying to figure out why this is really happening may stop us from taking revenge or trying the latest garget we have been working on. We must bomb someone and the cycle of killing will continue
LikeLike
Apologies, I got all muddled. Yes, indeed. We need to bomb the bastards who did this!
LikeLike
I hope only the right people will be bombed
LikeLike
Hey Vwisp,
Glad you found a little inspiration to draw from.
Here are your own words to have and to hold, and you actually have addressed your own concern when speaking of ‘others:’
‘The refusal to seriously look at motivation, and the sheer lack of interest in looking for deeper ways to cut these cycles.’
Well. forget motivation, as the perps are dead. But there is a provable track record in your ‘looking for deeper ways………….’
How about the first murder in recorded history? Why kill a brother when it never occurred? Where did the idea spring from to murder another life?
I’ll tell ya, an evil heart, Here is your answer to your search, face the music Violet; there are not enough ‘programs’ or ‘self help’ groups to uncover what is obvious. The heart answers to all issues of life.
The killers in Paris had heart problems. And I’m surprised you do not like the ‘bastard’ word, as if it doesn’t fit..
But it is YOUR lack of interest in looking for deeper ways which avoids the heart as the criminal element in all depraved acts of men. Out of the abundance of the HEART the mouth speaks.
So what then this abundance when lives are taken………….it’s not good fruit that’s for sure, so then by their fruits ye shall know them. I did say people would be embarrassed if they tried to link this to christianity.
LikeLike
Oh ColorStorm, don’t you think it would be more sensible to look at the motivating factors and seek to avoid the triggers in other people? Religion was a key motivating factor – you can try and convert Muslims to a pacifist version of Christianity like Quakerism, and I’ll try and convince the world that no invisible gods are out there. Telling people you think they are evil bastards does precisely nothing, and distracts us from what practical measures can be taken.
LikeLike
Uh violet- the people whom I condemn are dead; it hardly matters what I call them, true and biting as it sounds; but if you read the entire post, the last few sentences kind of puts everything in context.
It’s all about a relationship with the wrong father……………and look the word ‘B’ up in Websters dictionary, a very good word.
LikeLike
@Colorstorm.
Well aren’t you the butter wouldn’t melt in the mouth do gooder?
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2015/02/02/almost-2500-killed-covert-us-drone-strikes-obama-inauguration/
US Drone Killings
All actions 2004 – January 31 2015
Total Obama strikes: 362
Total US strikes since 2004: 413
Total reported killed: 2,438-3,942
Civilians reported killed: 416-959
Children reported killed: 168-204
Total reported injured: 1,142
For the Bureau’s full Pakistan databases click here.
The US has stepped up its drone campaign in Pakistan in January, launching more strikes and killing more people in a month than any since July 2014.
The CIA killed at least 26 people in five strikes giving January the highest casualty rate in six months.
How’s that feel, Colorstorm, you sanctimonious piece of shit.?
LikeLiked by 3 people
(liking the facts you’re bringing to the discussion, rather than the unnecessary rudeness)
LikeLike
All part of the charm, dear heart.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I totally agree with the post. As one who also used to try to bifurcate the terrorism of islam from its religious core for fear of also applying to US I can understand CS’S urge to quickly put the narrative out there to preempt the connection. But alas, I see from a completely different vantage point now.
LikeLike
Thanks for commenting. It’s interesting how much our views can change when religion leaves our lives and we depend on facts and logic for our opinions.
LikeLike
Agreed. And so thankful this year for the fresh air
LikeLiked by 1 person
I look at all of the chaos and disagree that this particular act of violence perpetrated on the people of France is fully religious. Of course there is that element – that mechanism which is used to draw a bold and definitive line between us and them – that which is used to justify malice. Much like other leaders have used religious tenets and doctrines as propaganda machines to drive fear into the hearts of the masses. We must fear the “others.” We must convince the populace that there are “others.”
At the heart of it, though, is the long, long complicated history of foreign affairs between all these nations. I’ve heard [some] French saying that it’s time for Obama to stop “leading from behind.” The U.S. must strike. Boots on the ground.
