Thread: Hell: Okay, that's it. Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001082

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
The latest from Interpol has left me with no choice but to crawl under the covers and watch reruns of Hazel and Donna Reed and eat cinnamon toast and drink hot chocolate with mini marshmallows.



[ 10. March 2003, 00:57: Message edited by: Erin ]
 

---

Posted by thethinker (# 2344) on :
 
Im not suprised to be honest, and all the do gooders clamber together and say, hey leave saddam alone etc. They all, as my dad says p*ss in the same bucket, we need to hunt them all down like dogs before they destroy the world as we know it. Bin Laden can kiss my grits.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Maybe we should take the Vlad the Impaler approach -- you know, terrorists' heads on stakes around the perimeter.

I think that's a valid defense alternative, myself.
 

---

Posted by thethinker (# 2344) on :
 
The genuine thing is, if we do not act swiftly the end consequences could be just that bad. It may be years away but if these nutters do something comparible to 9/11 or worse the sh*t will more than hit the fan. I fear the worst.
 

---

Posted by Melchizedek (# 2073) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Qlib (# 43) on :
 
Yes, it is terrifying, of course. In the worst case scenario it could tip humanity back into lives of complete barbarism - you know, sticking your enemies heads up on poles around your perimeter and all that.
 

---

Posted by golden key (# 1468) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
The latest from Interpol has left me with no choice but to crawl under the covers and watch reruns of Hazel and Donna Reed and eat cinnamon toast and drink hot chocolate with mini marshmallows.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qlib:
Yes, it is terrifying, of course. In the worst case scenario it could tip humanity back into lives of complete barbarism - you know, sticking your enemies heads up on poles around your perimeter and all that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Look, Qlib, if you want to sacrifice yourself on the altar of these sick fucks' cause, I don't see anyone stopping you.

---

quote:

---

I do not have the moral authority to decide for every man, woman and child in the west that they deserve to die because we don't want to deal with these bastards in ways they understand.

---

1. killing people at random
2. not making absolutely sure you've got the right people before you start the executions
3. sticking their heads up on poles (literally or figuratively)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Though perhaps this is the time to break the biblical prohibition against communicating with the dead and hold a seance wherein we contact the al Qaeda who flew planes into the various buildings and they can explain how it is that paradise smells of fire and brimstone and that the 72 promised virgins are really 72000 demons who take the concept of sadomasochism to new and previously unexplored heights.

---

quote:

---

As for linking this to Iraq, am i the only one who remembers a certain mr hussain celebrating the attacks on the twin towers?

---

so he was *obviously* responsible

i think its generally accepted that saddam was not directly involved in the wtc attacks. baghdad would probably be a lot flatter right now if there was a proven link.

d.
 

---

Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
The way of peace has been tried numerous times, over thousands of years. The party that perceives itself as weaker often tries to placate, and the more powerful party will sometimes try to come to some accommodation when it believes that fighting loses more than it gains. That is throughout human history, whether they knew God or not.

I respect pacifism as a holy choice (though I disagree that it is mandated), but there is simply no evidence it is a good strategic choice. That theory is not Christian, but modern.

The way of peace has been tried repeatedly in the MiddleEast over the last few decades. We have been trying the way of peace with Iraq specifically for the last ten years. To think that it is not a real peace is akin to saying "You went to Madrid? Oh but you haven't been to Spain! "

Just because people tell you these things Nosmo, it doesn't mean they're true. On to others...

Qlib,
Why is any military action considered "descending to their level?"

Those people who would "erode civil liberties" because of their virulent anti-communism: I agree we keep hold of our liberties as best we can even under duress. But the hue and cry for more crackdown was driven by the fact that Communists killed 200,000,000 people* in the 20thC, but folks kept making excuses for it. We now know that the right-wing crazies underestimated the spy penetration of the US.

Honestly, what do they teach them at these schools?

* Don't believe it? Start with 11,000,000 starved Ukrainians in the 1930's, add in 8,000,000 Russian Jews, 8,000,000 Chinese Christians...and we haven't even gotten to the wars yet.
 

---

Posted by zephirine of the roses (# 3323) on :
 
i have a 17 year old son .......
 

---

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 
So do I, Zeph, so do I.

So much for statistics....
 

---

Posted by golden key (# 1468) on :
 
And I have a good friend in the military.

Personally, I think the powers that be who want a war should be the ones to fight it.
 

---

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Nosmo, I have no idea what universe you inhabit, or how you managed to open a communications link from there to here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by golden key:
Personally, I think the powers that be who want a war should be the ones to fight it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by doug:
thethinker, you said

quote:

---

As for linking this to Iraq, am i the only one who remembers a certain mr hussain celebrating the attacks on the twin towers?

---

so he was *obviously* responsible

i think its generally accepted that saddam was not directly involved in the wtc attacks. baghdad would probably be a lot flatter right now if there was a proven link.

d.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MatrixUK:
And some posters need to be very careful about singling out those who they assume finance the terror networks. The main source of funds for the IRA was America. Imagine if the UK had taken a similar line then..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by logician:
The way of peace has been tried numerous times, over thousands of years. The party that perceives itself as weaker often tries to placate, and the more powerful party will sometimes try to come to some accommodation when it believes that fighting loses more than it gains. That is throughout human history, whether they knew God or not.

I respect pacifism as a holy choice (though I disagree that it is mandated), but there is simply no evidence it is a good strategic choice. That theory is not Christian, but modern.

The way of peace has been tried repeatedly in the MiddleEast over the last few decades. We have been trying the way of peace with Iraq specifically for the last ten years. To think that it is not a real peace is akin to saying "You went to Madrid? Oh but you haven't been to Spain! "

Just because people tell you these things Nosmo, it doesn't mean they're true. On to others...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MatrixUK:
Terror must be dealt with by removing the breeding ground of poverty and oppression it comes from. Otherwise each terrorist who gets killed will be replaced by another angry young person.

---

quote:

---

Nosmo wrote:

Perhaps you would like to show me the occasion that we tried the way of peace and humility with these tyrrants. Show me where we tried to feed them, clothe them, heal them.

---

quote:

---

And Matrix, if you want to round up the pro-IRA citizens of New York, Boston and Chicago, feel free. I think it's disgusting.

---

YES!

Moo
 

---

Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
Okay, I jumped ugly on you Nosmo, and I shouldn't have, you being new to the Ship and all.

I should have been nice to you to set you up, then really slammed you...

Bully for you for coming back. You may detect a certain...impatience from some other posters here. This stems from the fact that your arguments are not new to us. It is not that we have not heard them, not that we haven't ever really, really thought about it that way. 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.

You may also think that you have heard all our arguments before, and perhaps you have. But I suspect not. And in any case, if you come up with something either new or repackaged in a way we have not thought of before, we will either have to come up with something new in answer, or concede.

We are no longer at war with Germany and Japan and there is no seething underclass of terrorists in those countries. It is usually not war, but unfinished war, which breeds further violence. Which is not an argument for annihilation of one's enemies, by the way, because diplomacy, sanction, and limited warfare have also been known to be effective at times. As to why Iraq, and not Saudi or Sudan, those latter two nations are perhaps more evil, but are not a direct threat at the moment.

I would be of the emotion that is overwilling to intervene in evil governments, regardless of their present danger. But I have every reason to expect that to get away from us rapidly, as it would any nation.

I have four sons, by the way, 15-23. I don't say these things lightly.
 

---

Posted by MatrixUK (# 3452) on :
 
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....
 

---

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
MatrixUK,

Most Americans do not support the IRA. The only ones in glass houses are those who do support the IRA and then babble on about the evils of terrorism. As a British person, I can denounce fascism without feeling hypocritical just because a minority of morons in Britain are pro-BNP.

Your argument assumes a uniformity of belief and action amongst Americans for which there is absolutely no evidence.
 

---

Posted by MCC (# 3137) on :
 

quote:

---

This is not another anti-America thread,

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 

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,

---

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.

---

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

---

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,

---

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,

---

quote:

---

and fourthly its something that is being resolved by dialogue, which cannot be resolved with regards to bin liner.

---

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....
 

---

Posted by Qlib (# 43) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
Qlib

A fair response
 

---

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

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.



[ 12. November 2002, 11:54: Message edited by: Erin ]
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
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 . 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...
 

---

Posted by The Mid (# 1559) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Nosmo (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
The US and allies have wiped out Afghanistan in the "war on terror".

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
As Christians, can't we all agree that the caring approach is more important?

---

• 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...

• Pacisifism
• Just war
• Crusade

quote:

---

MatrixUK said Could somebody please present us with a biblical argument for waging war.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

hatless said Is this really it? Is this your answer to MatrixUK's question?

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Currently he is saying 'my position is biblical and yours isn't' my counter argument is on the same level.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Apartheid, of the US civil rights movement, of Solidarity, of the ending of Soviet communism and the taking down of the Berlin wall.

---

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!

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:

I think we risk putting a selfish attachment to our own moral purity above preventing the awful and forseeable suffering of others.

L.

---

quote:

---

And conversely, Bonzo, it seems that you can't get your head around the fact that some people are just plain evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
...I don't know much about George W Bush's relationship with God(!)...

---

quote:

---

...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....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
...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....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
In Al Quaeda it’s mainly about Israel and the treatment of Palestinians in terms of the possession of their land and removal of their political rights.

---

quote:

---

bonzo said 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.

---

quote:

---

Their motivations have nothing to do with Palestine. They are motivated because the western infidels have defiled the holy lands. That is what Osama bin Laden stated himself, many years ago, before the Palestinian cause became so fashionable for guilt-ridden, self-flagellating liberals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
The "coherent argument", for me, is simply that I cannot imagine Jesus dropping bombs on, or shooting, anyone, and therefore neither will I.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
I think a really good start would be for Israel to remove it's provocative settlements from the West Bank and to return Jerusalem to it's 1967 boundaries.

But really, since this is currently not politically achievable, the best start would be to sit down and talk properly with the Palestinian leadership.

In retrospect, if this had been done many years ago we might not be in the state we are today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
So sorry that its such problem to you.

---

 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
I dunno... I can't imagine Jesus having sex, either, but that's not a valid argument for celibacy.
 

---

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 
The its/it's confusion is a big issue for me, as well. I tend to ignore it, however, unless I feel the great need to humiliate someone.

[clarified the post reference because Erin got in the way]

[ 13. November 2002, 23:04: Message edited by: tomb ]
 

---

Posted by Eanswyth (# 3363) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I dunno... I can't imagine Jesus having sex, either, but that's not a valid argument for celibacy.

---

Or pooping. Or
 

---

Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
Thanks, Laura and Tomb, for saying something about its/it's. That always greatly irritates me and causes me to have to make an effort not to make any assumptions or judgments about the perpetrator. I wish people would get that right.
 

---

Posted by MatrixUK (# 3452) on :
 
I really hate to disappoint, and to brag, but I am far from ignorant about the contents of scripture, having spent the last ten years studying it.

I was not making an assumption that pacifism is the only truly biblical response, and am interested that some people can be so clouded by their own preconcieved notions that they read that into my posts.

However, I do see a severe strain between many of the opinions expressed here, and those expressed by Jesus. As i already understand how pacifism can be argued scripturally, i do not need to ask for anyone to explain that to me. As i understand Just War theory, I do not need that to be explained to me. However, as this "war on terror" and the thought of taking action against Iraq fall outside the scope of Just War theory, and because of the strong reactions this provokes - i am still interested in reading a well thought out, biblically based argument for revenge attacks, or unilateral strikes.

