Burningbird: Blast them all and let God sort them out

August 07, 2002

Blast them all and let God sort them out

I've been ignoring the whole 'humiliation' thing going on between Dave and Glenn Reynolds and Nick Denton. To me, it resembled the typical warblogger BS, and I've listened to this broken record one too many times.

What changed my opinion was when Doc joined the fray with a gentle admonishment to the warbies. What caught my attention in particular, was a quote from another weblogger, Eric Olsen, who wrote:

If the Armies of Allah are defeated, humiliated, crushed, scattered upon the four winds, then the whole philosophical house of cards collapses and you have a beaten, malleable people willing to accept a new way of life, such as Japan after WWII.

We can't look at the puzzle piecemeal any longer: we can't look at al Qaeda, Hamas, Saddam, wahabbism, Afghanistan, or militant Islam anywhere as separate entities. We must see the whole puzzle for what it is, and end the threat behind them all once and for all; this is exactly "inflicting a lesser misery to end a greater one."

Eric bases his philisophical attitude about the importance of humiliation on his interpretation of Japan's response to the atomic bombing, and how, in his opinion, they've become such good post-war partners because they believe that they deserved the atomic bomb. In reference to Hiroshima Peace Memorial Musem, he wrote:

The museum, the city, and the country emphasize peace and conflict resolution not because they don't feel historical guilt for WWII, but because they do. The town and the museum almost revels in the details of the destruction wrought by the bomb, not out of self-pity, but out of a fundamental sense of sorrow and guilt FOR HAVING BROUGHT THIS DESTRUCTION UPON THEMSELVES.
...
The atomic bomb brought bitter remorse, not from those who dropped it, but from those whom it was dropped upon. Why remorse? Because they believe they deserved it.

I'm not going to respond to Eric's assumptions about Japan, though I hope that Jonathon Delacour does. Jonathon, do you agree with this? Can this possibly be true?

What I am going to talk about is this widening circle of dispassionate hate against anything and all things Arab. Where once the warbloggers had focused on Al-Qaeda and the Palestinians, the focus is now extending in ever widening circles of inclusion -- the enemy is not only Al-Qaeda and the Palestinians, but is also Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and we can only assume most if not all Arab countries at some point.

Eric's opinion is echoed by Martin Devon, who wrote today:

Perhaps Iraq was really behind the Sept. 11th attack. Perhaps Iraq actually had nothing to do with it. The question of what role, if any, Iraq really played in the attack isn't relevant. The reason that the U.S. should go to war against Iraq (and Iran, 'Saudi' Arabia and Syria) is simple. The advanced state of technology today is such that the world can no longer afford to allow a country to be run by an irrational actor. A world leader who cannot be rationally deterred from using weapons of mass destruction cannot be permitted to control them.

(Of course, reviewing George Bush's past actions, his dubious corporate accountability, and his willingness to instigate warfare for no other reason then to increase ratings points, his inexperience, and to be blunt, his lack of intelligence -- one could apply the same to our own leader. I do not sleep easy knowing that Bush has a finger on our nuclear button.)

Months ago I asked where we draw the line. At what point is the destruction we're willing to contemplate no longer justified by the WTC attacks? At what point is the destruction we're willing to contemplate no longer justified by those killed in suicide bombings? What's the ratio of acceptable death and destruction?

What will finally sate the US and Israeli?

It seems as that I'm finally getting an answer, and this time without the pretty varnish of "selective warfare" and "purely defensive combat". The answer is: bomb them all and let God sort them out. (God, of course, being the God of the Jews and the God of the Christians.)

<edit >Most people, including many Arabs, would rather die than suffer such extreme humiliation. In this country, we refer to this willingness to die to prevent the humiliation of defeat, "patriotism". By saying we must humiliate the Arab people -- the 'Armies of Allah' -- in effect we're saying that Arabs who refuse to be humiliated in this way must die.</edit>

And what's truly scary is not knowing if Eric or Marvin are examples of extremist warbloggers, or are representative of a people of a country I no longer recognize.

