peacemongeriv
Inactive
Thought I'd throw out a proposition. The War in Iraq, which many consider lost, hopeless, or pointless, has a silver lining.
In order that my thought be better understood, and in the hopes that people who would lambast me as a racist may be, if only for a few posts, deterred, I will first expound on a condensed version of my own view of international politics, history, and religion, such that they may better understand the complete and utter absence of race-ism in my thoughts.
I fundamentally see the destiny of mankind as one with the increase of his knowledge. Inextricably bound with the increase of man's knowledge is his technology. I believe though our technology we may, to use the biblical phrases of others, eat from both the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life. Created that we might cast down our own exile and create a greater Eden and complete our Towers of Babel.
With that in mind, I believe "civilization" is bound up with man's progress. Further, I postulate that civilization has been, most often, the setting free of man from his neighbor, his tribe. It is only when we may disagree that we may find the truth. When we are free from social bonds, free from the guilt and obligation society offers, we may at last strike out on our own, unencumbered.
In Western Culture, the ability to disagree came from a break in Christianity--indeed, I might suggest it can trace one of its beginnings to a man saying "Here I stand, I can do no other", and nailing his 95 Theses on the door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg. It was the split of Christianity into Catholicism & Protestantism and subsequent settling (relative) that began a "watered-down" version of Christianity (or allowed for it as a descendant).
This shattering of the dogma of the Catholic Church opened up the West to produce the greatest concentration of mathematical, chemical, physical, biological, and arguably literary achievements the world has ever known. (Name the top 10 mathematicians, or physicists, to get my point). In other words, Reform Judaism and Protestantism gave man the ability to disagree--to create, and to learn.
There is no analogous branch of Islam. "Moderate" Islam is considered one of the most henious crimes one can commit. Fatwas against men like Salman Rushdie, or Jerry Fallwell, or American in General (al-Qaeda, in the last case) quickly end any conception of the ability to disagree. If the Jyllands-Post controversy was something, that anger turned on an apostate is vastly worse. While both Jewish and Islamic doctrines demand death for apostacy, only one group of countries still practices it, indicative of what I'm talking about.
Due to its lack of any significant reform branch, and the mainstream response to any such branch, I consider Islam an enemy to civilization. With that in mind, I think any damage any Islamic country has done to it is in the best interests of mankind. If we cannot create a branch of moderate Islam, then best that we keep them in the dark ages.
If we do not want a successful group of Islamic countries, among the best ways of accomplishing that is be means of infighting. If we have Muslims killing Muslims and bleeding one another white with us supplying the weapons, everyone wins. They get to fight the lesser jihad (al-jihād al-asghar) against one another & go to their final reward, and we aren't having to fight them. A pareto efficient war.
With this in mind, the Iraq war is a godsend. Shiite fighting Sunni. Saudi Arabia and Egypt siding politically against Hamas and Iran, afraid of a Shiite rising power. Internal fighting in Iraq as a herald for more fighting among & within those countries. Indeed, Muqtada al Sadr expressed his fear over this very "plot"recently.
I'm after the good old days, when one Arab leader fought another fervent group of Persians and decimated both their oil production (which still isn't up to what it was before the Iran-Iraq War) and took the cream of their true believers and shredded them with area effect weapons.
I think the loss of one American life is tragic. But I recognize that if that life, or 5,000 lives, allows a war between Iraq and Iran, then that sacrifice was not made in vain. This, precisely, is the silver lining from the War in Iraq: the exacerbation of the existing rift between Shiites and Sunnis to open fighting, to expand all over the Muslim world.
For those of you that will call me racist, I'm not. I could care less about race. All I care about are a man's thoughts. If they are fundamentally against the economic and scientific progress of man, then his death is something to celebrate. If they are not, his death is tragic.
For those of you that will call me a monster, I am, in your morality. I accept this, but your jejune condemnations are quite welcome, because they'll relieve you of some of your anger, and cost me nothing.
