War- It is Just a Shot Away
People have very short memories and they tend to want to think the best of others. That is my less than profound thought for this evening. It is my unprofessional opinion that we are at war and have been at war with fundamental Islamists for a couple of decades now.
It is my unprofessional opinion that people want to find a simple answer for this, such as pointing to the problems between Israel and the Palestinians. In an age of instant gratitude they look for instant answers that they can rely on. And there are many who look to people like myself and judge us to be warmongers or some other pejorative term. It makes it easier to sleep at night.
But I am not that innocent anymore. I look around the world and I see that there are clergy that rape children and predators that walk our streets. I remember watching Daniel Pearl announce that he was a Jew and then watched his execution. The US was not in Iraq then.
I see that Zarqawi and other members of AQ feel no compunction not to murder others because they think that it is ok. I see that the man who murdered Van Gogh told us all why and in my opinion explained quite succinctly why we are at war.
“After the prosecution’s closing statement Bouyeri, who had refused to say anything about his motives during the trial, took the opportunity to make a final statement.
“I can assure you that one day, should I be set free, I would do exactly the same, exactly the same,” he said, speaking slowly in sometimes halted Dutch.
He said he felt an obligation to Van Gogh’s mother Anneke, present in court, to speak, but offered no sympathy.
“I have to admit I do not feel for you, I do not feel your pain, I cannot — I don’t know what it is like to lose a child,” he said as Van Gogh’s family and friends looked on.
“I cannot feel for you … because I believe you are an infidel,” he added.
“I acted out of conviction — not because I hated your son.”
The most chilling part is found in the last two sentences.
“I cannot feel for you … because I believe you are an infidel,” he added.
“I acted out of conviction — not because I hated your son.”
I hope that people wake up and accept that we have to do more to come together to fight this evil and that it requires more than platitudes or hiding our heads in the sand and I pray that we finish this task so that we and our children can resume living lives unencumbered by these threats.
Jack's Shack July 20, 2005 at 7:05 am
Zeruel,
True, there are copycat murderers but in this case we need to err on the side of his being involved in nasty business.
We don’t know what else he would have done and the reality is that a copycat murderer is still a murderer and a danger to society.
Zeruel July 20, 2005 at 12:24 am
Howdy.
It’s not making excuses, it’s seeing things in perspective. Sure, Bouyeri looked up to Zarqawi but that doesn’t make him a member of his crew. A copycat murderer could look up to Charlie Manson and mimick his murders, however this doesn’t mean he was part of the ‘helter skelter’ crew.
Jack's Shack July 19, 2005 at 11:18 pm
Hi Zeruel,
Long time no see. He may be disturbed but that doesn’t change that his mindset is similar to many of the radicals who espouse a similar line in which they express no sympathy/empathy for the victims of their terror.
They murder because it meets their needs. They kill indiscriminately. It is a mistake to try and make excuses.
Zeruel July 19, 2005 at 11:12 pm
I’ve watched the trial against Bouyeri for a large part live on tv. While the prosecuter van Straelen presented his case clearly, it was obvious the defendant was severely psychologically disturbed. Comparing this spoiled brat to someone lile Zarwqawi is just ridiculous. For Bouyeri islam was a refuge, a drug to escape in like a junkie escapes in heroin. A crisis in identity like many people in cultural transition and the death of his mother led to him becoming socially disaffected and influenced by poisonous extremist ideas.
When you see him, there is nothing but walking tragedy.
The Misanthrope July 18, 2005 at 8:05 pm
I forgot to mention that I liked the title of this piece, words from Gimme Shelter.
I agree, I think it is a combination and I want to be the one with the bigger stick.
Jack's Shack July 18, 2005 at 8:01 pm
That would be nice but terrorists seem to keep fighting on with the limited sticks and rocks they have.
That is why I think it requires a combination of force and diplomacy. There are ways to choke the infrastructure of the terrorist operations.
If you can cut down on their abiliy to hide and refuel you can cut down on their ability to execute acts of terror.
One of the key things is the need to try and help “host countries” fight the ideology that creates these people.
Bill July 18, 2005 at 7:42 pm
That would be nice but terrorists seem to keep fighting on with the limited sticks and rocks they have.
Unfortunately their success is based on how efficiently they use their sticks.
Even if I do not agree with the means I hope that the eventual “Su[ing]for peace happens.”
Jack's Shack July 18, 2005 at 7:32 pm
Someone attacks me I get a bigger stick and hit them, then they get a bigger stick and so on and so on.
Not always. Sometimes the person you are fighting with understands that they cannot succeed and gives up violence to sue for peace.
Bill July 18, 2005 at 7:27 pm
I’m going to quote out of one of my previous posts on Q’s Blog so if this annoys you Jack feel free to delete this post, but I think that doing so would be appropriate here.
Misanthrope’s post above states that “The problem is there is no finish to such a task except to eliminate humankind, . . .Trying to finish such a problem by using more efficient ways of killing only prolongs the sad situation we are in.”
I agree totally efficiency in killing should not be the road to peace as I said before;
Someone attacks me I get a bigger stick and hit them, then they get a bigger stick and so on and so on.
Aggression breeds aggression.
Its like the old Itchy and Scratchy cartoon on the Simpsons. The cat hits the mouse the mouse hits the cat they each get bigger weapons each time. It’s a great satire on violence, but is it funny?
It is not funny because there is way too much truth in it.
Jack's Shack July 18, 2005 at 4:49 pm
Misanthrope,
I don’t think that this can be solved solely by force or diplomacy but only by a combination of the two.
The Misanthrope July 18, 2005 at 4:10 pm
The problem is there is no finish to such a task except to eliminate humankind, which I think we are on our way to doing: nuclear weapons, pollution, war, disease and greed.
Trying to finish such a problem by using more efficient ways of killing only prolongs the sad situation we are in.
Mirty July 18, 2005 at 3:34 pm
I think you and I are on a similar — if not the same — page. Check what I just posted at my blog.
– Another “warmonger” – NOT!