tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129944.post1465720169444042131..comments2023-12-25T03:12:03.872-05:00Comments on Hootsbuddy's Place: Attenborough's Lyre Bird and The Parable of the Good SamaritanHootshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108363655472450828noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129944.post-23030570350135547632008-11-29T09:07:00.000-05:002008-11-29T09:07:00.000-05:00I'm reminded of Bierce's definition of "Conservati...I'm reminded of Bierce's definition of "Conservative." A Conservative is someone enamored of existing evils, as opposed to a Liberal, who wishes to replace them with new ones. Quite so.<BR/><BR/>More seriously, I read your comment a few times through and I think we're getting there. This is particularly insightful:<BR/><BR/><EM>Finally, its worth noting that the boundaries between three things ('simple' murder, 'terrorism' and 'war') are becoming blurred. It could be argued that what just took place in Mumbai is in fact, an act of guerrilla warfare.</EM><BR/><BR/>This morning (It's now Saturday, 11/29) C-SPAN's Washington Journal question was "Can terrorism be defeated?"<BR/><BR/>I only heard a short portion, but during that time the callers were all over the place with various points of view. One caller said that unless and until America comes to terms with it's own terrorist past we will never make progress. He cited what he called "armed robbery" in the case of taking North America from Native Americans, African slaves brought here against their will, thousands of deaths in Korea and Vietnam at the hands of Americans, saying that none of those victims were a threat to America. America, he said, was the world's leading terrorist country, and it is to that image that today's terrorism is lashing out. I don't agree with that oversimplification, incidentally. <BR/><BR/>Another caller said one source of terrorism was in the Talmud, the authority by which Ashkenazi Jews hold that all non-Jews were animals and were to be killed. He moved from that odd place to a conspiracy theory about the WTC attack coordinated, I suppose, by Jews.<BR/><BR/>Another caller advanced the idea that politics has less to do with terrorism than religion because terrorists were driven by belief systems, not politics. I thought of your comment here. <BR/><BR/>Someone noted a few years ago that the Irish Republican Army quit terrorism some time ago because Al Qaida was "giving terrorism a bad name"!<BR/><BR/>It is clear to me that the remedy cannot be killing all terrorists because what we call "collateral damage" only begets more recruits for their ranks. <BR/><BR/>It is also clear that terrorism will never be "defeated" but it can be minimized, in the same way that groups like the KKK, Branch Dravidians, FDLS, and a long list of other deviant American-born groups have been minimized in thier various manifestations. <BR/><BR/>It is equally clear that if Islamic extremists are to be marginalized it will never be accomplished by non-Muslims. Mathematically the overwhelming majority of Muslims are no more threatening than any other group. Just as nominal Christians are more likely to go over the edge for nationalism, racism, social discontent, even momey... the same human inclinations are true of other humans on the planet. <BR/><BR/>Hindus are famously peaceful in both belief and practice, but that did not quell sectarian violence and killing when the Raj was divided into India and teo Pakistans. In fact, I didn't know until lately that until the last few years there were more Muslims in India than in Pakistan! Many chose to remain when the country was divided, in the same way that a good many Arabs still live in Israel. <BR/><BR/>I don't think there are quick explanations of what's happening. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for visiting and commenting. Maybe someone reading what we have put here will be able to add something intelligent. I hope so.Hootshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01108363655472450828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129944.post-2372942962930757902008-11-28T11:26:00.000-05:002008-11-28T11:26:00.000-05:00Hoots - I don't know why, in general, people organ...Hoots - I don't know why, <I>in general</I>, people organize to perform acts of mass murder... other than the conventional explanation that pertains to the less-organized version: sin. We/they are human and fallen.<BR/><BR/>In the case of the perpetrators of the Mumbai mayhem however, it is important to not be satisfied with broad-brush indictments of human nature and cut to the obvious: <I>their religion commands them to do such things</I>. <BR/><BR/>From its inception, islam has been all about the pursuit of an earthly 'kingdom' of conquest, involving not only the taking of land but point-of-the-sword forced 'conversion' and/or obeisance to outward modes of worship. The alternative is shame and second-class status, aka, dhimmitude. <BR/><BR/>Which is to say: the theologies animating Abraham's children not only <I>can</I> be differentiated from one another, the Bible makes clear that they <I>must</I> be. God loves all of his children but it is only logical that some of them must be wrong about Him if the law of non-contradiction is to hold up. (And God is rational.)<BR/><BR/>To bring it back down to earth... <BR/><BR/>Something I read recently conclusively ruled OUT the rational pursuit of political or economic outcomes as explanations for organized mass murder (aka, 'terrorism') in favor of a theory of social affinity (since, the numbers show, throughout history, that terrorism virtually never achieves its stated goals). <BR/><BR/>In other words, in addition to the motivation provided by a demonic idolatry, islamic mass murderers are motivated by the same thing that motivates common street gangs: social affinity and affirmation. <BR/><BR/>Finally, its worth noting that the boundaries between three things ('simple' murder, 'terrorism' and 'war') are becoming blurred. It could be argued that what just took place in Mumbai is in fact, an act of guerrilla warfare.<BR/><BR/>Re. the 'Sand... Almanac' quote, <I>"Conservatism is getting nowhere because it is incompatible with our Abrahamic concept of land."</I>... Conservatism isn't <I>supposed</I> to get anywhere! :) (at least not fast)<BR/><BR/>It is, literally, a philosophy designed to conserve -- which of course begs the question: "conserve <I>what</I> exactly"? It's the mirror image of the complaint I have with the term 'progressive': "progressing to where/what, exactly"<BR/><BR/>Hope you had a great Thanksgiving! Thanks for stopping by my blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com