The idea that you could compare Jesus' cleansing of the temple with the current situation is risible. And your understanding of the background and reasons for Jesus' offense clearly lacking.

I appreciate that what i ask may be too difficult for posters on this list, and that perhaps i ought to start a thread in Purgatory, to see if someone capable of constructing a coherent argument could help, but i thought i would try here as it fits this thread, and so many people feel free to hold forth on the subject.

Of course, this post will probably just be criticised (this is hell after all) and people will swear at me, make accusations, misunderstand and dismiss me, but anywhooo - if there is someone who could make a clear argument i'd love to hear it.

Regards
 

---

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 
Well, MatrixUK, inasmuch as you already understand everything, it seems superfluous to have a discussion or "frank exchange of ideas" with you.

I always feel so very blessed to be in the presence of people like you who know so very much.

Makes me all warm and respectful inside.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I dunno... I can't imagine Jesus having sex, either, but that's not a valid argument for celibacy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomb:
Naivitee is such a curse! (Did I spell that right?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Actually, it's more like you're exposing your naïveté.

---

quote:

---

Nightlamp said:
The assumption that Matrixuk has made is that there is a self-evident biblical argument for pacifism but he has not provided it as yet.

He asks for the provision of a biblical position for a just War. I answered that it obviously has failed to read the bible fully and it is not my fault that he has not done so.

---

quote:

---

Nightlamp also wrote:
MatrixUk, earlier you asked for someone to explain just war theory from the bible then you already know the answer. Congratulations on making yourself look particularly stupid.

---

quote:

---

Erin wrote:
PS: fuckwit, not all of us are Bible-thumping fundamentalist buttwrenches, as you so CLEARLY are, so we don't have a need to argue from a "biblical perspective".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
When it comes to what the leaders of a secular country with hundreds of faith traditions should do in the face of repeated threats of annhiliation, the Bible doesn't apply. So asking for a scriptural argument for a national response is just stupid.

---

quote:

---

I am hoping it goes deeper than “They hurt us so lets hurt them” but have seen little evidence of this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nosmo:
Was Gandhi a simpleton? Was Jesus a fool to think he could change the world?
<snip>
Listen, like Gandhi himself, I am not a pure pacifist either. Sometimes one has to fight for what you believe in and sometimes it might be necessary to kill an aggressor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
But at least you've nailed your colors to the fence and I can, with just cause, ignore you from now on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nosmo:
Are you saying this has no relevance to the current situation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
Scot,

It seems to me that you advocate the use of violence where passive resistance is not a viable alternative. So presumably you either support the violent struggle of the Palestinians against their Israeli oppressors or you believe that they should remain pacifist in that instance.

Which is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
I suggest nothing. I’m asking a question.
Are you sure English means the same over there as it does over here?
Would you prefer me to re-phrase with shorter words?

---

Oh, come now. You know as well as I do that "asking a question" is often a way of proposing a point of view, especially when the word "presumably" is used in the way you used it.

Anyway, I can't go on with this because I'll be hiding under the bed: Increase In Terrorist "Chatter" Similar to pre-September 11th Levels Indicates Likely Attack Soon
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
I'm not a pacifist either Scot. But I'm interested in how you can define a just or unjust cause.

Erin says that you can't use the Bible if the dispute is between countries. Do you agree with that?

---

quote:

---

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

---

quote:

---

The all knowledgable one said Just to spell it out, the “war on terror” and pre-emptive strikes on Iraq fall outside of the usual understanding of Just War.

---

What you should have done is said why that is the case instead of making a general statement. I guess you are learning.
 

---

Posted by Nosmo (# 3330) on :
 
As a general point, and I intend to offend nobody, the man I am talking about was called Mohandas K Gandhi. Often given the honorific Mahatma. As some are so concerned about spelling, I would appreciate it if we could at least spell names correctly.

Now. The British empire was not concerned with acting in a 'Christian' way whatsoever. That is blatent nonsense. There are countless examples where it exterminated whole races of people, moved others willynilly and held others in absolute poverty so it could obtain cheap raw materials like tea, coffee, rubber etc. There is this myth going about that colonialism was somehow an extention of the church. Rubbish. Read some history.

That is not to say that there wasn't something happening in reverse, so that Victorians saw themselves as being part of the 'taming of the natives' by going and becoming missionaries.

To say that Gandhiism has nothing to say to our situation misunderstands the nature of the philosophy. It was not intended to be something only for the situation in India. It was intended to be something to be used anywhere where there was injustice.

I say it is just as applicable as in India before partition. We are faced with an aggressor with no face, with no idea where he is going to strike next. We say we are on the side of right, just like the Indians did. But we must prove that we are. If we lash out and deny to those who do these evil deeds the very things that we hold dear (and why does nobody answer my points I raised earlier about the American constitution?) - ie the rule of law, truth and whatnot - then how exactly are we behaving any differently? If we are on the side of right, then we need to behave like it. Not for their benefit. I doubt if they can see beyond their hate any more than some of us can. But for our own humanity.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Bonzo, are you really not aware that Israel has been fighting for its survival since its inception? Are you aware that its neighbors have vowed (and attempted, more than once) to push it into the sea? I wish it really were as cut-and-dried, "Israel is evil and the poor Palestinians are SO oppressed" as you portray it. The fact is that it's not. The Palestinians are guilty of crimes against humanity (so saith Human Rights Watch, if you don't believe me), too. If the US changes its stance to become wholly supportive of Palestine, it will be as wrong in that as it is to unconditionally support Israel's actions. And, for the billionth time, it still wouldn't change al Qaeda's stated aims of getting rid of all the Americans and the Jews. Al Qaeda's motives have nothing to do with that. They only began using Palestine as an excuse when it suited them.

Back when western citizens were being kidnapped in the Middle East, a few Soviets were, too. However, the Soviets KNEW what kind of dogs they were dealing with, and spoke in a language they understood. The Soviets extracted a member of the terrorist group that claimed responsibility for the kidnappings and demanded that their people be returned. When that didn't happen, they sent the member back. Various pieces in various boxes delivered to various members. No more Soviets went missing after that. They learned a lesson we don't seem to be able to comprehend -- you don't negotiate with terrorists.
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Verily, verily,
You have heard it said: if someone strikes you on one cheek, turn and offer them the other one also. But I say to you just remember - this isn't just about you, it's about your friends and family too, and they're not Christians, are they? So beat seven kinds of shit out of the bastard.

You have heard it said: if someone asks you to go one mile, go with them two. But I say to you, what sort of a fuckwit are you being pushed around by these evil, and I mean E-fucking-VIL, dogs? You do not negotiate with these rectal bacteria. Armed is unharmed. Shoot the brute.

You have heard it said: love your enemy. Well, that's all very well as an aspiration in your private relationship to God, but it's no way to lead a life, is it? No! I say to you kill your enemy nice and slow, then work out who's going to be your next enemy and kill them too. Don't hang around. There's a whole world of bad guys out there, countries full of them, and if you don't get them first, they're going to get you.

Now the competition, children. This is the gospel according to someone very famous. Can you guess who it is? Someone with a lovely smile . . .
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
It's always fun watching feeding time at the Alligator Pool....
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Well you know, Anselmina, I wouldn't be so annoyed if they could recognize that people of good faith and good will might, just might, come to different conclusions. I mean, Ruth and Karl are two of the biggest bleeding heart liberals on the boards, but I totally respect them and can debate anything with them because they can accept that there really are Christians who disagree with them.

Our buddies Matrix, FCB, hatless and Bonzo put forth the idea that they're the voices of God, which is something that I really do get more than enough of already, living where I do. They are loathe to admit that some of us might be Christians, too, even though we don't agree with their interpretations of things. They ATTEMPT to take the moral high ground (but in reality, they're just as bad at the name-calling as anyone else, at least I am honest and straightforward enough to admit when I do it) but invariably have decided that their way is, in fact, the only way, and the rest of us can't POSSIBLY have arrived a different conclusion through much thought and soul-searching. I think logician said it best on another thread -- the idea that we HAVE listened to their arguments and found them wanting is completely foreign to them. They honestly cannot comprehend it.

Which is really sad and pathetic, so we probably should take pity on them. However, being in the big name clique as I am, I am forced to give them virtual swirlies. It does 'em good.

[ 14. November 2002, 21:50: Message edited by: Erin ]
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Verily, verily,
You have heard it said: if someone strikes you on one cheek, turn and offer them the other one also. But I say to you just remember - this isn't just about you, it's about your friends and family too, and they're not Christians, are they? So beat seven kinds of shit out of the bastard.

You have heard it said: if someone asks you to go one mile, go with them two. But I say to you, what sort of a fuckwit are you being pushed around by these evil, and I mean E-fucking-VIL, dogs? You do not negotiate with these rectal bacteria. Armed is unharmed. Shoot the brute.

You have heard it said: love your enemy. Well, that's all very well as an aspiration in your private relationship to God, but it's no way to lead a life, is it? No! I say to you kill your enemy nice and slow, then work out who's going to be your next enemy and kill them too. Don't hang around. There's a whole world of bad guys out there, countries full of them, and if you don't get them first, they're going to get you.

Now the competition, children. This is the gospel according to someone very famous. Can you guess who it is? Someone with a lovely smile . . .

---

I'm not sure, but my feeble brain detects sarcasm here.
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
I'm not sure, but my feeble brain detects sarcasm here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nosmo:
As a general point, and I intend to offend nobody, the man I am talking about was called Mohandas K Gandhi. Often given the honorific Mahatma. As some are so concerned about spelling, I would appreciate it if we could at least spell names correctly.

Now. The British empire was not concerned with acting in a 'Christian' way whatsoever. That is blatent nonsense. There are countless examples where it exterminated whole races of people, moved others willynilly and held others in absolute poverty so it could obtain cheap raw materials like tea, coffee, rubber etc. There is this myth going about that colonialism was somehow an extention of the church. Rubbish. Read some history.

---

I don't know what the "British Empire" was concerned with. It was a conglomeration that did not think with one mind.

If the British really didn't give a damn about Christianity, why didn't they just kill Gandhi and all his followers?

I agree that many of the colonial administrators were unscrupulous. I think they were restrained by British public opinion. This was possible because the British politicians could not ignore public opinion if they wanted to win elections.

Do you honestly believe that if the Kurds had used Gandhi's tactics, the Iraqis would have refrained from using poison gas on them?

If the Iraqis were willing to use poison gas on their own population, why should they hesitate to use it elsewhere?

Moo

Moo
 

---

Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on :
 
Don't worry about Nosmo and the British Empire. He's obviously read a little history. When you read a lot of history then you realise that, in an imperial sense, the British Empire was quite the most well-intentioned (if not in doing) Empire in history, the only Empire in history that never made a financial profit for the imperial power, the only empire in history to be given up voluntarily (and if you don't believe me then you need to study the Colonial Office Papers from 1936-1964).

