In the name of Allah ?

[Lily]

For all those who doubt what Israel is up against.
The author is an Israeli Arab jornalist. Regardless of whether I agree with all of his points or not, I believe his article demonstrates that an objective observer possesing the facts can see what this war (and the others) is all about.

In the name of Allah
By Riad Ali
It tears one's heart and stills one's breath to see the images coming from Lebanon. The same goes for the images in Israel, and this is not added for the sake of balance.

But sorrow and grief over the war's victims shouldn't blur its prime objectives, both in Lebanon and in the Palestinian territories. When the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza adopted suicide bombing as their strategy in fighting Israel, I concluded that their war against the occupation is over, and an indiscriminate war on Jews has begun. I was convinced then, as I am now, that at that moment, the Palestinians lost the war, at least in the moral sense.

In one of my reports from Gaza, I talked to a Palestinian boy by the name of Haled. He was 10 years old at the time. He said he wanted to be a teacher. When we switched to the topic of the intifada, Haled said that he had another dream - to be a shahid. I asked him how could he be a teacher and a shahid at the same time. Ten-year-old Haled had no answer. He was only a child. It was then I realized that the Palestinian people have lost their inner compass. A whole generation of children was born and reared in their midst, and all their hopes and aspirations are to die a holy death.

A Palestinian moral-ethical debate on the status of the suicide bomber never took place. The saboteur was and remained a shahid, with all of the positive attributes that the word carries in Islamic terminology. Palestinians who still opposed the bombings did so on tactical grounds; that is to say, if it had furthered their cause, they would have seen no wrong in it.

A similar process happened with Hezbollah. If before 2000 the organization could have had the benefit of the doubt and claim it is fighting Israeli occupation of Lebanon, today it is clear to see that its war is against Jews wherever they may be. You have to be deaf in order not to hear the voice of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as it emerges from Nasrallah's throat, and naive in order to believe that the purpose of the arsenal Nasrallah has accumulated is the release of prisoners and the liberation of the Shaba Farms.

This is the time to address the Arab citizens of Israel, and tell them that the time has come for them to decide where they stand. And they should do so for their own sake, and not for the sake of the Jews. For the sake of the values they want to instill in their children. For the sake of retaining their intellectual dignity. It is clear to all that a Hamas-led Palestinian government and a Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon will not bring democratic societies with a flourishing political and social pluralism. It is clear that in regimes such as those, the rule of law, human rights, the freedom of religion and worship, women's rights, the freedom of creation, the freedom of movement, the freedom of expression and thought - all will be alien, ridiculed concepts, to say the least.

Ideological Islam has long been master of the Palestinian society's agenda in the West Bank and Gaza. But what worries me is that the same Islamic agenda that rules there rules also here in Israel, and crosses all parties and movements including those who consider themselves to be secular. The spirit of battle has overtaken the believers, and all who consider themselves as part of the Islamic nation also have to take part in its war. If not with guns, then with funds, and if not with funds, then through words, and if not through words, then in heart, as the Muslim preachers tell the masses.

I am not at war with the Jews, nor with the people of Israel. I have an argument with the Jews, and I have an argument with the State of Israel. On one point I do not argue, and that is the right of the Jewish people to their own independent state. To the best of my understanding, this war, as with the intifada, has to be judged from this perspective.
Arab citizens of the state who truly believe in the principle of two states for two peoples and those who believe in a democratic liberal society must ask themselves if the Islamic ideology that is leading the war today against Israel and the West in the guise of a war against the occupation and heathens is representative of their ambitions. We must separate the pain and sorrow for the innocent victims from the purpose of the war, as seen by those who lead it - in the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and in any place where people seek to liberate land in the name of Allah.

The author is a reporter for Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz

[Robert the Bard]

It doesn't surprise me in the least. The same war has been going for some 2,000 years. With the same ultimate goal in mind. Destroy Israel, or what passed for Israel before it was officially recognized. There is no diplomacy for this much religious, and racist zeal.

