Michele Bachmann: Spectacle or Prophet?

[Kuya]

Oh and i get it, just because you form part of the military doesn't mean you endorse what the military does in some instances, yet that same courtosy is something you seem incapable of extending to every other religious person on the planet.

[Neosutra]

Pretty naive to assume a nation can only use it's army for domestic attacks and allow destablization/economic deteriation around the globe that can/do effect it via domestic attacks, regional influences, and economic destructors.

Any knowledge of the Russian/Afghan war and our work in that, along with our current work in afghan and the enemy we are fighting there pretty much throws out everything youve just said. Claiming the US army is a protestant militia out to attack the innocents is almost as retarded as everything Lief just said.

And btw, I save more civilian lives via the work I do here than "leaving this place alone" would ever do. We've seen what happens when we leave this region to destablization and rule by clerical radical factions. The people were oppressed, the extremists attacked multiple countries, and thousands and thousands died. The Taliban isnt some nice guy government that hands out candy when the US isnt here, so dont kid yourself.

Just because some people are so short sighted they dont understand the need (in this world) for tactical use of force in the right situations, doesnt mean everyone should pussy out and join the peace core.

Same goes for my civilian job: I save more lives working on better weaponry than any idiot saves by holding a sign saying "why cant we all get along".

[Kuya]

Pretty naive to assume a nation can only use it's army for domestic attacks and allow destablization/economic deteriation around the globe that can/do effect it via domestic attacks, regional influences, and economic destructors.

Any knowledge of the Russian/Afghan war and our work in that, along with our current work in afghan and the enemy we are fighting there pretty much throws out everything youve just said. Claiming the US army is a protestant militia out to attack the innocents is almost as retarded as everything Lief just said.

And btw, I save more civilian lives via the work I do here than "leaving this place alone" would ever do. We've seen what happens when we leave this region to destablization and rule by clerical radical factions. The people were oppressed, the extremists attacked multiple countries, and thousands and thousands died. The Taliban isnt some nice guy government that hands out candy when the US isnt here, so dont kid yourself.

Just because some people are so short sighted they dont understand the need (in this world) for tactical use of force in the right situations, doesnt mean everyone should pussy out and join the peace core.

Same goes for my civilian job: I save more lives working on better weaponry than any idiot saves by holding a sign saying "why cant we all get along".

You save people while at the same time the military kills people? Nice justification.

Of course it's naïve. Any nation with enough military power and standing armies will use them if they can get away with it. The US military is only doing what comes natural to a nation with lots of military power; using it. Of course, other nations usually have to use diplomacy to get what they want because using military action would be to pricy, unfortunately, the US doesn't have that limitation. Don't worry, i'm well aware what the US uses its military for.

I never claimed the US was a religious army, though next time you make a statement i did not make i will simply ignore it. In any case it does not matter, the US made an ill advised mistake, and unfortunately, the ones who pay the price are the civilians in Afghsnistan, just like the ones to pay the price are the Iraquis. Besides, when the US wants dirty work done, they usually use proxies rather than their own people. The US has an image to uphold. An image that is very valuable politically.

Are you kidding? Do you think you're there on some rightuous mission to free people from their religious oppresion? With bombs? You don't even know why you're there, do you? You're not there to free people from the Taliban, the US entered because the Taliban would not expell Al Qaida, so the US invaded. Unfortunately, the US did not take into consideration that it dived right into the geopolitical chess game of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and India. So now it's stuck fighting insurgents who are mostly interested in local rule (not world domination, chief). And now because of US interference, Pakistan has been placed in the rough position of going against the people it used to use to secure Afghanistan and causing an explotion of violence which only deligetimizes the government and causes instability, in a nation with nukes no less. All while the US is being slowly bled of resources in a war where there were enough examples of what would happen. The hubris of power, no doubt.

In brief, you were never there for the Taliban, that was just an afterthough justification for the realization that you got yourself into a fight that conventional military power could not easily win. You're not there to free shit. You were there to dismantle Al Qaida and you somewhat suceeded. Don't make up reasons to make your paycheck seem less bloody.

Are you joking? And who decides what the right time to use tactical force is? Do you think a government is just not going to use military force whenever it's conveniant for its interests (and when it can get away with it)? Nothing but a pipedreame, power is meant to be used, and power does not discriminate between right or wrong. Right or wrong are just justifications. What's funny is, you're here pretending to be the realistic one when you hold idealistic views of your fight in Afghanistan and of military power. Who are you kidding?

