Unity08. A people's movement to take our country back.

There are many disturbing things discussed in Kennan's book about our country's inane approach to foreign policy. Follow are a few (in no particular order):

• As a nation, we are very gullible; we have a long history of accepting fallacious politically-driven arguments as though they are wholesome and valid.
• We tend lack humility and our sense of superiority makes us to look down at other nations.
• We’re quick to jump to war (military solutions) when diplomacy is almost always a better way to handle international conflict.
• The military-industrial complex is out of control (e.g., we create many problems through our export of armaments, and the whole system is incredibly wasteful and inefficient).
• We act impulsively, without knowledge of the likely consequences of our actions.

In a nutshell, when it comes to foreign affairs, our country has developed a huge habitual militaristic appetite that benefits certain corporations, certain members of the armed forces, and their political allies; while at the same time, our leaders are largely ignorant of the complexities of human nature, inept at sensible diplomacy, and manipulative in making the case for war with the American public due to greed and/or fear of appearing weak. These tendencies go way back in our country’s history, and the current Middle Eastern conflicts simply reflect this long-standing trend.

What we need, therefore, is a paradigm shift in the way we view and deal with other nations. This means breaking the unholy alliance between politics, power, ego and money to create a new American consciousness ... a changed national personality based on wisdom, integrity, humility, reflection and compassion for all people's ... and that’s a real challenge because many folks are gaining financially by the status quo!!! I just don’t see a viable alternative.

Steve Beller, PhD

• Sign in or Sign up to post comments
• report as spam

I assert that our debate stems from Judeo-Christian-Islamic text comprised of ambiguous, nuanced, and sometimes contradictory commands--often presented through analogy and story--which must be interpreted to be understood.

Any reasonable interpretation, however, must be made in light of the complex, historical world situation and human knowledge at the time the text was written. Not to mention the likely a "telephone-game effect" (i.e., when you whisper a phrase to your neighbor and it's passed down the line, often resulting a much changed phrase) in which the writings change over time as stories and scriptures pass from generation to generation, and are translated from language to language.

My assertion explains why it's easy for different people to interpret the same phrase in drastically different ways, and why there is often no universally correct interpretation of many phrases.

As such, one's interpretation reflects one's own knowledge of history, influences of one's current culture, mind-sets emerging from one's present life events, as well as one's personality and existing belief systems.

I therefore consider such interpretations to be subjective beliefs that many have no connection to what the author (or one's god) actually means by the words. And there's often no way to know what a valid interpretation is.

This logic confirms the case that terrorism is NOT based on religious text, but fundamentalist leaders may use their own interpretations to validate their preconceived agendas. And these agendas typically reflect their desire for economic gain and security for themselves and their followers, as well as a desire for control.

Steve Beller, PhD

• Sign in or Sign up to post comments
• report as spam

Now your arguments are much stronger and they can not be simply dismissed. Now they should be analyzed step by step.

You put me in a awkward position, when during the war I have to explain that even though not all Germans are bad people and even many rank and file members of the Nazi party enlisted solely out of German patriotism (nothing wrong with it) and despise the aggression and war crimes committed by their party leadership, we still need to consider crashing Nazi ideology and banning Nazi parties. Well, these Germans and even Nazi party members are our natural allies and we would like them to take over their native Germany. But singing praises to Nazi will not help them to succeed. As a matter of fact, it would embolden and strengthen Nazi leadership and they will kill these dissidents whose feelings we are so afraid to harm.

I’ve reviewed the Koran. What is found is that it, like the Old and New Testaments before it, contain cryptic passages that are open to different interpretations.

You are not the first person facing the ambiguity of the religious texts. Muslim scholars faced it long time ago and their key is the life of the Mohammed. It is the most sane approach used by modern judicial system - Look at the legislator’s intent..