[david uk]

I have a very good Muslim friend who lives in the Middle East and is gay. He is very western-thinking yet hates what Israel is doing now. He has been instrumental in getting me through the hardship I am going through now

He also has Jewish friends in Israel.

why can't peope just get along???????

[DaveM]

Every religion, every ethnicity, every society with any significant history has its share of fanatics. Fanaticism has degrees. There are religious fanatics who do nothing more serious than pray with one hand in the air and others who believe God told them to blow themselves up in the name of their particular faith. There are political fanatics who join, variously, the local militia, the Communist Party, the John Birch Society, or become the next Tim McVeigh. Fanatics of every stripe tend to run for things like school boards, which must make holding office on a school board a thankless job indeed.

You're quite right, Robert, the same ideological clash has been going on for thousands of years, long before the existence of Islam. It may be worth noting that the English word "zealot" originates in the Middle East. It was the name of the Jewish tribe which holed up at Masada and held off the Roman Army for some ages until, rather than be overrun by the Romans, they all committed suicide. We think of those people now as heroes. 2000 years ago, they were terrorists.

In 1187, the Kurdish leader Saladin mustered an army of Arabs and sent the Crusaders back where they came from after several failed attempts, and eventually fought Richard the Lionhearted's army to a draw. In so doing, he dealt with a good-sized gang of what would now be called terrorists, the Knights Templar (who were quite fond of slaughtering entire cities of "infidels" and originated that phrase "slay all, God will know his own"). He almost, but not quite, succeeded in establishing a stable Kurdish homeland, something which has not existed since due to any number of broken promises and treaties with various nations, most recently a 2003 agreement with the U.S. which assured Kurdish cooperation in the invasion of Iraq.

We may also look to our own Native Americans as a people without a homeland. How many of you can remember when the American Indian Movement was considered a terrorist organization and the FBI was shooting up Wounded Knee because a bunch of "Indians" were "occupying" the area? That was only a generation ago. These days, AIM is passe and native-owned casinos are redistributing the wealth almost as quickly as the U.S. Cavalry did during the 19th Century.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Ochiya]

An excellent post, Lily. Thank you.

"When the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza adopted suicide bombing as their strategy in fighting Israel, I concluded that their war against the occupation is over, and an indiscriminate war on Jews has begun. I was convinced then, as I am now, that at that moment, the Palestinians lost the war, at least in the moral sense."

I agree. And no discussion of the lineages of desperation, of the "terrorisms" of the Middle Ages, of Ishmael and Abraham, or of the injustices visited by Western cultures upon the Middle East or the American Indians or the Australian aborigines or the African indigines can change that. So, too--as Wafa Sultan has so eloquently pointed out--has Islam lost its war in the moral sense when it cultures the pathology of violent and xenophobic extremism that now erodes it from within.

The simple fact of the matter is that terrorism should be condemned, without equivocation, without condition, without hedging. Those who cannot do so embrace it by default. The time has come for all nations, all peoples, to choose--in this narrow context--between civilization and barbarism.

[david uk]

The State of Israel has been floting international law for years... suerly that makes them terrorists too?

[Ochiya]

The State of Israel has been floting international law for years... suerly that makes them terrorists too?

Actually.... No. It doesn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism).

[Dee]

I think "they're all nuts" too, Janis.

I may get flamed for this, but to my thinking both sides of this conflict are in the wrong. Both are doing evil and it matters not to me who threw the first stone.

Perpetuating killing is not justifiable in my mind, and that's what this is.

Besides, putting all things into realistic perspective there’s not a thing that I can do to stop any of it.



Now where did I put that magic wand . . .

[Green Monkey]

Many Thanks for posting that, Lily. :D

Now, if only more Muslims would be as reflective on this subject rather than believing in the fantasy that they can push the Jews into the sea (which ain't gonna happen, folks). Likewise, the Palestinians are not gonna go away either. This, fundamentally, is why these two peoples must make peace with one another at some point, because neither side is going away and both groups have a fundamental right to live their lives relatively unmolested. That means not getting blown up for merely being Jewish or Palestinian.

