[lit-ideas] Re: Oh, Take me to JesusLand!

  • From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "lit-ideas" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 01:37:53 -0500

> [Original Message]
> From: Veronica Caley <vcaley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 11/16/2005 11:46:19 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Oh, Take me to JesusLand!
>
>
> Andy: To suggest that I would justify suicide bombings or any other kinds
of
> bombings is someone else's insanity.
>
> V.C. From the discussion I got the impression that you may not send people
> to do it but you have some tolerance for it if the reasons are good.  You
> are not responsible for people's impressions.  Never the less, I still
> stand by my impression.
>


***A.A.  Why stop there?  While you're at it, why not think of me as a
chain saw murderer?  Just out of curiosity, what specifically gives you the
impression that I have tolerance for suicide bombings?  I said they're
anathema.  It's just about the worst thing I can imagine.  Where do you get
the idea that I tolerate it?    



> Andy:A.A. The two are inseparable. And both sides are wrong. (reasons and
> actions)
>
> V.C. This is very profound but it leads people in the Middle East
nowhere. 
> And what, pray tell, did the innocent bystanders do when a suicide bomber
> detonates himself?  Just as you properly get upset over the civilian
> victims in Iraq.  It is also the case with aerial bombing, but almost no
> one protests against that.
>


***A.A. And it will continue to lead them nowhere except to ever escalating
violence.  As far as what they can do, heck, they can invest in kevlar and
make some money.  I have no idea what they should do.  Personally, if it
were me, I'd move.  I'm also an atheist so I have a hard time finding
sympathy for people who insist on dying for a religion.  They're entitled
to, certainly, if that's what they choose to do, but it's not a choice I'd
make.  Especially with God's track record.



> A.A. How would you characterize an argument that revolves around their
> goal being the targeting of civilians (their goal, mind you), and ours the
> targeting only of insurgents. Marlena even said to the effect of that our
> boys sacrifice themselves for the Iraqis. Sacrificing his life is
> something the Christian God did. Sounds pretty divine to me.
>
> V.C.All things considered, and with the objectives of US government, it's
> definitely better to target only insurgents.  The truth is, there is no
way
> to tell who is who.


***A.A. My point exactly.  By definition our boys are killing civilians.



> Which is the genius of guerrilla warfare and the reason why all this death
> is for nothing because it can't be "won."  


***A.A. This is exactly what's going on in the Middle East.  It will never
end.  Only escalate.



It's not like the war for US
> independence from the British.  Re American soldiers sacrificing
themselves
> for Iraqis is something I don't accept.  


***A.A. I think that was Marlena's fantasy.  Of course they're not
sacrificing themselves.  Unless they're really weird.  The point is that
Americans think they're that righteous and good.



I am in real conflict re troops. 
> On the one hand, I hear them say they are doing their jobs, which reminds
> of the defenses at Nuremburg, on the other hand I cry for their young
lives
> taken and mutilated.  The people responsible are the people in Washington.
>


***A.A. Definitely.  But I've listened to calls on CSPAN where callers
fight tooth and nail for the right to "win" this war.  People are stupid,
that's the bottom line.  It took a long time for most to even catch on that
Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism except to breed it and multiply it.


>
> A.A. Ah, but who asked the Palestinians if they wanted to give up their
> homeland?  
>
> V.C.No one.  Palestine was a colony of Britain.  The establishment of
> Israel was done in the UN.
>


***A.A. Can you supply a source for this?



> A.A. You've given no reason why Montana won't work except that for some
> reason you don't think it would work. NIMBY is I think the slogan for
> that. 
>
> V.C. I just don't believe that you can get any of the parties to agree to
> it.  For religious reasons, for territorial reasons.  I can't prove it
> because I would have to poll all sides and I believe that to be
impossible.
> If Montana was an option, diplomats would have long ago worked on this. 
At
> least, it would have been presented to the American public to see how they
> might respond to it.
>


***A.A. I was splitting the baby here and finding the real mother.  I know
Montana would never work because of the NIMBY principle.  It's fine if the
Palestinians are suffering.  But if we suffer, well, that's a different
story.  As you have proven, we're not big sufferers.  We can support
Israel, but only if it's convenient.  



> A.A. So throw out one group and give it to the other.
>
> V.C. Terrible, so are you packing your bags yet so you can turn your home,
> etc. to Native Americans?  Or don't you consider that a land grab?  But of
> course, that is ok.


***A.A. So all of a sudden we're righteous about the Native Americans.  If
we wanted the idea were to work, something could be worked out.  