That being said a whole lot of the reponses on this thread, in particular those from these sceptred isles, remind me of Mr Chamberlain in 1938. It just happens that this time it is Iraq, rather than Czechoslovakia, that is a far-off country about which we know little. People like Nosmo and Bonzo are quite at liberty to hold their 'Little Englander' views, the view that says unless war is simply about the protection of our own homes from physical invasion by France or Germany then it is evil. Some of us happen to think that in the age of worldwide terrorism there are no such things as territorial borders AND that as a power capable of ridding the people of Iraq from the tyranny of a despot like Saddam Hussain we should do so, just as we protected the people of Sierra Leone from gaining a similar one last year and the people of Kuwait in 1974 and 1991 and just as we should rid the people of Zimbabwe of one also.

Evil is evil whether it threatens us or no. The destruction of evil is just. Self-preservation doesn't matter.

Cosmo
 

---

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Retrospective hosting note

This thread is NOT to be used to discuss Israel and Palestine. There is a perfectly good (if flooged to death ) thread in Dead Horses for that purpose, so put that stuff there.

Got it everyone?

Viki, hellhost
 

---

Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on :
 

quote:

---

It's always fun watching feeding time at the Alligator Pool....

---

quote:

---

What sort of rubbish is this from Cosmo?

People like Nosmo and Bonzo are quite at liberty to hold their 'Little Englander' views, the view that says unless war is simply about the protection of our own homes from physical invasion by France or Germany then it is evil.

---

Go on find where I said that!
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Dear Bonzo
Thanks for thinking my comment 'disgraceful' . I was rather worried that so far I had been a little too rational and calm for hell in my postings on this thread - a little too purgatorial. And actually, the whole thread, in my limited experience of shipboard life has been rather unhellish in the extent of debate and discussion that's gone on, when one reads the introduction to this board.

When I see posters complain about language and ranting and others getting very angry etc, down here in hell, I wonder sometimes if they've bothered to read the introduction. Purgatory is the place if one's skin is a little on the easily roasted side.

And Purgatory is the place to have an earnest worthy debate, but (usually) without the scratchiness of experiencing the depth and extent of people's innermost angst about a subject.

If the sight of that angst is not pretty or comfortable, or is too provocative, or leads one to sin, then one ought to return to the school of correction that is Purgatory. Here in hell, one acknowledges the damnedness of one's cause and expects an unbridled and hell-like response.

I also believe humour - albeit rather twisted humour - is permitted in hell. All in all, I think one is supposed to either deal with it, or leave well alone.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
That being said a whole lot of the reponses on this thread, in particular those from these sceptred isles, remind me of Mr Chamberlain in 1938.
Cosmo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
Viki

Then it can't be used to discus AL Quaeda since the two are too closely linked.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
Minds like Osama Bin Laden's you mean?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nosmo:
...To say that Gandhiism has nothing to say to our situation misunderstands the nature of the philosophy. It was not intended to be something only for the situation in India. It was intended to be something to be used anywhere where there was injustice....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
By the way, I did admire your claim, Erin, to the moral high ground because your name calling is up front and honest, not sneaky and vindictive like mine. Too true.

---

So are you illiterate? No where did I claim the moral high ground, I merely pointed out the hypocrisy in your attempt to claim it.

I commend to you Psalms 58, 70, 83, 92, 109, 129 and 140. I just wish you self-righteous gits would let those who are angry and hurt BE angry and hurt, instead of trying to condemn us for our feelings.

Job's comforters, the whole lot of you, unfeeling hypocrites, and I'm sick and tired of it. Go away.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
Okay tomb, follow closely.

The fact that passive resistance is a good and desirable approach to a conflict does not imply that it is universally applicable. The goodwill on which pacifism relies is not necessarily that of the oppressor himself – it is quite often the goodwill of the bystanding public. This was the certainly the case with King and also, I believe, the case with Gandhi.

Saddam is in a different position altogether. He has no reason to care about public opinion and is therefore free to massacre at will. Bin Laden has the active support of his “public”. The radical Muslim community is most unlikely to be swayed by a display of passive resistance.

That said, I completely agree with you about the prophetic nature of pacifism. My objection is to the suggestion by others that pacifism would be an effective approach to the current problems.

scot
 

---

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 
I, too, am unsure of how "effective" non-violence (note I make a distinction between NV & pacifism) would be in the present situation, Scot.

But utilitarianism has never been one of the criteria by which we judge the effectivness of non-violence--or its inverse.

We do not judge non-violence--or war, for that matter--by its benefit to us. People are going to die if there is a war, and one of the justifications of war--and the death it engenders--has always been that people are "sacrificing" for the future, for a principle, for the greater good. This is implied in St. Thomas Aquinas's definition of a "just" war--that it must be winnable. And this is where non-violence departs from Thomistic theory.

Moreover, evaluation of this sort of struggle is always a retrospective activity. Anything else is jingoism.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
I am pleased to read that you are not suggesting that nonviolence is an effective approach. It would have been painful to attempt to chew on someone as squamous as yourself.

If anyone wishes to attempt principled nonviolence as a response to terrorism, I shall sincerely admire their moral integrity. While I might aspire to such lofty heights, I know full well that I am unprepared to witness the torture and murder of my children or wife at the hands of the bin Ladens of the world. Since I cannot go the distance with nonviolence, I choose active resistance to evil. While the principles on which I elect to stand might not be the gold standard, they are principles nonetheless, and ones with which I can live.

scot
 

---

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 
MOREOVER, a posture of non-violence is much more dynamic that the absence of active hostility.

How many policies result in "outcomes" that are as negative as anything that a war might bring about? Wouldn't it be "violence" if, say, a government policy encouraged women to become pregnant out of wedlock in order to secure housing and food for themselves and, indirectly, their offspring, so that the more children they had, the more financially secure they would be?

In this case, it would be violence against individuals (the mother and her children) as well as violence against the state, inasmuch as its policies promoted instability in the social order leading to violence, crime, and increased financial dependency on the state, thus draining its resources?

(I'm using this example because I know you are a Republican and will resonate with the whole issue of US welfare reform.)

Is this so much different from the policies of our nation and other nations in the West that contribute to the disenfranchisement of large groups of people in other parts of the world? Isn't that violence, even if nobody on our side shoots at them? And is it so surprising that the reaction to violence is always more violence?

And how can that cycle be broken, unless there is a rigorous and compelling alternative?

I submit that such an alternative is non-violence. Not the blathering "all we are saying is 'give peace a chance'" bullshit that people of my generation employed in order to smoke dope and fuck each other.

Non-violence, Scot, is making peace, not avoiding conflict. And that is just as bloody as any wor. But if we're going to die for something, I'd rather it be the potential for a greater joy and not just the inadequate assurance of avoidance of yet more conflict.
 

---

Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
Cosmo
Louise
Do not attempt this at home. I will now, before your very eyes, make a purgatorial argument hellishly. At no time do my fingers leave my hands.

Scriptural arguments allowing corporate, or national violence.
1. The whole OT
2. When Jesus says "He who lives by the sword..." why was one of his disciples carrying a sword in the first place? Why had this not been forbidden him? Why hadn't he learned this in 3 years?
3. Jesus tells the Roman soldier not to take more than his due, be honest, etc. At no point does he say "You can't be a soldier any more."
4. Letter to the Romans -- the authorities do not "wield the sword in vain."
5. The eventual violent overthrow of evil by the armies of heaven.
That's just a beginning.

From Reason:
1. Are policemen okay? Would criminals obey them if there were not implied violence behind them? What's the difference between policemen and soldiers?
2. Do you get to turn someone else's cheek? If you are the ruler of any group of people, from where do you get authority to put others at risk?
3. If the strong do not protect the weak, how will the weak ever get justice?

The repeated assumption that the US is acting in retaliation is unsupported. It's just one of those things people keep saying until other people believe it. Some Americans undoubtedly do want revenge. But we would not put our sons at risk unless we thought there was further danger. We are moving against terrorists in self-protection.

The US, and all democratic nations do try the peaceful solutions first. What the hell do you think has been going on for the last year? Who is it that you think is feeding the poor, bringing medicines, clean water, agricultural techniques, warm clothes? We even give stuff to people who hate us -- and it doesn't change their minds.

Gandhi was a fraud, who believed we should not have opposed the Germans and Japanese in WWII and did nothing to confront them when he had the chance. He confronted the British , who had a long record of trying to solve things peacefully. Ho Chi Minh said "If minister Gandhi had lived in a French colony, he long since would have ascended into heaven."

I grow weary.
 

---

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 
Scot, I wrote that "moreover" postscript before I read your statement:

quote:

---

....I know full well that I am unprepared to witness the torture and murder of my children or wife at the hands of the bin Ladens of the world. Since I cannot go the distance with nonviolence, I choose active resistance to evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by logician:
....The repeated assumption that the US is acting in retaliation is unsupported. It's just one of those things people keep saying until other people believe it.

---

quote:

---

"Logician" continued:
The US, and all democratic nations do try the peaceful solutions first.

---

quote:

---

What the hell do you think has been going on for the last year? Who is it that you think is feeding the poor, bringing medicines, clean water, agricultural techniques, warm clothes? We even give stuff to people who hate us -- and it doesn't change their minds.

---

quote:

---

Gandhi was a fraud, who believed we should not have opposed the Germans and Japanese in WWII and did nothing to confront them when he had the chance. He confronted the British , who had a long record of trying to solve things peacefully. Ho Chi Minh said "If minister Gandhi had lived in a French colony, he long since would have ascended into heaven."

I grow weary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
tomb, your last post illustrates precisely the reason why I am annoyed at the persistent misuse of the word "violence" to describe a thing to which someone objects.

---

quote:

---

If the "American infidels" were in fact torturing and murdering bin Laden's family, I would expect him to react in kind. However, making the substitutions you suggest renders the proposition unfactual. I, like the extreme majority of Americans, British, Australians and other westerners, do not wish to harm or kill anyone. The terrorists, on the other hand, desire our eradication.

---

quote:

---

Interesting that you are now railing against the "cycle of violence" and questioning how it is to be broken. I thought you understood that nonviolence is not an effective tactic?

---

• Matthew 5-7 deals in some detail with the difference Jesus makes, so that appeals to Old Testament wars don't really get you very far.
• The whole "live by the sword. . ." verse doesn't really help your argument, since Jesus says this in the context of forbidding the use of the sword by his disciples. As to why they haven't learned anything in three years, well... there were a lot of things they didn't learn in three years. This is something of a major theme of Mark's Gospel.
• I believe (though I don't have a bible at hand, so I'm subject to correction) that it is John the Baptist who tells the soldiers not to cheat people etc.
• I will grant that Romans 13 says that sometimes the authorities wield the sword as agents of God's justice, but Paul thinks that everything is under God's providence. More importantly, he says nothing here about whether Christians should participate in governmental wielding of the sword. Other early Christian documents seem to indicate that it was thought that this was something Christians ought not to do.
• You win your final point. If God wants to send Michael and the other angels to take out Osama, he's got a big thumbs up from me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

I commend to you Psalms 58, 70, 83, 92, 109, 129 and 140. I just wish you self-righteous gits would let those who are angry and hurt BE angry and hurt, instead of trying to condemn us for our feelings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MatrixUK:
I know it's unusual for me to get hellish, even in Hell, but i can't resist this...

Erin offering scriptures? Does that mean that Erin has become a "bible thumping fundamentalist buttwrench"?

---

quote:

---

I do not think, for one fucking moment that the people resisting the integration movement of the 60s gave up because they were, at heart, "nice people." (Or, perhaps I should write that, "nahse peipul.")