With the advent of the Second Intifada in September 2000, the Palestinians really went off the tracks in my view. By what moral right could they ever justify a Palestinian suicide bomber walking into an ice cream shop and deliberately blowing up a little girl and her friends? Was the little girl a legitimate threat against the Palestinain people and their aspirations of Statehood? Of course not. For this reason, I will never support such tactics by Muslim extremists whose main interest (it seems to me) is to become shaheed. There can be no justification in my book for the deliberate murder of innocents. If a party wishes to make war on the miltary forces of their enemy, thats different in my book, and a different set of rules applies. But if all one side wants to do is murder the civilians of the other side, they are gonna lose me and I won't give a damn what justification they feel they have.

I think that history will judge the Second Intifada as a huge mistake. What we are seeing today is merely the continuation of that mistake. We could have had peace over there, but thats not the choice that the Palestinian side made in 2000. They believed they could get a better deal by terrorizing the Israeli people. They were wrong.

Note that the First Intifada was quite different in that it characterized as much as anything by Palestinian youths throwing first rocks, later molotov cocktails at Israeli soldiers in their vehicles (which generally had little effect). The Israeli reaction was:
Yitzhak Shamir's aggressive stance towards the Palestinians (notably including an exhortation to the IDF to "break the bones" of the demonstrators).<which Israeli soldiers did, with rocks>
I have no dog in this fight other than being unalterably opposed to terrorism. I'm an atheist, but not a militant atheist. That means I want other people to believe whatever religious beliefs they want. But I draw the line when someone declares that, since I believe differently than them, that I must be killed, that its their religious duty to kill me, as I am kafir or infidel. That I won't sit still for. :(

GM

[Amy in Vermont]

Lily:

Thank you very much for posting this article. It is a comfort and a reminder for me that there are people out there that are capapble of seeing the truth.


I may get flamed for this, but to my thinking both sides of this conflict are in the wrong. Both are doing evil and it matters not to me who threw the first stone.



Dee, I may be risking my membership by birthrite in "the tribe", but I could not agree with you more!

[paularoid]

I may get flamed for this, but to my thinking both sides of this conflict are in the wrong. Both are doing evil and it matters not to me who threw the first stone.

Perpetuating killing is not justifiable in my mind, and that's what this is.
Let us not forget to add at least two other factors into the equation. The U.S.A. gladly supplies, supports, and arms the one side (Israel) and Iran etc supplies, supports, and arms the other (Hezbollah).

If they're bound and determined to shoot at each other then DON'T GIVE 'EM THE WEAPONS!

[david uk]

I may get flamed for this, but to my thinking both sides of this conflict are in the wrong. Both are doing evil and it matters not to me who threw the first stone.



I agree with Dee in that this conflict has two sides, and neither has a monopoly on the truth.

I don't know how to say this without inflaming anyone, so please believe I am saying so in good faith and I will accept anyone disagreeing with me.

Israel has every right to defend itself and to exist. I have also been to Auschwitz on 2 occasions and cried in the gas chambers and have a friend whose grandmother was killed there so I do not take any of this lightly.

I do however think the media, particularly the US media from what I have seen, takes a one sided view of all of this, and is inclined to see only the israeli point of view.

I would in no way seek to justify the actions of Hezbollah in this conflict- they are totally unjustified. However, I have friends in the region on both sides of the conflict. I am reliably informed that Hezbollah, as well as launching rockets on innocent israeli citizens, finances and runs hospitals and schools for disadvantaged citizens in southern Lebanon.

Also, does the arrest of a few Isareli soldiers by Hezbollah warrant such an extreme response by Israel, killing hundreds of Lebanese citizens, when they themselves have taken hundreds of Lebanese soldiers prisoner? The United Nations thinks not.

