|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Okay, that's it.
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
I'm with MCC on this one, and to a certain extent with Erin (gasp, shock, horror). It is our freedom these terrorists resent. So we must be doubly certain that we don't abandon our values in some mad attempt to resolve the situation by launching attacks all over the place. We need good intelligence and a careful, methodical approach. I am not against killing terrorists, but that won't solve the problem by itself.
I will not be hiding under any bedclothes, because I won't give them the satisfaction. I shall ignore them, and go about unafraid.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Black Dog
Shipmate
# 2344
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MatrixUK:
Gambit - I choose my words as carefully as possible, and am in no way interested in escalating or creating an anti-american argument here.
I was simply pointing out the fact that the IRA's greatest source of funding was (and still is by all accounts) the USA, now of course that is only certain individuals, not the whole US. But take a look at when the USA actually outlawed fundraising by the IRA - in the last few years!
There really is something about people in glass houses here....
I think comparing the IRA to al quaedeewee is not going to help us here. Firstly its internal not international, secondly its not a threat to humanity, thirdly is a bloody clan war (of sorts) thats been going on for decades, which is finally coming to a resolution of sorts i.e the IRA realises blowing things up will not work anymore, and fourthly its something that is being resolved by dialogue, which cannot be resolved with regards to bin liner. Fifthly the fact that yanks backed the IRA is more to do with the fact that many of the people probably considered themselves oirish, which brings the arguement of history and the bastard nation. There are probably people in america that fund bin liner, or ETA? Plenty of hispanics in the U.S. yes? And sixthly it depends how you define 'terrorist' I for example fund greenpeace, and to some people they are deemed terrorists, just a thought.
And seventhly, well there isnt a seventh because the first six were so good. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
The difference between love and comfort is that comfort is more reliable and true. Brutal and mocking but always there it is a crutch for enmity's saddest glare.
Posts: 453 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by thethinker:
I think comparing the IRA to al quaedeewee is not going to help us here. Firstly its internal not international,
How do you define internal?
How internal is bombing in Germany, training Colombian rebels and recieving money from Libya?
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by logician:
We have considered and rejected the premise that pacifism is enjoined by the teachings of Jesus. I can certainly see why someone else might draw that conclusion, but I think it is an oversimplified understanding of the NT.
I've been around the ship a while, but I can't recall anyone making the argument that non-violence (a term I prefer to pacifism) is not enjoined by the teachings of Jesus. People have certainly claimed this, but I can't recally any arguments actually being made (and I don't consider, "hey, I live in the real world" an argument).
I would be interested in hearing arguments that say that Jesus thought that it was ok for us to deliberately kill people in certain circumstances.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
I would be interested in hearing arguments that say that Jesus thought that it was ok for us to deliberately kill people in certain circumstances.
FCB
You could start a thread on this in Purgatory then. It would probably receive more, and more considered esponses there. And it deserves a thread of its own.
Viki
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
We've discussed pacifism (a term that I prefer) on a national scale at least twice that I'm aware of.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Oh dear - I know I shouldn't but tongue in cheek here it goes.
quote:
Originally posted by thethinker:
I think comparing the IRA to al quaedeewee is not going to help us here. Firstly its internal not international, secondly its not a threat to humanity,
I think you mean 'a threat to most of humanity'. To the best of my knowledge the 2,500+ killed by Republican terrorism were fairly human. John Donne would certainly have thought his peninsula substantially decimated by that number, paltry as it might seem to others.
quote:
thirdly is a bloody clan war (of sorts) thats been going on for decades, which is finally coming to a resolution of sorts i.e the IRA realises blowing things up will not work anymore,
So I guess they're just hanging on to their arsenal for sentimental reasons....
quote:
and fourthly its something that is being resolved by dialogue, which cannot be resolved with regards to bin liner.
OK, grant you that. But one thing that is fairly similar to both situations is the timing. One could argue that the British left it too late (by several decades, when you think that the Irish partition took place in 1921) to start jaw-jaw; so that by the time they were engaged in conflict with the paramilitaries, where could they go from a starting point of armed hostility?
In short, the terrorist threat has not been dealt with on the one side, nor repented of on the other; the result being a 'ceasefire' which is entirely dependent on the goodwill of well-armed, and now thanks to the Institutions, highly politicized terrorists. Sound familiar?
quote:
Fifthly the fact that yanks backed the IRA is more to do with the fact that many of the people probably considered themselves oirish, which brings the arguement of history and the bastard nation. There are probably people in america that fund bin liner, or ETA? Plenty of hispanics in the U.S. yes? And sixthly it depends how you define 'terrorist' I for example fund greenpeace, and to some people they are deemed terrorists, just a thought.
Does anyone really think it likely that Greenpeace are ever going to be confused with the kind of terrorist group (loyalist, in this case) who recently, as a 'punishment', took a Catholic car-thief, shattered his kneecaps and drove nails through his hands, and left him lying cruciform in a Belfast street? Saving the whales just doesn't have the same ring somehow....