In the minds of those terrorized by ISIS the U.S. needs to shit or get of the pot. In the minds of those in the region that spawned ISIS the U.S. needs to stop terrorizing them. We are damned if don’t and damned if we do. Either we are weak or we are bullies.
No, it isn’t just religion that is at play here. Religion is just the means whereby hatred is justified.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It would be naive to suggest politics are not involved, but at the core it is mindless religious fanaticism, and like all religion it is pretty much impossible to separate the benign from the extreme as both obtain their mandate from different interpretations of the same text, a text that is purported to be inspired by the Divine (sic).
And if Christian evangelicals can terrorize children with a literal hell then Muslims can blow shit up, and it isn’t difficult to find justifiable reasons in scripture if you are of a mind to find them .
The main reason why this won’t go away is because of the flat-out refusal to acknowledge that one cannot effectively legislate against the extreme unless you are prepared to legislate against the supposed benign.
And let us remember, the goal of both Christianity and Islam is world coverage under one god.
Islamic fundamentalists are bent on a more direct approach. There was a time when Christianity had a similar outlook.
Ironic that both religions genuflect to the same Middle Eastern Deity.
Even more ironic that these fools are unable to see that ‘He’ just keeps putting on a different hat.
To use a term from Claire – Fuckwits, all.
And, ultimately …
”Every nation gets the government it deserves.”
– Joseph de Maistre –
LikeLike
Ruth, it isn’t hatred driving these planned atrocities; it’s calculated provocations to bring about a set of conditions to match up with scripture. Without the religious element of attaining a blessed afterlife for their brutal piety-in-action, these guys wouldn’t be doing what they’re doing. If you read about the primacy of religious motivations of people willing to do these kinds of actions with every intention of sacrificing themselves in the process (clearly and eruditely explained by ex-recruiters like Maajid Nawaz, for example), I suspect you’d change your mind and stop blaming the West. These atrocities are not a response to Western actions; they are a planned attack to gain political power through religious means. It is the religion that is at the heart of recruiting and that’s why these attackers very often come from educated and mid to upper class Western populations of Muslims.
LikeLike
Do they not hate that which doen’t line up with their scriptures? Is that not what they are taught? I can’t help but wonder, though, how many of them actually adhere to their own tenets and how many use these scriptures to control others for political power. It’s a question of which came first, the chicken or the egg. Of course religion is involved. Of course promises of a blessed afterlife for martyring oneself is involved. But is that all it is? I think not.
Please re-read what I wrote. I did not blame the West. I simply stated a fact. There’s a knee-jerk reaction out there that says we need to “bomb the shit” out of “them” and that we need to take the war to “them”. We need to do it on their soil or it will be on ours. Too late for that, tildeb. It already is on ours. There is no longer a test to see which ones are “them”. Containing this in Middle East is no longer an option. The extremist may be your next door neigbor.
LikeLike
Like you, I don’t think a military response addresses the problem. And you’re quite right: the enemy of individual autonomy and legal equality rights are legion and really do exist in the attitudes and religious beliefs of neighbours.
But in this particular case, hatred is not the motivation (although it will be substituted for it); the motivation is entirely religious, which casts respect for individual autonomy and legal equality rather than submission to their god’s ownership and direction as the vices of secularism and enemies of piety which may then be hated. But this hatred you talk about may or may not be present and should be seen I think a byproduct from the root cause and not confused with the root itself.
LikeLike
You don’t think that these acts of violence are retaliation for perceived Western transgressions against their people? Had we not invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc. you think they still would be targeting Westerners on their own turf?
I’m not debating the rightness or wrongness of Western intervention, though I do question the motives behind it. I’m simply suggesting that perhaps Al Qaeda and/or ISIL perceive that a war has been waged by the West on them. That was, after all, the motivation behind 9/11, or Osama Bin Laden claimed, that it was Western aggression that spawned the Jihad, and not necessarily religious differences. It was that infidels dared to try to tell them how they should live, tried to liberate their children and their women, etc.