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Oh, and tomb, I really wish that you'd stick to the facts of the argument here on this planet, instead of inventing some alternative universe. Al Qaeda's leaders have not in any way been exploited by the evil capitalist regime, seeing as how they have more money than God.

---

quote:

---

People might then be inclined to give a flying turtle fuck about what you have to say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karin 3:
Erin I guess it's hard for many of us in England to understand how hurt and angry some of you Americans are by what happened on September 11th 2001.

---

ARGH!!!! For Christ's sake, this isn't about September 11. This is about WHAT IS HAPPENING TODAY. Jesus, don't you people watch the news?



[ 15. November 2002, 15:15: Message edited by: Erin ]
 

---

Posted by marmot (# 479) on :
 

quote:

---

My view is by no means unique this side of "the pond". Many Britiish people are suspicious of American propaganda, however friendly Blair may be with Bush. You may not like what I say, but this is how many British people think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karin 3:
Erin I guess it's hard for many of us in England to understand how hurt and angry some of you Americans are by what happened on September 11th 2001.

---

ARGH!!!! For Christ's sake, this isn't about September 11. This is about WHAT IS HAPPENING TODAY. Jesus, don't you people watch the news?

X 8

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karin 3:
My view is by no means unique this side of "the pond". Many Britiish people are suspicious of American propaganda, however friendly Blair may be with Bush. You may not like what I say, but this is how many British people think.

---

Which just goes to show that many of my fellow inhabitants of this Blessed Plot are stupid, guilt-racked, insular cowards who, under the pretence of caring for the worlds peace, care only about their own.

Who cares that Saddam Hussain has systematically oppressed and starved and killed and poisoned his own people? Who cares that he gives succour, support and financial aid to terrorists who see no difference between a middle-aged liberal hand-wringer from Greenwich and shitty-shoed redneck from Mississippi? Who cares that he has been shown to have spent the proceeds of oil that he has been allowed to sell for medicines on his own palaces and weapons programmes?

We should care and we should ensure that we kick him out just as we ought to do in Zimbabwe as well. Evil is evil whether it is in Iraq, Sierra Leone or Zimbabwe and where we are able to do something about it (like we could in Afghanistan) then we should.

As for thinking that somehow the Taleban might have left power in Afghanistan without force.... Words fail me.

Cosmo
 

---

Posted by Professor Yaffle (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Karin3

There appears to be a degree of confusion here about the nature of terrorist movements.

The most worrying terrorist movements are the ones which harness legitimate grievances to what can only be described as 'death worshipping nihilists'.

Now I think that a reasonable case can be made, to the effect that US/ Western foreign policy towards you-know-where is not all that it could be. (One could say more, but discussion of this particular tangent has been referred to Dead Horses). But this case is entirely separable from an analysis of the morals, policy and nature of Al Quaeda, Saddam Hussein, or the Palestinian terrorists whose main contribution to the Middle East Peace Process appears to be the indiscriminate massacre of women and children. This is Islamo-Arab nationalism, expressing itself as nihilism and is about as defensible as it's European and East Asian variants. (See under Stalinism, National Socialism, WWII Japan, Maoism etc.)

There is, of course, an honourable tradition of Christian pacifism which has been ably and admirably represented on this thread by FCB and Tomb and I wish very much that I could subscribe to it. However I think that it is not illegitimate to suggest that in a fallen world, recourse to force is sometimes necessary, if not desirable. The forces ranged against the West represent a clear and present danger and, if one accepts that it is the proper role of government to protect the persons of its citizens, for Western governments to take effective action, including the use of force does really come under the heading of legitimate use of force.

I think that there is a legitimate debate as to what constitutes effective action and that there were differences between the views of the US and European administrations over this issue based on historical experience and geography. But a glib equivalence between the shortcomings of US foreign policy and the murderous intent of Messrs Bin Laden and Hussein et. al. is, to put it mildly, missing the point.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Those of you who know where I live may not be aware that we're a relatively major port in the southeastern US. I have one naval air station, another naval station, and a nuclear submarine base within 50 miles, and again, I work for a name that is quite well-known throughout the world. Considering that our city is not quite as well-known (and therefore well-protected) as the top tier cities such as New York, Boston, etc., as well as the fact that there is a freakin' al Qaeda cell here, I'm not feeling real comfortable at the moment.
 

---

Posted by Professor Yaffle (# 525) on :
 
Preview post is my friend.

My apologies to Karin3 for deciding not to use one of her comments as a peg to hang my thoughts from, whilst leaving her name at the top of my post. Mea Culpa.
 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
Given my admiration for Dr. King, I'd love to think that his witness of non-violence was solely responsible for the success of the civil rights movement in the United States.

But let's face it. Passive resistance alone didn't desegregate the Montgomery Greyhound Bus Station and the University of Mississippi and Little Rock Central High School and the Heart of Dixie Motel and Lester Maddox's Pickrick Restaurant. What did it was passive resistance coupled with a federalized state militia consisting of big honkin' soldiers carrying big honkin' guns riding big honkin' tanks. George Wallace wasn't moved an inch passive resistance, but he sure understood the National Guard surrounding him on the steps of the University of Alabama.

As a pre-conversion Charles Colson once said, "When you've got 'em by the ****s, their hearts and minds will soon follow." I'm not suggesting that as a central tenet of foreign policy toward Iraq and international terrorism, but there's some truth there nonetheless.

That's why I'm more willing to listen with an open mind to pacifists who say that it's a scriptural mandate, as opposed to pacifists who claim that "it works."
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
tomb, violence is an appropriate response to violence (i.e., physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing). Violence is not an appropriate response to name-calling, stealing, lying or any other sort of poor behavior. Aggressive (as opposed to defensive) violence is never permissible. Many of us teach these principles to our children; they are inherent in our legal codes. I’m sure you grasp the fact that the terrorists are engaged in aggressive violence against defenseless noncombatants in response to nonviolent provocations. Yes, I understand that they have been provoked, but that does not justify their tactic.

You are correct that westerners seek their own comfort. So do easterners, northerners and southerners. As anyone who passed Psychology 101 knows, human beings avoid pain. However, it requires an incredibly cynical leap of logic to convert comfort-seeking into willful oppression. Of course abuses happen, but more often than not they are an unintended consequence of an attempt to help someone else. But with regard to US foreign policy, if you are suggesting that we should retreat into isolationism again, you have nearly convinced me.

I’m sure you are not suggesting that nonviolence offers an effective means to world harmony. To do so you would have to stick your head into the sand so far that only your Birkenstocks would show. Nonviolence in the face of a violent aggressor who seeks your complete destruction invites uninhibited slaughter or abject slavery. I suppose after the slaughter there would be harmony, but maybe not of the sort for which you are hoping.

Your commitment to nonviolent resistance is admirable. In fact, I cede you the moral high ground. I certainly hope you are made of stern enough stuff to stick by it in the face of the horrors to which your position will lead, if attempted. As I said before, I choose the high ground I can hold rather than the higher ground from which I would surely fall. I’m not sure why that irritates you so much. Perhaps there is a prescription available which might help you?
 

---

Posted by Karin 3 (# 3474) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karin 3:
Erin I guess it's hard for many of us in England to understand how hurt and angry some of you Americans are by what happened on September 11th 2001.

---

ARGH!!!! For Christ's sake, this isn't about September 11. This is about WHAT IS HAPPENING TODAY. Jesus, don't you people watch the news?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by marmot:

quote:

---

My view is by no means unique this side of "the pond". Many Britiish people are suspicious of American propaganda, however friendly Blair may be with Bush. You may not like what I say, but this is how many British people think.

---

Laura, when you call Jack Kevorkian, please give him my number, too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karin 3:
I have no reason to believe my place of work or neighbourhood are under any real threat of attack...

---

quote:

---

However, I think we have to be careful not let these people "get to us" and make us afraid unnecessarily, or they are already winning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OgtheDim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karin 3:
Erin I guess it's hard for many of us in England to understand how hurt and angry some of you Americans are by what happened on September 11th 2001.

---

ARGH!!!! For Christ's sake, this isn't about September 11. This is about WHAT IS HAPPENING TODAY. Jesus, don't you people watch the news?

X 8

---

Good point Erin. Some people can not react to a potential event, but feel the need to anchor their thoughts with a potential with a past actual event.

Tangent/
It would help if people could, like the public had to do during WW2, look around and ask themselves, in their city/town/area, "Where would a terrorist attack?" Not that we should be setting up "Home Guard" units etc. but...if you start thinking about targets being around you, you think a little more about your own values. I am currently looking out my work windows and see a MAJOR hydro line. Makes me think a bit...

---

quote:

---

I am not as convinced as she is about the reality of a potential threat...

---

Because, you know, a potential threat should only be taken seriously when it actually comes to pass. I mean, it's not like someone telling you they're going to kill you, and doing the same things they did right before they tried to kill you the last time, is reason to believe that hey! they might try to kill you.



[ 15. November 2002, 16:47: Message edited by: Erin ]
 

---

Posted by Karin 3 (# 3474) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karin 3:
My view is by no means unique this side of "the pond". Many Britiish people are suspicious of American propaganda, however friendly Blair may be with Bush. You may not like what I say, but this is how many British people think.

---

Which just goes to show that many of my fellow inhabitants of this Blessed Plot are stupid, guilt-racked, insular cowards who, under the pretence of caring for the worlds peace, care only about their own.

Who cares that Saddam Hussain has systematically oppressed and starved and killed and poisoned his own people? Who cares that he gives succour, support and financial aid to terrorists who see no difference between a middle-aged liberal hand-wringer from Greenwich and shitty-shoed redneck from Mississippi? Who cares that he has been shown to have spent the proceeds of oil that he has been allowed to sell for medicines on his own palaces and weapons programmes?

We should care and we should ensure that we kick him out just as we ought to do in Zimbabwe as well. Evil is evil whether it is in Iraq, Sierra Leone or Zimbabwe and where we are able to do something about it (like we could in Afghanistan) then we should.

As for thinking that somehow the Taleban might have left power in Afghanistan without force.... Words fail me.

Cosmo

---

quote:

---

a stupid, guilt-racked, insular coward who, under the pretence of caring for the worlds peace, care only about their own.

---

quote:

---

I am not as convinced as she is about the reality of a potential threat and I am really not about to start looking for a "Red under my bed", which is basically what you are suggesting. I think we are less alarmist over here! We also prefer to consider people innocent until proven guilty, rather than the other way around. What good is a posthumous pardon to anyone? In case you don't get it, that was a reference to Bush's attitude to Sadam and Iraq

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Oh yeah -- this is the time when all the candy-assed terrorist appeasers should start sending you private messages about how you're wasting your breath, Karin. Pay attention to them. You are.

---

That is so sad. What hope is there for world peace if you are representative of American Christians?
 

---

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :
 
Hey..Karin....pardon me if a tape mentioning various countries by name gives me pause for thought NOW. And, I, for one, look at potential targets around me in order to ......surprise....redouble my social justice stances and efforts.



Geez...just because I agree with Erin on something does not make me agree with Erin on everything.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
About as much hope as there is if you are representative of British intelligence.
 