As I said - tongue in cheek! Now back to the main feature.... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
I’m not necessarily advocating a non-violent response to terrorism. I’m advocating not descending into all-out barbarism. Civilised standards still apply, by which I mean basic principles of justice. Logician - We descend to the level of terrorists if we practice indiscriminate killing.
However, part of the point is that violent responses to terrorism are of limited use. What we want (I imagine) is to prevent terrorism. That’s a long haul and there are no easy answers to be found on the route.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
We've discussed pacifism (a term that I prefer) on a national scale at least twice that I'm aware of.
True, though that wasn't exactly the question I was asking.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Quantum
Shipmate
# 1129
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
I'm with MCC on this one, and to a certain extent with Erin (gasp, shock, horror). It is our freedom these terrorists resent.
Is it, really, our "freedom" which is resented by so large a part of the Muslim world?
Is it not, rather, our arrogance, our entrenched view that "western" civilisation, culture, world view-call it what you will-is and should be the dominant voice in world affairs?
Is the resentment not about the ways in which the non-Islamic west has defined the rules for the global power game, and then played the game so as to prevent almost everyone else from playing on equal terms.
Is there not an argument for the veiw that, when a bulletin board run by a Christian website tolerates the use of terms such as barbarians and savages in describing people, then the "terrorists" have aleady started to win?
And, on a wholly unrelated point, the CNN link Erin started all this off with contains a glaring error: Interpol is not and never has been a police force. It is an international intelligence gathering and disseminating organisation for information relating to crime. It has no powers of arrest or detention. I sometimes wonder, when CNN make such errors about that which I have some knowledge, what else do they get wrong?
Posts: 146 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Rea:
Is there not an argument for the veiw that, when a bulletin board run by a Christian website tolerates the use of terms such as barbarians and savages in describing people, then the "terrorists" have aleady started to win?
Major tangent alert.
I am SO SICK of having the "but this is a Christian website" argument thrown in whenever someone disagrees with someone else. SO FUCKING WHAT? This kind of abject "my shit smells like roses" ARROGANCE is totally OFFENSIVE to this Christian, I can only imagine what it's like for the non-Christians around here (and surprise, we have a few of them!). Yes, Jesus died for the terrorists, too, but that DOES NOT make them ANY LESS the barbarians and savages that they are, any more than his dying for me makes me any less of a first class BITCH. Deal.
This is the same damn thing I get in e-mails whenever someone's blasting us for not outright condemning homosexuality or daring to criticize the church. Congratulations, everyone who's ever posted along these lines, you've landed yourself in some real fine company.
Gah.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
[ 12. November 2002, 11:54: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
We are talking about making war on, and obliterating from the face of the earth those who are our enemies (Islamic terrorists, terrorists in general, whoever).
But where are they?
The US and allies have wiped out Afghanistan in the "war on terror". Are they planning to do the same with Iraq? How effectively does this affect terrorist groups?
We have concluded that their motives are Middle Eastern, if not world domination. But I question this. Yes it is probably part of it. But my mind boggles that hatred can be so strong and so blind as to be oblivious to self-preservation... What's the point of blowing up your enemies when you are only going to die anyway?
Other things I don't understand: why you would want to live in squalor, filth and lack of sanitation, and why you would want to destroy a society that has more advanced health and hygeine standards than your own? Surely it would be better to take it over?
I see the acts of terrorism practiced by al quaeda et al as being not a bid to take over the world so much as a bid to destroy life and the world in general.
This for me is much more scary, much more evil, because to me it is purposeless.
The Crusades were arguably evil, but at least they had a purpose: reclaiming religiously significant lands.
This jihad seems rather to have the only goal of declaring war on the west, on western standards of living, on western society, and destroying as much as possible of that.
My single biggest worry is that there are billions more muslims (and therefore many many more potential extremists/terrorists) than there are people in the west. Granted that not all muslims are going to be enthusiastic about destroying the west. But at the end of the day, who are they going to sympathise with? Those of their own religion who are proclaiming a war on the "oppressive west"? Or those in the west whose lives are threatened?
I have nightmares about the possibility of Australia being over run, and sharia law imposed. We have a large and growing population of muslim people. One of our nearest neighbours is Indonesia, which has 220 million odd people, the majority of whom are muslim. If the terrorists/extremists managed to over take Indonesia, it would be a short step for them to invade our country. Especially if the Prime Minister has sent all our troops off to flatten Iraq ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) . It happened in WW2 when the Japanese made war on Darwin; it can happen again, and far more easily with Indonesia...
Another question is:
Why now? Why do the terrorist groups decide to strike now? Why not 20 years ago? Why not 20 years in the future?
Another question:
They perceive the West as being the epitome of "evil". I see (we see?) their actions, senseless blind hatred and only-purpose-to-kill-and-destroy as inherently and darkly evil.
What is evil? Are we evil? Are they? Whose standard are we using?
