Excellent baiting. I shall not rise to it. While it is certainly true that our enemies have diverse goals, as a group they are little more than nihilists.
One way to peace is of course to ‘give them what they want.’ We could simply hand over the religious minorities that come within their grasp, the homosexuals, the women. We can turn them over and turn our backs on them and hope that buys us safety.
Many of them also want the return of lost Islamic lands. So we could give them Spain, the Balkans, the Philippines, Central Asia, lots of India, and perhaps central Australia.
Do you think these steps are practical? Would you advocate them? More importantly, do you think they would work?
Surrender is neither moral nor practical. That leaves us with only the option to fight.
Surely, you mean you don’t want anything from TERRORISTS?
Surely, you’re not lumping a billion peaceful muslims with a few thousand violent fanatics?
Surely, this thread has got a point that I’ve missed?
I know you didn’t mean it, but it reminded me of this (by Pastor Martin Niemöller)
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Are AQ’s terrorists supposed to realize that too? I strongly doubt they would, or care.
And for us foreigners: other than “a religious war” or “a long, drawn-out, wasteful fight similar to the middle-ages religious wars”, what is a “crusade”?
If you mean that people can also “crusade” like they hold a campaign, yes, but the first meaning of the word crusade, that most people think of in my opinion, is the religious war in history. If I tell you that “Jihad” doesn’t automatically mean “Holy War”, but originally meant striving to be a better person; and that even in a Jihad, people like women and innocents and priests are supposed to be untouched - would you believe that, or would you counter that most fanatics use Jihad in a much narrower sense?
I don’t believe that this “gaffe” was glimpse into the horrifying real goals of the Bush admin. ; rather, it highlights for me the many instances where Bush shows his fundie born-again Christian beliefs, and helps catering to the religious right. That part of this may be incompetence in diplomacy, or true arrogance for other, different cultures, or ignorance of the feelings of people in other cultures - it all sends an extremely strong message to people outside the US.
I know, because I live in a democratic country, which some Americans seem to have trouble understanding. Given the law the Senate passed against the ICC, or other comments by many Americans on the net, the majority has a hard time understanding that democracy does exist outside the US. And the declared goal of the admin. wasn’t establishement of a democracy in Iran, but of the democracy = American-style “democracy”.
It’s not the lip-service to promotion of democracy - while at the same time, the Bush admin is working hard to decrease democracy in the US and replace it with a Christian theocracy! - it’s the whole parcel of what the Bush admin proposes. In the News about the US, and from the US, Christian religion plays a very, very
large part - Anti-Abortion, Anti-Gays, Anti-Evolution, 10 commandments in the courts, abstinence-only sex ed, prayer circles for the President - and the US gets the largest news, and most attention.
Well, most accounts I have heard and read say that Bush is fanatic and reborn Christian. I concede that part of what he does is his own stupidity, part may be his own fanatic beliefs, part may be catering to the religious right, and part may be his neocon handlers who really pull the strings. All together, this makes for a dangerous (to toher countries) combination: a religious fanatic can’t be reasoned with; and economic interests don’t want to listen about death tolls; and stupitidy is not able to listen to why dreamcastles don’t work.
But I don’t believe he wants conversion by the sword - everyboy knows he wants conversion by the bomb.
I wasn’t baiting you. I was hoping (obiviously in vain) that you would realize the position of your statement.
Maybe it would help if you would define who you are talking about, first of all. And nihilists don’t have an aim - so those terrorists who want to overthrow the government in one country and establish a theocracy are by definition not nihilists.
First, because the different groups have different aims, handing them our women and homosexuals isn’T what “they” want. (Are you going to hand over your homosexuals to the Religious Right, or fight for their rights?)
Second, I already gave my suggestions on what to do.
You seem to be ignorant on the whole middle road of options available. Besides, even if you want to “fight” the terrorists, how? Dropping bombs on Iraq doesn’T work against the London-born bombers.
You must have skipped that part of my post where I mentioned the **whole middle road of options between fight and surrender ** that you don’t seem to know about.
No, “we” (You and me) are not agreed that “we” (the western countries) must fight. I wanted to know if you are aware of the difficulties of “fighting” not a single nation that can be conquered, but multiple cells, with different backgrounds, aims, motivations, in different countries. Conventional warfare doesn’t work, therefore, “fight” like in war isn’t really an option, except for people who like dropping bombs on foreigners.
Police work, for example, like that which lead to the uncovering of the London bombers, is not “Fight like in a war”, it’s another option. It can be applied locally, without killing indiscriminately civilians just because they happen to have the tough luck of living in the wrong country.
Same for the other options I already mentioned, like changing the political course of your govt., petitioning the other govt. to stop their human rights (through AI or the UN), try for better education (through the UN), etc. There are many options available, because there are many causes and contributing factors to terrorism. There IS NO single terrorist group with a single cause and a single aim, no matter how often you say it; therefore, there IS NO single, quick fix. All real-life working options require long-term commitment, lots of money and personnell, and honesty.
Well, this is a different sort of war, and so it must be fought in a unique way. Now that we have turned that corner in the discussion, perhaps a new thread is in order?