> This country is full of unhappy Native Americans who are, to this day, the
> victims of US government, regarding treaties and regard to lots of money
> owed.
>

***A.A. The government does owe them.  At this point they need
opportunities going forward.  The past is gone.



> A.A. A while ago I posted this link on the origins of Israel. Israel has
> no legal right to exist. It was pointed out that even Einstein turned down
> the presidency of Israel on this basis when it was offered to him.
>
> V.C. I read this. It just shows the validity of my comment earlier that we
> are all either victims or beneficiaries of history.  My second observation
> is that the history of the Jews and the Palestinians differ widely, but
the
> article is substantially true.
> I have never read that Irgun was a fascist group.  It was, in my opinion,
a
> terrorist group in modern parlance, or a freedom fighter. This depends on
> the custom of the times.  And there is neither wish or grounds for denying
> the suffering of the Palestinians.  Just as a side comment, to understand
> why some Jews were so adamant at getting their own state, there is
> virtually nowhere on earth where they were not, in one way or another,
> severely abused if not killed.  The last, best time and place for Jews was
> 17th century Poland where they were invited into the country by the king.
> In my neighborhood, there used to be public swimming pools.  Before WWII,
> there was a sign there that said, "no dogs or Jews allowed."
>


***AA. I agree with you, except that it's not 17th century but I think 14th
or 15th century.  Regardless.  I feel extremely sorry for the Jews.  As an
atheist I wonder why they continue to hang on to something that causes such
suffering.  What's the point?  Why do it?  



> A.A. It's good that you're outraged. But the point was that when we point
> one finger at somebody, we have four fingers pointing back at us. 
>
> V.C. Yes, exactly.  But you didn't respond re leaving the US and giving
the
> country back to it's original owners.  That's because you don't want to do
> that. Neither do I.


***A.A. But I'm not the victim of suicide bombers either.  I told you
already.  I'd move.   I gave up Christianity, so I'd have no trouble giving
up Judaism.  But that's me.  Others need to hang on to their religion and
die for it.  That's their decision.    



> So we do accept injustice but it's easier to condemn those who do it on
the
> other side of the world.  
>


***A.A. My point exactly.  NIMBY.



> A.A. The Muslims are jerks too, no doubt about it. But that doesn't give
> anybody the right to take their homeland and get righteous about it.
>
> V.C. True.  So why didn't someone go to the aid of countries invaded by
> Hitler until it was clear he was a menace to England as well.  Or, Eastern
> Europe when over run by Soviets,  Because justice comes at a high price. 
> Mirror, mirror the wall, whose land am I, you, they sitting on?
>

***A.A. Don't know.  I think ultimately people need to get to the roots of
war and stop it there.  Instead, people are not only not working on the
roots, but their historical memories don't go past yesterday.  I read
recently that war needs to happen every 25 or so years because periodically
people need to vent their rage.  I read a really interesting idea recently
that the cabbage patch doll craze of the 80's, with adults buying the
dolls, was an unconscious collective backlash to the killing of the Vietnam
War.  It was the adults who went crazy buying these things, paying
thousands of dollars in some cases.  It was as if people were adopting
these dead soldiers.  Sounds strange, I know, and I know a lot of people
reject Koenigsberg-esq explanations for humanity's need, craving, for war. 
But I find it plausible.  I also think flocking behavior might have
something to do with that and other crazes.  Mob mentality.  No real reason
for it.  Anyway, I thought it was an interesting idea, worth exploring. 
Except that few will.  The thinking will stay stuck in the same old wheel
spinning, machine gun blazing rut.



> A.A. Forgetting about how they lost their homeland in the first place.
>  
> V.C. How can we forget?  They are in the news several times a week when
one
> sends a suicide bomber and the other one retaliates.
>

***A.A. You're kidding right?  When was the last time you heard that
another suicide bombing occurred because Israel unlawfully took Palestinian
land and homes?  It's always how evil the Palestinians are and how
victimized the Jews are.  The fact is, they're both victims.  I think
Ursula posted the Sumerian expression that if you take a man's land, he'll
come and take your land.  That's exactly what's happening.  Wisdom that
goes back 3,000 years is unheeded by us.



> A.A. But if the robbery was the loss of your home, I doubt this would
> suffice. Especially if you have to sleep in a tent while someone lives in
> your house.
>
> V.C.Actually, this happens here now and then, one at a time.  Some kind of
> mortgage fraud and identity theft.  And there is no justice for them
> either.  


***A.A. I don't think you quite get what it must feel like to have to live
in a tent while someone lives in your house.  I have a feeling all of this
is just an abstraction.  



One of the problems in the world is that millions of us believe in
> absolute justice.  On a practical level, it is not attainable.  The people
> who have the ability to do it don't want to.  


***A.A. If that's the case, then they're evil.  I suspect there's not much
they can do. Every president that I can remember worked on peace in the
Middle East and it's only gotten worse.  Now the terrorism has spread to
the U.S. and will spread more and more.  



> A.A. Except that by not seeing the other guy's side, escalation is
> guaranteed. The *only* way out is win/win. Win/lose is a formula for
> disaster, especially with today's weapons. Check out Iraq if you need
> proof.
>
> V.C. If I didn't see the other guy's side I would not be bothering with
all
> this.  It's because I do see it and I think both sides are heading for
> disaster, possibly annihilation.
>
>

***A.A.  I definitely agree.  In the meantime, I'm still wondering why you
think I condone suicide bombings.  The idea is so ludicrous it makes me
want to get my chain saw and kill somebody.


Andy Amago




------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 11-2005