« Elizabeth & Lucas: Grandpa's Bragging Rights | Main | ‘True Value of Work’ and ‘Caring Economics’ »

31 May 2011

Comments

Mikey McD

George, great post. Are we not 'obligated' to carry out 'political violence' should our God given unalienable rights be destructed.

Sound familiar?:

"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

Mike Thornton

Mikey D writes:
"Are we not 'obligated' to carry out 'political violence' should our God given unalienable rights be destructed"

Told you so!

Todd Juvinall

Mikeyy, the Declaration is only as good, and Jefferson's words only as good, as the socialist dejour thinks they are for that day.

Account Deleted

Mike - What, exactly have you told us?
I notice that the term "violence" has many differing meanings according to various differing groups. Some of the uses of the word are quite far a field from it's usual connotations. It does seem that it's usually the left-leaning folks that are the most creative in finding new ways to employ the term.

George Rebane

With this brief comment stream, and the notable absence of the original proponents of the thesis, can we conclude that at least some political violence is warranted?

Paul Emery

Some think it's warranted.

Timothy McVeigh went to the chair (actually the needle) believing what he did was justified political violence.

"I am sorry these people had to lose their lives. But that's the nature of the beast. It's understood going in what the human toll will be."

"If there is a hell, then I'll be in good company with a lot of fighter pilots who also had to bomb innocents to win the war."

George Rebane

Many think that political violence is warranted.

When we contrast the justification of Timothy McVey and bomber pilots for killing innocents (as a much bombed and strafed kid in Estonia and Germany during WW2, I was innocent close to death countless times), I am reminded today of what the militant Muslims preach, train, execute, and justify in the killing of innocents. The ragheads specifically seek out and target the innocents who don't hew to their theology and political philosophy.

To the perpetrator political violence is a most just holy grail.

Paul Emery

The massacre of 6000 Muslim men and boys in Bosnia is thought to be the largest individual slaughter in Europe since the end of World War II. It was interpreted by some as a Holy War of Christian revenge and ethnic, meaning religious, cleansing. It was defiantly a religious war of genocide. I don't know why you never mention it in the same tone as you do Islamic extremism.

George Rebane

Paul, the answer to Bosnia is easy. It was a horrible aberration which launched, and now terminated, one of the longest standing manhunts in history to bring the guilty Christians to justice. We of the western culture did it on our own and to our own, because we know it was wrong, and we don't teach it to our children.

On the other hand, Islam openly teaches jihad against the west, children's programs abound on Islamic TV which have children extolling the virtues of becoming martyrs and killing infidels, especially Jews, in the most gruesome of ways. There is no hew and cry in trans-national Islam to remove such programming. (And only Fox News reports and shows these videos - the liberal lamestream is silent.)

Religious schools (madrasahs) openly enlist young people to join various raghead units and organizations in order to more effectively kill and maim westerners. There is no hew and cry in Islam to stop such education and recruitments. On the contrary, they are funded from the highest levels of their governments and spiritual organizations (in addition from their terrorist legions).

Innocents of the wrong Islamic sect and westerners wholesale have and are being killed in an unending war that Islam proclaims will continue and grow until their socio-theological goals are reached. There is no hew and cry in Islam to stop this.

And there is also nothing surprising about any of this for a well-read westerner. Perhaps we had a similar past, but today we are different. The only surprising thing in the west is how those of the progressive persuasion are staunchly blind to the asymmetry of how the two cultures compete.

Paul Emery

George, the 6000 Muslims were slaughtered not directly by Ratko Mladic but by his legions who must have individually shared the same belief in the religious crusade of ethnic cleansing. I don't think the fervor from the West against the Serbs, who were Christians is the same as that against the Muslims.

Under the same rules of engagement that justified our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq in search of Bin Laden and his legions wouldn't the Islamic nations have bee justified in invading Bosnia to seek out Mladic and his followers, most of which returned home and were never prosecuted or even pursued?

George Rebane

Of course Mladic's troops shared his views, but he was the CO and didn't have to give the order to slaughter the Muslims. And of course, all else given equal, people have a greater dislike of people who are less like themselves. This is not rocket science, except in politically correct USA.

And for sure the Islamic nations would have had equivalent justification for invading Bosnia. But they didn't because they couldn't win a frontal confrontation. So Islam uses terrorism.

Now we get to go back and argue who started it all. My answer doesn't match yours, so I don't want to do that. It's a mess - they don't want to compromise their scriptual commission, and we don't want to become medieval Muslims. Where do you want to go with this?

The comments to this entry are closed.