Does anyone actually know the size of the terrorist groupings within the larger grouping of Islam? Any speculations as to whether all muslims would side with the extremists?
Until we have an idea of all this, I think we are shooting arrows in the dark... At least lets get our facts and figures sorted, as well as our philosphy...
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Mid
Officer and a gentleman
# 1559
|
Posted
Ok, forgive me if I get some of this wrong, my mind is on other things, but here goes...
The terrorist groups main objective is not America. It is not the middle east. It is not world domination. It is the creation of an Islamic megastate. Al Qaeda joined forces with many other Islamic groups in Asia. Al Qaeda has the aim of getting America out of Israel. Once that happens they will be satisfied. Al Qaeda doesn't have aims that are as scary as other groups with which they are now aligned.
September 11 and the Bali bombing were all planned in Asia, in Indonesia or the Phillipines if I am not mistaken. Everything came out of here. What Al Qaeda bring to the party is money and equipment. They are aiding their "partners", who want to remove all Western influence from South-east asia and creat an Islamic mega state, which includes northern Australia. This is where the danger is, and it is not directed against any specific country. they want western influence out of Asia - simple. They want to create a huge Islamic state. These are the people to worry about.
I am betting that if the US were to leave Israel alone (I'm not making any judgement about this as I am not well enough informed, just creating a scenario before you jump on me) I would imagine that Al Qaeda would leave them alone. They like the rest of the middle east how it is.
The real danger is for Westerners in SE Asia and to Australia, New Zealand, etc. I think you will find that these places are targeted more and more now.
--------------------
For God so loved the world She got involved
Posts: 3022 | From: The Wardroom | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
It would be fair to say many (most? all?) of those who espoused radical Islamic terrorism have spouted Anti-Americanisms. I somehow can't see this all coming down to feelings over Israel.
Life is too complex for that. Without getting into a Bash America thread, the terrorists of the Middle East have a plethora of reasons why they justify their hatred of the U.S.A.
None justify September 11.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I think it would be a mistake if I were to reply with the form of address that much of this debate is being conducted in. This is not due to a moral high ground on my part, I recognise that I am the worst of people I know. I just will not converse using anglo saxon words for sexual acts, this does not seem to serve any purpose other than to make the address seem somehow angrier and therefore more radical.
This is odd when the views expressed are anything but original or radical.
Erin, I think you made some valid criticisms of my post. That is my fault in the way I express myself. However, I think there is more to say about that, but as you say, this is not a debate about Iraq so I refrain and submit.
Terrible terrorist attacks, like any other type of pain, offer us a choice. A choice in how we respond. We can respond in the way that says 'You took what was mine, so I will take what was yours, only moreso'. And you have a right to do that, of course you do. But the question is, where will it end? I suggest that any action motivated only by hatred and revenge makes the world a worse place, not a better one. As Gandhiji said, correctly, an eye for an eye just ends up making the whole world blind.
Or we can look for another way. I am not offering a complete answer for another way. But I am saying that we need to look for another way. Let us look at the demons inside ourselves. Let us see where we are funding political allies today which may turn out to be the despots of tomorrow. Let us find out what it is about us that is so offensive to great masses of humanity. Some have suggested that it is our freedom, I would suggest it is our tortuous bondage of the majority of the citizens of the world.
There is not one group of right and another of wrong. We are all to blame for the state of the world.
Islam is not to blame for the terrible acts committed in its name.
Let us cast off the cloaks of blame and counter blame. I bare my chest, if you chose to strike, then so be it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Nosmo
You have posted to this thread seven times, saying more or less the same things. I have read your posts carefully, and it seems to me that what you are posting is pretty much the Gospel as Jesus preached it. I remember reading about some teaching he gave up a hill or some such elevated point. He talked about loving your enemy, turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, being, like the Father, gracious and loving and transforming the world. Radical stuff, which many people have worked hard to forget. Gandhi, though, was one great soul who carried a copy of that teaching around with him, and certainly tried to live by it.
I am very depressed by the attitudes of some (quite a few) on this thread, but suspect there is little to be done by way of argument or persuasion. Thank you, though, for your witness here to truth, beauty, hope, faith, and love.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nosmo:
Let us cast off the cloaks of blame and counter blame. I bare my chest, if you chose to strike, then so be it.
Nosmo - as others have so eloquently pointed out, terrorists aren't going to turn round and say "Oh my. You won't blame us, or fight back, but instead you lay yourselves open so we may do what we want. Gosh, haven't we be bad and evil to you? Let us atone for it, and all walk off hand in hand."
Sure, it would be nice. But it won't happen. Non-resistance doens't even work in the school yard 100% of the time (based on my own and others' experiences it works about 30% of the time. Mostly either the violent bastards find something new, and get bored with hurting you, or you fight back, and they find someone easier to fight, or teachers etc step in.)
