Defending the Truth

This lady is spot on!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wPglHZQf-0

This video has been posted before.

In many regards, she is correct. But I must say that such a backward philosophy much like that which is held by Muslim extremists isn't exclusive the Islam only; and Islam certainly isn't exclusive to militant dogmatism as the lady in the video is rather indirectly implying.

When the Bush administration proclaims the universal superiority of western-style democracy (and western capitalism) and imposes such a dogmatism militantly, we are committing the same err that militant Muslims are committing. When the west does not respect the self-determination and independence of other nations, we are committing the same err. It's just that one side has all the ships, planes, and nukes while the other is left with the tactics of the poor (guerrilla warfare and terrorism). And then 'former Muslim' ladies like the one above can sound all special and civilized by rather superficially citing the barbarity of terrorism and the civility of the west by merely citing the differences in tactics and wealth as her evidence.

When in actuality the mentality is much the same on both sides. The truth of the matter is that it's so easy to point and criticize the appearance of the poor man when he is in rags, while ignoring the fact that the Jihadists are from the old (yes, undoubtedly rather backward) strata of the colonized and oppressed while the west is the also backward ruling strata of imperialism and forced McGlobalization. Both of these opposing forces of rather similar mentality reinforce each other, and if you attempt to support either side and fight fire with fire: you're only going to make the situation exacerbate. I mean it's quite obvious; terrorist organizations grew in size and force exponentially ever since 'the war on terrorism' was declared. And likewise, when radical Muslim extremists decide to ram planes into towers as opposition to western involvement in the Middle East; what they got is more western involvement in the Middle East.

This is relativism at its worst. As though deliberately targeting innocent civilians to establish control through fear can be equated to liberating an oppressed people so that they can determine their own future through a democratic process.

How shallow the comparison (or how blind the observer) must be to think that the US and radical Islam are even in the same ballpark - morally speaking.

PS

Western style democracy IS superior to rule under Islamic Fundamentalism.

Blind is the observer, sir, who seriously believes the Iraqi people have been 'liberated'. It hasn't to do with democracy but opening markets and controlling strategic positions and oil to further secure U.S. dominance. Also blind is the observer who has not recognized our guilt for many of the same atrocities.

Shallow is the observer who believes the more than 700 military bases in most of the world's recognized nations and other unspeakable 'black prisons' is some great force of benevolence and democracy.

Are we really so different? The west kills innocent civilians. The west practices assassinations, random kidnappings, terrorism, torture. The west supports and installs rightest dictators for strategic resource relations. The west even supported some of the most heinous terrorist organizations. The west even supports Saudi Arabia which by every account qualifies for "Islamic Fundamentalism" a multitude more than the former secular state of Iraq. The west even instills fear in its own people for political gain. We lost the moral high ground a long time ago.

Yes, I would say so. Of course it depends on what you mean by superior but ultimately I personally would rather live in a western style democracy than under Islamic Fundamentalism. But that doesn't mean western style democracy is superior to all other systems. And it certainly doesn't mean it's something to be forced upon another people with force. In fact it is an undemocratic act to force an ideology onto a people by force. Democracy must rise out of the middle east organically and fully self-determined. To grow democracy we must support a ground fertile for democratic ideals; and exacerbating tensions between Islamic sects, initiating war, and misrepresenting democracy by forcing it onto others while exploiting their land and resources certainly isn't doing that. It must reach through ideas and calm. Not through the sword and war. We loose the moral high ground and become no better than them if we follow the latter course.

This seems so basic - I don't know why it's not perfectly clear to everybody.

Ah yes, the "you are not perfect therefore you are just as bad as they are" argument.

I am sorry but that does not wash in the real world.

Both sides have killed innocent civilians - yes, but our side does not target them nor does it hide among them. In fact our side goes to great pains to avoid causing any harm to them.

That alone should enable even the most uninformed observer to distinguish which side is morally superior (strategic interests or not).

As far as the "imposing democracy on others" argument. I think this is rather like imposing prosperity or security or freedom. It is hardly an imposition when the majority of the people desire these things. And we are going to facilitate their having them.

Please do not even try to say that the Iraqi people preferred life under Sadam Hussein. That would only serve to expose you as not being serious.

I'm on dial-up access. I can't see the video. But:
I'm glad you made this statement ccv.

I agree with you part way.
I don't view a Peace Corps worker as being as despicable as a murderous terrorist.

But the U.S. military is for the defense of U.S. interests. It's not for toppling sovereign governments, and spreading democracy at gunpoint; an obvious absurdity.

This Bush administration decided to promote democracy in the Middle East.

"Be careful what you wish for." Now there are a few democracies in the Middle East. And this Bush administration doesn't like them.

So now the U.S. is back to selling arms to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, & Jordan; none of which are democracies.
Rather than me opining a direct response, I'd prefer to share one of the U.S. Founder's perspective on it.
Bush has put the U.S. in the preposterous position of the U.S. wanting Iraqi -freedom- (for lack of better term) than the Iraqis do.
That's why we're wearing flak vests, and toting field packs, working multiple extended tours, over-working our own military to "the breaking point" (that's not my term, that's a term General Barry McCaffrey [ret.] used), while the Iraqi legislature has taken the month off.

A nation's Liberty is worth whatever its People are willing to pay for it.
Right now, WE are paying for it.
It is a catastrophe.

The U.S. was substantially better off with Saddam in power.
The region was more stable.
Global terrorism was better controlled.
The U.S. military had it's powder dry.
The U.S. treasury was $Trillions less in the red.
... and then there's the matter of the body counts ...

Sear,


I could not agree more. The US should only act where it is in her own interest.

It is the Bush Administration's policy that our interest (protection from terrorism) is best served by being aggressive against terrorist organizations and those countries that sponsor/harbor terrorists.

Whether one agrees that that is the best plan is a suitable topic for debate. However, making the US the moral equivalent of the terrorists is dishonest.

I agree. However, the situation in Iraq is that of a people who are scared. After years of death squads and torture, they are slow to stick their necks out.

However, this is exactly why the surge is working. We are providing visible security. This is emboldening them to report/ turn in insurgents in their area. We are seeing progress because we re getting cooperation and information that was not possible previously.

I would imagine that they would be even more willing to stick their necks out if they were not bombarded with promises from a major US political party that they will pull our troops out as soon as possible.