But that's okay, religion is the cause of conflict in this world, of evil. It has nothing to do with the interests of a nation (such as continuing the distribution of resources to maintain the population satisfied with progressive economic development), with the nationalism and patriotism used to justify what organizations do, or with the military tool used to act, no, religion did it.

Read me another story, pah.

[Kuya]

Let me just go free these people from oppresive religious rule by dropping bombs on what i thought were insurgents only to kill 23 children and then pretend that doesn't mean anything in the long run.

[Beckwin]

christian fundamentalism makes it easier for direct attacks on muslim populations. I think you have to admit there's something going on when we reserve black ops/proxy battles for largely christian(/non-muslim) populations in Central/South America while putting loads of boots on the ground when it's Muslims.

Not that the end result is too different to the civilians involved, but we (the American populace/mindset) feel better about having Americans bomb/shoot Afghan Muslims than say, Colombian Catholics.

[Zilong]

You're making it sounds as if those 23 children wouldn't die in an explosive death of some sort later on in their lifetimes.

[Beckwin]

But on the same token, I have to agree that Neo's attempts at justifying "stabilization" etc is very, very flimsy. Neo, do you realize that basically all attempts at "stabilization" have been convenient covers for spreading free-market dogma (perhaps the most dangerous of modern religions...) that results in widescale domestic oppression and wealth stratification in those countries?

Seriously man, I don't think you're a terrible person. I think you've got some admirable convictions, but maybe are a little confused as how to apply them... You've got skillsets and experience that should afford you a pretty comfortable life out of the military, and you can bet your ass that volunteer organizations could make use of your talents and drive in a context that doesn't involve bombs.

[Elvis]

Radical christians don't strap themselves with bombs though, do they?

Suicide bombing is exotic violence. That is how it is framed.

It apparently exists apart from all other kinds of violence. There is indiscriminate fire, collateral damage, and then 'suicide bombing'.

This is important, because 'suicide bombing' is a symbol; a symbol of 'the other'. The barbarians and savages. They use tactics that are simply TOO radical, even for radicals.

Hence, while you will admit that 'we' have extremists, even they aren't as extreme as the Muslim extremist.

This is of course - fucking stupid.

Suicide bombing is something we can absorb easily. It's much more emotionally compelling than, for example, the political process by which the Christian Right funnels funds under cover of a charity organization to paramilitary death squads in Central America. Suicide bombing is a staple of Islamic identity as politically commodified in the West - via popular culture, the editorials of our major newspapers, etc.

When I read Leif's post it made me think of popular Islamophobe, Bridgette Gabriel:

The difference, my friends, between Israel and the Arab world is the difference between civilization and barbarism. It’s the difference between good and evil [applause][...]this is what we’re witnessing in the Arabic world, They have no SOUL! They are dead set on killing and destruction. And in the name of something they call “Allah” which is very different from the God we believe[...][applause] because our God is the God of love.

Except practitioners of Islam (or as we all know it: "the religion of peace") keep blowing stuff up. While Islamic countries lead by insane despots actively seek nuclear weapons (or as the left knows it: "safe nuclear energy"), Osama bin Laden isn't exactly sponsored by a theocracy.

Leif and the other guy (forgot his name already) imply that Islamic radicalism is unique. So we should ask how so. How is it different from other kinds of radicalism?

There are so many places to begin. We can easily compare Zionist terrorists in British Mandate Palestine to the practices of modern-day Islamic radicals. We could also compare the actions of the IDF and the Orthodox Jewish settlers - often in collusion with one another.

But this is to assume the premise that we even have to compare to find out which is more radical.

Its a ridiculous argument. It gives the impression that we don't commit violence. That the only violence worth mentioning is that of the crazy Muslims. And of course, debating the issue legitimizes the notion that a person has to be a religious crazy to qualify.

Why not nationalist movements like Zionism? Why not the realpolitik of 'democracies' like ours?

And yet, again we come back to the basic point - why does this symbol of 'suicide bombing' come up?

Because it's an alluring framework. As I said - exotic violence.

Here's an excerpt from Empire's Workshop - in which the author, Greg Grandin, briefly explains the evolution of the Christian Right and some of it's involvement in Central America during the 1980s:

Spoiler: show

The third constituency for a Central American hard line came out of the religious New Right. While American expansion has long been bound up with notions of religious purpose and moral meaning, the relationship between evangelicalism and support of imperial militarism has not always been harmonious.

Of course, throughout the whole of the twentieth century, evangelicals had continued to proselytize abroad, understanding their missionary work in Latin America and elsewhere as contributing to biblical fulfillment. And in the conflict-ridden third world, they often fou/nd themselves siding, out of either conviction or expedience, with violent anti-Communist regimes.

