(Click title above.)Jaw Jaw not War War:
Suppose leaders could take an enlightened, tolerant, panentheistic view of religion — should they not then reasonably expect to be able “jaw jaw not war war” (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxoiZdBSi-g&NR=1) in order to move beyond seeming impasses?
Well, the historical development of Hinduism and Buddhism has entailed considerable regard for “the veil of maya” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_maya), which seems not wide of Schopenhauer’s panentheistic notion of the World as Will and Representation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer).
That is, India is not without mature insights about the nature of Islamic countries in its neighborhood. So, what would India suggest about “jaw jaw” with Iran?
Is Iran of a rational enough bent to converse and “play nice” with panentheists? (After all, as a form of panentheism, how close is Judaism?)
Do historians, psychologists, sociologists, or political scientists have any reasonable model by which to evaluate when a person, mind, or governing body has moved so far into the dangerous realm of rationalizing the subjugation (or even elimination) of non-subscribing neighbors as to necessitate preemptive discipline that is more physically vigorous than "jaw jaw"?
If proponents of jaw jaw have a respectable model, they have a moral obligation to speak up. One purporting expertise about whether or not there should be more jaw jaw should at least defend why.
Suppose leaders could take an enlightened, tolerant, panentheistic view of religion — should they not then reasonably expect to be able “jaw jaw not war war” (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxoiZdBSi-g&NR=1) in order to move beyond seeming impasses?
Well, the historical development of Hinduism and Buddhism has entailed considerable regard for “the veil of maya” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_maya), which seems not wide of Schopenhauer’s panentheistic notion of the World as Will and Representation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer).
That is, India is not without mature insights about the nature of Islamic countries in its neighborhood. So, what would India suggest about “jaw jaw” with Iran?
Is Iran of a rational enough bent to converse and “play nice” with panentheists? (After all, as a form of panentheism, how close is Judaism?)
Do historians, psychologists, sociologists, or political scientists have any reasonable model by which to evaluate when a person, mind, or governing body has moved so far into the dangerous realm of rationalizing the subjugation (or even elimination) of non-subscribing neighbors as to necessitate preemptive discipline that is more physically vigorous than "jaw jaw"?
If proponents of jaw jaw have a respectable model, they have a moral obligation to speak up. One purporting expertise about whether or not there should be more jaw jaw should at least defend why.
BTW, Libs who "love America" enough in the abstract to condone William Ayers' efforts to bomb and terrorize America, expecting thereby to force America to submit to their notions of better behavior, may care to explain why it seems to them ok to bomb America, but not ok for America to go to war against those who wish to terrorize us. Then again, what should we expect from little minds conditioned to accept Marcuse'ian double dealing dogma?
8 comments:
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Winston Churchill
See http://www.hindu.com/2007/05/06/stories/2007050604280800.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-India_relations.
The friend of my friend is my friend.
The enemy of my friend is my enemy.
The friend of my enemy is my enemy.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy; no more, no less.
It is good to strike the serpent's head with your enemy's hand.
Keep your friends close - hold your enemies closer.
Flattery makes friends and truth makes enemies.
Tell me what you brag about and I'll tell you what you lack.
See http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/Boumediene_v_Bush/2008/06/13/104246.html
From http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp :
“ The 'Distraction' Meme, Recycled - Wednesday, June 18, 2008 @ 11:25:59 AM
In response to John McCain's criticism of his remarks to ABC News about terrorism, Barack Obama says:
"Let's think about this: These are the same guys who helped engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9/11," Obama told reporters on his campaign plane.
This is an utter non sequitur. Osama bin Laden and his gang escaped from the battle of Tora Bora into the Pakistani borderlands in December 2001 -- a full 15 months before the "distraction" in Iraq. The conventional military forces used in Iraq could not have been used to hunt down bin Laden, except by invading Pakistan. Did any of the reporters on the Obama campaign plane ask the senator if his remark meant that he favors a U.S. military invasion of Pakistan?
I hasten to add that this "distraction" argument is still a non sequitur, even if you believe that the Iraq invasion was misguided and mishandled. By the time U.S. forces went into Iraq, Osama had been hiding out in his tribal sanctuary near Pakistan's northwestern frontier for more than a year, and no Democrat in 2002-03 was demanding an invasion of Pakistan to go after al Qaeda.
Posted By: Robert Stacy McCain”
See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/12/AR2008061203474.html
From: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/the_second_amendment_much_ado.html:
Response to Gary, Re: “Regardless of all the so-called "confusing" verbiage prior to the words, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," the whole POINT of the Second Amendment IS that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period.”