As I said at the start of this post, I seek to annoy no one with this post. All I seek to do is to echo Dee's quote. The evil is on both sides, I just feel the US only focuses on the Israeli side.

Both sides need to follow international law, but neither is currently doing so.

Peace to all, whatever side you are on x

[Green Monkey]

does the arrest of a few Isareli soldiers by Hezbollah warrant such an extreme response...May I kindly suggest you check your usage of the word 'arrest' carefully before applying it to what Hezbollah did. See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest

Questions to ask yourself:

1) Were the Hezbollah personel police?
2) Under the color of law, what alleged crime did the Israeli soldiers commit to justify their 'arrest'?
3) Was Hezbollah in their own country when acting as police during this arrest?
4) Did these Hezbollah 'police' kill other Israelis as part of this arrest? How would that affect the lawfulness of this 'arrest'?
5) Capturing enemy combatants for the purpose of using them as hostages is a war crime. Would the Hezbollah action still be an 'arrest' in light of this fact?

Hope this helps get your word usage sorted out.

GM

[david uk]

i posted my post politely

but since when has wikipedia been a source of authority? anyone can modify any post so the definitions mean nothing.

i shall now stay out of this debate

was only trying to say there are 2 sides to any debate

d xxx

[Green Monkey]

i posted my post politely

but since when has wikipedia been a source of authority? anyone can modify any post so the definitions mean nothing.

i shall now stay out of this debate

was only trying to say there are 2 sides to any debate

d xxx

Are you saying that the definition of arrest on Wikipedia is wrong?

GM

[Robert the Bard]

I'm still of a mind that a sovereign nation defending it's borders isn't "evil". That's supposed to be one function of a government, to protect it's borders, and citizens. The "Israel is evil for retalliating" crowd needs to take a good look at that fact. I'm not going to flame anybody about disagreeing, we're all adults, and entitled to our own opinions. I will ask this though, if an intruder entered your house, what would you do? Would you just lay down and give them everything they wanted, including your life? I know I wouldn't.:confused:

[DaveM]

I see nothing wrong with Israel or any sovereign nation defending its borders. Lebanon is a sovereign nation and allegedly recognized by Israel as such. Hezbollah is not a nation and has no national boundaries.

If a sovereign nation has the right to defend its borders, then Lebanon has every right at present to do a tit for tat and invade Israel to the degree that their country has been invaded by Israel. They won't of course, because Lebanon really doesn't have much of an army. Should Iran or Syria come to their aid, however, they will promptly be dismissed as "terrorists" and "someone" (say, G.W. Bush) will probably decide to throw some more troops into the equation without the slightest idea of what they will do or how they will know when they have accomplished any conceivable objective.

The most appropriate solution to an adversary without a country (Hezbollah) is an armed force without a country--the UN Peacekeeping Force, which incorporates elements of the French Foreign Legion (the army that eats its own dead). Station them on the internationally agreed-upon border, allow 72 hours for everyone to get on their own side of same, and after that, shoot back at anyone who launches, shoots, or flies anything overhead. My guess is that things would quiet down in short order.

[Dee]

Rationalization is a psychological trap.

Aggression is an act of the bully.

Peace is an act of will.

The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong. (Gandhi)

Nonviolence is not a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat is in the heart, and it must be an inseparable part of our being. (Gandhi)

[Robert the Bard]

Here's a novel concept for Lebannon, how about rooting out Hezbollah, disarming them? How about turning them over to Israel, or, assuming you can get the UN to stop counting their money long enough to get involved, getting them to take the prisoners, and have the trials. Right now, though, it seems they are too busy counting the money from the last time they decided that it was ok to sanction a "private" company to violate sanctions they brought against Iraq. Read "Oil for Food". Ultimately, it should be the UN's responsibility, but they feel it's more important to talk about what should be done, instead of taking action.