---

Posted by Ultraspike (# 268) on :
 
I'm actually more worried about Texas getting hit now than New York. Houston's hospitals (where my niece works) have been named as a target and there's also lots of explosive things like oil refineries there, not to mention Pere Bush. Wouldn't that be a great target for Saddam and bin Laden? I pray to God for all of us, however, because it could happen anywhere. And that's exactly where the terrorists want us: living in a state of fear, never quite feeling safe anywhere. I'm not an alarmist and don't think twice about walking through Grand Central twice a day on my commute, but right now it's like waiting for the ax to fall. And for further amusement, check out today's Post for a not-so-far-fetched link between Saddam and bin Laden.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Oops, sorry, Og, didn't see you standing there. That was directed to Karin.

Believe me, Og and I have done the knock down drag out thing before. If he (I presume you're a he) agrees with me on anything, it's that we all need oxygen to survive. I don't see much else we have in common.
 

---

Posted by Karin 3 (# 3474) on :
 
Erin, take a puff on the peace pipe and tell me, how does your Christian faith inform your reaction to the "terrorist threat"? I really would like to know, because I am puzzled by professing Christians holding a view such as yours. I know you are not unique, and I'm not suggesting all Christians must be 100% pacisifist, but I find it really hard to understand where you are coming from as a Christian.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
What part of "they're trying to kill us and they should be stopped" is so difficult to understand?
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
Anyone who doesn't understand why Americans are worried should read Presleyterian's post of 15 November 16:54.

Read, mark, learn and inwardly digest.

Moo
 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
Karin: Erin is -- as you so charmingly spelled is -- a "pacisifist." With the emphasis on the "fist."

You're certainly free to disagree, but any number of Church fathers and Christian scholars have posited that self-defense is fully scriptural, as is forceful action to subvert the hostile intentions of an aggressor.

So yes, if I'm being attacked by an aggressor who has vowed to kill me, I'll fight back to prevent him from carrying out his threat. Or if I see a thug on the street beating up another person, I'd like to think that yes, I will enter the fray in defense of the weaker person.

And if that makes me a lousy Christian in your eyes, Karin, then I'll bear your opprobrium with pride.
 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
And, of course, I meant that "is" as an "it." Always a great move in a sentence about spelling. At least I didn't give Laura a coronary by using its'.
 

---

Posted by duchess [green] (# 2764) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karin 3:
Erin, take a puff on the peace pipe and tell me, how does your Christian faith inform your reaction to the "terrorist threat"? <snip!>

---

Telling Erin to go smoke crack-pipe is not going to help any of us!
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
I must say I have wandered around the Internet and read a board that is primarily comprised of sane people, and they've given me a much-needed laugh on this subject. Now I have this image of Bobby Trendy going on and on about the FABULOUS and LUXURIOUS attack planned.
 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
[tangent]

Not to mention a few of Bobby "The Lipgloss King" Trendy's other catch phrases: Eeeeeeelegant, Exquiiiiisite, and Laaahhhhvissshhhh.

I assume tomb's hired Bobby Trendy and Doug "Pretty Boy" Wilson of "Trading Spaces" to redo his Fortress of Solitude in pink satin and faux leopard fur.

[/tangent]

Now back to our tres opuuuuullllehhhnt discussion of geopolitical security.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
And, of course, I meant that "is" as an "it." Always a great move in a sentence about spelling. At least I didn't give Laura a coronary by using its'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Karin: Erin is -- as you so charmingly spelled is -- a "pacisifist." With the emphasis on the "fist."

You're certainly free to disagree, but any number of Church fathers and Christian scholars have posited that self-defense is fully scriptural, as is forceful action to subvert the hostile intentions of an aggressor.

So yes, if I'm being attacked by an aggressor who has vowed to kill me, I'll fight back to prevent him from carrying out his threat. Or if I see a thug on the street beating up another person, I'd like to think that yes, I will enter the fray in defense of the weaker person.

And if that makes me a lousy Christian in your eyes, Karin, then I'll bear your opprobrium with pride.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nosmo:
Here we see the root of many problems.

I [my group, religion, family, colour] represent truth.

This other group is evil. They deserve to die.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nosmo:
Here we see the root of many problems.

I [my group, religion, family, colour] represent truth.

This other group is evil. They deserve to die.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karin 3:
<snip!> From what I hear Bush and his supporters seem to paint everything in black and white, forgetting that there are good Iraqis, Muslims etc as well as good Americans and Christians and also thinking that when America bombs innocent women, children and other civilians that's always excusable. I know not all Americans see it this way, but that does seem to be the tone of the US propaganda machine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karin 3:
Thank you, a sensible reply to my comment. I hope you appreciate that I do not hear every speech Bush makes and I can only go by what I hear reported. I hope you also notice I was careful to use the word "seem".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karin 3:
I hope you appreciate that I do not hear every speech Bush makes and I can only go by what I hear reported.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nosmo:
Here we see the root of many problems.

I [my group, religion, family, colour] represent truth.

This other group is evil. They deserve to die.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karin 3:
I hope you appreciate that I do not hear every speech Bush makes and I can only go by what I hear reported.

---

Spot the person who reads 'The Guardian' to much.

Ps For the non-British readers the Guardian is a left wing quality paper.

---

That is not the newspaper we read.
 

---

Posted by Karin 3 (# 3474) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karin 3:
Thank you, a sensible reply to my comment. I hope you appreciate that I do not hear every speech Bush makes and I can only go by what I hear reported. I hope you also notice I was careful to use the word "seem".

---

Actually, Karin, what's remarkable about Bush (for whom I did not vote) is the consistency with which he has insisted upon the wrongness of equating the terrorists with Muslims in general. He has said this many times, even though there are those in his party who think them all the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
So, again, perhaps you could point to a quote wherein Bush or any of the US leaders have condemned all of Islam, etc. If you're going to claim that as justification of your opposition, you should at least be able to provide a cite. "I heard such-and-such" demonstrates an appalling gullibility. You would do well to find out things for yourself, rather than rely on third hand information.

---

Erin, I glean my information from newspapers, the radio and occasional articles on the internet and very rarely, the tv. I form my opinions over time, so I can't pinpoint any specific article or quote. I see the purpose of argument/discussion as a way of testing and refining my opinions, not an excuse to be abusive. If I had couched my opinions in more cautious language, would I have elicited so much feedback? I don't think so. I must say that the predictability of your reaction is becoming a little tedious, though, Erin.

I have formed my opinions by giving the matter a certain amount of thought and I also look at what is actually happening: for instance the Aid that America, Britain and others promised Afghanistan, which from reports I have seen does not seem to be materialising, or at least not on the necessary scale. I appreciate those who are able to respond with their own thoughtful reasoning for the opinions they hold.
 

---

Posted by Karin 3 (# 3474) on :
 
Presleytarian, I interpret that passage differently from you. I see Jesus coming to overthrow oppression etc in a non-violent way and calling me to do likewise.

Those of you who are afraid are behaving in a natural way for human beings to behave and perhaps as you cannot literally fight or flee the threat, your verbal violence in places here (from some,not all) helps you to handle those fears. I have every sympathy for you. But I would be interested to know where Jesus is in your picture of the situation. Or perhaps your Jesus is a warrior urging you into battle.

My Jesus asks me to do what I can't be sure I would be able to do, but he is there to support me and help me in the task. Obviously there continue to be inconsistencies in my life as a Christian, and it is in discussing my beliefs that they can be highlighted, so this discussion has given me things to ponder.

For the record, Presleytarian, my male kid is more able to defend himself than I am, although perhaps you are bigger and beefier than me?
 

---

Posted by Professor Yaffle (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Karin3:

quote:

---

Those of you who are afraid are behaving in a natural way for human beings to behave and perhaps as you cannot literally fight or flee the threat, your verbal violence in places here (from some,not all) helps you to handle those fears. I have every sympathy for you. But I would be interested to know where Jesus is in your picture of the situation. Or perhaps your Jesus is a warrior urging you into battle.

My Jesus asks me to do what I can't be sure I would be able to do, but he is there to support me and help me in the task. Obviously there continue to be inconsistencies in my life as a Christian, and it is in discussing my beliefs that they can be highlighted, so this discussion has given me things to ponder.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Spot the person who reads 'The Guardian' to much. Ps For the non-British readers the Guardian is a left wing quality paper.

---

quote:

---

But they are a miniscule problem compared to the problems that you and I cause.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
So, in other words, Karin, you admit to relying on thirdhand information. If you acquire your information through the Internet, there are plenty of places where you can get it firsthand, instead of relying on others to interpret it and hand feed it to you. Your responses are quite predictable, and nothing I haven't heard in my four-plus years on this bulletin board from the insular Brits who refuse to think outside their expectations.

---

quote:

---

Regarding your continued appeal to "where is Jesus in all of this", I will say this: I cannot follow a savior who would command me to stand by and watch others be murdered for the sake of my having a clean conscience. If I'm honest here, that's a coward's reaction. To stand by and watch others die while I am comfortably cocooned in self-righteous Christianity is the very antithesis of everything I know about God. And, luckily, not one person has ever been able to convince me that that's what Jesus actually wants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I am not going to discuss this with you any further

---

quote:

---

"For the record, Presleytarian, my male kid is more able to defend himself than I am..."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Karin wrote:

quote:

---

"For the record, Presleytarian, my male kid is more able to defend himself than I am..."

---

Lucky for him, since obviously his mother's not going to lift a finger in his defense. Wouldn't want to sully her conscience and all.

And by the way, Karin, re your "insular Americans" comment, I was born in Europe and lived there off and on over the years. For how long were you a resident of the United States?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomb:
...Non-violence as a philosophy is anything but pragmatic. At its heart, it is prophetic, and well we know what they do to prophets. They did it to Martin, and they did it to Bobby Kennedy....

---

Bobby Kennedy -- that calculating, law-breaking, do-unto-others-before-they-do-unto-you, womanizing, enemy-threatening, son-of-privilege cynical weasel -- a PROPHET?

Good Lord, deliver us.



Rossweisse // not a fan
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karin 3:
So, Presleytarian, what would you do if your son or anyone else was being attacked by "a thug"? Perhaps you should imagine it happening in England, as it is against the law here to carry a weapon of any description. You do make a lot of assumptions!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
BANG!

At her request marmot's been prevented from inadvertently offending anyone else (unless her remains are disposed of in an oppressive manner).

Can I be next, since I don't think I can live with all of this guilt?

---

BANG!

There you go, Scot.

The burden of being a Western imperialist war-mongering environment-destroying racist sexist ageist oppressor is just too much. Trying to strike down terrorism before it takes anymore innocent lives -- the nerve! Where does the US get off trying to defend its citizens? How VERY unChristian of us to endorse protecting the innocent.



Okay, I'm next.

Rossweisse // just overwhelmed by our Badness
 

---

Posted by Karin 3 (# 3474) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I am not going to discuss this with you any further until you STOP TALKING ABOUT IRAQ, which is NOT WHAT THIS DISCUSSION IS ABOUT.

Jesus H Christ, how many times do I have to say this?

---

So sorry, Erin, I had forgotten that Iraq is a four letter word. It seemed relevant to me, but then I'm only an "insular Brit", so what could I possibly know about it.

I haven't read the report from Interpol, btw, nor do I have any intention of doing so, just as I have no intention of looking in the Family Health Encyclopaedia to see if I might possibly have some life threatening illness. Erin I really think you should stop and consider how likely it is that you are to be the victim of a terrorist attack. Sorry to disappoint you, but statistically you are much more likely to die of cancer or a heart-attack, or the American equivalent of being knocked down by the no.9 bus.