There are plenty calls in Koran to kill polytheists and enemies of Allah. Sure, that all is in self-defense only. I grew up in a highly militarized and pretty aggressive empire, called USSR, to appreciate that concept. USSR was also never aggressor, only self-defenser. USSR went to Finland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Afghanistan, South Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Nicaragua, Cuba, Chilly, Ethiopia, Israel (yes, soviet officers manned Egyptian air force and air defense during Arab aggression against Israel on Yom Kippur), you name it purely in self-defense.

One can wonder what people of the remote North West corner of Africa ever did to small town in Arabia, called Mecca, so Arabs from Mecca took that area in self defense and now it is a Muslim country Morocco.

It was taken over by just second generation of the Mohammed’s companions. It was sure inline with the life sample of their Prophet.

Chapter 5, verse 32: “We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person -- unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land -- it would be as if he slew the whole people; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people."

It is the concept common for all 3 Abrahamic religions. But now look the life of the role models of Christianity and Islam.

Jesus killed nobody. As a matter of fact, you can try him now based on the modern criminal and international law and find no crimes. Zero!

Mohammed himself responsible for killing thousands, which proves that he was not overly concerned with his own Sura 5:32.

Scientists and Muslim scholars both recognize 2 very different cycles in the Koran.

1. Mecca cycle, when he was counting on Jewish support, was at the head of the minority group and was more tolerant toward
2. Medina cycle, when he became a ruthless warlord and ruler of the ever growing Muslim Empire.
If directions from 1-st cycle contradict directions from 2-nd cycle, second cycle takes preference, as being written later.

If you will put Mohammed on trial today, he will be easily convicted as civic and war criminal on multiple accounts.

Yes, I have problem with the fan club of Mohammed, Genghis-Khan, Timur-Lenk, Adolph Hitler, Tomas de Torquemada, Jack the Ripper or other known murderer is opening its weekly session in my neighborhood. They could be nice guys, but the chances of them going berserk is much higher than in the club of followers of Jesus Christ, Mother Theresa, Buddha, King Solomon or even Britney Spears.

The lesser jihad is the considered response to attack with self-defense.

Where did you take it? This is not in the Koran. The fact, that this is not from Koran, allows Islam to easily remove this sophisticated concept and go with the simple understanding of the test. And they are doing just that from time to time. It is called Fundamentalism. And our victory will not be safe from another Muslim politician, who will jump in the very moment, he will think that they have a chance to destroy us.

Jews and Christians are "People of the Book" to Muslims -- fellow recipients of God's instructions

Yes, they are called Dhimmi. Learn about the life of the Dhimmi in the Muslim World as second class citizens. Your hear will rise up. Well, it is still better than to be killed during pogrom, so it was a progressive concept 1400 years ago. But come on… Modern social concepts (especially, separation of Church and State and Bill of Rights) give minorities equal rights.

Sheik Muawith is troubled when people like Osama bin Laden issue fatwas of their own. "These kind of fatwas have no basis in religion," he says. "Anyone just issuing a fatwa like that should not be trusted. It should neither be considered the religion of Islam or the teachings of Islam."

This is great. I am sure, that honorable Sheik has already issued his own fatwa (excommunication) against Osama bin Laden. It should be easy to declare Osama a non-Muslim or even the tool of Shaitan (Devil) for mocking peaceful Islam.

What? He did not issue fatwa against Bin Laden? But why?

I will tell you why. Honorable Sheik knows that Osama can back his words by Mohammed’s words and deeds, while Sheik Muawith (no doubt, good person himself) has to use second-hand interpretations written by men to make Islam look peaceful.

The truth is – Osama is a Muslim Fundamentalist and there is nothing in Islam, which allow Muslim scholars to excommunicate him, even if they desperately wish to do it).

Since my point is that using religious text as justification for some action is based on interpretation, that the validity of that interpretation requires understanding the authors’ minds, and that such understanding should take into account knowledge of circumstance at the time.