Quoting Ghandi is nice for individuals, works well for them. However, forgiveness only goes so far, when people start blowing up your women and children. I wonder, how much of that other cheek you'd be turning if it were your children getting blown up?

[Dee]

Well to begin with, I didn’t claim that forgiveness doesn’t require effort Robert. I’m also not denying that evil exists and is its own end.

Still, as I wrote in an earlier post: Perpetuating killing just isn’t justifiable (to me).

I would have the same viewpoint if we were talking about the death penalty. If you kill the one who kills, then who will kill the one who killed the killer? It just can’t come to an end that way. Clearly in the middle east conflict, neither side wants peace (and never has in my 46 years).

There is another way out of that cycle, and it’s not by retribution.

I don’t need you to agree.

[david uk]

Let us not forget to add at least two other factors into the equation. The U.S.A. gladly supplies, supports, and arms the one side (Israel) and Iran etc supplies, supports, and arms the other (Hezbollah).

If they're bound and determined to shoot at each other then DON'T GIVE 'EM THE WEAPONS!

you took the words out of my mouth Paularoid.

both sides are killing innocent children, but the weapons didn't come from nowhere.

[david uk]

just wanted to add another point....

an Egyptian friend of mine said that his cousin is at university in Iowa... the university have been fantastic and constantly check with her whether she is rceiving harrassment because she is veiled. She is very happy with the way she is being treated in the states.

Another UK acquaintance of mine has spent a month trevelling around Iran on his own. Although he has a UK (=enemy) passport he has received nothing but a big welcome from ordinary citizens and the authourities. He has been offered hospitality at normal people's houses in Tehran and other cities, and the authorities also offered to extend his tourist visa so he could stay longer.

The idiots are the politicians, not the normal people

[Robert the Bard]

I'm not going to try and get you to agree, or to dissuade you from your opinion. We are both mature adults, entitled to those opinions, no matter how bad we may think they are, or practical. My point was simply that people only have so many cheeks, and ignoring the problem, and hoping it goes away, is not a viable political solution. Not when you are charged with the defense of your population. Radical Islam will not be happy until there is no Israel. Short of the marching themselves back into slavery, they have only the responding to violence with violence option. If terrorists don't want to declare a country, and declare open war, then the things going on now are the only things that can be done. You find out where the rockets are coming from, and you try to stop the traffic. Unless the radicals, to include the leader of Iran, lose the desire to "wipe Israel off the map", or "drive the Jews into the sea" there will be no peaceful resolution, unless they run out of bullets, and the stuff to make bombs...Seems pretty straight forward to me, defend yourself, or jump into the sea, surrendering your sovereign borders to a bunch of terrorists. The problem is, ok, now that they have Israel, they'll want most of Europe, then North America, etc. Where are we supposed to draw the line? Should we spare them the trouble, and everybody just convert to Islam now, and start bowing to Iran for leadership? Because ultimately, that's the only thing that will make them happy. :shrug:

[DaveM]

I thought it was the "godless Communists" who were going to take over every country one at a time. The domino theory, that sort of thing.

Seeing as Islamic governments (including several run by fanatics) already hold the world on a leash by merely sitting above huge amounts of oil, they really have no need for an expansionist policy to throw their weight around. I'm often surprised that anyone over there is even concerned about Israel, which almost certainly does not buy any of their products.

Might be worth noting, too, that if I recall correctly, 20% of the Israeli citizenry are Muslim Arabs, few or none of whom have any terrorist connections or ideals. We err seriously when we tar all of Islam with the same brush. The same error which was gospel during the years of "The Red Menace".

Mark my words: most of us will live to see "the enemy" wear a completely new face, and very possibly a new religion as well.

[paularoid]

Just my opinion but I think a LOT of all the nonsense in the world today would not occur if the good ol' U.S. of A. would just learn how to keep it's own nose out of everybody else's business and take care of our own. We (the U.S.) don't need to be the big boss of the world and tell everybody how they need to conduct themselves. It's supposed to be coexistance, not coexist with us the way we tell you to or else.

