You may hear some semblance of outrage. But I bet you'll notice there will always be a "BUT" on the end of any statements. For those that claim the UN is worthless should not expect to hear outrage from other countries. That is hypocritical. If you want outrage from the international community, you have to show "good will" to the world. America's actions for: ...circumventing the UN to start this war is not "good will." ...pooring out French wine is not "good will." ...withdrawal from Kyoto Global Warming treaty (when virtually every nation on earth signed it) is not "good will." Generally, America has been dismissive of the International community. To expect people to side on our side now is asking a lot.
I never expected leaders of our Christian faiths to feel compelled to denounce David Koresh, Jim Jones, the wacko who abducted Elizabeth Smart, Charles Manson, the KKK, etc.
There are reasons why there won't and shouldn't be an equal amount of outrage over this sickening display as there was over the POW situation; This is not to say that the act isn't as wrong, merely why focused outrage isn't as logacal a result. The terrorists, while possibly having a lot of sympathy within certain communities, don't represent any state, government, or people. They are disenfranchised, and as such there is no feeling of a sytemic, governmental atrocity, merely another act of inhuman cruelty by a group with an issue. For an example, at whom was the outrage directed after Oklahoma City? There was fear, anger, and a need to find the guilty, but there wasn't a focused outrage. Imagine if it had been found to have been Iraq's work, or Iran's. Then you would have seen outrage. It's hard to focus anger on an unspecified group of people, at least in relation to how easy it is to point the finger of blame at a country, and with that finger pointing comes outrage. Just as it's harder to strike out against terrorists, it's equally hard to point at them, because to us they are vague names, organizational headings, and people who do things we can't understand. The US military, on the other hand, is responsible to the people of the United States, and is at least nominally acting at our bequest. As such their actions are seen as an extension of policy, and even actions which are the exception will still carry with them an assosciation of national responsibility. Secondly, the terrorists are, sadly, doing what they do. They make no effort to suggest that they don't do things like this, in fact, the reverse. This is what they do, and people around the world are somewhat desensitized to their brutality and seeming inhumanity. Add to that the fact that many of our own military and political leaders predicted that things like this would happen when the POW scandal broke, and the level of surprise which helps engender focused outrage was lessened even further. The United States, on the other hand, says it stands for human rights, freedom, etc. So while the murder of Nick Berg was just another in a long line of acts which differ little from what people expect of terrorists, the POW situation was contrary to everything we say we represent. When you make claims like that, you automatically raise the bar of expectation for your actions. And with greater failed expectations comes greater outrage. Thirdly, there is a sense around the world, correctly or not, that we are in a mess of our own making, and we are merely reaping what we have sown. As such, any specific act, while in and of itself repulsive and inhuman, will in part be seen to be merely another hornet's sting from a nest we intentionally stepped on. Before simply chalking this aspect up to yet more anti-US sentiment, recall that BOTH SIDES were responsible for atrocities during the USSR's occupation of Afghanistan, and yet the world outrage was almost entirely focused on the acts of the USSR, because it was seen that they were the initiators of the conflict. Forget for a moment that many Americans think that the US and USSR had differing motives for their invasions, and recall that most of the world sees them as essentially one and the same. Whether you agree with them or not, that is their view, and that won't change because we think it's wrong. So their view on outrages perpetrated against the US will be somewhat similar to our view of outrages of the Mujah Hadeen, the precursors to Al Queada. Not approving, but nowhere near the outrage as was directed at the USSR for their similar actions. And lastly, there is what I think is the only positive aspect to the different levels of outrage; One will work, which gives us hope for ourselves, the other will merely fuel the fire. Consider why our acts were done behind closed doors, and our leaders tried to hide them. On the one hand, it indicates that this is not representative of what we want to be seen doing, and that when 'caught', we will engender a sense of " A-Ha!", particularly from people who suspect us of saying one thing while actually doing another. But, moreover, it also indicates that, if only from a P.R. stand point, we don't want to be doing these things, as a people, and the outrage has a purpose; to fix what is broken. On the other hand, these terrorists intentionally publicized their actions, and as such state that this is completely what they want to be seen doing. As such, the outrage will serve little purpose, and moreover, is the point of their actions. They want publicity. They want outrage, they want statements like " Let's make the Middle East a parking lot!" They want as much extended publicity as is possible. And, to make a very crude analogy, just like a parent will cease to give the child who always acts out to get attention that very same attention, many people will, somewhat intentionally, try and tune out from the emotions that AQ and the like are trying to provoke in us. Anyway, that's my take. I want to reiterate that I am not making a moral distinction between the actions, and saying that one is better and one is worse, I am merely stating what I believe to be logical reasons for the disperate reactions.