But as part of their general retreat from secular politics, American evangelicals, even as they accepted the tenets of anti-Communism, tended to stay out of international politics. They even, according to Andrew Bacevich, who has written on American militarism, developed something of an 'anti-war tradition'. This began to change in the 1960s, when preachers like Billy Graham increasingly drew connections between the crisis at home and the crisis abroad, particularly in the third world.

[...]They pushed the evangelical movement to not only fight what would become known as the culture wars - the campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment, abortion, gay rights, and so forth - but to get more involved in foreign affairs as well.

[My interjection - Again, I recommend Max Blumenthal's Republican Gomorrah; an excellent piece of investigative journalism. It covers the roots of the Christian Right and how it hijacked the Republican party.]

From the mid-1970s, Christian organizations would beign to play a more prominent role in international politics, supporting causes associated with America's resurgent nationalist right. Some worked with the American security council to oppose disarmament treaties and defend Ian Smith's white government in Rhodesia. Jerry Falwell and other ministers traveled to Taiwan and Israel, developing close ties to Prime Minister Menachem Begin. But it was in Central America, which brought together a hodgepodge of improbable sects such as Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church and pat Robertson's 700 Club, where the New Christian Right would receive its first sustained internatoinal apprenticeship.

Grassroots Christian groups such as Gospel Outreach and Transworld Mission had been sending charitable aide to Central America's military governments since the early 1970s but greatly increased their activity following the 1979 Sandinista revolution. At the request of the White House, Pat Robertson used his Christian Broadcasting Network to raise money for Efrain Rios Montt, the evangelical Christian who presided over the Guatemala genocide.

Most of the Guatemalan relief aid raised by evangelicals in the United States, by groups such as the California-based charismatic Full Gospel Business Men's Fellowship, went to help the military's efforts to establish control in the countryside in the wake of its campaign of massacres. in Honduras, Gospel Crusades, Inc., Friends of the Americas, Operation Blessing, World Vision, the Wycliffe Bible Translators, and World Medical Relief shipped hundreds of tons of humanitarian aid to Contra and refugee camps, where they established schools, health clinics, and religious missions. Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum sent "Freedom Fighter Friendship Kits" to the Nicaraguan rebels, complete with toothpaste, insect repellent, and a Bible.

In El Salvador, Harvesting in Spanish, Paralife Ministries, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Nicaraguan Freedom Fun (affiliated with the Unification Church), and the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade broadcast radio programs, handed out Bibles, ran schools, established medical and dental clinics, and provided moral education to the soldiers.

In Nicaragua, groups like Christian Aid for Romania and Transworld Missions used the cover of humanitarian aid to organize Christian opposition to the Sandinistas. In the United States, Campus Crusade for Christ and the Moon-affiliated Collegiate Association for the Research of Principles countered the fast-growing student movement opposed to Reagan's Central American policy.

The Economics of Satan

It was more than anti-Communism that created such an odd coalition in Central America. The fact that both the Central American left and their supporters in the United States drew inspiration from Christianity provided an ideological challenge to conservatives.

In Central America, the socialism of the revolutionary movements was motivated by liberation theology - a current of Catholicism that challenged Latin American militarism and sought to achieve social justice through a redistribution of wealth - as much as it was by Marxism.

Many high-ranking members of the Sandinista party were avowed Catholics and even ordained priests. At home, the solidarity movement that opposed Reagan's foreign policy was largely Christian. Groups such as Religious Task Force on El Salvador, the Ecumenical Program on Central America and the Caribbean, the U.S. Catholic Conference, and the National Council of Churches actively mobilized hundreds of thousands of citizens in opposition to Reagan's policy.

For their part, the Quakers organized an underground railroad that gave refuge to exiles fleeing persecution in El Salvador, publicly breaking federal immigration laws. So when Jeane Kirkpatrick remarked that the three U.S. nuns and one lay worker who were raped, mutilated, and murdered by Salvadoran security forces in 1980 were "not just nuns, they were political activists," she was being more than cruel - she was signaling her disapproval of a particular kind of peace Christianity.

A shared opposition to the socialist values of liberation theology - which Rousas John Rushdoony, the founder of Christian Reconstruction, the influential branch of the evangelical movement that seeks to replace the Constitution with biblical law, described as the "economics of Satan" - united mainstream Protestants and pulpit-thumping fundamentalists.