My point is that I don’t think that all of this can simply be boiled down to Islamic Extremists attempting to force their religious tenets on the world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ruth, you’re not alone; most commentators in the West suffer from the Lord Voldemort Syndrome regarding the central role the Koran plays in promoting what we call ‘extremism’. It is not ubiquitous to Islam as a religion generally but is central to Islamism – the ideology that spawns jihadist terrorism.
But we must not name it!
Jihadist terrorism is the use of force that targets civilians to spread Islamism. The Islamic State is merely one jihadist terrorist group doing so. So it’s important to understand that the problem isn’t and never was ‘al-Qaeda-inspired’ extremism or ‘IS-inspired’ extremism; religious extremism directed by the Koran’s fundamental tenets itself inspired al-Qaeda, IS, Boko Haram, the Taliban, al-Shebaab, and so on. And that fundamental tenet is the ideology for the imposition of Islam… by force if necessary. We call that ideology Islamism and that is the root source for the jihadi violence we saw carried out in Paris. The West plays no role in creating this ideology other than standing against it. That alone is cause for being targeted. The source for violent jihad is clearly scriptural from the Koran. That is what we must first recognize and then name. We need to hold Islamism accountable for its product and stop going along with this remarkable gymnastic distortion to blame jihadist violence on the West!
LikeLike
In a similar manner that Christian Missionaries did/still do spread their word like an STD.
And evangelicals, too of course, God bless ’em one and all. Pick a god … any god.
I reckon that Western expansionism ( imperialism?) has more to answer for than what might be initially apparent, Tildeb.
I’m no political analyst but Western interests have always come first and although investment helped raise some countries out of what we might consider squalor, there is a certain amount of accountability that is being hand waved here I feel.
Africa, for example was pretty much carved up with a map and pencil.
America’s initial economy was built upon the backs of slaves.
Rural populations the world over have historically always been handed the short straw.
I think Ruth has a valid point – a sort of Chickens coming home to roost.
And let’s remember there would be NO Islam were it not for Judaism of Christianity.
There is a lot of enmity for the West and its ideologies.
Perhaps religion just gives a perceived legitimacy to the violence.
Didn’t George W say ”God” was guiding him?
To quote Life of Brian”
”Because its written, that’s why!”
Makes you wonder?
LikeLike
You sound exactly like Americans in the 1950s lecturing on the dangers of communism and how they wanted to take over the world – it’s in their writings! All ideologies want to take over the world in some respects, otherwise people wouldn’t believe in them. Even if it’s just to spread what they believe is a good idea (the driving force in all of them).
What drives people to cling to these ideologies though? Usually injustice and hope for a better future, a hope for change. So, yes, we can easily blame the West for the shocking rise in extremism in the Islamic world. Angry people looking for justice and an alternative that offers hope.
LikeLike
“I look at all of the chaos and disagree that this particular act of violence perpetrated on the people of France is fully religious.”
I completely agree with you Ruth. These people were willing to die for nothing, most probably simply for the misguided belief that their version of their religion means something and an invisible spirit will reward them. But they would also undoubtedly be the motivation by outrage and revenge. There will be people fighting with Isil who are there mainly because members of their family have been killed because of western intervention. And the powers that drive it all? Tildeb put it’s down to religion pure and simple, but issues of power and revenge are much more complex.
And I agree about the fear of ‘others’, the base tribalism. I’m horrified for the people of Paris, but I’m scared and worried for the thousands of people who are leaving war-torn areas looking for a safer life, who are now going to be met with intensified suspicion and even less willingness to help.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In many internet commentaries on this atrocity it seems like there is a failure to separate the personal from the public. It is understandable that some people want to heap invective upon the murderers. I get that others want to psychoanalize the murderers, but the only useful thing to do is figure out how to stop terrorism.
To put it in religious terms: Why they did what they did is for God to judge. Man’s job is keeping them from doing it again.
LikeLike
Yes, and by understanding the motivation of the murders we work towards stopping terrorism at the roots – or at least have a chance. By calling them monsters and screaming for revenge, we continue the cycle of violence and ensure that the terrorist recruitment ground stays fertile indefinitely.
LikeLike
Maybe, but I’m not optimistic about that. Provisional order seems a more realistic goal.