And everyone bandies Ghandi's non-violent reistance about, but it took him 30+ years of protesting, and fasting and non-violently resisting before Britain granted independence to India. Even then the country was partitioned between muslim and Hindu, which wasn't his intention at all. Whilst he did this, millions of his countrymen died. Arguably Britain would have given india its independence then anyhow, due to the violence, economic concerns, and the fact we had just fought for our own freedom, so how could we hold another country captive?
In short, non-violent responses to terrorists don't work. People will die, whatever we do. The question is, do we want to stand back, and let citizens of our countries die, or do we stand up to terror and its agents, and try and remove them where ever they are?
I vote for removing terror.
Viki
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
The US and allies have wiped out Afghanistan in the "war on terror".
Please try to remember all the times I've gone to bat for pacifism when you read the following:
The US and allies have not "wiped out" Afghanistan. Hundreds of civilians were killed, which is a very bad thing, and as Afghanistan is overall on its way to being in better shape than it's been in a long time, the US and its allies will no doubt feel like they did the right thing, which in my mind is also a very bad thing.
But Afghanistan has not been wiped out.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nosmo:
I bare my chest, if you chose to strike, then so be it.
Please, sir, can I have some more self-righteous, manipulative crap? Please?
You know what? You simply don't get it. They don't care about how humble or arrogant we are. It means NOTHING to them. All they see is our women walking around like, you know, they have rights or something, and people practicing whatthehellever religion they feel like practicing, and us standing up at various times and telling both the government and the church to fuck off, and they feel that ALL of it is an affront to Allah, and it has to be stopped. No matter what the cost.
It scares the ever living shit out of me to think of living in a society that has acquiesced to ANY of their demands. You know why? Because that means I am no longer considered a human, I am the property of my husband (if I were still married) or my father. That means that I have no career, I am forbidden from any sort of education ever again and I will die from a treatable disease because I cannot see a male physician and female physicians are no longer allowed to practice. A society where we stop and consider what they want means that I have no freedom to worship God in the way that I know to be true. A society where we stop and consider what they want means that I am dead, because I would die before I would live in that kind of world.
No, I will not ask what they want. I know what they want, and I will DIE before I give it to them. You may wish to live in that world, but I cannot. I will not.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
I'm with Nosmo and Hatless on this one,
At least I am to a major extent. I'm no pacifist, but it seems to me that the West (mainly Britain and the US) has chosen to throw it's weight around in a strategy of "war against terror". In practice this has involved quite a few actions taken on the basis of where the West feels a threat is most likely to be coming from.
Whether this strategy has any merit, or no merit, depends on the quality of the inteligence.
However, you don't need spies in countries like Afghanistan as it is today to learn that all is still not well. The quantity of aid and assistance, post war, has not been nearly enough. The real fight against terrorism has to be to win over moslems around the world to an understanding that the west is not so bad.
By helping and showing compassion we may not melt the hearts of the hardened terorist. But we can be certain of making his recruitment tactics less effective. Aid is a far better aimed weapon than bombs.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
By helping and showing compassion we may not melt the hearts of the hardened terorist. But we can be certain of making his recruitment tactics less effective. Aid is a far better aimed weapon than bombs.
Why is this an either/or?
Can we not fight the terrorists militarily and give aid and help to the countries and peoples that both need and ask for it?
Viki
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Deserted
Shipmate
# 3035
|
Posted
Nunc Demittus quote:
I see the acts of terrorism practiced by al quaeda et al as being not a bid to take over the world so much as a bid to destroy life and the world in general.
Despondency whipped up into a fine froth of haughty arrogance and self righteousness, topped off with a nice dollop of cynicism. I think that might be one recipe for self destruction.
quote:
I see the acts of terrorism practiced by al quaeda et al as being not a bid to take over the world so much as a bid to destroy life and the world in general.
Or to control it. What better way to normalize a non normal situation than to destroy normalcy and institute your own particular brand of lunacy. Even better if you believe you have a....calling, or messianic destiny to destroy, rebuild and control. Then you will be right and you can prove it because you will put to death any and all who oppose you....by stoning. Oh...... and vice versa.
--------------------
There is a class of people who are pure in their own eyes, and yet are not washed from their own filth. (Not you and me of course!)Proverbs 30:12
Posts: 154 | From: High Desert, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
I see the acts of terrorism practiced by al quaeda et al as being not a bid to take over the world so much as a bid to destroy life and the world in general.
Despondency whipped up into a fine froth of haughty arrogance and self righteousness, topped off with a nice dollop of cynicism. I think that might be one recipe for self destruction.
Try fear of the darkness Deserted. Unless you care to elaborate in what way my statement was "haughty" and "self-righteous"... Cynicism yes.
On the large scale, the terrorism is a dark threatening cloud. You never know when or when it's going to drop hail. That to me is destruction of life and of the world in general.
I would have thought that was being realistic rather than haughty or self-righteous.