For instance, the Institute on Religion and Democracy, organized in 1981 by intellectuals associated with the American Enterprise Institute, presented itself as a reformist liberal organization that supported the administration's efforts at political reform in Central America. Yet IRD allied with evangelicals like Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson and worked with Oliver North and Otto Reich to discredit not only explicitly leftist Christian groups but established organizations, such as the National Council of Churches, that were critical of Central American policy.

With the support of PR firms contracted by the Office of Public Diplomacy, the IRD, for instance, engaged in a mass mailing campaign to the Catholic rank and file to "generate some heat" - that is, to drive a wedge between liberal Catholic bishops and their supposedly more conservative flock.

The power of liberation theology, along with other variants of peace Christianity, resided not just in its political analysis of global poverty but in its ethical imperative that to be a good Christian one had to do more than dispense charity; one had to transform the structural causes of inequality and violence. In Latin America, nuns, priests, and lay Christians were not only presenting democracy and capitalism as antithetical values but turning to revolution as a way to bring about social justice on earth.

Liberation theology threatened to undermine the New RIght's long struggle to affirm unbridled capitalism's inextricable relationship to human freedom. It was not enough, therefore, for mainstream Christian conservatives and fundamentalists simply to discredit liberal religious organizations. They had to go on the offensive and make the case that corporate capitalism "mirrors God's presence" on earth, as Catholic theologican Michael Novak put it.

In other words, before "political Islam" became the paramount spiritual enemy for the New Right, it singled out Christian humanism for attack. In a series of books and articles challenging the major tenets and proponents of liberation theology, theologians connected with the American Enterprise Institute and its affiliated Institute on Religion and Democracy, such as Novak and Lutheran pastor (now Catholic) Richard Neuhaus, elaborated a set of ideals specific to capitalism that they believed complemented the Christian understanding of free will.

To those who said that capitalism embodied the worst of acquisitive individualism, Novak, who presented himself as a political liberal, countered with his "theology of the corporation," which held up the business firm as "an expression of the social nature of humans." He dedicated much of his work to refuting liberation theology's insistence that third-world poverty could be blamed on exploitation by the first world. Instead of examining economic and political relations[pay attention Leif], he contended that Latin American's failure to modernize must be blamed on indigenous cultural facors dating back to the Spanish Crown's seventeenth century cou/nterreformation, which place strictures on capitalist development.

As did their mainstream coreligionists, fundamentalists formulated their free-market moralism as a quarrel with liberation theology - which they described as a "theology of mass murder" and the "single most critical problem that Christinaity has faced in all its 2000-year history."

[...]Where Christian humanists contended that people were fundamentally good and that "Evil" was a condition of class exploitation, Christian capitalists such as Amway's Richard DeVos, head of the Christian Freedom Foundation, insited that evil was found in the heart of man. Where liberation theology held that humans could fully realize their potential here on earth, fundamentalist economists argued that attempts to distribute wealth and regular production were based on an incorrect understanding of society - an understanding that incited disobedience to proper authority and, by focusing on economic inequality, generated guilt, envy, and conflict. God's Kingdom, they insisted, would be established not by a war between the classes but by a struggle betweent he wicked and the just.

There's a lot more. This is just one part of the book. I could have cut straight to the punchline though -

This transformation of conservative activists into world revolutionaries entailed adopting an ethics of absolutism, sacrificing any qualms they may have had about the means at the altar of ends. The violence of counterinsurgent war stoked the fires of evangelical Manicheanism, leading Falwell, Robertson, and others to ally with the worst murderers and torturers in Central and Latin America.

"For the Christian," wrote Rus Walton, a fundamentalist activist, "there can be no neutrality in this battle: 'He that is not with Me is against Me' (Matthew 12:30)." Robertson befriended Guatemala's Efrain Rios Montt and Salvador's Roberto D'Aubuisson - who was behind the murder of, among untold others, Archbishop Oscar Romero - celebrating both men on his Christian Broadcasting Network. And more than a dozen new Christian Right organizations, including the Moral Majority and the Pro-Life Action Committee, presented D'Aubuisson with a plaque in 1984, honoring his "continuing efforts for freedom."

Many of the death-squad members were themselves conservative religious ideologues, takingt he fight against liberation theology to the trenches. Guatemalan security forces regularly questioned their prisoners about their "views on liberation theology," as they did when they tortutred one Clemente Diaz Aguilar, who turned out to be an evangelical himself, having been mistaken by his captors for a political dissident. Others report being tortured to the singing of hymns and reciting of prayers.

Some evangelicals excused such suffering.

"Killing for the joy of it was wrong," a Paralife minister from the United States comforted his flock of Salvadoran soldiers, "but killing because it was necessary to fight against an anti-Christ system, communism, was not only right but a duty of every Christian.