Posted by Bb at August 07, 2002 10:10 AM

Comments

I share your objection to the shifting of blame to all things Arab, but I do have a problem with part of your conclusion. You write:
'I am not an expert on Arab culture, but I do know that the Arabs would rather die then suffer humiliation, in any form.'

To refer to 'the Arabs' as you do, considering all Arabs as a homogenous culural entity, is no different, really, from considering all things Arab the enemy. What we need to recognize and remember is the potential for variation: Edward is not Osama bin Laden is not Saddam Hussein. They are individuals who may share some traits based on culture, and might differ significantly based on affluence, age, place, experience, etc. Arabs, like Americans, are individual people rather than units of an indistinguishable whole, and if both sides could remember that more often (or both sides in any conflict) there might be less misunderstanding and violence in the world.

But, to do my part for America, I've stopped eating anything with gum arabic in it.

Posted by: steve himmer on August 7, 2002 10:23 AM

Steve, good point. I should have said that most people, including many Arabs, would rather die than suffer such extreme humiliation. In our country, this belief is referred to as "patriotism".

Posted by: Shelley aka Bb on August 7, 2002 10:29 AM

I edited the statement -- thanks for pointing this out.

Posted by: Shelley aka Bb on August 7, 2002 10:30 AM

Just picking nits, Shelley. I still agree with you.

And I, for one, would certainly rather die than suffer extreme humiliation... the kind, say, from getting all the way to the White House via multiple companies and boards and chairs, amassing a great personal fortune, and all the while knowing I deserved none of it and hadn't earned a scrap by my own legitimate efforts. To give your life willingly rather than inflict that kind of shame on your country would certainly be patriotic!

Posted by: steve himmer on August 7, 2002 10:33 AM

Shelley, Thanks so much for your thoughts and attention. Please see my site fora continuation of the discussion.

Posted by: Eric Olsen on August 7, 2002 02:45 PM

>Of course, reviewing George Bush's past >actions ...and his willingness to >instigate warfare for no other reason >then to increase ratings points..

Psychic are we?

Posted by: Chris Sandvick on August 7, 2002 05:26 PM

VIII/VII/MMII
As of today I'm giving up arabic numerals for my country.
More seriously, today I "peaceblogged" XII things that concern me, and how to conduct urban warfare was not anywhere near the list. (Although why people might want to conduct urban warfare in Iraq does figure in my thinking).

Posted by: fp on August 7, 2002 06:18 PM

Shelley, welcome back to blogging! What's this, the fourth or fifth return? You're a regular Frank Sinatra! :)

Interesting to see you deal with the war in such detail. I notice that you mention how nuking Japan fits into all this. If you REALLY want to know, I suggest that you - and your readers - check out the posts by a former US military man whose wife is Japanese, whom he met while stationed in Japan: start here, then go here, here and here.

I'd be quite interested in your thoughts about his posts, Shelley. :)

Posted by: susanna on August 7, 2002 06:56 PM

I don't know if the reason you're hoping Jonathan Delacour will weigh in because of his knowledge of Japan. I can speak as an American who lived in the country for a few years in the 80's and was married to a Japanese woman for a while. I have never met a Japanese person who believes that "they deserved to have the atomic bomb dropped on them", and I have talked to a number of Japanese people in some detail on this subject, watched Japanese TV programs about it, etc. The Atomic Bomb Memorial in Hiroshima is NOT intended as a gesture of remorse from those on whom it was dropped; go there some August 6 and watch what's going on.

The gentleman on JunkyardBlog makes many valid points, which some Japanese people (although a minority, in my experience), would agree with. But saying that dropping the A-bomb was the lesser of the evils that the U.S. was confronted with is a far cry from saying that the citizens of Hiroshima deserved to be incinerated.

More on this subject on my blog (unless you get there before I get it posted.)

Posted by: Alan Cook on August 7, 2002 07:54 PM

Alan, yes -- Jonathon has done extensive research in this particular era in Japan, which is why I was hoping he would weigh in on this. However, your response is also very welcome. Not having personal experience with Japan, I didn't want to respond to Eric's assertion, but I was having a great deal of trouble with them. I can't see anyone thinking they 'deserved' the atom bomb. And I can't believe anyone would think that humiliating the enemy will make them malleable and better able to control.