If you call the report from Interpol first hand information you can keep it. If you think I have nothing better to do with my time than search the internet for such things you are very much mistaken. Have you considered why Interpol publish the information they do on the internet? Do you think it's merely a kindness to American citizens to warn them of real and imminent danger? I really doubt it.

You may be interested in this extract from an article in Tuesday's Independent, it might help you to adopt a more sensible attitude to this supposed terrorist threat (that is not intended as sarcasm, I merely do not consider the threat to be as real as you obviously do):

quote:

---

Tony Blair prepared the Brisitish public last night for the "pain" of terrorist attacks by al-Qa'ida but warned that the world would only defeat terrorism by political as well as security co-operation.......
....... While calling for the public to be vigilant, he highlighted the "dilemma" facing the Government over when to issue specific warnings. Some MPs believe he issued the general warning so the Government could say people had been warned if an attack took place. Stressing that a "balance" had to be struck, Mr Blair said he would have shut roads, railways, airports, stations, shopping centres, factories and military installations on many occasions if he had acted on every piece of raw intelligence.
"The purpose of terrorism is not just to kill and maim", he said. "It is to scare people, disrupt their normal lives, produce chaos and disorder, distort proper and sensible decision making. The dilemma is reconciling warning people without alarming them; taking preventive measures without destroying normal life."....
.....Mr Blair said the international community needed to be unified in its political response. Coalitions of force were stronger when buttressed by a coalition of common ideas.
He added: "The world needs a broader agenda than simply terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. And we need full US engagement and leadership of all of it. President Bush recognises that." ......
........ So there was a need to "reach out" to the Arab and Muslim world. "We need to understand the passion and anger the state of the Middle East peace process arouses", he said. "The answer is not to apportion blame. The answere is to move the process forward: on security, on political reform, on the only viable solution the whole world now supports - an Israeli state, recognised by all, and a viable Palestinian state. And do it quickly. Until this happens, this issue hangs like a dark shadow over our world, chilling our relations with each other, poisoning the understanding of our motives, providing the cover under which the fanatics build strength."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karin 3:
So, Presleytarian, what would you do if your son or anyone else was being attacked by "a thug"? Perhaps you should imagine it happening in England, as it is against the law here to carry a weapon of any description. You do make a lot of assumptions!

---

I'm not Presleyterian, but if I witnessed my son or anyone else (including you!) being violently attacked, I'd intervene. Whether or not I was armed would have no influence beyond choice of tactics.

What many of you fail to understand is that actively opposing evil and protecting the weak is a principled position just like pacifism or nonviolence. The choice of an action is not necessarily based on its likely effectiveness.

scot

---

quote:

---

...it does happen to be true that Americans including some of the Amercian politicians have a reputation for self-interest and a poor knowledge of what lies beyond their shores.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Rea:
I've been looking for this quote for a day or two, forgive me if it is a little over-long:
"It requires great self-denial and resignation of ourselves to God to attain the state wherein we can freely cease from fighting when wrongfully invaded, if by our fighting there were a probability of overcoming the invaders. Whoever rightly attains to it does in some degree feel that spirit in which our Redeemer gave his life for us, and through divine goodness many of our predecessors, and many now living, have learned this blessed lesson; but many others having their religion chiefly by education, and not being enough acquainted with that Cross which crucifies to the world, do manifest a temper distinguishable from that of an entire trust in God"

Sorry, I did say it went on a bit.

It was written, not by any of the European liberals so disliked by Erin, but by a resident of Mount Holly, New Jersey.

---

quote:

---

I appreciate that this is not true of all Americans, it is a shame that Erin cannot appreciate that such generalisations are not true in all cases.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karin 3:
I don't pretend to be an expert on American History and speak only of what I know.

---

quote:

---

Earlier you said but that does seem to be the tone of the US propaganda machine.

---

quote:

---

From what I hear

---

quote:

---

Erin I really think you should stop and consider how likely it is that you are to be the victim of a terrorist attack. Sorry to disappoint you, but statistically you are much more likely to die of cancer or a heart-attack, or the American equivalent of being knocked down by the no.9 bus.

---

A woman of Erin's age is extremely unlikely to die of a heart attack and not very likely to die of cancer.

You say "...statistically you are much more likely...". If statistics show that the average family has 2.3 children, that does not mean that there are any families with 2.3 children.

Somewhere, either on this thread or another one, Erin has stated why she thinks she is at above-average risk. Her reasons seemed to be well thought-out. The shipmates who live in large cities or near military facilities are at much greater risk than those like me who live in more sparsely-populated areas with no miltary bases nearby.

Moo
 

---

Posted by duchess [green] (# 2764) on :
 
I have LIVED IN LONDON. Only 3 months in the Knightsbridge district of London...near Scot's corner off of Brompton Road. It was enough time to know how ignorant I am of all things British, a pity since I am mostly British in my heritage.

I saw though for myself the way the British media twisted and peverted things on their end duing the 1989 earthquake in California. To my amazement, the paper listed "240 people dead". It turned out, not that many people died! When I went back to California, I went back with the knowledge that your media is as messed up as mine!

I have to dig to get facts...read everything to the right and everything to the left to get an idea...and still..I wonder since the media distorts things.

Presleyterian doesn't think she is clever, she KNOWS she is clever...cause SHE IS DARN CLEVER. She is more well-read than either you or I am (I make that assumption since like a lot of people...you did not take debate in highschool and do not understand how important it is to back up your facts with a source). In my debate class, if you could not cite the page of the magazine you got information from for your defense...you were disqualified. Any person can argue from emotion, it is more difficult to present the facts as you see fit...even more citing the source you gleamed the nugget of information from.

Erin may be rough around the edges but she certainly hits the nail on the head about you being isolated in your views. It kind of is a stereotype. To be fair, Americans CAN BE isolated in their beliefs...however on this board I don't see as much of that as I do in real life.

I think I will stop here since I feel like I am wasting my breath here. If you believe everything the British media says...than it is hopeless to educate you.
 

---

Posted by Karin 3 (# 3474) on :
 
Well, there's not much evidence of the ability to debate here. Resorting to personal attack resembles cornered animals rather than people with a strong argument.

Some elements of the British press are prone to distorting the truth others less so. I use great discretion in choosing what to believe. Your own press will also have it's axe to grind and can't always be believed. If you prefer to let fear rule your lives then good luck to you. In the unlikely event that an al-Qa'ida terrorist reads your posts I'm sure they would give him great satisfaction.

Oh, and I have not made any claims that living in Canada gives me any insights into America. I am well aware that the Canadians are quite different people from the Americans. I am also aware the USA is a big place and its peoples differ enormously.

I shall go and discuss things with more reasonable people. I am disappointed in you.




[corrected Karin 3's grammar. "It's" and "Its" are NOT the same word.

[ 18. November 2002, 02:53: Message edited by: tomb ]
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karin 3:
I am disappointed in you.

---

Gee, you're such a respected and long term member of the boards that I must go and commit suicide now.



I'm sorry, who are you again?
 

---

Posted by kenwritez (# 3238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Rea:
I've been looking for this quote for a day or two, forgive me if it is a little over-long:
"It requires great self-denial and resignation of ourselves to God to attain the state wherein we can freely cease from fighting when wrongfully invaded, if by our fighting there were a probability of overcoming the invaders. Whoever rightly attains to it does in some degree feel that spirit in which our Redeemer gave his life for us, and through divine goodness many of our predecessors, and many now living, have learned this blessed lesson; but many others having their religion chiefly by education, and not being enough acquainted with that Cross which crucifies to the world, do manifest a temper distinguishable from that of an entire trust in God"

Sorry, I did say it went on a bit.

It was written, not by any of the European liberals so disliked by Erin, but by a resident of Mount Holly, New Jersey.

---

quote:

---

I shall go and discuss things with more reasonable people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karin 3:
Well, there's not much evidence of the ability to debate here. Resorting to personal attack resembles cornered animals rather than people with a strong argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nosmo:
Seeing as you ask

2.4 Billion people have inadequate sanitation
150 million children are currently malnourished

Dirty water is the biggest killer in the would causing illnesses including

Diarrhoea - 4 billion cases per year, causing 2.2 million deaths (mainly of children under 5)

source: unicef 2001

One person in five is unable to write

source: unesco 1997

This is avoidable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
However, you have failed to do what was actually requested -- namely, prove that I've actually caused those things to happen.

---

But Erin, as an American you are the cause of everything that is wrong with the world. Have you not figured this out already?

Of course, everything that's right with the world is due to Brits triumphing depsite America's opposition and desperate desire to tie us to its apron strings.

[/Sarcasm]

Viki
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
You mean you're not tied to our apron strings? Well damn.
 

---

Posted by Bongo (# 778) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
The European liberal mainstream view (and I have to say that I feel like a rape victim being criticised about her skirt length whenever I run up against it) is that the United States deserves this hatred, and all the connected terrorist activities, that the Palestinians are all nice and cuddly, that the Israelis are bad, and that the terrorists are just misunderstood victims of global capitalism (by which they mean "the United States"), and that the United States probably wasn't even justified in going after Bin Laden.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by logician:
Bongo, I'm glad to hear it isn't. Truly. I would assume if it were widespread, it would come to your attention.

I have encountered several from Durham, and half-a-dozen from London with that view, and that parallels the more radical college towns here in the US -- Ann Arbor, Berkeley, Cambridge. In those places the common opinion is as described above your post.

What I more frequently hear is not the full-throated condemnation by the radicals, but the milk-and-water version of the same thing, which spends seven seconds saying Of course I don't support terrorism but... and then spends seven minutes criticising Bush, the US, and Israel. I don't know how common that is in the UK, but I imagine you have encountered at least some.

Perhaps, as in other things, the more extreme are the people who make the news, and thus give a false impression of their real numbers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karin 3:
I am disappointed in you.

---

Gee, you're such a respected and long term member of the boards that I must go and commit suicide now.



I'm sorry, who are you again?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
And, yet again, I'm crushed. No really.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
...And thinking that discussion boards where a broad spectrum of views can be heard are better than - well, see above.

---

Speaking of "see above," why not direct your virtual feet to Purgatory, where your requirements are far more likely to be met?



This here is Hell, where even American imperialists are allowed to say what they think.

Rossweisse // capitalist running dog
 

---

Posted by duchess [green] (# 2764) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
And, yet again, I'm crushed. No really.

---

Don't flatter yourself that everything from terrorist threats to posts on SoF is all about you. I wasn't thinking about your feelings at all, just reflecting ...<snip!>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
And thinking that discussion boards where a broad spectrum of views can be heard are better than - well, see above.

---

Honeychile, this ain't no reasoned debate type discussion board. This is HELL, and welcome to it. I think you have it confused with Purgatory; that's upstairs to your left (or right as the case may be).
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
...And thinking that discussion boards where a broad spectrum of views can be heard are better than - well, see above.

---

Speaking of "see above," why not direct your virtual feet to Purgatory, where your requirements are far more likely to be met?



This here is Hell, where even American imperialists are allowed to say what they think.

