Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Overt Political Content - consider this warning

The other day while finishing my latest post I clicked on one of the links that flash up as being 'recently updated' from the blogger update page. I surfed on over to read the well penned yet somewhat bizzare musings of the gentleman who writes under the name of X-Marine. Heres the page
http://xmarine.blogspot.com

You can view the full chain of discussion here if you really want to
http://xmarine.blogspot.com/2005/12/murtha-effect.html

I engaged with him and another person in the comments section of one of his postings and it evolved into a small debate among a few concerned individuals. This posting is a repost of my latest additions to the argument chain by way of just being neighbourly and in the spirit of discussion and debate, the reasons behind this are contained in the post itself.

This is a discussion of overtly political nature

As this page is more of a personal diary and a solution to obnoxious group emailings while I am away overseas and rarely gets into political writing I thought a warning might be required to let the regular readers who have no interest in the subject matter avoid this post altogether and move down to check out the latest photos. It begins thus:


Yes, rightly so, cheers XMarine for sponsoring this discussion. I only realized when I posted my last comments that you have moderation turned on, so you have to read them all and it’s good to see you’re open to debate even if the religious zeal you put into your writing freaks me right out. Instead of promising to keep it quick I will post this reply in full on my blog as well, which you can post the link to instead of the full text if you don’t have the time to continue moderating the discussion. We can pick things up in the comments section on my page if anyone else is willing. Here is the link,
http://feature-wall.blogspot.com/

XMarine

Fair enough if you think that a particular kind of university education has infused my or others mind with anti-American sentiment under the guise of “open-mindedness”. I have just as much a view point that your military indoctrination during your period of armed service has artificially emboldened you with a gung-ho nationalistic pride that allows you to deny basic human rights abuses and a foreign policy doctrine that encourages an endless war on terror.

Why not embrace America over Iraq on this issue? I’ll take it you mean agreeing with America’s decision to invade Iraq.

1. If the United States government possessed any true care and fore-thought for the wellbeing of the Iraqi people, as is implied in their statements of wishing to bring freedom and democracy into the country, then surely they would have allowed for the easing of post Gulf War 1 sanctions to allow medical aid into Iraq for those that desperately needed it at the time.

2. It has been proven time and again that the political administration in the U.S. did manipulate pre-war information to exaggerate the threat posed by the Iraqi regime to justify going to war. In reference to your recent posting, I don’t feel deceived because I never believed what they were saying in the first place. See point five.

3. The aims of the American Political administration have always been suspect and range from shoring up the declining dollar as we’ve already discussed to furthering American geo-political dominance in the post-cold war era and ensuring the massive U.S. military industrial complex, and all their rich buddies who run it, have a reason to continue to churn out expensive weapons.

4. Because the use of nuclear industry byproducts as armaments is just so plain wrong. It was wrong the first time around, it was wrong in the Balkans and its wrong now.

5. I’ll let the cat out of the bag now by saying I don’t fully believe the official explanation behind the September 11 attacks. I realize that by saying this I am probably opening myself up to a whole new line of argument from you. I’m sure you have your thoughts on the subject and I’m sure they’re valid, but I dare say I have a radically different viewpoint on those events than you. However they underpin most of my position regarding what we’re talking about and it’s important that you see where I’m coming from. Yes I consider that there is significant evidence that throws into reasonable doubt the official explanation of the attacks on 9/11 and suggests some pretty sinister motives employed by those behind them. No I don’t believe in holographic planes or under-wing missile pods. This is a whole topic in itself, which is why I am more than willing to discuss it under a post my page, which is mostly personal and non-political, hence the link.

Which side of history do I stand on? The right side or the wrong side? I feel it’s a bit more complicated than a right side and a wrong side. Star Wars has a right side and a wrong side, it was also penned by a stoner film student who turned it into a great business model, got other people to direct his next two star wars films while he in turn focused on the franchising and marketing departments and earned some nice cash while millions wallowed in new age Californian religious beliefs wrapped up in a 70’s design fiesta.

Don’t get me wrong here, I love star wars, but the way you merge it with international relations, historical content and Christianity at the same time just bamboozles me. I’m not so sure a fusion of literary and historical lines of argument is the best way to push forward in these already confused times.

I'm kidding, I dont take your Jedi rant that seriously, however I can but hope my gentle prod will push you to new heights of republican confusion and inanity as evidenced by your recent jovial writings about Christian Jedi Knights. I’ll comment about that on the other page though…

Hello Eric,
Nice gauntlet,

Just looking to put a name to the comment, simply to establish if the person is serious enough about their intentions to take some accountability and possibly respond instead of disappearing into the world wide web, is hardly tyrannical labeling. You’ve taken the time to join up even, instead of posting a follow up with a name, which is cool. The reason I had a go was my work has a board online because we are spread out over a wide geographic area and sometimes we get people jumping on (or we did until we fixed it, we’re new at this), saying things anonymously and then just disappearing again. I suppose it kind of spills over from that. Anyway T.C., it’s good to see you care.

If on the other hand you still want to view it as left wing tyranny, (which historically occurs as does right wing tyranny), by joining and becoming one of the ‘named’ category as opposed to the ‘anonymous’ category I would like to thank you for conforming to my labeling system without too much fuss, your co-operation with the powers that be is appreciated, here’s your barcode tattoo, grey overalls shaved head and welcome my son, welcome to the machine etc etc etc…

On with the show,

I tried to make a case that all American Christians were members of the KKK? Woah there! Let me clear this up a bit. I pointed out that saying all American Christians were members of the KKK was as ridiculous as saying all Muslims were extreme fundamentalists. Of course it is ridiculous, pure folly if you’d like, to suggest all American Christians are members of the KKK. As ridiculous as saying all members of Islam are fundamentalists, which I inferred from your statement thus:

No, the current enemy is Islam in case you haven't been paying attention.

By Islam I understood you to mean all people of Islamic faith as being included along with Islamic doctrines, moderate or fundamentalist. So please rest assured Eric, I do not believe all American Christians are members of the KKK. Let’s break it down for further clarity

Now you want to simply lump them all into one homogenous group?

Meaning that I thought you were suggesting all Islamic people followed the more extreme fundamentalist doctrine.

That’s like saying all Christians in America are members of the Ku Klux Klan

An example I came up with to provide an image of another group with religious underpinnings that takes its beliefs to an extreme level. This extreme level would of course not be practiced by other American Christians, just as fundamentalist Islam is not practiced by all Muslims. I hope that clears things up for you.

The extremists control the religion and dictate its actions? Hardly, a group of extremists take on board a religious based war against the injustices they see being perpetrated on their own people by western superpowers, they then employ many of the tactics taught to them by said western superpowers during the cold war to turn around and give what they see as being justified payback against the double standards practiced by western governments in their dealings with the middle east.

True, their numbers are growing rapidly now, although this could be argued as being more as a result of American foreign policy post 9/11, you know, that whole “invading Iraq and killing lots of people” business.

Islam is not completely silent. Muslim organizations readily condemn terrorist attacks and preach a pacifist or neutral stance. Yes, there are radical clerics who preach the virtues of Jihad, but there are those who also condemn it.

Yes in the past Islamic religion has been matched alongside an aggressive political force set to invade and take over other territories. To balance it out however, there have been just as many counter invasions of the Middle East launched from Europe over the course of the past few thousand years. The crossroads we stand at now is whether or not we continue to blindly follow down the same path, a path that has far more serious consequences considering the weapons with which modern battles are fought, or whether we are able to open up dialogues and courses of action which can diffuse this constant ebb and flow of hostility between the east and the west.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home