I was not meaning that those who are being attacked by terrorist acts have not been guilty of similar things. But at the moment the purpose of this terrorism for me seems cloaked. Do they want a great Islamic sharia state? Do they want to destroy the West? What is the actual purpose of the terrorists' activities? Until then, the acts of terror so far committed seem more concerned with destruction.
It's all very fine of you to despise my desondency. Now who's being haughty? I can't help the reactions the world situation stirs in me - and it takes some thought and discussion to deal with them. Which is why I'm here. Have a problem with that? Eat shit.
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Erin
I am sorry if I sound pretentious. If this is so, I have no choice but to go and do the weeding, and I have nothing more to add.
I'm also sorry about your personal situation.
May God bless you and bring you peace.
N
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
Why is this an either/or?
Can we not fight the terrorists militarily and give aid and help to the countries and peoples that both need and ask for it?
I don't personally think it is an either/or. I think Nosmo was saying that we have only tried one way of dealing with a situation. If the West had been more compassionate before the event, perhaps Al-Quaeda would never have got off the ground.
I know we can't turn the clock back, but it's my belief that the West is making the same mistakes over again with Afghanistan.
The West is seen by the Moslem world as a supporter of a tyrant (Israel), and as a war machine which ignores the rights of sovereign states.
Until the West addresses the root causes of terrorism its war will serve only to increase resentment. That makes military action counter productive in most cases.
Any military action should be undertaken with extreme caution and as a last resort. It should also be far outweighed by a caring compassionate approach. Currently the military action by far outweighs any compassionate approach.
As Christians, can't we all agree that the caring approach is more important?
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matrix
Shipmate
# 3452
|
Posted
I remain to be convinced that the teaching of Jesus Christ has changed to fit our present circumstances.
Could somebody please present us with a biblical argument for waging war on innocent people? or a biblical argument for revenge?
Please, don't rail against posters who call us to consider something radically different from what our prevailing culture calls for.
Part of the problem may well be that we react like dogs being kicked, rather than humans, capable of rational thought.
A war on terror cannot be won, it merely perpetuates itself. I repeat the quote mentioned earlier, from Ghandi "an eye for an eye results in a blind world"
And if posters generally have difficulty seeing what US foreign policy in the middle east has to do with it all, then i dispair at us ever finding a solution.
Regards
--------------------
Maybe that's all a family really is; a group of people who miss the same imaginary place. - Garden State
Posts: 3847 | From: The courts of the King | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
As Christians, can't we all agree that the caring approach is more important?
Playing the 'as christians can't we all...' card in any of its various forms is banned in Hell. Well, not so must banned as just a really stupid thing to do.
It roughly translates to "Because you all (nominally) are in the same category as me, I think you should all do what I say is the right thing. Never mind that we believe different stuff, I am taking the moral high ground, and you should bow to my decisions/beliefs/thoughts." And the resounding (polite) answer is "No. I make my own mind up." We all believe differently about pretty much most stuff. Take a look in purgatory or kergymania if you don't believe me.
And not everyone who reads or posts here is a christian.
Viki, hellhost being semi-helpful.
PS Variations of this card:- We're all christians; can't we just get along?
- We're all christians; lets agree that...
- If you're a christian, you can't possibly believe...
There are others, figure them out.
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
What a load of rubbish!
I'm genuinely interested to find common ground here between Christians. This a question not a demand to believe what I believe.
So I'll rephrase for clarity.
Are there any Christians here who believe that a compassionate approach is less important than a warlike approach and if so why?
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
I'm with Nosmo, Bonzo, Hatless and MatrixUK on this.
Unfortunately I'm not articulate enough to add anything to the debate, but my gut feeling is that they are right. Just thought they may be encouraged to know that at least one other feels similarly.
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
Christianity has had three basic theologies towards war
- Pacisifism
- Just war
- Crusade
quote:
MatrixUK said Could somebody please present us with a biblical argument for waging war.
Read the OT.
Jesus never condemns countries going to war against other countries.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
MatrixUK said Could somebody please present us with a biblical argument for waging war.
Read the OT.
Jesus never condemns countries going to war against other countries.
Is this really it? Is this your answer to MatrixUK's question?
I must say it's a very versatile reply. You could replace countries going to war against other countries with almost anything you wanted: dangerous driving, de-forestation, child labour, even terrorism.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
No, I will not ask what they want. I know what they want, and I will DIE before I give it to them. You may wish to live in that world, but I cannot. I will not.
Since this is Hell, and not the place for serious debate, I feel free to say that this too is "self-righteous, manipulative crap." It just that if you say "fuck" enough people get distracted by your phony earthiness and don't notice how self-righteous you are being.
As to Nighlamp's outline of Christian positions toward war (first proposed, I believe, by Roland Bainton), I think it is important to add a fourth (added to Bainton's three by John Howard Yoder): the blank check. This means that if the leaders of one's country go to war, you go to war, no questions asked. Yoder argues that this has in fact been the most prevalent attitude toward war among Christians since the 4th century. Pacifism, Just War and even Crusade imply that you at least try to justify your attitude toward war in Christian terms. The blank check simply says, "well, if my country is going to war I must fight."