I almost agree with you there. I am also trying to look at the life of the Holly Prophet or Jesus Christ in order to judge their religions. I have a note about time, though. You can put it in the past or apply to old and non-existing now tribes only if the modern followers of that religion also agree to leave it in the past. Such is Judaism. There is an very specific eternal command to kill Amalek and his kin. Well, there is no Amalek now – so nobody will be harmed by this command. And those biblical tribes in Canaan, who “were ordered” by G-d to be fought are gone long time ago. Jewish scholars agree, and what is important, it is part of Judaism required religious text, that these commands were executed at that time and do not apply to modern times.

In Christianity and Islam, however, the historical samples of the lives of their respective role models are eternal. But the Role Models are very different.

What would Jesus do? – asking good Christian. Atheists, Jews, homosexuals will not be harmed as the result of the answer.

What would Mohammed do? – asking good Muslim. He would establish a totalitarian theocracy, will take multiple wives and build up personal wealth from selling the war booty and ransoming captives, because this is what he did in Medina.

”People would like to act as if there has been no wrong done by Christians”

I would challenge this author to point to wrong (Jews has some issues with Jesus in the spiritual realm, but it is a different story) done by the Christ, his followers and even first two generation of the Christians. These people wrote New Testament. People, who wrote Koran, on the other hand, were certified war criminals by modern standards.
At least, he did not bring Crusaders. :) We can thank him for that.

Now, let’s talk about your solutions.

Strategy 1: One way to weaken these extremist leaders is, therefore, is to convince their followers that the religious text ought to be interpreted differently. Unfortunately, I doubt this would work for many reasons.

I agree with you here. It will not work because, by design at least in Suni Islam, no one has the authority to impose mandatory commentaries on Mohammed’s words and actions.

Strategy 2: Another way is to kill all the extremist leaders, their followers, and anyone else who might take their places. Likewise, this is not possible (e.g., we still can’t find bin Laden) nor is it wise since martyrdom and civilian deaths (“collateral damage”) only make the leaders’ causes stronger in the minds of the masses.

Mistake here. Muslim concept of martyrdom is very different from the Christian one. Islam is very “earthy” religion. Their achievements always meant to be in durable things – more land, bigger temples, and mightier armies. If person is killed bringing more land under Muslim control, he is a martyr. But if he is killed achieving nothing or even losing land to Jews, Christians, Inuits, he is nothing more, than a loser.

It is OK to make losers out of Muslim Fundamentalists. It is a good concept, which worked with Germany and Japan. Nazi leaders did not become German martyrs.

Strategy 3: A third way, which I’ve been proposing, is to treat the Muslim masses with great dignity, respect and humanitarian aid. Not only is this consistent with the core message of Christian, Jewish and Muslim religions, but it would make it much for difficult for the extremist leaders to blame and criticize the West for the plight of the Muslim world, as well as giving cognitive dissonance to their followers (and potential followers) since we would be helping them have a better, more dignified life (it’s tough to hate someone who helps you and treats you with respect). We could then also implement strategy 1 since Muslims who are now susceptible to radical/extremist interpretations of the Koran would become more open to alternative interpretations.

Israeli experience tells that it will not work. The more you give to them, the more resources they will use to destroy you. Consider the following – on one hand, Israel was about to give Palestinians their beloved independent Palestine in 2024. On another hand, old retired Israeli general went to the site of the old Jewish Temple. You might think that Palestinian should take the independence and ignore general. Well, Palestinian ignored the offer and started war because of the general.

Another case – Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Any thanks from Muslims? Yes, if you would call daily missiles at Jewish cities thankful notes.

These overly sensitive folks will consider our gestures of good will as concessions and will press for more. Another problem with your proposal – how are you going “to treat Muslim masses” if any treatment will be filtered to them by their own establishment.

Current price of oil is a very nice treatment to Saudis, don’t you think? But money is pocketed by Royal Family and Saudi masses hate us more than ever. Would you willing to send US marines to distribute money among Saudis directly? They will immediately call it an aggression with all road side bombs attached to that term.

I would vote for your Strategy 2

• Sign in or Sign up to post comments
• report as spam