LikeLike
So what do you see is the solution?
LikeLike
You can’t fix people, but you can control migration and support stable governments in the middle east. Prudent military action would probably be necessary too.
LikeLike
Support stable governments?
Lol… the US has an exemplary record in this regard, does it not?
Perhaps you really mean …
”Who can we bribe, cajole and generally fuck over to ensure our interests are maintained?”
The phrase We’re here to destroy WMD FFS” comes to mind.
I’ve always wondered why western governments always seemed reluctant to intervene in certain conflicts in Africa.
And it always makes me smile that there was never military intervention to overthrow the Apartheid government of SA
But then, the price of a barrel of oil was always more important the than the price of a human life, and SA never had any oil, or course.
Look at the number of American lives various US governments throw away every time they send their soldiers into conflict.
Prudent military action! RFLMFAO.
You mean like selling US arms to all and sundry?
Now there’s a great chuffing plan, right?
That’s just the right way to ensure a stable government. Give ’em more guns.
Perhaps all they want to do is hunt fucking squirrels, DP, what do you think?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good points, there’s no consistency in the areas our governments choose to intervene in due to atrocities – except financial interest. It’s odd how people are happy to be blinded by that obvious fact and jump on the ‘moral’ bandwagon of dropping bombs on the chosen ‘bad’ people. Worse, that no-one choose to process the fact, or even remember, that it never works! It just creates a never-ending supply of embittered opposition, who are more passionately motivated to commit foul atrocities.
Your last sentence, however, just gives the reader a sense that maybe they don’t need to take the rest of your comment seriously after all.
LikeLike
And thank you for that ….
LikeLike
I’m here to help you grow. 😉
LikeLike
We all have our own unique style of presentation.
Mine just happens to be more unique than most.
LikeLike
And we’re all looking to learn about ourselves and grow. You can give me feedback too. 🙂
LikeLike
Feedback? On what subject?
LikeLike
On the faults in my interaction techniques. Well, if you can find any …
LikeLike
Oh, believe me, I scour every post. You will be pleased to know your words are as pure as driven snow.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sweet. Just as I thought. 😀
LikeLike
Ha! You ask questions just to find an excuse to go on a five paragraph rant? Such an ass.
LikeLike
Oh I see, nothing to say on the content then, dp? Don’t be put off by the squirrel comment. 🙂
LikeLike
Ark is not interested in content so I’m not going to invest an effort. I think I have a fairly think skin for personal insults, it is the waste of my time that annoys me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I’ve always wondered why western governments always seemed reluctant to intervene in certain conflicts in Africa.
And it always makes me smile that there was never military intervention to overthrow the Apartheid government of SA
But then, the price of a barrel of oil was always more important the than the price of a human life, and SA never had any oil, or course.”
This is vitally relevant content. If you don’t want to respond I can only conclude you’re not willing to face the Truth. (There we go again, spotting the errors in your blog name. 🙂 )
LikeLike
So you and Ark are bringing up arguments from the 70s and 80s to deal with issues of today? Are you really interested in a discussion or are you just looking for grist for old ideological commitments?
LikeLike
Oh I see! If a situation hasn’t changed, if we’re still doing the same things we didn’t 30 years ago, then the error is no longer relevant? Curious attitude dp.
LikeLike
I say “support stable governments” and you people start having an argument with Nixon for supporting Pinochet. That is what I mean by stuck in the 70s. Your argument is with other people, in another decade, in another context. Cold War is over folks.
LikeLike
Not in the least DP. I think it important that we acknowledge that colonialism etc has been responsible for a lot of the enmity in many countries.
To simply hand wave away any responsibility and simply state that sane people would not do what these maniacs have done is naive and irresponsible. Look at what’s gone down because of US drone attacks?
The US and it’s allies have not succeeded in finding a long term positive solution to a single Middle Eastern ”problem”.
And the US funded the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
And they will sell weapons to whomsoever has an open cheque book it seems?
And of course, there’s oil… mustn’t forget that, right?
Acknowledging a certain amount of culpability is the first step to sorting this mess out.