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
hatless said Is this really it? Is this your answer to MatrixUK's question?
Yes
Currently he is saying 'my position is biblical and yours isn't' my counter argument is on the same level.
If he wants to advance that Pacisifism is more biblical than the just war he is free to do so.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
FCB, you are a waste of bandwidth here. It's not manipulative, it's a fact. I would die before I allowed their worldview to be imposed on us, because I would take up arms and fight to the death.
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Are there any Christians here who believe that a compassionate approach is less important than a warlike approach and if so why?
I can't tell someone that "we have to be compassionate, so you just have to die". I don't have the right to do that. The job of a government is to protect its citizens' rights, including the right to live. The US is not a Christian government, and therefore Christian principles of pacifism are irrelevant to their course of action.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
Currently he is saying 'my position is biblical and yours isn't' my counter argument is on the same level.
I have read and re-read Matrix's post and I cant find where he's saying this.
If his request for a biblical argument is what you mean, that implies that he needs you to state your position rather than rant, in order that he might reply to that position.
Since you refuse to elaborate, we must assume that there is no more substance to your argument than that already stated, and so I'll take it on face value.
I for one, don't think yours a strong enough stance for me to want to add to Hatless's reply, which shows so eloquently, how ill thought out your stance is.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Machine Elf
Irregular polytope
# 1622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Are there any Christians here who believe that a compassionate approach is less important than a warlike approach and if so why?
Depends on context.
We are commanded to love our neighbour as ourselves, then given a parable to see who is our neighbour. They might not be the people we expected, but not everyone is our neightbour. I wouldn't say that in this context, Bin Laden is stopping to dress anyone's wounds.
TME
--------------------
Elves of any kind are strange folk.
Posts: 1298 | From: the edge of the deep green sea | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
TME
I’m not clear what you’re saying here. Are you saying we should only love those people who show love to others?
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote from Sarkycow quote:
And everyone bandies Ghandi's non-violent reistance about, but it took him 30+ years of protesting, and fasting and non-violently resisting before Britain granted independence to India.
Another point about Ghandi's successful efforts is that he practiced his technique against the people who had preached Christianity in India. He was clearly occupying the moral high ground.
Can anyone name a situation where non-violent resistance was successfully practised against a nation that was non-Christian and non-democratic?
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Despite the background and history of the chief Western governments (US and UK), neither are 'Christian'. They represent a huge spead of multicultural, multifaith population - and despite some of the trappings of 'civic' Christianity breaking through now and again, our leaders know that they weren't elected to represent a particular Biblical viewpoint on behalf of a certain religious minority within that wider population.
I don't know much about George W Bush's relationship with God(!), but I understand Tony Blair exercises a genuine Christian faith; and when I pray for him and the decisions he makes, I think of how hard it must be for him, if this is true, to be wrestling with these kinds of issues, knowing that his role is primarily secular and representative, not sacred and individualist.
Bishops in the UK have spoken out against retaliatory violence; so have large numbers of Christian groups and individuals; but we are not all of our country. And while we might wish to influence for the better decisions involving the life and death of others, particularly innocents, we also belong, as a whole, to the country and society in which God has called us to be.
I'm not saying our allegience to Christ's teaching should be secondary to our allegience to a secular power; but as God (in his wisdom?) has committed us to living in these secular societies under the guardianship of earthly authorities, we need to find a balance between the idealism that Jesus taught characterized the kingdom of heaven, and the less happy realism of the kingdom of this world.
It's not so much living in compromise, as living in limbo (not the Catholic 'limbo', I hasten to add!); working for and seeking the kingdom of God which is close at hand, but in an environment which cloaks the godly from us because of good old-fashioned sin.
Bishop George Bell, during the second World War (am I allowed to mention that?) spoke fiercely about 'atrocities' committed against the enemy by the Allies, but similarly he prayed for Allied troops, committed himself sacrificially to the war-effort, and made sure his clergy played their part to the utmost. He made sure he sounded the international note, when he spoke of the worldwide Church, showing his allegience to his citizenship of heaven; but worked humanly as much as possible in supporting his fellow countrymen, acknowledging that the situation was humanly unavoidable.
The frustration and pain, as well as the anger and fear, that goes with this situation is all part of our calling, and I have no idea how to finish this post off because it's just that sort of bloody awful thing to which there is no 'right' answer, though many good or effective answers.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Can anyone name a situation where non-violent resistance was successfully practised against a nation that was non-Christian and non-democratic?
I'm not sure how tightly you want to define this, but there are plenty of examples of regimes being changed by non-violent, or less violent means. Think of the ending of Apartheid, of the US civil rights movement, of Solidarity, of the ending of Soviet communism and the taking down of the Berlin wall. China, once thoroughly totalitarian, is being liberalised by market forces. Many colonies have won independence without a fight, and every democracy shows that a government wielding real power on behalf of strong vested interests can nonetheless be removed by voting.