I know the difference, bad use of the words in my post, I was angry. Anyways...I disagree with you on one point in your post. If they had raped that Nic Berg guy, then let him go, he'd at least go home to his family...instead they cut his head off with a knife while he screamed. There IS a difference...I'm not condoning raping prisoners, or actually making it look like they were raped, but they didn't get their heads cut off with a knife while they screamed so their family and countrymen could watch.
again...you're talking poltics...i'm talking religion. clearly they're intertwined, particularly in the middle east. but i'm saying that people who claim a God like the Koran claims Allah should have enough human dignity to be able to stand up and say, "hey..that's wrong...and it doesn't represent us." and demand that it cease. until they do...this thing won't stop.
There is a cultural difference. To them, they'd rather die than be sexually exploited. So as outraged as you are by that death, they are equally outraged by the photos. And they claimed the same thing in reverse. They said, now they have to face their family in shame. Our ignorance of their culture worsens the situation. Besides, haven't men in jail committed suicide after being raped by inmates? Some people in our society feel the same way too. Regardless, how do you justify that rape is better than murder? In Christianity, you go to hell for either offense.
Cohen, seriously. Are you really comparing the two? We have mainstream Islamic clerics going to worlwide Muslim conventions talking about the Jews as the enemy. An enemy that needs to be fought. This is like a group of Presbyterians getting together and talking about how they should all be taking militant action against abortion clinics...you just won't see that. Unfortunately, what we're seeing with Islam today is not..at least in perception...anywhere near as outskirted to the faith as the examples you mentioned above are to Christianity. Nowhere close. And you've heard me apologize here for things the church has been associated with...for things they continue to do...in an attempt to point out to you all that they don't fairly represent Jesus Christ. Im saying the same should be done among the clerics of the "real Islam" which touts itself as a religion of peace.
Ms. rimrocker and I were talking about this last night and we are both horrified at the amount of hate that it takes to saw somebody's head off. I could see myself losing it and killing someone in a fight (which is why I don't fight anymore), I could definitely shoot someone who was an immediate threat to my family, I could even stab Hitler. But damn, there is no way I could gin up enough hatred to do that, much less to some poor, innocent guy. Since things calmed down in this thread, there's been some good discussion (with a few notable exceptions). I agree with the thoughts that these guys would have or could have done this without the prison thing. But these guys are never going away... the best we can do is marginalize them economically and philosophically, isolate them physically and morally, and not just focus on tactics, but emphasize the greater good to the Muslim world and beyond. Al-Q, not all Arabs, is the target here. Unfortunately, there is a relationship between the two. But that relationship cannot be severed by force... it has to be a rational decision that the other way is the better way... and we are doing precious little on that battle front (even before we shot ourselves in the foot with the prison stuff). Outrage seems to be the buzzword of this thread... as an American who is outraged over this beheading, who can I express my outrage to? The people that did this don't care and aren't accountable. There's nothing we can do as a country until these people are caught or killed. Yes I'm outraged... but it's a different kind of outrage then the prison stuff... there, I can direct my outrage and people are accountable and our ideas were betrayed in an unexpected way. In the Berg case, I'm outraged at the loss of life and the way that life was taken, I'm outraged that it's 2004 and people still do this kind of stuff, I'm outraged that there are people harboring these people, but I'm not surprised. On the larger outrage scale, I think you would see more of it from the Muslim world if they felt they had a good choice. As someone pointed out, it's risky to come out against this because it will be interpreted as being in favor of the West (sort of like here, where people who are against the war are assumed by some of the radicals in our own culture to be against America). That we don't see more outrage is evidence that this is a much tougher problem then anyone envisioned. People are scared, and I can't blame them.