Rossweisse // capitalist running dog

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
...Or is that what hell is? Unchecked American Imperialism? It certainly fits with my prejudices, (although I must admit the truth is often a little different.)

---

No, actual Hell is actually unchecked mindless liberal sophistry, run amok.

At least, that's one of my personal definitions thereof. (I have more.)

In THIS version of Hell, we can all say what we think, which makes it truly hellish only to some.



Rossweisse // who also believes that, in the real Hell, out-of-tune guitars and vocalists (as opposed to singers) bang out revoltingly simplistic praise music nonstop
 

---

Posted by Eanswyth (# 3363) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
who also believes that, in the real Hell, out-of-tune guitars and vocalists (as opposed to singers) bang out revoltingly simplistic praise music nonstop

---

Oh No!!! I'm going to confession tomorrow! I'll be good. I promise. Please don't send me there.
 

---

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 

quote:

---

Karin 3 wrote:
...Looky here, Scot and anyone else who thinks that I have no desire to intervene to protect others from violence. You are barking up the wrong tree. I do not think I would be justified in taking another's life, but that isn't the same thing. As it happens I spend a fair part of my time at work intervening to protect children from violence by other children, but that doesn't require much courage as the most that is likely to happen in most cases is that I get a bruised shin.....

---

quote:

---

from Scot

First, your post was nonresponsive in that it failed to offer any of the requested proof. You might have at least included some invalid and easily disproven "evidence" to support your position. In failing to do so, you appear to be both silly and boring.

Second, you do not seem to understand the concept of causation. Even if the western nations are guilty of failure to attempt prevention of your list of maladies (a proposition which is far from accurate), they are in no way the cause of the problems. Inadequate food supplies cause malnutrition. Shitting in the stream causes dirty water which, in turn, causes diarhea. Lack of schooling or lack of interest cause illiteracy. Even if you look at the causes of the inadequate food supply, lack of proper sanitation and absence of schools, you will find local, rather than western, causes.

In summary, keep your angst to yourself. I am not the cause of the world's problems.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
hatless, my sig line isn't a joke. I mean it very sincerely. There are people who bring nothing to the conversation and would do the world a favor if they'd just shut their freakin' traps.

---

quote:

---

Posted by Erin

Can I shut you up? No, but that doesn't affect my fervent prayer that you will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by logician:
Bongo, I'm glad to hear it isn't. Truly. I would assume if it were widespread, it would come to your attention.

I have encountered several from Durham, and half-a-dozen from London with that view, and that parallels the more radical college towns here in the US -- Ann Arbor, Berkeley, Cambridge. In those places the common opinion is as described above your post.

What I more frequently hear is not the full-throated condemnation by the radicals, but the milk-and-water version of the same thing, which spends seven seconds saying Of course I don't support terrorism but... and then spends seven minutes criticising Bush, the US, and Israel. I don't know how common that is in the UK, but I imagine you have encountered at least some.

Perhaps, as in other things, the more extreme are the people who make the news, and thus give a false impression of their real numbers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
Moo, that's a straw man and you know it. Perhaps you might like to go to Christian Aid's web site to discover how western policies do have negative impact on poor countries. It's a bit more complicated than your straw man version.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
Oh, and I meant to add, I don't think anyone's presented any evidence that people crapping in drinking water is a major cause of disease in the third world. I have a suspicion it isn't. The water is unsafe enough without people crapping in it.

---

One of the few accurate things Nosmo posted was that contaminated water supplies kill more people than just about anything else. Granted, Crapping in the stream is the ne plus ultra of improper sanitation. Sometimes the contamination is more indirect, but it amounts to the same thing.

Here is an article on the subject from the website of Lifewater, one of my favorite charitable organizations.
 

---

Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
No, Nosmo did not at any point state that having a fridge makes people shit in the stream. Moo's response was therefore a straw man. Nosmo, unfortunately, did not make clear what the links between the West and third world poverty actually are.

You want specifics on Christian Aid's site? Here's a link to some Bleeding Heart Liberal Pinko Commie Drivel on the site, about trade. You may find it enlightening. Or a load of drivel, if you prefer. As a registered Bleeding Heart Pinko Commie Bastard, Christian Aid is my pet charity.

The way people are responding to each other on this thread convinces me that we are all responding to what we want the other side to have said (in order to crush them with devastating logic) rather than what they actually did say. Or, in a sadly large number of cases, probably meant to say.
 

---

Posted by Nosmo (# 3330) on :
 
Erm... so what about the number of countries that produce more food for export than they use for internal consumption? I don't know about the USA, but we certainly are dependant on many countries from around the world for the products we use. Many of those countries have internal problems with food production distribution and consumption.

As a matter of fact, many countries are encouraged by macro economic policies to increase exports to gain money to pay off debts. As a result, countries grow cash crops in preference to food for internal consumption.

Perhaps you would care to share what qualifications you have to make the statements you do. I have postgraduate qualifications in soil management so I have some basis for the statements I make.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
No specific examples or facts which can be examined. Shifting the focus away from the issue at hand and onto "qualifications". You are really getting the hang of this Hell thing, Nosmo!

By the way, is "postgraduate qualifications" a code phrase for "I'll finish up my thesis one of these days"?
 

---

Posted by Nosmo (# 3330) on :
 
OK tell me what facts you want.

As a matter of fact I completed and passed my postgraduate degree.
 

---

Posted by duchess [green] (# 2764) on :
 
I have been choking on my coffee God help me, laughing a this thread since there comes a point you either lose it or laugh...

My Rev. granda Fred and my grandma Ruth, God rest their souls, were total pacifists to my knowledge. My Rev. grandpa Fred joined the military as a chaplain, even though he was a member of the peace party in the USA, and he also helped run orphanges in Germany, France and later on..Puerto Rico (where my dad got a love for music like Brazil 66 and still hasn't stopped torturing us all with it to this day).

I respect my grandpa because he as we say here...put his money where his mouth was. He didn't lecture everyone how to live their lives, he just showed them by example.

I respect people who live their lives by their principals. If you are against hurting animals, you'd better not wear leather. If you want to blather on about how the USA uses too much water..oil...electricity...etc...then go live in a shotgun shack out in timbauck too. Only then will you make sense.

Look, does anyone remember "Feed the World...let them know it's Christmas Time" with Sir Bob Geldoff? If not, then I will have to explain to you why I brought that up. Very sad result AFTER he brought all that food...
 

---

Posted by Bongo (# 778) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by logician:

Bongo, I'm glad to hear it isn't. Truly. I would assume if it were widespread, it would come to your attention.

I have encountered several from Durham, and half-a-dozen from London with that view... What I more frequently hear is not the full-throated condemnation by the radicals, but the milk-and-water version of the same thing, which spends seven seconds saying Of course I don't support terrorism but... and then spends seven minutes criticising Bush, the US, and Israel.

---

Bloody hell. If people really do say that to you then they're being very tactless.

For the record, I'm a moderate bleeding-heart liberal commie pinko bastard. I have a subscription to the New Statesman (classic left-wing current affairs magazine) and read the Guardian (drippy leftie liberal newspaper) every day. I even went on the anti-war march in London in September. Verily, I am a GLL.

I am full of criticism for Bush, and the Israeli government, but that is nothing compared to my loathing for terrorism. (And sometimes I can't believe I even have to spell that out.) I honestly think I'm a normal, MOR liberal in this regard - as far as I can judge, from the editorials I read and the people I talk to. Of course, you might regard this as a "milk-and-water version of the same thing", in which case: well, words fail me.

Peace and lurve, people.

Bongo
 

---

Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on :
 

quote:

---

You want specifics on Christian Aid's site? Here's a link to some Bleeding Heart Liberal Pinko Commie Drivel on the site, about trade. You may find it enlightening. Or a load of drivel, if you prefer. As a registered Bleeding Heart Pinko Commie Bastard, Christian Aid is my pet charity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess [green]:
Look, does anyone remember "Feed the World...let them know it's Christmas Time" with Sir Bob Geldoff? If not, then I will have to explain to you why I brought that up. Very sad result AFTER he brought all that food...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karin 3:
...yes I do remember "Feed the World". I have a feeling the proceeds weren't handled in the wisest of manners, unfortunately...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
I don't think anyone's presented any evidence that people crapping in drinking water is a major cause of disease in the third world. I have a suspicion it isn't. The water is unsafe enough without people crapping in it.

---

Scot has now, with the link to the Lifewater article. The first three water-borne diseases it lists are "strongly related to unsanitary excreta disposal."

Unsanity excreta disposal is probably also the reason this thread is going the way it is.
 

---

Posted by Bongo (# 778) on :
 
OgtheDim: fair point, but in my defence, I only got involved in this thread because Laura's mischaracterisation of European liberals made me angry. Nosmo (and Qlib) 'started it' (hijacking the thread, I mean).

Getting back to the spirit of the OP: did any non-Brits among you hear about the three men who were arrested for (allegedly) planning a poisoned gas attack on the London tube?? I'm scared. Shit scared for my friends who live in London. It's not a question of if, but when.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
I think it's really hysterical that a bunch of liberals hijack a thread and then get all pissy and intolerant and wonder why they get no responses to their hijacks.

Yours ever,
Erin (neither a liberal NOR a conservative, thank you very much)
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bongo:
Getting back to the spirit of the OP: did any non-Brits among you hear about the three men who were arrested for (allegedly) planning a poisoned gas attack on the London tube?? I'm scared. Shit scared for my friends who live in London. It's not a question of if, but when.

---

Yes, I did. And it was tempting to post it and go HA TOLD YOU! but I did not.

Instead, I just thanked God that they were caught before they were able to do it. What a disaster.
 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
Bongo wrote:

quote:

---

I only got involved in this thread because Laura's mischaracterisation of European liberals made me angry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nosmo:

quote:

---

from Scot
Second, you do not seem to understand the concept of causation. Even if the western nations are guilty of failure to attempt prevention of your list of maladies (a proposition which is far from accurate), they are in no way the cause of the problems. Inadequate food supplies cause malnutrition. Shitting in the stream causes dirty water which, in turn, causes diarhea. Lack of schooling or lack of interest cause illiteracy. Even if you look at the causes of the inadequate food supply, lack of proper sanitation and absence of schools, you will find local, rather than western, causes.

In summary, keep your angst to yourself. I am not the cause of the world's problems.

---

I'm sorry. I was under the impression that some people here actually cared about the state of the world. Quite clearly you don't give a fuck, to use your parlance.

Simply having a roof over your head, clean water to drink, sanitation and decent food puts you in a minority in the world. I am willing to bet that most of you have a university education (as I do) putting you into a smaller bracket. Most of you drive a car. Most of you own a fridge, a TV, take foreign holidays, etc. You are in a minority of a few hundred million people, as I am. Now. The fact is that this small group of people use over 75% of the worlds resources.
<snip>
Scot, your post makes me sick. How dare you accuse people living in absolute poverty of causing their own problems.

---

quote:

---

Erin I really think you should stop and consider how likely it is that you are to be the victim of a terrorist attack. Sorry to disappoint you, but statistically you are much more likely to die of cancer or a heart-attack, or the American equivalent of being knocked down by the no.9 bus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Bongo wrote:

quote:

---

I only got involved in this thread because Laura's mischaracterisation of European liberals made me angry.

---

Just as European liberals' mischaraterization of Americans -- liberal, conservative, and in between -- makes me angry. Stereotyping's a bitch, I think we can all agree.