It'll never work though because of greed. Not just the greed of the U.S. but also the greed of Israel, and the greed of Islam, and and and and and . . . . The list goes right on down. Everybody seems to think "our way is THE way" when indeed it should be "our way is our way" and "your way is your way".

I have no faith in humanity anymore except for humanity's ability to FUBAR things.

[Dee]

Just my opinion but I think a LOT of all the nonsense in the world today would not occur if the good ol' U.S. of A. would just learn how to keep it's own nose out of everybody else's business and take care of our own. We (the U.S.) don't need to be the big boss of the world and tell everybody how they need to conduct themselves.

Well since you bring that point up Paularoid, I must admit I hold exactly the same viewpoint, as do most all of my friends up here north of our shared border. Who decided that the United States was any good example of democracy in action anyhow? Got a mirror? Yeesh!

The way the current administration is *ahem* spreading it's particular (and peculiar) ideas of democracy is a complete farce. Let's be honest. A bully is just a bully, and this twisted attitude of entitlement if not reigned in and soon may very well bring about the demise of the "good ol' U.S. of A".

[david uk]

I absolutely agree Dee.

We (the west) sold arms to support the Taliban and other such groups which was a grossly irresponsible act.... and now look what has happened in Afghanistan..... check who you are seelling weapons to guys before you do it.

As I may have said in a previous thread, the US and probably the UK and France supported the Shah of Iran's brutal regime with money and arms, and guess what? we end up with the current regime as a result of the 1979/80 revolution against the Shah... and those people are now supplying hezbollah....

Democracy, sure we support it, but only when it suits us. Otherwise, we're happy to get the money from the arms and let the people get bombed, arrested and tortured.

[Robert the Bard]

Good thing my brush was narrow then. I'll reiterate what I said, just to be sure it was properly read, "Radical Islam". While every person that follows Islam is not a radical, if you read what's posted around the net, and on all the news channels, (just so we know it's not slanted too far one way or the other), all of Radical Islam wants to wipe Israel off the planet. :shrug: I don't know what the real solution is, but I do know that I don't make a habit of saying all <insert any race/religion you choose here> are bad. I thought I'd made it perfectly clear that I was referring to radical within the Islamic faith, but apparently I didn't spell it out well enough. I hope this clears it up some.

[DaveM]

And radical Christians want to wipe out practically everyone who is not them. And they're right here in this country! With guns in their hands, and God on their side, as Bob Dylan put it.

I do dispute anyone's comments to the effect that there are fanatics in this world--we all know there are plenty to go around. I do have a bit of trouble with the idea that we're supposed to be obsessed with the activites of one group, and pay no attention to others.

No, I don't think any of our homegrown "Christian Patriots" are building atomic bombs in their basements--then again, I don't think and Islamic group is, either. We do see the influence on our day to day lives from both: one need only mail a package or board an airliner to see what the Islamic Boogeymen have wrought (or at least George Bush has--anyone know of any Islamic terrorists who have been captured by airport security with explosives or weapons?). Our Christian terrorists are as yet visible only on a more subtle level....say, in the choice of medicines you can buy at your local pharmacy or the health care services you have access to. But I really don't think that either group has finished yet.

[Robert the Bard]

All things considered, I'll have to agree. There are fanatics everywhere, in all religions, be it Christianity, Islam, or Paganism. I know a little about that, and do see the influences every day. Our "Onward Christian Soldier" types can be seen in the news protesting everything from abortion to gay rights. The religion is different, marginally, but the cry is the same: "If you aren't like us, your wrong". This is the thing that leads me to believe that religion has no business in politics. A subject that has been hotly debated lately. However, it's influence creates things like ID in schools, no gay marriages, both of which I find extremely sad, as I've said before now. I do not believe that someone that is a true fanatic in any religion has any business in control of a country, especially in a position where they have absolute power. While I question their overall effectiveness, we do have checks and balances in place. This isn't the case in other parts of the world.