I am interested in constructive criticism. I think the largest avenue for disagreement is arguing negative spillover effects on world politics. Outrage is impotent. Give me your thoughts.
In order that my thought be better understood, and in the hopes that people who would lambast me as a racist may be, if only for a few posts, deterred, I will first expound on a condensed version of my own view of international politics, history, and religion, such that they may better understand the complete and utter absence of race-ism in my thoughts.
I fundamentally see the destiny of mankind as one with the increase of his knowledge. Inextricably bound with the increase of man's knowledge is his technology. I believe though our technology we may, to use the biblical phrases of others, eat from both the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life. Created that we might cast down our own exile and create a greater Eden and complete our Towers of Babel.
With that in mind, I believe "civilization" is bound up with man's progress. Further, I postulate that civilization has been, most often, the setting free of man from his neighbor, his tribe. It is only when we may disagree that we may find the truth. When we are free from social bonds, free from the guilt and obligation society offers, we may at last strike out on our own, unencumbered.
In Western Culture, the ability to disagree came from a break in Christianity--indeed, I might suggest it can trace one of its beginnings to a man saying "Here I stand, I can do no other", and nailing his 95 Theses on the door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg. It was the split of Christianity into Catholicism & Protestantism and subsequent settling (relative) that began a "watered-down" version of Christianity (or allowed for it as a descendant).
This shattering of the dogma of the Catholic Church opened up the West to produce the greatest concentration of mathematical, chemical, physical, biological, and arguably literary achievements the world has ever known. (Name the top 10 mathematicians, or physicists, to get my point). In other words, Reform Judaism and Protestantism gave man the ability to disagree--to create, and to learn.
There is no analogous branch of Islam. "Moderate" Islam is considered one of the most henious crimes one can commit. Fatwas against men like Salman Rushdie, or Jerry Fallwell, or American in General (al-Qaeda, in the last case) quickly end any conception of the ability to disagree. If the Jyllands-Post controversy was something, that anger turned on an apostate is vastly worse. While both Jewish and Islamic doctrines demand death for apostacy, only one group of countries still practices it, indicative of what I'm talking about.
Due to its lack of any significant reform branch, and the mainstream response to any such branch, I consider Islam an enemy to civilization. With that in mind, I think any damage any Islamic country has done to it is in the best interests of mankind. If we cannot create a branch of moderate Islam, then best that we keep them in the dark ages.
If we do not want a successful group of Islamic countries, among the best ways of accomplishing that is be means of infighting. If we have Muslims killing Muslims and bleeding one another white with us supplying the weapons, everyone wins. They get to fight the lesser jihad (al-jihād al-asghar) against one another & go to their final reward, and we aren't having to fight them. A pareto efficient war.
With this in mind, the Iraq war is a godsend. Shiite fighting Sunni. Saudi Arabia and Egypt siding politically against Hamas and Iran, afraid of a Shiite rising power. Internal fighting in Iraq as a herald for more fighting among & within those countries. Indeed, Muqtada al Sadr expressed his fear over this very "plot"recently.
I'm after the good old days, when one Arab leader fought another fervent group of Persians and decimated both their oil production (which still isn't up to what it was before the Iran-Iraq War) and took the cream of their true believers and shredded them with area effect weapons.
I think the loss of one American life is tragic. But I recognize that if that life, or 5,000 lives, allows a war between Iraq and Iran, then that sacrifice was not made in vain. This, precisely, is the silver lining from the War in Iraq: the exacerbation of the existing rift between Shiites and Sunnis to open fighting, to expand all over the Muslim world.
For those of you that will call me racist, I'm not. I could care less about race. All I care about are a man's thoughts. If they are fundamentally against the economic and scientific progress of man, then his death is something to celebrate. If they are not, his death is tragic.
For those of you that will call me a monster, I am, in your morality. I accept this, but your jejune condemnations are quite welcome, because they'll relieve you of some of your anger, and cost me nothing.
I am interested in constructive criticism. I think the largest avenue for disagreement is arguing negative spillover effects on world politics. Outrage is impotent. Give me your thoughts.