---

Hear hear.
 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
Of course, I should have written: "for Laura, ChastMastr, and me in Washington..."
 

---

Posted by Karin 3 (# 3474) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Some posts back, Guess Who declared "I shall go and discuss things with more reasonable people." And yet Karin 3 remains among us -- which leads to two alternate conclusions: 1) there's not much credibility in what she says; or 2) we've suddenly become "more reasonable."

But getting back to her comments on the OP, she wrote:

quote:

---

Erin I really think you should stop and consider how likely it is that you are to be the victim of a terrorist attack. Sorry to disappoint you, but statistically you are much more likely to die of cancer or a heart-attack, or the American equivalent of being knocked down by the no.9 bus.

---

I don't think Erin was expressing a belief that she personally was the likely target of an attack, but rather that her locale -- adjacent to a strategic military installation -- is a potential target. Her concern was for her community and her nation, which strikes me as a reasoned and unselfish attitude.

Perhaps you feel invulnerable "somewhere near Guildford," and perhaps it's unlikely that Guildford is a potential target (although anyplace reasonably close to London should probably be concerned). But is it so tough to understand that for Laura, ChastMastr, and I in Washington; for Moo, who has family here; for Ultraspike and nicolerw in New York; and for Motherboard in western Pennsylvania, the concerns aren't fanciful. They're very real simply because it's already happened once in our backyards.

Perhaps your own scope of concern ends with your personal safety (I find that hard to believe, however), but most of us have a larger interest -- the security of all members of our community, not just the ones we know.

---

Presleytarian, I don't know if you have the phrase in the US, but here it is said that it is a woman's perogative to change her mind. Perhaps someone has helped me to see you in a different light. Will that satisfy you?

As far as the terrorist threat is concerned, perhaps I was a bit dismissive and events over here at the weekend have confirmed that. I apologise that I did rather jump into this discussion earlier without thinking.

There are several factors that perhaps make it difficult for us to understand things from each other's perspective. I may be wrong, but I imagine Americans have felt pretty safe from attack by foreigners in the past and many Americans, possibly including your good selves are still suffering from the shock of realising that you are not as inviolable as you thought. I think it is very easy for us in Western countries to forget our own mortality and I know it is quite devastating to have it brouhgt home.

In this country, however, the threat of terrorist attack is nothing new. In the 1980's this was a constant threat. Working in a government building fairly near London and not so far from military establishments we were often warned to be vigilant for suspicous bags and packages.
It is something those of us old enough to remember have learnt to live with. I guess we have worked out coping mechanisms as it is not desirable to live in a state of constant fear and panic.

Of course it would be awful if the terrorists do attack, and I am very sorry you feel so worried by this threat. I'm sorry if I came across as unsympathetic, but I was perhaps rather clumsily and maybe even misguidedly trying to reassure Erin, that she shouldn't worry too much.

Karin
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
No, they won't find it enlightening because they'll think it's Bleeding Heart Pinko Commie Drivel. There's no talking to these people.

Now what they'll tell you to do, if you want a reasoned discussion, is to start a thread in purgatory. But, guess what! Someone will deliberately misinterpret your Commie Drivel over there too. Things will get too heated, so it'll get booted down to hell as quick as anything.

You actually can't have a reasoned debate with these people, Not here or in purgatory, and not, it seems, in real life.

The only way to deal with these Bloodthirsty Warmongers is to shoot 'em and bomb 'em. Haven't you understood that yet? Or maybe we could get a couple of passenger jet planes...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karin 3:
I don't know if you have the phrase in the US, but here it is said that it is a woman's perogative to change her mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
I am not indifferent to the plight of the third world, but I have very strong feelings about people who carelessly spread germs around. I come from a family with many doctors, some in public health. During my childhood I was taught that everyone should keep their germs to themselves as far as they are able.

Moo

---

Actually Moo, and others, I tend to agree. However, life in countries where these diseases are common is more complicated than you suggest. Its is very difficult to keep your dirty water from your clean water when you don't have efficient drains. And thats a fault of not having enough infrastructure. And thats a fault of the countries not having enough money to spend on infrastructure. And thats partly the fault of the crippling amounts of debt they have to pay. I'm not going to get into discussions on the origins of the debt crisis, but will supply more information if anyone is interested.

[Preview post is there for a reason. So use it.]

[ 18. November 2002, 22:22: Message edited by: sarkycow ]
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Not from a fear-mongering US government.

Setting aside the corporate sins of any country, this is just wrong, and there's no excuse or reason for it. And the fact that they're jumping on every bandwagon in sight is detestable -- it reminds me of Alan Rickman's character in Die Hard.
 

---

Posted by Ultraspike (# 268) on :
 
Several years ago, before terrorism was a big concern, someone published a book which stated that a woman over 40 had more chance of getting killed by terrorists than of ever getting married. I guess that's even truer now.
 

---

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :
 
One point of the article Erin printed. The list of 22 Canadian targets was apparently a figment of a scribe's imagination.

A bit of undigested chewing gum perhaps? Methinks I would prefer the ghost of Christmas Past....please.
 

---

Posted by Karin 3 (# 3474) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karin 3:
I don't know if you have the phrase in the US, but here it is said that it is a woman's perogative to change her mind.

---

We have the phrase in the US, and as a woman it has always just completely PISSED ME OFF

---

That's your perogative, Ruth.

I hope you appreciated that it was meant to be a joke.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Bongo wrote:

quote:

---

I only got involved in this thread because Laura's mischaracterisation of European liberals made me angry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eanswyth:
Oh No!!! I'm going to confession tomorrow! I'll be good. I promise. Please don't send me there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karin 3:
Presleytarian, I don't know if you have the phrase in the US, but here it is said that it is a woman's perogative to change her mind....

---

We have the phrase, but at this point nobody but mindless sexists actually use it. It's dead insulting to women, you know.



Rossweisse // who tries not to make threats she doesn't really intend to carry out
 

---

Posted by Simon (# 1) on :
 
Um, the phrase is not only hackneyed and sexist, it's also a victim of bad spelling. Prerogative.
 

---

Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Logician - the site makes very clear exactly how free marketism has caused increases in poverty. It did not try to merely argue post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I stand corrected on the water issue. Can't know everything.

Sorry you're not impressed. I am very impressed with an organisation that seeks to eradicate the causes as well as the fact of world poverty. For me, that is working for the Kingdom of God.
 

---

Posted by Karin 3 (# 3474) on :
 
Logician, I think you make an interesting point. I think Christian Aid is doing a very good job, but they may sometimes oversimplify things or press their own point a little too much. It is interesting to hear another perspective.

Karl I support a lot of what Christian Aid is doing (I shan't say I support everything as I don't know about everything they do). However, while I think it is right to aim to eradicat out poverty I can't see that this aim will ever be totally achieved. Jesus himself said that the poor will always be amongst us, but we are called to work for justice and equity.
 

---

Posted by Karin 3 (# 3474) on :
 
Well, I'm new to ship of fools, as I'm sure I don't need to tell anybody. This looked like an interesting discussion and I jumped into it without thinking enough. On reflection I can see that first of all Erin started the thread to express her feelings. I may not agree with what I think is her attitude to the terrorist problem in the world, but she is entitled to her opinion.
I may be frustrated with Bush's attitude, but perhaps this is not the time or the place to express that.

I believe someone posted here earlier that this is not the place for such a discussion and this has been reiterated in an e-mail from a friend.

I apologise for jumping in too quickly before I understood how things work and for any offence I may have caused. I apologise for not thinking things through properly before posting.
It seems that in an attempt to make a joke I have caused further offence. I hadn't seen that comment as sexist. It seemed to me a rather outdated and innocuous remark that was unlikely to be taken seriously. I have known a few American women, but I can see they had quite a different attitude from some of the people that visit these boards and I have a lot to learn.

I also apologise for careless spelling, Simon.

There are probably other things I should apologise for, but that's all I can think of at present.

I repeat that I am very sorry for any offence I have caused. Karin
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
I want to say some more about diseases and their effect on an economy.

A hundred years ago the economy of the American South was in very bad shape. There were many reasons, but the main one was that too many people were so ill they could not work.

The specific diseases that disabled them were pellagra, which is a deficiency disease, malaria, and hookworm. These last two are caused by parasites.

Ninety years ago, the state of Virginia sent my grandfather to eradicate hookworm in two counties in the extreme western part of the state. He treated all the cases of hookworm he found and explained to people how to avoid infection.

Sometime before 1940, the federal government passed a law requiring that cornmeal, which was the Southern dietary staple, have niacin added to it. This wiped out pellagra.

The advent of DDT in the 1940s wiped out malaria.

Finally there was a population healthy enough to work. With the advent of air conditioning people could work hard on extremely hot days. The economy of the South improved greatly.

As far as Africa is concerned, there are many diseases which debilitate people or make them blind. AIDS is a recent problem, of course, but there are older diseases which must be wiped out also.

If people are in poor health, they cannot work.

Moo
 

---

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Dear Karin 3,

Thank you for comprehensive and exhaustive apology. Always so nice to see people taking good advice.

Do continue reading and posting on different threads around the boards.

A word of advice (for everyone really): If you are looking for a reasonable discussion, with points backed up by verifiable fact, and logical steps to all disputes, then visit Purgatory. Hell is for loud, emotive, illogical arguments (among other things). If you can't take the heat...

Viki, hellhost
 

---

Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bongo:
Getting back to the spirit of the OP: did any non-Brits among you hear about the three men who were arrested for (allegedly) planning a poisoned gas attack on the London tube?? I'm scared. Shit scared for my friends who live in London. It's not a question of if, but when.

---

Yes, I did. And it was tempting to post it and go HA TOLD YOU! but I did not.

Instead, I just thanked God that they were caught before they were able to do it. What a disaster.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karin 3:
I have known a few American women, but I can see they had quite a different attitude from some of the people that visit these boards and I have a lot to learn.

---

There are 150 million women in the US. Knowing a few American women is not grounds for generalizing about the rest of us.

RuthW // still trying to get over the shock of agreeing with Rossweisse
 

---

Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Thanks Scot; good work - your thread in Purg has already flushed out one complete and utter fuckwit.

OK, it's one we already knew was a fuckwit.


 

---

Posted by Bongo (# 778) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Bongo wrote:

quote:

---

I only got involved in this thread because Laura's mischaracterisation of European liberals made me angry.

---

Sorry, Bongo; I was angry myself, and engaged in a bit of hyperbole.

---

That's alright, Laura, all forgotten. And I'm sorry for getting so stroppy about your post when we are, after all, in Hell. Pax!
 

---

Posted by Eanswyth (# 3363) on :
 
Blech! It's getting all sunshine and daisies in here. This is HELL, people, act like it. Next thing you know, somebody is gonna be asking for a group hug and singing of Kumbayah.

To get things going in the right direction: everyone who disagrees with me is a doody-head. And you know who you are.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
Thanks Scot; good work - your thread in Purg has already flushed out one complete and utter fuckwit.

OK, it's one we already knew was a fuckwit.

---

Yeah, Karl, that was big news...
 

---

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eanswyth:
...This is HELL, people, act like it. Next thing you know, somebody is gonna be asking for a group hug and singing of Kumbayah....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
...RuthW // still trying to get over the shock of agreeing with Rossweisse

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0