Hello Susanna, how goes the guns? Actually, per the other conversations, Eric introduced the atomic bomb and Japan into the current middle east situation. I was just in a state of jaw dropping surprise by what I read. I really am looking forward to reading more detailed responses from those more familiar with Japan, such as Jonathon and Alan.

Posted by: Shelley aka Bb on August 7, 2002 08:21 PM

And Chris, if it looks like an apple, and tests like an apple, and squishes into applesauce, I'm not going to call it an orange. Since personal interpretations based on facts is a fairly common occurrance with Reynolds and the baby pundits, I assume that this type of argument is open to someone such as myself.

Posted by: Shelley aka Bb on August 7, 2002 08:23 PM

Sorry, one other thing. Susanna, I really am flattered by how close you and Josh and meryl and all you folks watch my coming and going so closely. Gives me a warm, cozy feeling al-l-l over. I mean, I could be like Asparagirl who vanishes and no one seems to know she's even gone. Me, on the other hand -- I have my friends watching all my moves ;-)

Posted by: Shelley aka Bb on August 7, 2002 09:33 PM

Bb said: "What will finally sate the US and Israeli?"

I don't know how we (Israel) got drawn into this Iraq/Al Qaeda discussion, but I can tell you that -- for nearly all Israelis -- all it takes is for the Palestinians to stop the violence and be willing to compromise on the discussion table.

With media coverage the way it is, it's probably difficult to tell, but there have been many attempts to break the vicious cycle of violence on the Israeli side. Several times in the past Israel has declared "unilateral cease-fire". In each and every case, all we got back was one (or more) acts of terror.

Virtually nobody on the Israeli side supports bombing the Palestinians to abandon. Unlike the US-vs-Iraq situation, we don't need to amass forces to do that. To this date, considerable (sometimes surprising) restraint has been shown by both the goverment and the people. When innocent people (Palestinians or Israelis) are killed in this war, you won't find cheerful parades in any Israeli city.

Posted by: Ziv Caspi on August 8, 2002 04:44 AM

Bb, I've posted the first installment of my reply to your questions at http://weblog.delacour.net/archives/000629.html

This is such a fascinating topic one could almost write a book on it.

Posted by: Jonathon Delacour on August 8, 2002 08:50 AM

Excellent write-up Jonathon. I hope this extends into many parts.

What a great idea! A book. Fancy that, I wonder why no one's thought of this...

Posted by: Shelley aka Bb on August 8, 2002 11:51 AM

Hm. I posted about you over on Josh's weblog, in the comments section, so I guess the close watching is reciprocal, hm, Shelley?

I'm with you, Ziv. I was wondering that myself, but couldn't say it because they like to accuse me of crying anti-Semitism at the drop of a hat here.

I did notice that Shelley's ignoring your post, however. What's up with that?

Posted by: Meryl Yourish on August 9, 2002 12:20 PM

Well, Meryl, I posted what I thought were somewhat extensive responses over at Eric Olsen's sight specifically to comments that Shelley left there. And her only response was to suggest that somehow I port the whole kit-and-kaboodle over here.

Posted by: Dean on August 9, 2002 01:17 PM

Meryl, I'm not sure which comments over at Josh's except the time when he made the crack about me being back. Old news. As for Ziv's comments, s/he had a good point about combining Iraq/Al-Queda and Israel. This really is two different battles. And good point about no celebration in the streets of Israel when civilians are killed in Palestinian territories. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with Ziv and I don't always respond to all commenters, as you'll see in many of my posts. If I had disagree with Ziv's statements, I would have said something. And I don't know Ziv enough to indulge in light banter.

As for your comments, Dean -- those were all about my post which Eric copied in its entirety to his. If you had problems with my post, you should have responded in the comments attached to my post. And Eric should stop copying weblog posting in whole and start relying on his own writing a little bit more.

Posted by: Bb on August 9, 2002 01:25 PM