I still would like to hear what Leif and the other guy meant when they said 'but they [the Christian Right] don't blow themselves up'. It's a racist notion actually. It reveals the colonial mentality that Europeans have of Arabs.

As to Jewish fundamentalism and Zionism? That's even easier to talk about within the context of this phony comparison because I have read more on it than the Central America stuff.

One such example, would be this short-list of Israeli Right Wing terrorism. Palestinian suicide bombing began in 1994.

Additionally, while Israelis didn’t use slave-labor like the Nazis, Ilan Pappe’s, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, refers repeatedly to the brutality meted out in what he calls “POW camps” and occasionally to forced labor e.g. pg. 202/203:

One concerned army officer who happened to visit such a prison camp wrote: ‘In recent times there were some very grave cases in the treatment of prisoners. The barbaric and cruel behaviour these cases reveal undermines the army’s discipline.’[9. IDF Archives, 54/410, File 107,4 April 1948.]

The concern voiced here for the army rather than for the victims will also sound familiar by now in the history of military ’self-criticism’ in Israel.

Worse still were the labour camps. The idea of using Palestinian prisoners as forced labour came from the Israeli military command and was endorsed by the politicians.

Three special labour camps were built for the purpose, one in Sarafand, another in Tel-Litwinski (today Tel-Hashomer Hospital) and a third in Umm Khalid (near Netanya). The authorities used the prisoners in any job that could help strengthen both the Israeli economy and the army’s capabilities.[10. Pappe: I wish to thank Salman Abu Sitta for providing me with the Red Cross Documents: G59/I/GG 6 February 1949.]

[...]The witness then describes the routine of forced labour in the camp: working in the quarries and carrying heavy stones; living on one potato in the morning and half a dried fish at noon. There was no point in complaining as disobedience was punished with severe beatings. After fifteen days, 150 men were moved to a sec­ond camp in Jalil, where they were exposed to similar treatment: ‘We had to remove rubble from destroyed Arab houses.’ But then, one day, ‘an officer with good English told us that “from now on” we would be treated according to the Geneva Convention. And indeed, conditions improved.’

Five months later, al-Khatib’s witness told him, he was back at Umm Khalid where he recalled scenes that could have come straight from another place and time. When the guards discovered that twenty people had escaped, ‘We, the people of Tantura, were put in a cage, oil was poured on our clothes and our blankets were taken away.’

After one of their early visits, on 11 November 1948, Red Cross officials reported dryly that POWs were exploited in the general local effort to ’strengthen the Israeli economy’.[13/10. I wish to thank Salman Abu Sitta for providing me with the Red Cross Documents: G59/I/GG 6 February 1949.] This guarded language was not accidental. Given its deplorable behavior during the Holocaust, when it failed to report on what went on in Nazi concentration camps, on which it was well informed, the Red Cross was careful in its reproach and criticism of the Jewish state. But at least their documents do shed some light on the experiences of the Palestinian inmates, some of whom were kept in these camps until 1955.

As previously noted, there was a stark contrast between the Israeli conduct towards Palestinian civilians they had imprisoned and the treatment Israelis received who had been captured by the Arab Legion of Jordan.

Ben-Gurion was angry when the Israeli press reported how well Israeli POWs were treated by the Legion. His diary entry for 18 June 1948 reads: 'It is true but it could encourage surrender of isolated spots.'

I've also referenced these snapshot pages from Benny Morris's book, Israel's Border Wars:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...nnymorris1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...nymorris-2.jpg

[Correction]

I still would like to hear what Leif and the other guy meant when they said 'but they [the Christian Right] don't blow themselves up'. It's a racist notion actually. It reveals the colonial mentality that Europeans have of Arabs.

Your expectations of Leif cannot be this high, I'll write his response for him since he's unlikely to actually meet the very challenge he issues of a 'real debate' and stay away from the thread once his talking point parroting begins to wither yet again.

Only democrats are really racist, get away from me you liberal traitor there are no conservative racists

[Elvis]

Oh and this book just came out not too long ago.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8213.html

http://press.princeton.edu/images/k8213.gif

Press release from Princeton University Press:

Historical accounts of Jewish violence--particularly against Christians--have long been explosive material. Some historians have distorted these records for anti-Semitic purposes. Others have discounted, dismissed, or simply ignored the evidence, often for apologetic purposes.