i don't know what to do with this statement other than to say that it is so incomplete that it's ultimately incorrect.
i understand...but you can't be so scared that you sit by and watch your religion be hijacked...watch people have their head severed in the name of Allah, and as a mosque leader not stand up. "evil is what happens when good people do nothing." the same indictment was made of the church in S. Africa. Bonhoeffer was scared to death...and was ultimately put to death by the Nazis...but he didn't back away from his faith. And he pointed out where they had polluted the church with nationalism. That's what's called for here. A literal reformation.
Radical Islam got its start within its own ranks in the Ottoman Empire, by people who thought the leaders were to lax and labeled them infidels. I don't know why I added that, I just thought it interesting. I don't know if them speaking out against it would be seen as subverting Islam, just radical Islam.
I'm not talking politics. Pooring out French wine wasn't a policy by our Government. I'm talking gestures of "good will." "Good Will" manifests itself in political ways, however. And yes, religion and politics are inseperable...even in our own country. It is currently a hot topic in our political environment (e.g. "faith based programs") The Pope is asked to make political statements too. We can't control what others do. We control only our ourselves. If we want to "this thing to stop" (as you put it), then we have to take responsibility for ourselves. As long as Americans view all Arabs as an enemy of the state and make policy to that affect (such as going to war in Iraq when the true battle is against AQ), then we will continue a self fulfilling phrophacy of a "War on Terror" against all Muslums. Change has to be within. We can't expect people to adapt to our ideals as it suit us...if we don't adapt to some their ideals too. It goes without saying that AQ is evil and must be stopped. But we must chose our battles more wisely and not cast large nets to further pepetuate the perception that America will steam roll the world if you don't fall in line. That's why foregners dispise America and they always will until we show some "good will."
Great post Rim. I think you are correct in that it takes a tremendous force for religious leaders to condemn one of their own -- even a fringe component. The Catholic church comes to mind with their refusal to denounce the abuses that couldn't be rationalized under ANY interpretation of their faith. Yet I think the time has come to do just that.
Agreed w/ the "incomplete" assessment. Sorry. Point being, they are both sins that don't need to be weighted against each other.
I absolutely understand where you're coming from, but (maybe because I'm too much of a cynic or have read too much history) it is possible to be so scared that you can't do anything. In Germany, people like Bonhoeffer were the exception and ultimately made little difference. For the last few months, I've been trying to make my way through the diaries of Victor Klemperer, published as I Will Bear Witness A Diary of the Nazi Years, 1933-1941. So far, I'm stuck on 1937 because it is too depressing to go on right now. The oppressiveness on every level is so great and the way it disarmed good people is so pervasive that it is tough to even read about... I can't imagine what it must have been like to live it... and I question myself... I have two young kids and a wife and a house... would I be willing to sacrifice that in the hopes that the future might be better? I'd like to think so, but I hope I never have to make that choice. To make that choice, you would have to be fairly sure that your sacrifice was going to contribute in some way to the victory of your ideas and I just don't think that that folks in the ME are able to contemplate that right now. I suspect they think any sacrifice would be wasted, so why not try to hang on to what you do have and not make waves?
twhy: I was drawing a possibly poor parallel to the Catholic Church's silence when many of their priests were found to be sexually abusing young boys. My point being -- even in a situation that couldn't be rationalized in any way, the Church was reluctant to call out its own. Didn't really want to get into that debate again.
i don't disagree with anything you just said. but i will remind you that OBL declared jihad on the US because we had American troops (including women, heaven forbid) stationed on their holy land in Saudi Arabia...we were infidels on their holy land. and again...i'm not asking someone to adapt to our ideals...i'm asking them to stand behind the ones that they claim they believe in. that's all. the same crictisims i have of the church, many times. if you believe it...act like it.
Max, What I said, was that I don't expect you to apologize for wackos who hijack your faith. I don't expect peace-loving Muslims to have to do it either.
