The Chaser: …And You Can Quote Me On That!

NOT tit for tat!

     There are a few thoughts that I have shared before about this whole “War on Terror.” I’ve shared these on Facebook, on MySpace and in e-mails to friends. I thought it might be pertinent to post them here, given the discussion about Anwar al-Awlaki and other related subjects. These are my personal opinions, and should be taken as such, except where direct quotes are used…

     In my opinion, the war in Afghanistan was a “clean shoot.” Usama bin Laden used the cover of the Taliban and the Afghani desert to mastermind and launch an attack against our country that claimed almost 3,000 lives. We gave the Taliban every opportunity to give bin Laden up, and they turned around, shrugged their shoulders and basically told us, “We don’t know what you’re talking about.” At that point, they became willingly complicit, so we had every right to go over and apply foot to arse. End of story.

     Conversely, I think that the war in Iraq was a hypocritical undertaking of global proportions. Here’s why: I (the U.S.) think you (Iraq) might have a gun (WMDs). Not only do I think you might have a gun, I think you might give that gun to someone (Usama bin Laden and Al Quaeda) who has already shot me (9/11). So, I’m going to shoot you first! If I do that here on the streets of America, it’s called “assault with a deadly weapon,” and I go to jail. If the U.S. does it to Iraq, it’s called “Preemptive Action” and is somehow justified. Again, this seems like hypocrisy to me.

Let's go, toe to toe: Christ and Muhammad

     When it comes down to radical Islam versus my take on Christianity, then my “invisible man” is better than your “invisible man.” Where mine says “Live and let live,” (Matthew 13) yours says “Live and let die.” (Qu’ran, Surah 9:5) At least my “invisible man” doesn’t require me to strap ten pounds of Semtex to my body and blow myself into oblivion to prove my faith in him. Where I might want to share a meal with you, you want to kill me, just because I don’t believe the way you do. Oh wait, even if I did believe in Islam and Allah and all that, you’d still kill me based upon geography and politics! Therefore, my “invisible man” is better!


12 comments on “The Chaser: …And You Can Quote Me On That!

  1. Queen Vicki says:

    See, Dad, this is exactly why I wasn’t going to put up my own rebuttal to what your dear friend said. They always have to get the last word in. I should note that I do know how it feels to be a victim who is blamed by someone. Stop wasting your time criticizing the Catholic Church and go criticize the tactics of defense attorneys. They blame far more rape victims and it seems that it’s the only tactic that they know how to utilize in court. Why don’t you work on something constructive like that, instead of attacking a small percentage of victim-blamers out there? I don’t mean to take this off of the original topic, but it pisses me off when people go around acting like The Church and all of their victim-blaming is the only time that it happens, or at least the only time that it matters. You haven’t had an attorney try to tell you, as a 13 year old girl, that it was your fault. Please don’t drag child rape and victim blaming when it comes to the Church into this, because defense attorneys are 10 times as harsh. Trust me, I know.

    • truelibertarian says:

      This is a direct quote of what I said: ‘I’m aware that most priests aren’t rapists and that many may be wonderful people, but the institution of the Church has covered up these “incidents.” ‘

      When it comes to Catholicism, the Vatican represents the whole, so my statement wasn’t a generalization.

      Also, defense lawyers may do a fair amount of that, but your generalization is irrational. I’m actually referring to a specific party that has been documented in their perpetration of the deplorable acts I specified.

      And even if every single defense lawyer resorted to victim blaming, that wouldn’t invalidate the point I was making about the Vatican (the highest institution of Catholicism). This blog post was about comparative religions (and why Christianity is better than Islam). My response was completely relevant and empirical, and I made sure not to generalize. So I resent all your irrelevant vitriol.

      Oh, and feel free to enjoy the last word. At least I’ve actually supported my point in every single on of my comments (except my reply to your father’s comment before he finished the formatting, though I don’t think that’s really my fault) without any ad hominem, generalizations, or the like, so go ahead and enjoy that final sally. You need it.

      • Well, time to stick my manila folder in betwixt parties and say “whoah” on this one. I’m pretty sure I know where the breakdown on this is happening, so I’ll clue you both in. (See, one of the biggest issues in today’s world is that people don’t get to actually know who they’re talking to, and never establish initial common ground. Therefore, it becomes easier to trade ever-elevating salvos back and forth.)

        Truelibertarian is a young, male college student from New Jersey. He tries to approach everything in a purely logical and analytical way (most times, quite successfully!), and does not allow emotion to become a factor in discussion or to influence his judgement. Unfortunately, this is not always a beneficial approach. Humans are emotional animals by nature, and a great deal of what makes up the “human condition” is borne of these emotions. Hell, even the founding of our nation was largely an emotional response to perceived oppression by King George III and parliament in London. Truelib, you can’t introduce terms such as “child rape” and “victim blaming” without at least a modicum of consideration that others might have some pretty strong feelings (or even some rather horrid, first-hand experience!) regarding these subjects. While you might be resentful of the vitriol, please recognize that while you might see it as irrelevant, to someone on the opposite end of the discussion, the points may seem extremely salient! I sincerely urge you to move forward, with that concept having been duly considered and accounted for.

        Queen Vicki is a married female college student from Maryland, transplanted by her family’s service to their country to western Texas. (She’s also married to my first-born son.) She approaches discussions from a rational, empathetic perspective and always does her best to take into consideration how the other person feels about a particular topic. The unfortunate side to this is that sometimes, when emotion governs the beginning of a conversation, it’s far too easy to allow the rest of the discussion to be influenced by it. QV, my best advice in this case would be that, while I know you hold some very strong personal feelings on the topics and terms I mentioned, (I feel your pain, believe me I do!) try redoubling your efforts to maintain an “even strain” in the course of discussion, and not let your feelings get the best of you.

