Rob has been after me for some time to write something reasonable to post on The Swash. I’ve never really had anything to say, but prompted by the primary in my home state today and recent conversations with good friends, I thought I would share a couple short thoughts. (Not necessarily reasonable, and in no particular order.)
It’s hard to decide where to start when the premise of a later subject may be defining what it means to be pro-life by illustrating the severity of our military action in order to set the stage for redefining what it means to be pro-life.
But what the hell, here we go.
“Why are we fighting terrorism? What are the motives here? Who struck first?”
Lately, in the back room, this very argument has been growing. It is growing amongst those who do not know the history of the Middle East region and are not being taught the inconvenient facts by our leadership.
It is understandable as to why this subject wouldn’t be discussed. A brief glance through the pages of history reveal mass involvement from the West in the establishment of what we know of the Middle East today. For example, most are not aware that the modern state of Israel is less then a century old. Even less known is that the roots of the country lie in a backhanded treaty made between the British and French to provision a space for the Jewish people in their process of “re-arranging” the Middle East colonies. This act set the stage for the later violent overthrow of the Arab population living in the area and the creation of what we now know as Israel and Palestine both in border and conflict.
In 1977, the first Islamic Terrorist attack against the US occurred in what was called the Hanafi Siege, a curious event that ironically seemed to consist of Islamic Extremists targeting ultimately other Islamic Extremists. The interesting element here is that popular cause for the Siege is attributed to the their leaders secondary request, which was to have a film titled Mohammad, Messenger of God destroyed as they perceived it to be sacrilegious.
One of the next most notable attacks occurred in 1993 when a small group managed to detonate a truck bomb at the base of the World Trade Center. This attack, which was largely unsuccessful, was planned by Ramzi Yousef. The following can be read in the Wikipedia article regarding Yousef’s motivations:
According to the journalist Steve Coll, Yousef mailed letters to various New York newspapers just before the attack, in which he claimed he belonged to ‘Liberation Army, Fifth Battalion’. These letters made three demands: an end to all US aid to Israel, an end to US diplomatic relations with Israel, and a demand for a pledge by the United States to end interference “with any of the Middle East countries’ interior affairs.” He stated that the attack on the World Trade Center would be merely the first of such attacks if his demands were not met. In his letters Yousef admitted that the World Trade Center bombing was an act of terrorism, but this was justified because “the terrorism that Israel practices (which America supports) must be faced with a similar one.”
Interesting. So, perhaps there is a shred of logical motivation that extremist groups would have for attacking Western Groups. So, what is our motivation?
“They hit us first.” Did they?
Who has been putting their hands in the Middle East and stirring the pot for decades now? Is it possible that the western action of creating and promoting the state of Israel could be likened to China invading Alaska, giving it to the Canadians sending our people to Idaho and saying, “Hey, us and our friends got your back… Forever”. Is it really that unreasonable to say that an action like that might be cause to promote irritation with our way of doing business? Is this not what we’ve been doing for the last sixty years?
I’m not trying to make any definitive statements here, just some things to think about.
It is estimated that our war in Iraq has caused the deaths of some 150,000 Iraqi Civilians since it started…
It is estimated the Nazi’s killed between 160,000 and 180,000 German Jews during the Holocaust.
Pro-Life – the term that has become defined-as and synonymous with “advocating full legal protection of embryos and fetuses (especially opposing the legalization of induced abortions).”
I once heard a pastor respond when asked if a politicians stance on abortion was reason enough to vote for them, his response was this, “being pro-life does not simply mean that we protect the unborn, it must also must mean that we protect the living”.
Choosing who should live and who should die on any grounds passes a judgment that only a higher being has the right to make, and effectively assigns a value to a person’s life no different than if they were slaves.
I hope that when put this simply to others; it is as profound as it was to me.
Currently there is a majority percentage of the GOP field that is running on both pro-life and pro-war agendas.
I do not see a way for these to co-exist.
Almost everything here is referenced from Wikipedia. If you have a problem, comment with the conflicting facts, and we’ll chat about it. If you don’t have conflicting facts, Fuck Off.