Yes, there has been shit between Shi’ite and Sunni since grandad fell off the bus, but Western interests have tended to favour who was able to further those interests.
By the way, I don’t suppose they shoot squirrels, DP. That was joke. I don’t think there is one native to the Levant and the Middle East. But you’re the expert, I guess.
LikeLike
Your criticisms of the West have no bearing on the problem we face. You assume they are connected. I think the examination of not only these regular atrocities but the reasons used by those who have committed their lives to carrying them out tell us very clearly that there is no connection. I just don’t think you’re listening. And you’re not alone.
To help alleviate this sleep-walking, I offer this podcast. It’s time we all woke up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am normally a fan of Sam Harris, but this podcast merely offered criticism of the attitude of current thinking toward Jihadists/Islam in general, without offering any sort of solution; other than his reference to the US and Britain probably working on this problem behind the scenes. ( Unless I missed it – the podcast glitched a few times)
On the surface, it seems very difficult to formulate a response that will see the cessation of this type of violence without resorting to a similar degree of barbarism as Harris points out.
Look at the level of religious dickhead found just on this blog post!
But I still stand by what I said regarding Western expansionism being partly responsible.
Things do not happen in a vacuum.
Why people seem slow to ”wake up” is because most ( Westernized?) people just cannot get their heads around this – or more to the point – are unable to recognise that at its core religion is to blame; as much as Judaism and Christianity, as is Islam, which is merely the bastard love child of is parents.
Harris identifies the verse in Matthew as probably the only reason the West is not wallowing under a theocracy, but we see Christian extremism – in the US especially – only without the recurring violence
– or perhaps that should be the level of violence.
The solution?
The West will one day have to acknowledge that its expansionist policies ( from way back when) which in most cases have followed or gone hand in hand with the Christian religion and is at least, in part, responsible for this bastard love child it has spawned.
And like all kids, they do, to an extent , follow by example.
So a new example has to be set and the inventors of these disgusting Middle – Eastern religions need to step up and admit it is all a fiction.
Once this has been addressed we can talk about eradicating the violent elements.
This is not Wet-Behind -The – Ears liberalism, I assure you, but a forthright demonstration by secular humanist society that will no longer tolerate superstitious religious crap.
If this core issue is not addressed then as Harris points out,the violence will only escalate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know we’re in agreement that if religious beliefs were to fade away, our collective future would be more managed by reason and merit than so much of today’s Iron age barbarism.
But the question that I think is key to ask is if there isn’t a rather substantive difference in approach (leaving meaningful and lasting and effective solutions out of it for now) between seeing the problem of violent jihad as ideological (and looking at addressing this) versus practice (and looking at addressing this). In other words, I think we’re in agreement that the use of Western military force is as piss poor way to address ideological incompatibility with Western liberal secular values as is trying to only talk without causing offense to jihadist True Believers committed to using violence to impose a theocracy on us. Both approaches are irrational.
Identifying the root cause is a necessary first step before we can comprehensively address and change the expected effects. Facing a widespread unwillingness to name the root cause as Islamism – what is called the Lord Voldemort Syndrome – is Sam’s frustration that I share.
As for my solution, I think Islam must undergo a liberal reformation and this has to happen from within, by Muslims for Muslims. This is the ideological battleground that I think the West needs to fully support yet attempts to do so by real people in real life are the very ones targeted by Islamists with a false narrative about intolerance and cultural prejudice while their allies in the regressive Left here in the West do their part by painting such reformers as offenders of tolerance and cultural respect!
Good grief. The stupidity is as stupendous as it is deadly.
The key pejorative descriptor used most often on these reformers is the red flag term ‘Islamophobes’! When you see this term ‘liberally’ used, you know you are probably encountering a card-carrying member of the regressive Left, those I call ‘illiberal liberals’, the ones all too willing to blame the West in some bizarre knee-jerk emotional self-flagellation. What is forgotten in the regressive Left’s rush to side with our ideological enemies (that regularly produce such atrocities as 9/11, 7/7, The Madrid bombings, regular mass murdering ‘suicide’ bombings, the recent Paris attacks and the Charlie Hebdo massacre, and so on ad naseum) in the name of tolerance and cultural respect is that calling Islamic reformers like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz Islamophobes and banning them from speaking in public forums makes victims of the very people best positioned to bring about this ideological change.