[paularoid]

While I question their overall effectiveness, we do have checks and balances in place.
And (in my opinion) the current administration has fought tooth and nail to circumvent those to their political advantage at every opportunity.

[pulmike]

And what about the idea that religious tolerance is itself surpect? Is it not the view that all belief systems are entitled to respect that gives shelter to extremists? Isn't it tolerance that enables fanatics to use religion itself as a forward base, as fortfied ideological strongholds? I say we need to reexamine the umbilical cord-like connection between liberalism and religious tolerance. Must it be so? What are the costs/benefits of maintaining that connection?

Are religious moderates as blameless as all that? Do they not legitimize and shelter the zealots. the fanatics, and the violent?

pulmike

[Robert the Bard]

And (in my opinion) the current administration has fought tooth and nail to circumvent those to their political advantage at every opportunity.

Oh, it's not just an opinion, it's a solid fact. I think I've mentioned this before, but in my opinion, after 9/11, we needed to do something. Now, for the sake of fairness, when is it going to be enough? :confused:

[Oak Kitten]

Great post Lily,

I have come to believe that extremism of any stripe, be it Arab, Israeli, American, whatever is a symptom of some kind of collective psychosis.

There is a book that is a classic of military history called War in the Modern World by Theodore Ropp, which takes a macro approach to the study of human conflict and places it within the context of economic, technological, demographic and political changes. To get the most out of the book, you have to read the footnotes, which are extensive and fascinating. This book is considered the gold standard of scholarly military history with good reason. The one thing I remember most about it was his observation on the correlation of demography with spasms of violent conflict throughout world history. When you get large populations of angry, frustrated young men with no discerible prospects for a decent future, you get some really nasty wars until essentially they all kill each other off and the process starts over again. It seems to be endemic to the human condition, unfortunately. The problem today of course, is that we have extremely angry, rabidly ideological men with nuclear weapons at their disposal, and if that doesn't put skid marks in your shorts, nothing will. Anyway, I highly recommend the book to anyone who wants a broader perspective. It is very easy to get wrapped up in the political and moral debates - which is important as well - but can get very frustrating, as evidenced by some of the posts on this thread. People should not be afraid to disagree (civilly). When everyone is thinking the same way, then most people are not thinking.

Finally, I'd like to share one of my favorite quotes from a gentleman by the name of Elmer Davis, who was a journalist who became the Director of the Office of War Information under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His job was essentially to be a propagandist for the American side in WWII, but if there is such a thing as "good" propaganda, in the sense of reminding people why we are fighting a particular conflict, this is it:

"What makes Western civilization worth saving is the freedom of the mind; now under heavy attack from the primitives, who have persisted among us. If we have not the courage to defend that faith, it won't matter much whether we are saved or not."

Oak

[DaveM]

Death To Extremists!

[Oak Kitten]

That's great Dave! Right along with "I hate bigots!"

Oak

[DaveM]

Wouldn't those two phrases be a great front and back to a t-shirt? Not sure whether people would laugh or a lynch mob would assemble.

[Oak Kitten]

DaveM,

Why don't you try it out? If we don't hear back from you we can figure out how it went. . .

Oak

[Robert the Bard]

That's great Dave! Right along with "I hate bigots!"

Oak

Uh, just a hint of irony here, but doesn't hating bigots make someone a bigot? :eek:

[Dee]

Extremists. Ugh. Off with their heads!


http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d149/danielmarkskelton/Photo%20Shoebox/FraAngelicoBeheadingofSts.jpg

Gotta love Wikipedia :

"Decapitation is invariably fatal, as brain death occurs within seconds to minutes without the support of the organism's body."

Gee. Who woulda thunk it?

[DaveM]

Kinda cool how those guys' halos stayed on even after their heads were chopped off.

And I couldn't help but be reminded of a line from some long ago medical paper: "Most people who are shot realize what has occurred."