Jacques Du Pasquier wrote:
>
> Samantha Atkins a écrit (29.9.2001/00:57) :
> > I see no really good reason for a continuing large force in
> > Saudi Arabia. It doesn't provide significant enough detterrent
> > relative to our ability to quickly move in forces when necessary
> > for the level of action present imho. And it costs an arm and a
> > leg financially as well as in good will of the people in the
> > region.
>
> That may be.
>
> But what seems clear to me (and makes the previous point not very
> important in the frame of this discussion) is that some of what you do
> will keep provoking the rage of some islamists, even if you don't want
> it, and don't understand why. For them to be "ruled" by you, in
> whatever conceivable sense and indirect way, is just totally
> unacceptable ; justice is that it be the other way around. The
> infidels should be ruled by the faithfull, not the other way around.
>
I have no interest in ruling in any of these countries, even
indirectly. There is no "justice" when people of any kind are
forced
to live by rules of other people they do not agree with.
> See for example Lewis' "The Roots of Muslim Rage", already mentionned
> here
> http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/90sep/rage.htm
>
> > I don't see why it is the business of the US to practice world
> > domination nor do I see us really doing that. If it is our
> > business then we should do it honestly imho and establish a true
> > one-world government and mono-culture.
>
> I'm not speaking of an actual domination, something that is concretely
> present everywhere all the time, but a potential domination, that is,
> checking at any given point in time that you can regain control, even
> if at a cost.
>
It depends on what you mean by "control" then. If you mean
keeping some regime from doing much what was done by Germany at
the start of WWII then I can see some point in that level of
"control". If you mean keeping that extra 25% of our energy
budget being supplied by MidEast oil then I think it would be
far more logical to find other ways of supplying our energy
needs.
>
> > I don't dismiss it easily but I don't believe the fault is in
> > Islam
> > itself.
>
> Read sourate 9 (sorry I didn't find the English for sourate, that's a
> "chapter") of the Coran and tell me about it.
>
This is hardly relevant. You can find sections of the Bible
that are pretty bloodthirsty. This hardly means that Judaism or
Christianity are inherently bloodthirsty religions.
> I know of course that many muslims don't follow this blindly. But if
> you take it as it is (not by some strange fanatic reading ; just as it
> is), then you should fight against and kill all non-muslim, whithout
> even thinking of your own life.
>
Would you call anyone who would take some scriptural exhortation
to kill all unbelievers literally as being a sane follower of
Islam? No? Then why belabor it?
> > If you want terrorists and mad crusades look at
> > Christianity
> > about 500 years ago and some of the continuing extremism to this
> > day. Yet there is no real support for such methods in the New
> > Testament.
>
> I think this is not a good argument. Atheists made slaughters, too, we
> know that. It doesn't entail that some religious content cannot
> sometimes provoke violent action. Sometimes the cause is not there ;
> sometimes it may be. In this instance, the terrorists actions are
> consistant with sourate 9. And if you listen to one of these people
> (violent islamists), you discover that they are not vile nor mad, but
> loyal and consistant with their beliefs.
>
They are both vile and mad by their actions. Their opinions are
irrelevant to the judgement.
> > > I think this is not a yes/no problem. Imagine that your friend is
> > > badly hurt, and asks help from you to counter. Depending on the kind
> > > of help she asks, what really happened, what might happen next, who is
> > > the attacker, etc., you will have a tension between various desires
> > > and fears. It's a matter of nuance and quantity, and to make the right
> > > choice you need to limitate the amount of blindness and cowardness that
> > > you put in the resolution of the problem.
> > >
> >
> > Where did cowardice entere into this? How does any blindness at
> > all help?
>
> I was talking about France. What I meant is that refusing support to
> the US is a decision in which cowardice (sorry for awkward English and
> thanks for your patience) and blindness can play a role, not only the
> legitimate auto-determination and own vision of things. Cowardice, to
> avoid fighting of course, but more to avoid possible later retaliation
> from terrorists ; blindness, to consider that this is a USA problem,
> and we are not concerned by it.
>
When you throw in "cowardice" you make the entire discussion
more emotional and further from the point I was attempting to
get across. That point is that nearly automatic support of the
"war against terrorism", no matter what its form, is every bit
as much the enemy of freedom and security as terrorism itself
is. Of the two I would
feel less in danger from terrorism than from the lack of
freedom, squandering of resources, unlimited government and
persecution likely to be made part of this "war".
> But I don't want to insist on this last point : first it is "our
> business" ; second, I agree with what you said initially : that
> proposing the alternative "you support us blindly or you support the
> terrorists" would not be nice.
OK.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:59 MDT