        If all else fails, find that initial “common ground” that I talked about. In this case, you’re both from eastern seaboard states, and might even have some common “haunts” in the area. You’re both in your twenties, and in college. Build on that. Otherwise, allowing the dialogue to slip even this far down the slope is simply not okay.

  2. @Truelibertarian – I’d like to set some things right here, lemme see if I can do this in a logical pattern…

    1) You asserted that: “Because at least Jihad discriminates. Jihad targets all infidels. The Crusades targeted anyone in their way, and many innocent people who weren’t. Jihad is scrupulous, and though the scruples are disgusting, at least they are beholden to some ethical system.” I beg to differ. Radical Islam abandoned that moral code on September 11th. The Qu’ran forbids the killing of innocents, including women, children and the infirm. It also names Christians as “people of the Book.” So in other words, the radical jihadists that are perpetrating these attacks are just as indiscriminate as Christian crusaders were in the 11th and 12th centuries. Radical Islamic jihadists have been targeting “anyone in their way, and many innocent people who weren’t” for quite some time now.

    2) You asserted that: “…the Church does awful thinks TODAY as well. Like blocking shipments of condoms to AIDS ravaged Africa.” When you say “the Church,” which church are you referring to? Are you talking about the whole “Body of Christ,” or specifically referring to the Catholic Church? To the best of my knowledge, none of the churches that I have ever attended has actively blocked shipments of condoms to Africa.

    • truelibertarian says:

      Haha I presume there’s more to this comment?

    • truelibertarian says:

      1. Nope. Radical Islam doesn’t hold strictly to the popular (and most logical) interpretation of the Koran, it’s beholden to a different system. But they don’t kill their own. The Crusaders killed anyone they wanted to, brainwashed thousands, and forced thousands more into service.

      2. That’s why I specified that by “The Church,” I was referring to the chief institution, which is the Catholic Church.

  3. truelibertarian says:

    The Crusades were EXACTLY the same concept as Jihad. Except they were far worse. Why? Because at least Jihad discriminates. Jihad targets all infidels. The Crusades targeted anyone in their way, and many innocent people who weren’t. Jihad is scrupulous, and though the scruples are disgusting, at least they are beholden to some ethical system. It’s the uncertain, arbitrary will of the individual that worries me the most.

    Also, the Church does awful thinks TODAY as well. Like blocking shipments of condoms to AIDS ravaged Africa. How many lives did that ruin? Considering it’s an STD, it could potentially (and even likely) adversely affect exponentially more lives than modern Jihad, which is slowly dying out. And how about child rape? I’m aware that most priests aren’t rapists and that many may be wonderful people, but the institution of the Church has covered up these “incidents” (and regularly continues to do so), went on a spree of victim blaming, attempted to deny the severity of those “incidents” they couldn’t deny, along with a litany of other such affronts to moral dignity. The Vatican has more money IN ITS BANK than the GDP of many small countries, and yet it stockpiles it for selfish reasons. The Pope eats of golden plates, wears millions in jewels, lives better than any king or world leader, has more influence than many governments, and doesn’t need any of that. Where’s the Christian charity? Jesus purportedly wore a cheap tunic.

    And how about the dominionists? They seek to deny any lifestyle that isn’t theirs and take control of every institution in the land and world, making the world an entirely modern fundamentalist Christian. It’s the same endgame as radical Jihad, except it’s far more dishonest.

  4. truelibertarian says:

    The Crusades were the same exact concept as Jihad, with less emphasis on personal sacrifice. Besides, comparing fundamentalist X to non-fundamentalist Y is pretty unfair.

    • Oh well, my “invisible man” is still inherently better. That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it. (Sometimes there’s more to this existence than what strict logic can provide, my friend!)

      What’s really unfair is that 3K people had to die on September 11th of 2001, over religion. That’s pretty unfair.

      • Queen Vicki says:

        Okay, I’m going to make a comparison of fundamentalist X to fundamentalist Y. For the sake of being fair, I’ll pick the most radical “Christian” church that I can think of: the Westboro Church. I’m very sure that we can agree that they’re hateful assholes. I think we can also agree that radical Muslims are hateful assholes. WBC is rejected by a lot Christians and Christian organizations. Radical Muslims are rejected by a lot of other Muslims and Muslim organizations. The difference? The WBC doesn’t kill people, but radial Muslims do. Sure, the WBC knows how to beat people up emotionally and offend the hell out of people, but they haven’t killed anyone (yet). Radical Muslims brought down four planes, two towers, and a big chunk of the Pentagon in ONE day, just as a motion of “Our god is bigger & better than yours.” Oh, and the Crusades (the main Crusades that were sanctioned by the Pope) happened from the late 1000’s and the late 1200’s. Jihadism is happening NOW. The Crusades were a bunch of war campaigns that were meant to bring the Holy Land under Christian rule. The current Jihad that’s going on is somwehere in between Global Jihadism and Regional Jihadism, with more emphasis on the global kind when it comes to non-Muslim nations being attacked. Basically, they want to take over the world and make it an entirely Radical Islamic planet.

  5. Uncle Tree says:

    That’s a really cool shot of our Lord.
    “What a friend we have in Jesus.”
    He can take a joke, and that’s very important.

    Hello! Nice to meet you! Just browsing around.
    🙂 Peace, Uncle Tree

Speak YOUR mind!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s