Constanze, you Europeans (I’m assuming you’re European) often have very provincial attitudes about America, almost as if you hate and fear anything different than yourselves. America is not Europe. But is America on the brink of a theocratic dictatorship? Only the most provincial and unsophisticated of people could believe this.
You have a lot of ignorance about America, just like lots of Americans are ignorant about Europe. That’s OK, but the first thing to do is recognize you’re ignorant, then you can begin to learn.
Do you know what Bush’s church is? Do you know how often he goes to church? Do you know what a fundamentalist is? Do you know what it means to be “born again”? Do you understand the difference? Bush does not belong to a fundamentalist church. He is not a fundamentalist, he’s a METHODIST. He’s not a religious fanatic, he’s a frat boy who goes to church occasionally.
Now, about the word “crusade”.
For some english dictionary definitions:
(often initial capital letter) any of the military expeditions undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries for the recovery of the Holy Land from the Muslims.
any war carried on under papal sanction.
any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea, cause, etc.: a crusade against child abuse.
In English no would would think twice if someone talked about a crusade for women’s sufferage, a civil rights crusade, a crusade against government waste, a crusade to save the environment, a crusade against profanity on TV, a crusade against pornography, a crusade against drunk driving, a crusade against personal use of company office supplies, a crusade for consumer rights. People talk about crusading laywers, crusading journalists, crusading consumer activists, crusading civil rights leaders, and even (occasionally) crusading preachers. But in no case does this imply violence, only zealousness. Only one time in a hundred will the word be used to mean a holy war of Christian against infidel. So a crusade to spread democracy would cause only 1 person in 100 in the US to think in religious terms, because the word has been changed to mean any zealous campaign that has a moral component.
As you point out though, other people hear different connotations, and the arabic word “Jihad” is closely parallel.
Of course it was a gaffe, of course it was a dumb thing to say, because the literal meaning of crusade is still present in english. But all it reveals is that Bush is an idiot, not that he’s a Christian Theocrat waging holy war against Islam. You haven’t heard him use that word in the last few years, have you? You never hear him blasting Islam, do you? Or Judaism? Or Hinduism? Or Buddhism? Or Paganism? He (that is, his speechwriters) are very careful to make sure that he never does so. Because Bush is not a pro-Christian bigot. He doesn’t personally give a rat’s ass about homosexuality or abortion…it’s just that these are useful wedge issues. Whether a person who has no personal feelings about gays but bashes them anyway for political gain is worse than a person who bashes gays out of personal gay hatred is a matter for argument. But there it is.
This is a tad misleading. It’s true that Bush’s official denomination is Methodism, which is pretty mainstream Protestant in its modern American formulation. However, he is quite cozy with many non-Methodist fundamentalists, such as the virulently anti-Muslim Franklin Graham (whose father Billy is a longtime friend of the Bushes, and indeed was the person who got Bush to be “born again”). And whatever his personal religious views may be, he’s certainly openly aligning himself with fundamentalists on many issues, from right-to-life to intelligent design to gay marriage.
But it is beyond argument that both people are publicly espousing an anti-gay position. Similarly, it’s beyond argument that Bush has espoused fundamentalist positions on many issues. The fact that he’s singing from the fundamentalists’ hymnbook is more significant, in terms of practical impact on policy, than the fact that he doesn’t formally belong to their church.
Yes, I’m European. No, I don’t think I have a “provinical” attitude about America (if that word means that I’m un- or half-informed and follow stereotypes?). I know that America is not Europe (sadly), because I wish European enlightment, true democracy and real civilisation would finally reach the US. (This doesn’t mean that everything is the same - just as there is no “typical American”, because a Texan, a Californian and a New Yorker have very different attitudes, lifestyles, etc., there is no “typical European”, either - there are lots of differences between a Swede and an Italian. And yet, the latter share a common belief in democracy and human rigths and so on, that’s often missing when talking with Americans.)
As for how close the US is to a theocratic state (not dictatoship - although Bush and the Republicans do control all three branches of the govt., right? Bush has ignored the courts telling him that he trampled the constiituon before, right?) - that’s the large influence that the Christian fundies have on the laws passed or not passed; the whole Anti-Evolution battle, repealing the Abortion laws, the anti-gay issue - all of these are either recent developments backwards, or no steps forward.
And as for how I get my info about what’s happening in America: different sources. TV reports, newspapers and journals, web discussions, and webpages written by Americans themselves (e.g. twopercentco and others).
This may be another instance of different definitions, but over here, most of the American churches are considered fundie. A “born again” with his zealoutness is considered a fundie over here. And the numerous stances Bush has taken - against gays, against Abortion, against evolution, against proper AIDS and sex ed. - all those are sign of being a fundie.
Furthermore, it’s not only how often he goes to church, but that he has a prayer circle meeting quite often, where very famous, fundie TV evangelists and other fundies advise him on policies. (For comparision, no politican in my country would dream of publically praying - it would not only be against seperation of Chruch and State, even most devout Christians consider faith a private thing, and would think this to be a show.)
Yes, I’m aware of the 3rd the meaning - but the third meaning developed after the first meaning. I can’t think of the third meaning without remembering the original term (maybe because I know about that part of history that happened before 1492). That’s why we don’t often call sth. a “crusade” for women’s rights or similar, but a campaign or similar instead.
