2007-06-18
Failed Dogmas
I liked this article because it is the first time I have seen someone (besides myself) identify the problem with DOGMA in general, rather than just enumerating the various dogmas that pop up from time to time (Communism, Nazism, Islam etc). Here are the highlights:
"Many are led by radicals preaching failed dogmas (Islamic conservatism, Maoism), that still resonate among people who don't know any better."
"The American invasion of Iraq was a clever exploitation of this, forcing the Islamic radicals to fight in Iraq, where they killed many Moslems, especially women and children, thus causing the Islamic radicals to lose their popularity among Moslems."
Although I totally disagree with this. It was an accident, not clever. I certainly didn't predict that Islamic terrorists would come into Iraq to blow up women and children. My prediction was actually that the Iraqi army would defect in droves as soon as they had US air cover, rather than throw their lives away for a dictator. The fact that they didn't do this, ie the most logical course of action, required investigation, which is what I did. To find out what motivated me that was different from the motivation of these Iraqis.
"Historians like to point out, for example, that the medieval Crusades were a series of wars fought in response to Islamic violence against Christians, not the opening act of aggression against Islam that continue to the present."
"Political Correctness among academics and journalists causes pundits to try and turn this reality inside out."
The Orwellian world that has been created.
"Islamic radicals are a traditional reaction to tyranny in their region, and inability to rule effectively. Economic and diplomatic ties with the West are interpreted as support, leading to attacks on Western targets that created a devastating counterattack."
It is bizarre how people manage to think that trading with a country means "support". At what exact point in history were we supposed to cease trading with all dictatorships? Having a majority of the world democracies is a very recent phenomenon. And trading with dictatorships is not much different from supplying arms to the Soviet Union in WWII. If we don't operate in the most efficient, logical manner, we will be harming the free world. I don't mind putting up with some sort of small, temporary harm in order to produce a better long-term result, but where is the evidence that our suffering is going to do a damn thing? It's a bit like those Filipinos who lash their backs so that they bleed, in an attempt to show their devotion to Jesus. What the hell? They can show their devotion by working hard and using the money earned to help Afghans secure their freedom.
|
"Many are led by radicals preaching failed dogmas (Islamic conservatism, Maoism), that still resonate among people who don't know any better."
"The American invasion of Iraq was a clever exploitation of this, forcing the Islamic radicals to fight in Iraq, where they killed many Moslems, especially women and children, thus causing the Islamic radicals to lose their popularity among Moslems."
Although I totally disagree with this. It was an accident, not clever. I certainly didn't predict that Islamic terrorists would come into Iraq to blow up women and children. My prediction was actually that the Iraqi army would defect in droves as soon as they had US air cover, rather than throw their lives away for a dictator. The fact that they didn't do this, ie the most logical course of action, required investigation, which is what I did. To find out what motivated me that was different from the motivation of these Iraqis.
"Historians like to point out, for example, that the medieval Crusades were a series of wars fought in response to Islamic violence against Christians, not the opening act of aggression against Islam that continue to the present."
"Political Correctness among academics and journalists causes pundits to try and turn this reality inside out."
The Orwellian world that has been created.
"Islamic radicals are a traditional reaction to tyranny in their region, and inability to rule effectively. Economic and diplomatic ties with the West are interpreted as support, leading to attacks on Western targets that created a devastating counterattack."
It is bizarre how people manage to think that trading with a country means "support". At what exact point in history were we supposed to cease trading with all dictatorships? Having a majority of the world democracies is a very recent phenomenon. And trading with dictatorships is not much different from supplying arms to the Soviet Union in WWII. If we don't operate in the most efficient, logical manner, we will be harming the free world. I don't mind putting up with some sort of small, temporary harm in order to produce a better long-term result, but where is the evidence that our suffering is going to do a damn thing? It's a bit like those Filipinos who lash their backs so that they bleed, in an attempt to show their devotion to Jesus. What the hell? They can show their devotion by working hard and using the money earned to help Afghans secure their freedom.
# posted by Paul Edwards @ 11:53 