On the other hand, it is hard to think of terrorist movements that have been defeated by military means. The world has several stubbornly long lived terrorist campaigns. Terrorists don't seem to go away until there have been talks and concessions.
hatless, on behalf of the Wharfedale People's Popular Democratic United Liberation Front.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
hatless, the US civil rights movement, the collapse of Soviet communism and the destruction of the Berlin wall were achieved through the immediate threat of State-sponsored violence. That the violence remained largely theoretical, rather than actual, is immaterial. The al Queda terrorists have demonstrated that the threat of force is unconvincing to them. Thus they are shown to be more hard-headed than the Politburo and the KKK. The only remaining option for the free world is to demonstrate the efficacy of the military threat.
The ending of Apartheid, the Solidarity movement and the partial liberalization of China came through the application of strong economic pressure against governments with a desire to participate in markets. al Queda has no such desire, and is therefore immune to such pressures. These examples, while responsive to Moo’s question, are irrelevant to the main discussion.
When you say that terrorists must be talked with and conceded to, you are legitimizing their methods. This is exactly what they are hoping to achieve. The reason that the rampant terrorism of the 1970s was largely eradicated in the 1980s was that western governments adopted a policy of refusing to negotiate with the terrorists. Anyone with children knows that the last thing you should do in the face of a temper tantrum is to make concessions. You may actively intervene or you may ignore the show, but when you give in to it you prove the technique’s effectiveness and assure that it will be used again.
scot
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
Anyone with children knows that the last thing you should do in the face of a temper tantrum is to make concessions. You may actively intervene or you may ignore the show, but when you give in to it you prove the technique’s effectiveness and assure that it will be used again.
Not content with telling us who we should and shouldn't talk to. You're now telling us how we should bring up our children!
Your arrogance amazes me!
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Apartheid, of the US civil rights movement, of Solidarity, of the ending of Soviet communism and the taking down of the Berlin wall.
Without exception these are all societies with Enlightenment European roots and a strong Christian heritage - which at one point or another had developed concepts of human rights which dissidents could appeal to.
Also it's hard to say what role non-violent resistance played in the fall of communism - I'd say that economic factors were much more important.
This also tells it like it's one big success story omitting to mention the millions who died in the USSR from man-made famine under Stalin and assorted purges and massacres. Those millions were left without help precisely because no-one could take out Russia militarily and because non-violent resistance did bugger all to save the kulaks, Ukrainians and other victims of Soviet Russia.
As for China, tell the Tibetans and the Muslim separatists there how 'liberalised' the regime is. The greedy choices of China's elite to open up to western business practices does not represent a victory for non-violent resistance. People tried that at Tianamen square - with bloody results.
I'd wouldn't be quick to cite these as uncomplicated evidence of the victories of non-violent resistance.
If we are thinking of non-violent resistance in the middle-east, then we need to think whether it could have been used to avert incidents like the gassing of the Kurds by Saddam Hussein or the massacre of Shia muslims at Hama in Syria ( Amnesty estimates that about 20, 000 people died there), or the massacres of Sabra and Chatila.
I have to say I doubt it. These situations are analogous to what happened in Bosnia. When people are bent on ethnic cleansing of one sort or another they don't give a monkeys for non-violent resistance. In fact it's all the better for them -easier to kill more people more quickly.
It may be Ok to turn the other cheek when your adversary HITS you on one cheek, but when your adversary comes to dig your mass grave with a JCB and line up you and your family to shoot in it, I don't think that verse of scripture is applicable.
Christ was dealing with a society where weapons of mass destruction were catapults and short swords. People were still capable of carrying out massacres with them but unfortunately Jesus doesn't give us a commentary on them.
There is a big difference between giving yourself up for execution and martyrdom, as Christ did, and refusing to take effective action to prevent the massacre of large numbers of other people.
I find it hard to believe that someone who was willing to physically kick over the tables of people who were merely fleecing poor people ( and do you think that happened without a fight?) would not be willing to protect them from gassing and ethnic cleansing.
It's not a simple scenario. There are societies where it is a good idea to practice non-violent resistance. There are also methods of non-violent resistance which can be used even in dictatorships. However when confronted with someone who has used both gassing and ethnic cleansing before without qualms ( like Saddam) I would certainly think it was nonsense to rule out using force against him, if it was the only way of protecting people from more of the same.
My own opinion is that by fetishizing certain sayings of Jesus, made in a very different time, that it is possible to produce something which is a dangerous perversion of the Christian imperative to protect the weak.
IE. out of Christian pacifism we could end up refusing to act to prevent atrocities because it involves taking military action first, because some innocent people may die as opposed to many many innocent people dying and continuing to die under an evil regime.
I think we risk putting a selfish attachment to our own moral purity above preventing the awful and forseeable suffering of others.
