Go to A Distant Drum of the Coming Revolution
- Add a comment
- Go to I have a challenge for the anti-war crowd:
Welcome, Shamsuddin!
I hate to say (write? 
) this to a new reader, but you are entirely, totally, completely, absolutely, 100 per cent wrong,. I'll be nice and refrain from dissecting your entire argument, but I will identify the two key flaws:
- Resisting terrorism is terrorism.
- Terrorism will simply go away if it is not resisted.
If the first is true, then the Untied States, Great Britain and their allies were guilty of terrorism in destroying Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan. Would you have prefered that they have been allowed to conquer the world?
If the second were true, then why is Spain targeted for inclusion in an empire, if you will, of radical Islamic nations after the terrorists promised to leave it alone after Spanish voters did their bidding and elected a government of appeasers?
Evil does not simply dry up and blow away, my friend. Resist it, or it will triumph. History is full of evidence of this. The rise of Nazism, for instance.
posted by
WriterofLight
on August 12, 2006 at 8:25 PM
| link to this | reply
I am merely suggesting that we quit our terror campaigns
that we spend half the money we save on rounding up terrorists and foiling their plots as in the UK and spend the remainder on making sure our citizens have health care and no one in the world starves to death. Additionally we would have more money to spend on alternative energies to oil and to spend on reversing global warming etc etc etc.
posted by
Shams-i-Heartsong
on August 10, 2006 at 9:17 PM
| link to this | reply
I do not think your analogy holds although
it would be interesting if 100,000 Americans would offer themselves as voluntary hostages in return for a moratorium on all terrorist attacks ( realize how impractical and even naive this sounds). I would advocate not sacrifice or submitting our vulnerable selves to terrorist, but rather that we take seriously their concerns and dreams. If their dreams including world domination in the name of Islam, I say keep seeking them out and putting them in jail as anti social criminals. Terrorism is still a crime in all civilized countries of the world as far as I know. Terrorism is terrorism no matter whether perpetrated by religious zealots or democratic governments. Using your analogy, which of us would send our children to hang out in Bagdad just before the US shock and Awe Campaign??????
posted by
Shams-i-Heartsong
on August 10, 2006 at 9:11 PM
| link to this | reply
good one
posted by
calmcantey75
on August 2, 2006 at 8:39 PM
| link to this | reply
Shawn asks a million-dollar question!
Shawn the Tall and Skinny Poet opined, "Normally I find a lot of useful things in your posting, but I'm having trouble seeing whose mind this posting will change at all. First of all, the language in condescending. Second of all, anyone can take the most extreme example and use it to try to make a bigger point. Thirdly, most of us care about, say, getting every kid a quality education and eradicating poverty to reduce the chances of having child abusers or terrorists in the first place. Fourth, governments commit terror, too, and it doesn't make it any more justified. How can we fight terrorism when our approval ratings around the world keep going down year after year?"
What a powerful question that is at the end. I'll answer that over on the Why we Fight blog at http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/WriterofLight8744/393259.
As for the other points, the idea here is to illustrate by extreme example, as you call it, the folly of refusing to recognize the evil of terrorism for what it is. It is always easier to call an evil person good from a distance and when evil is being done to others. It's a call for the appeasers to put themselves in the shoes of the people being harmed by those they want to appease.
posted by
WriterofLight
on August 1, 2006 at 8:15 PM
| link to this | reply
A+ for Jane!
That's
precisely who I had in mind. More than a few evangelicals get their halos on so tight their horns start showing, as I heard it put years ago, but it's a far more common syndrome among the liberal end of the faith. Sorry, Justi, if you felt I was including you.
posted by
WriterofLight
on August 1, 2006 at 7:47 PM
| link to this | reply
Justi, I don't think he was referring to the more evangelical type
Christians. Rather, I believe his reference was to the libs who are anti war at virtually all costs.
(Thank you for sticking up for me!)
posted by
JanesOpinion
on August 1, 2006 at 5:42 PM
| link to this | reply
Interesting post, writeroflight.
By sanctimonious, better than thou sort of Christians, I assume you mean the more liberal types who are anti war "peaceniks" and pro-love "all you need is love" types?
I do see your point in comparing the terrorism of child abuse/child molestation with Islamic terrorism. Both types involve abuse and destruction of innocence, selfishly taking what does not belong to another without care for the damage caused the victim.
For sure, both involve a blatant disregard for life, for the sanctity and value of another human's life.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on August 1, 2006 at 5:41 PM
| link to this | reply
I'm Not Sure What Your Posting Will Accomplish
Normally I find a lot of useful things in your posting, but I'm having trouble seeing whose mind this posting will change at all. First of all, the language in condescending. Second of all, anyone can take the most extreme example and use it to try to make a bigger point. Thirdly, most of us care about, say, getting every kid a quality education and eradicating poverty to reduce the chances of having child abusers or terrorists in the first place. Fourth, governments commit terror, too, and it doesn't make it any more justified. How can we fight terrorism when our approval ratings around the world keep going down year after year?
You create more questions than answers. Looking forward to your next post, though. Should be passionate and educational. --Shawn, "Tall & Skinny Politico"
posted by
TallAndSkinnyPoet
on August 1, 2006 at 3:20 PM
| link to this | reply
I agree with what Sarooster is saying, but it is not the Christian community who is taking a sweet cheeked attitude toward terrorism and war.
posted by
Justi
on August 1, 2006 at 4:37 AM
| link to this | reply
First of all, mystic just misses the whole point of "being" for the most
part. This is a great post. We are supposed to reach out and coddle terrorists. This is what many are saying. So let's try this. Let's do this with the child molesters and see if their goodness shines through.
posted by
sarooster
on August 1, 2006 at 4:15 AM
| link to this | reply
Writer of Light
I think you might read a few of my posts. I am a Christian and I have never once thought, spoke or wrote any anti-war junk. I don't believe Jane's Opinion has either. I don't believe you are being your usual rational writer to choose that as a Christian thing. It is not in any way. I have been getting all sorts of flack because I believe we should see the enemy for who it is and defeat it once and for all.
posted by
Justi
on July 31, 2006 at 10:23 PM
| link to this | reply
C'mon, are you willfully missing the point?
posted by
AaronB
on July 31, 2006 at 9:32 PM
| link to this | reply
Let me get this straight ....
if you OPPOSE the war you are FOR child molesters?
How low can the GOP go??????
By this November, we'll surely find out!
posted by
fwmystic
on July 31, 2006 at 8:42 PM
| link to this | reply