In Reckless Rites, Elliott Horowitz takes a new and forthright look at both the history of Jewish violence since late antiquity and the ways in which generations of historians have grappled with that history. In the process, he has written the most wide-ranging book on Jewish violence in any language, and the first to fully acknowledge and address the actual anti-Christian practices that became part of the playful, theatrical violence of the Jewish festival of Purim. He has also examined the different ways in which the book of Esther, upon which the festival is based, was used by Jews and Christians over the centuries--whether as an ancient mirror of modern tribulations or as the scriptural basis for anti-Semitic claims regarding the bloodthirstiness of the Jews.

Reckless Rites reassesses the historical interpretation of Jewish violence--from the alleged massacre of thousands of Christians in seventh-century Jerusalem to later medieval attacks on Christian symbols such as the crucifix, transgressions that were often committed in full knowledge that their likely consequence would be death.

A book that calls for major changes in the way that Jewish history is written and conceptualized, Reckless Rites will be essential reading for scholars and students of history, religion, and Jewish-Christian relations.

Elliott Horowitz, a native of New York City, is Associate Professor of Jewish History at Bar-Ilan University, Israel. He is co-editor of the Jewish Quarterly Review.

Reviews:

"[A] dazzlingly erudite study of the many ramifications of the Purim odyssey from medieval times to our days. Horowitz's ambitious book achieves two accomplishments: the documentation of 1,500 years of Christian and Jewish interpretations of the knottiest, and naughtiest, sections of the Book of Esther, and then the chronicling of the actual social-historical consequences of those interpretations; that is, how Purim was used and abused through the ages. [Horowitz's is] a scrupulously honest voice, dealing in exemplary fashion with an important subject that has been ignored by scholars precisely because of its extreme delicacy. Horowitz has enriches us with a model of historical scholarship. Anything but reckless, Reckless Rites is a rare gem of academic work that will make a real difference." --Allan Nadler, Forward

"Reckless Rites is a provocative volume, rich in historical detail. Horowitz tells a story, not without humor, that attempts to connect events of the distant past with contemporary conflicts. Unusual for a work of history, Reckless Rites is also a good read." --Irven M. Resnick, AJS Review

"Reckless Rites is an excellent read, and for a book on such a serious subject not devoid of humor. . . . [I]t's most important purpose . . . is to throw a very large bucket of cold water over the misconceptions and the willful misreading of history in which we all too easily indulge." --Rabbi Dr. Charles Middleburgh, Jewish Chronicle

"In his new book, Elliot Horowitz attempts to undermine the conventional wisdom about Jews and violence. Focusing on Purim, he convincingly shows that the image passed down over the centuries, of Jewish passivity and nonviolence during the medieval period, is, if not wrong, at least in need of correction. . . . [A] thought-provoking book, whose trees are often as memorable as the forest." --Kalman Neuman, Jerusalem Report

But you know, only Islam can have meaningful radicals (as implied by Leif and the other guy whose name I don't remember, since clearly, 'suicide bombing'[exotic violence] separates Islamic crazies from the rest of the religious crazies).

[Leif]

Did Leif just invoke the sanctity of the First Amendment to protect radical Christians then denounce Islam with underinformed blanket statements in the same post? Troll's casting a wide net today.

Refute something with some actual evidence. I guarantee you, it won't hold up.

Your expectations of Leif cannot be this high, I'll write his response for him since he's unlikely to actually meet the very challenge he issues of a 'real debate' and stay away from the thread once his talking point parroting begins to wither yet again.

In liberal's latest ploy to stop me from speaking, they have switched from "Leif is crazy" to "Leif just calls names!". On no set of facts can you credibly assert that I don't make arguments.

Only democrats are really racist, get away from me you liberal traitor there are no conservative racists

First, the Democratic party is the party that supported slavery and segregation. They are the party that now runs on a platform of racial preferences. The Democratic platform is racist.

Now, let's look at the Republicans. They run on a platform of colorblindness. They don't let racists or ex-Klansmen into the party.

Time and time again, after making countless arguments, liberals fail to understand a conservative argument, much less how conservatives think.

But you know, only Islam can have meaningful radicals (as implied by Leif and the other guy whose name I don't remember, since clearly, 'suicide bombing'[exotic violence] separates Islamic crazies from the rest of the religious crazies).

Yes, because the other "religious crazies" don't kill people like Muslims do.

[Correction]

Refute something with some actual evidence. I guarantee you, it won't hold up.

They don't let racists or ex-Klansmen into the party.

You don't say?

Yes, because the other "religious crazies" don't kill people like Muslims do.

YOU DON'T SAY?

[eunhye]

You don't say?



YOU DON'T SAY?