What the illiberal liberals accomplish by siding with the tailored narrative of Western culpability is in practice not only diametrically opposed to finding such peaceful solutions that reformers offer but part of the problem that sustains the avoidance of ever addressing the root cause- violent jihad. In effect, avoiding the naming of the root problem and substituting the West as the stand-in villain for such atrocities becomes as much part of the problem as standing idly by while reformers in Islam are first vilified and then silenced not just in the Muslim world but here in the West… silenced by our own misplaced belief in the truthfulness of the Islamist fictional narrative that protecting the Islamist, we protect tolerance and cultrual respect! This is exactly backwards. Our willingness to not only self-censor but stand by and even support the banning of those reformers trying to bring about this necessary reformation in Islam is blameworthy and we need to give our collective heads a shake and remember what liberal values look like in action. And it sure as hell isn’t offering support to those who hold incompatible values!
There is no question the massive majority of victims to Islamism is Muslim. And so it falls to them to fix this ongoing problem in their ranks that is exported into Western society. That Harris has co-authored a book with a former jihadist recruiter to better understand this ideological problem we collectively face I think is a very important step in the right direction… achieving and revealing far more insight into the very real problem both the religious and non religious share regarding violent jihad but brings us closer to finding meaningful solutions than any number of Western delivered bombs ever has.
LikeLike
Yes, but this won’t happen, simply because it will require a re- interpretation of the Qur’an, and that means tampering with the Word of Allah.
And this, even moderates won’t touch with a barge pole.
It is similar to the problem with the bible.
While the document exists as a ‘Holy Work’ is it available for the likes of Crossan and Ken Ham.
By identifying your solution you have, I’m afraid, also identified the problem of why your solution won’t work.
The dismantling of Yahweh worship/belief simply has to begin with Judaism and Christianity.
LikeLike
It’s a process, the first of which is promoting the idea that such texts can be and are interpreted. Once that becomes acceptable – as it has become in all other major religions – then the modernization to enlightenment values can begin. Because we already have a history of this happening, I don’t agree that it is impossible with Islam. It is difficult and will take time but it has to happen. And we see it happening to the majority of Muslims already. That’s why we need to vilify and blame where vilification and blame is deserved: to those who refuse to criticize fundamentalist dogma.
As for getting rid of religious belief in the public domain, this too is process. Think of it as a tipping point and, again, we have accessible history that this can and does happen. We have to promote it throughout the world and criticize those who fight so strenuously against it… like the Glen Becks and Pat Robertsons and Ken Hams and Pope Benedicts of this world.
LikeLike
Nothing is impossible but the fact that we have Christian Dickheads promoting ‘Hell’ and serious-minded arseholes who are utterly convinced Dinosaurs co-existed with humans should tell you that such change if and when it happens is almost always an individual endeavor and for apostates of Islam the death penalty hangs over their heads.
I appreciate what you are saying, but you are falling foul of exactly what you highlight – liberal-minded people expecting religious extremists ( as a collective) to some how see sense.
Maybe one should try to convince Ken Ham first?
Or ask extreme right wing Christians to recognise a woman’s autonomy when it comes to abortion.
While any vestige of the Abrahamic religions flourishe then extremism is an ever present potential problem.
And every ”reasonable ” attempt at ”fixes” has a built-in proviso that tacitly says … ”But we still get to worship our god, right, and you’r not really going to muck about with our Holy Book are you?”
Have you tried praying, Tildeb? I hear it works wonders.
🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, and this is just too good not to pass on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
On a serious note, there is of course, the very real possibility that among the refugees there are hidden terrorist cells, something that intelligence agencies must be taking very seriously, surely?
But when all said and done, the subject of religion has to be addressed.
John wrote a post about Jewish Accountability in the face of the Pentateuch being historical fiction.
Eventually, those that he was referring to must surely step up to the plate and begin the painful task of
full disclosure – that it is all simply make believe.
LikeLiked by 1 person