In main, I agree with the lead article. However, I trust “arms” pertains to a fairly shared and limiting (infringing?) definition. Surely, given ever increasing technology, the founders had no intention to entitle every nut case to bear a star-trek phaser-laser!
BTW ---- Typical Liberal Stance For Defense: See http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/barack_obama/2008/06/23/106759.html. Evidently, Obama is more interested in a deluded, messianic, unifying world vision than he is in a vigorous national defense of the U.S. In pursuing his ends, Obama is frighteningly effective; but his ends are based on grandly deluded philosophy, while he is far more cynical than naive in how he pursues them.
Comment by “Brian,” snipped from http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/the_complex_success_of_the_sur.html:
“It is a leftist two-step to say that the success in Iraq is not due to the troops. It blows me away that for years, the left has been saying that more troops will not make a difference BECAUSE of the lack of internal changes in Iraq. Now that there is proof that it did, they come up with this huge list of internal changes that were the REAL cause of success. Tsk tsk tsk...you can't have it both ways.”
Incremental Rotting:
Quote snippets from http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=1189F8A6-5635-4863-8063-62CB72EB783B :
There is a perfectly justifiable reason to oppose the union’s action here — one that has nothing to do with religious cheerleading or chauvinism. It has to do with the fact that avowedly Islamic supremacist groups are pursuing an agenda in the U.S. that involves compelling American groups to accommodate Islamic practices and beliefs, bit by bit, until the “miserable house” of “Western civilization” is “destroyed.” This is not hysterical or hearsay. It is by the own words of a Muslim Brotherhood operative in a strategic plan for America enunciated in 1991.
Given that such an initiative exists, and is being put advanced today by Brotherhood-linked groups in the U.S., it is foolish for American companies to adopt a posture of accommodation — even when such accommodation might be entirely reasonable and in keeping with American pluralism in other contexts, when requested by groups that do not have this supremacist agenda.
....
If a Muslim business in the United States closes on Eid al-Fitr, no one can legitimately object. And if Tyson’s Shelbyville plant employs such an overwhelming majority of Muslims (which is disputed in some reports) that it is reasonable to close the plant on Eid al-Fitr, that’s an entirely private matter.
The main problem -- and I didn’t make this fully clear in my FrontPage article, as I thought it was too obvious to mention -- is that Labor Day is an American holiday. Dropping an American holiday that we all share in favor of an Islamic holiday that only Muslims celebrate is just the opposite of what we should be doing for immigrants -- any and all immigrants. We should be expecting that if immigrants come here, they will become American. Not only does the taking away of Labor Day make that assimilation less likely, but it also prevents any Americans who may work at the Shelbyville Tyson plant from observing this American holiday if they wish to do so.
....
All of these are small things. About every one it would be reasonable to say, What’s the big deal? Let them have their footbaths, or their prayer breaks, or their hijabs at McDonald’s, or their publicly-funded Islamic school. The sky isn’t falling. Acting as if all this was sending us, as Allahpundit put it, “down the path to the ‘complete Islamization of American society’“ is just hysterical. Isn’t it?
Well, if one were viewing each of these incidents and others like them in isolation, then sure. But what is the effect of each of these isolated incidents? Each one reinforces the idea that Muslims are not in the U.S. to assimilate into American society, but are determined to force accommodation of their customs. Each one reinforces the idea that such accommodation is only good and proper, and should be pursued by American entities in an exercise in multiculturalism.
These initiatives, in other words, are all supremacist in intent. In every case, they’re asking non-Muslims not just to allow for or tolerate Islamic practices in a live-and-let-live spirit, but to change our own practices and accept inconveniences in order to accommodate those Islamic practices.
....
And the idea that non-Muslims must be inconvenienced in order to accommodate Muslims is precisely the problem. And the fact is that there is an organized effort to build on such accommodations in order to create a privileged status for Muslims and Islam in the U.S. The Brotherhood memorandum speaks of the Islamization of the U.S. as happening slowly and incrementally. Obviously they don’t announce their overall goal with each initiative, but the Brotherhood has turned out to be behind many of these incidents -- notably the refusal of cab drivers at the Minneapolis airport to carry passengers with alcohol, and the charter school that was teaching Islam while receiving public funds. In light of its involvement with such incidents, can they really be viewed as isolated? Can the Brotherhood’s own stated overall goals safely be discounted as having nothing to do with these initiatives? Is it not possible that their goal of Islamization might be being pursued incrementally, in small steps?
I don’t think that possibility can safely be discounted, and that’s why I am wary of the Tyson incident and other initiatives aimed at accommodating Islamic practices. Each may be in itself utterly innocuous -- but that Brotherhood plan is real, and I believe we ignore it at our own risk.
Remember: Islam means “submission.” That’s what it’s all about.
Post a Comment