Hey man, an eye for an eye.

[Correction]

Hey man, an eye for an eye.

Allahu Akbar

[Neosutra]

Kuya and Beckwin, you're acting as if Im some naive soldier that is following some blind idealogical foundation of spreading freedom in a chaotic land.

The truth is quite the contrary. I hate war and the lack of diplomacy/political ignorance that leads to it. However I understand that in this reality (the one all 3 of us live in), there is a time and place for that force.

Has the US applied that force properly and only in circumstances that it was absolutely needed? Probably not. Was there a need for military intervention in the region of afghanistan after the destabilization and rise of the taliban (and thus development of breeding grounds for 1000s of extremists)? Yes indeed. Can I do more good by actually serving over here and making sure I (and my men that serve under/with me) are the soldiers of reconstruction and protection, and not the soldiers of destruction and death? Fuck yes I can.

There isnt a place in the world I could be that can give me a better chance at helping these people than where I am now (short of being one of the policy deciders myself). No one here thinks we are here to spread freedom (at least no one around me). I talk with these people daily, and it isnt a "why are you killing our people, go away". Its "we need more protection so we can trade, vote, and live our lives". Our goal is to provide that protection/infrastructure long enough for the ANA (their army) and their police to be able to take over those jobs (and they are starting to do that more and more). Leaving this region in a destabilized mess will only cost us more in the future (dollars and lives) and waste the billions we've already spent.

As for the working on weapons in my civilian job: Ive work at the national lab on a multitude of things (including cancer research and alzheimerss research), and I can say with good confidence the work I do in the defence industry saves more lives than any of the work I did at los alamos. Smarter, better weaponry means less collateral damage. Smarter, better defenses means safer troops and less avenues an aggressor can use to do harm. Our army no longer has to worry about any other nation's airforce due to our developments in air defense and air superiority, since then deaths in wars have dropped exponentially. Smart bombs have allowed targeting of single buildings instead of entire blocks. UAVs have allowed for complex route clearing instead of armed convoy clearing. Satellite feeds have allowed for in detailed surgical strikes instead of large scale raids.

No gentlemen, Im doing just fine saving lives on my end of the debate. The only difference is, I can actually see the people Im trying to help, rather than just read about them or watch them on the news.

[Elvis]

Yes, because the other "religious crazies" don't kill people like Muslims do.

You are so lazy it's depressing. Did you read anything above that I wrote?

Do tell though, how Muslims kill uniquely.

[Beckwin]

I don't think you're naive; just a bit misguided or rationalizing in your outlook. Yes, you can do all in your power to minimize civilian casualties, but that simply does not change the fact that you're directly serving a larger structure that plainly doesn't care too much about civilian casualties- only as far as maintaining an image that a public will turn a blind eye to and continue passively allowing.

And I'm sorry, but any cure for cancer is gonna save hundreds of millions of lives in a fell swoop. The guys who found out how to prevent cervical cancer save probably a hundred thousand lives each year; meanwhile your smart bombs and weapons have resulted in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi/Afghan deaths instead of whatever that figure is plus a hundred thousand or two more if we were still carpetbombing/dropping napalm.

I get your argument of "well, we went in and things got massively turned upside down and a society crumbled" and that's, to be fair, the strongest argument you're making. And it is a tough question. But it would appear that the conflict in Afghanistan has been so mismanaged and poorly executed that it's not worth supporting in any fashion anymore.

The pink elephant in the room is that it's Vietnam 2.0.

[Kuya]

Kuya and Beckwin, you're acting as if Im some naive soldier that is following some blind idealogical foundation of spreading freedom in a chaotic land.

The truth is quite the contrary. I hate war and the lack of diplomacy/political ignorance that leads to it. However I understand that in this reality (the one all 3 of us live in), there is a time and place for that force.

Has the US applied that force properly and only in circumstances that it was absolutely needed? Probably not. Was there a need for military intervention in the region of afghanistan after the destabilization and rise of the taliban (and thus development of breeding grounds for 1000s of extremists)? Yes indeed. Can I do more good by actually serving over here and making sure I (and my men that serve under/with me) are the soldiers of reconstruction and protection, and not the soldiers of destruction and death? Fuck yes I can.

There isnt a place in the world I could be that can give me a better chance at helping these people than where I am now (short of being one of the policy deciders myself). No one here thinks we are here to spread freedom (at least no one around me). I talk with these people daily, and it isnt a "why are you killing our people, go away". Its "we need more protection so we can trade, vote, and live our lives". Our goal is to provide that protection/infrastructure long enough for the ANA (their army) and their police to be able to take over those jobs (and they are starting to do that more and more). Leaving this region in a destabilized mess will only cost us more in the future (dollars and lives) and waste the billions we've already spent.