Why? Because we're too precious to take the risks of using military action to prevent that suffering, lest it impact upon our delicate consciences that some civilians have died to free many others and save their lives.
In other words, if it can be demonstrated that there is a substantive and forseeable danger of massacres being carried out, and if military action is the only way to stop that, then, in general, I would tend to favour it.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Not content with telling us who we should and shouldn't talk to. You're now telling us how we should bring up our children!
Your arrogance amazes me!
Since you temper tantrum bores me, I will ignore you so that I don't encourage the behavior.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
On the other hand, it is hard to think of terrorist movements that have been defeated by military means. The world has several stubbornly long lived terrorist campaigns. Terrorists don't seem to go away until there have been talks and concessions.
Excuse the double post I missed this. Many terrorist groups have been defeated by the intelligence services, policing and the military.
Baader meinhoff gang, Red brigade, Real IRA, Aum Shinrikyo (Japan), September 17 group in Greece, the insurgency in Malaya, Khmer Rouge ( terrorist group turned dictatorial regime, turned terrorist group again) that's just off the top of my head.
There is a big difference between popular nationalist movements with genuine greivances and small whacko cultist groups with inhumane agendas like Al Quaeda (whose basic agenda is a world-wide Islamic state following a peculiarly vicious form of Salafi Islam).
Sometimes the whackos manage to fool people by linking their way-out ideology to genuine popular grievances. (As Bin Laden tries to do with the Palestinian issue).
It is a good idea to detach the two - negotiate and talk to the Palestinians who have a genuine grievance not Bin Laden who doesn't.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
It's the same choice that Meneldur faced in Numenor.
Do we stand upon the hill of the slain, and say to God "at least Your enemies were amongst them", or rather do we stand in the ruin, and say "at least I shed no blood"?
I'm more and more convinced there's no "right" answer. Just a little acceptance from each side that the other has legitimate objections to their course of action would go a long way.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
Scot,
Have you ever stopped to think how terrorists become terrorists? The birth of virtually every terrorist group happens because a wronged group of people find no way to change their circumstances through any other means. It’s through disillusionment with any political process and desperation in the face of those who refuse to recognise their position, that some of those wronged people turn to terrorism.
If the intractable governments then try to go in hard, the terrorists will get better at hiding their activities, making them even more dangerous.
It’s only by dialogue and concessions that there is any way forward. I’m not talking about governments giving in, rather, admitting where they were wrong in the first place and attempting to put that right.
Louise,
I’d go along with much of what you say, I’ve said before that I’m not a pacifist, but it seems to me that mankind resorts to war far too easily, Usually these wars are not to free the oppressed, but are about money, power or revenge. The intervention in Kosovo was perhaps an exception. Passive resistance, remains an extremely potent weapon, I have no doubt that the Tianenmen square incident has helped to bring about a number of changes for good in China for example.
If passive resistance is not the way to go, how should oppressed groups who do not have the military might to stand up to their oppressor fight?
Scot,
I’m so sorry that my pointing out your arrogance has been translated as a temper tantrum as it crossed the Atlantic ocean. Have you got children? There are phone numbers of help lines for such kids to ring.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
And conversely, Bonzo, it seems that you can't get your head around the fact that some people are just plain evil.
What poor circumstances did the hijackers and Osama bin Laden grow up in, pray tell? They are/were extremely wealthy, even by western standards, so the whole poverty appeal just doesn't apply.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Have you ever stopped to think how terrorists become terrorists? The birth of virtually every terrorist group happens because a wronged group of people find no way to change their circumstances through any other means. It’s through disillusionment with any political process and desperation in the face of those who refuse to recognise their position, that some of those wronged people turn to terrorism.
My second post must have cross-posted with you Bonzo.
I disagree with this view of terrorism. Terrorism is not monolithic. Many terrorist groups are started, not by people who have been wronged, but by people from comfy middle class backgrounds who have a particular ideology they want to enforce on others and sometimes they do this by piggy-backing it onto the legitimate grievances of others. Many of these factions come to sticky ends. Al Quaeda could well follow this route eventually.
To answer your other question
quote:
If passive resistance is not the way to go, how should oppressed groups who do not have the military might to stand up to their oppressor fight?
Civil disobedience can do quite a lot, but if God forbid, people do end up being at the mercy of someone hell-bent on ethnic-cleansing or committing atrocities, quite simply one of the best forms of resistance is using the media and pressure groups outside of your country to persuade countries which do have the relevant military or economic might to weigh in on your side. It doesn't always work though, but sometimes it does.
To be honest, even if the motives of the people at the top are impure, if it frees thousands of people from terror and oppression I would still be happy.
I think it is possible to put too much emphasis on motives. If somebody rescues me from a thug holding my head under water and sets me free, then I'm not going to complain much about their motives for doing so. Nor am I going to complain if they are only doing it because they hate the thug and don't care about me. Hey, even if they're only rescuing me to steal my wallet, I'm not going to complain too loudly.
Just a thought.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