As for the working on weapons in my civilian job: Ive work at the national lab on a multitude of things (including cancer research and alzheimerss research), and I can say with good confidence the work I do in the defence industry saves more lives than any of the work I did at los alamos. Smarter, better weaponry means less collateral damage. Smarter, better defenses means safer troops and less avenues an aggressor can use to do harm. Our army no longer has to worry about any other nation's airforce due to our developments in air defense and air superiority, since then deaths in wars have dropped exponentially. Smart bombs have allowed targeting of single buildings instead of entire blocks. UAVs have allowed for complex route clearing instead of armed convoy clearing. Satellite feeds have allowed for in detailed surgical strikes instead of large scale raids.

No gentlemen, Im doing just fine saving lives on my end of the debate. The only difference is, I can actually see the people Im trying to help, rather than just read about them or watch them on the news.

Oh, so you're trying to do good even though the organization you form part of sometimes does bad things? That sounds just like all those religious people who try to do good things even though some people claim their religions do more harm than good.

It's certainly a good thing you have never said that the good those people do is irrelevant because they form part of religions, or else you would seem like a hypocrit.

[Neosutra]

I don't think you're naive; just a bit misguided or rationalizing in your outlook. Yes, you can do all in your power to minimize civilian casualties, but that simply does not change the fact that you're directly serving a larger structure that plainly doesn't care too much about civilian casualties- only as far as maintaining an image that a public will turn a blind eye to and continue passively allowing.

That's a poorly based assumption to assume the US doesnt care about civilian casualties. The US is very concerned about civilian casualties, if only for the fact that we are an occupying force and civilian casualties costs us more ground in the fight for the "hearts and minds" of the people, which directly effects our ability to maintain stability in the region. We can spend months building a new school and protecting a village and if one of the village children gets hit by a round in a cross fire, then all of that work is lost. So YES, we do give a fuck about civilian casualties, as in the end it means more US casualties.

And I'm sorry, but any cure for cancer is gonna save hundreds of millions of lives in a fell swoop. The guys who found out how to prevent cervical cancer save probably a hundred thousand lives each year; meanwhile your smart bombs and weapons have resulted in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi/Afghan deaths instead of whatever that figure is plus a hundred thousand or two more if we were still carpetbombing/dropping napalm.

At first glance, you're correct. However if you examine the deaths from wars over our history versus the deaths from cancer (I dont think either of us have accurate numbers for either total, just hypothetically), you can see that changing the way we wage war and thus conduct policy can and will directly effect "lives lost per year".

At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War. http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm

The total number of deaths iin World War One includes 9.7 million military personnel and about 6.8 million civilians (From wiki)

World War II casualty statistics vary greatly. Estimates of total dead range from 50 million to over 70 million (from wiki). Can you fathom 70 million deaths? I cant.

Thats not counting the Korean war, Vietnam, and the 50 other skirmishes recently and thats ONLY considering the last century of human history (except the civil war which was a bit earlier)..

Advancing our technology has completely changed the way governments wage political war, economic war, and military war. Thousands have died due to the invention of the atomic bomb, but how many millions have been saved via conflicts it has stopped? Do you think the cold war would have been the same without mutuall assured destruction? Do you think more lives would be saved if we still had trench warfare? If we still had entire carrier groups taken out in a battle?

The defense work I do has the potential to save millions of lives via the effect such techonology has on policy, not just "making less colateral damage".

Thats not to say Cancer research isnt equally as important, but right now I can see a direct impact on the work I do and the lives it saves, and that means something to me.

I get your argument of "well, we went in and things got massively turned upside down and a society crumbled" and that's, to be fair, the strongest argument you're making. And it is a tough question. But it would appear that the conflict in Afghanistan has been so mismanaged and poorly executed that it's not worth supporting in any fashion anymore.

The pink elephant in the room is that it's Vietnam 2.0.

This is a more complex argument for sure. I used to think the same way, but after being here for a bit, I think that with time this country and support itself. Whether the surge and the extra money we are doing will buy enough time for the ANA to take over is the big question. I really hope so. I wouldnt compare this to Vietnam however, completely different beast politically, economically, and tactically. We may be here for a while, and the benefits may be less obvious (political stability in a region that will effect us, and a future ally in the area), but that doesnt mean it can fairly be compared to the death fest/money pit of vietnam.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

http://tildology.com/wp-content/uplo..._blachmann.jpg