Posted on 09/13/2013 3:05:13 AM PDT by markomalley
CNN Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour flipped out on the AC360 Later Syria panel Thursday night, calling out the false moral equivalence of anti-interventionists. She clashed with blogger Andrew Sullivan over the emotion in the case, shouting down her fellow panelists to get a word in edgewise.
After Anderson Cooper and Sullivan brought up the need to separate the emotion from the policy, Amanpour sighed and said, I can barely contain myself at this point. She proceeded to go on a rant about the false moral equivalence in arguing against going in.
How many more times do we have to say that weapons of mass destruction were used, and as bad as it is to decapitate somebody, it is by no means equal. We cant use this false moral equivalence about whats going on right now. They tried to do it in the second World War, they tried to do it in Bosnia, they tried to do it in Rwanda, and theyre trying to do it now. There is no moral equivalence.
When the others tried to jump in, Amanpour shouted, Wait just a second! She firmly argued that Obama simply cannot allow Assad to get away with using chemical weapons, noting how Bill Clinton is still apologizing for Rwanda. Sullivan jumped in to say, This is not reason, this is emotion. Amanpour fired back, Its not emotion. This is history coming out.
They clashed over whether turning away from such terrible crimes is sometimes in Americas national interests, while Charles Blow accused Amanpour of painting a false choice about not caring about dead kids and not wanting to bomb Syria. She cried, Nobodys saying that! Youre playing rhetorical games!
Watch the video below, via CNN:
I think I’ve pretty much said what I thought about Islam, and I myself many times have said it isn’t a religion but a disease of the human soul. However some discussions require referring to it as a religion in the context of the way someone was educated/reared as part of a religion, whether real or not.
That would make sense, considering the bunnies in the first painting.
That's what's so great about abstract art, it can be whatever you want it to be.
My interpretation: the bunnies are joyously hopping as the tower burns.
Let’s put Assad and Al Quaeda into the moral balance.
Al Quaeda - #Americans killed > 3000.
Assad - #Americans killed = 0.
Decision: Al Quaeda wins the evil contest hands down.
Please forgive my ignorance. However, I would like to learn.
Can anyone explain to me in general terms, say one paragraph, why do Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims hate each other?
Peter Arnett and the hand-painted “Baby Milk Factory” sign...
How could I ever forget?
mooselimbs have no morals...period.
Nuke all the radical mooselimb terrorists bastards, but spare both moderate mooselimbs.
I’m not an expert in the history of the ME by any means, but I believe it all stems from a fight over leadership of Islam following the death of Mohammed. I can’t remember which was which, but either the Sunnis or Shiites believed that the next caliph after Mohammed should be a member of his family and the other group backed someone else as caliph. There may be other doctrinal differences, but I believe that was the root of it all.
America has no national security interest in this Sunni vs. Shi’ite Muslim 1,400 year civil war.
***
Precisely. Not our fight. Cannot be solved rationally or morally because these people believe in a false religion that teaches no respect for human life.
I have also wondered about the Sunni/Shiite split, and I was able to find the basis of the disagreement between the two, as outlined by stremba.
But I am still curious about why they hate each other so much, i.e., how their doctrinal differences inform/influence their daily lives. Some moderate Internet research has not brought me any answers thus far. A hateful bunch, no matter which brand of this cult they are in.
Sorry, I can’t help you there. I really have no idea what doctrinal differences there are between the shiites and sunnis. To outsiders, there may well not be any major ones. It seems to me it may be more political than anything.
It does bear some resemblence to the Catholic vs Protestant wars in 17th century Europe. Most of those were not about actual doctrinal differences, but rather about political control of the countries involved. I suppose to a non-Chrisitan, the doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants, especially groups like Lutherans and Anglicans, seem minor and petty, certianly not worth fighting wars over. Certainly it speaks to the difference between Muslims and Christians; we Christians got over our differences in relatively short order, at least in terms of overt warfare and violence, in comparison to the over 1000 years of fighting that has taken place between the Muslim groups.
When the prophet Mohammad died, he had not named a successor. So, his Muslim followers were ripped apart by which successor to support: 1) Mohammed’s brother-in-law or 2) his uncle. Neither side has conceded and so there's been 1,400 years of war between the two factions. There have been other sects of Islam, but they have all split along the Sunni vs. Shi'ite division.
The war continues in Syria. Assad's tribe is the Alawite Muslims that are supported by Shi'ite Muslims, Druze Muslims, and Christians. They are 26% of the population that run Syria. The rebels are predominately Sunni Muslims, as are 74% of the country. They are backed by the Saudis (Sunni) and Assad is backed by Iran (Shi'ite). That's the story in a nut shell. There are no good guys here; there are bad guys and worse guys. They are all murders and thugs.
When deprived of a sufficient number of Jews or infidels to kill, Muslims satisfy their blood lust by killing other Muslims.
The Christian world was split between Catholics and Protestants. Neither side was tolerant of the other and this led to the sectarian fighting between the supporters of the Pope and followers of the heretics John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and others. The wars and killing of the Great Schism devastated Europe [1517 to 1648] but didn't result in the supremacy of one branch of Christianity over the other. Eventually both sides began to tolerate each other, albeit reluctantly.
The problem for Islam is no such Reformation has occurred; they are still fighting their equivalent of the wars of the Reformation that's gone on for 1,400 years without resolution.
It seems to me it may be more political than anything.
***
You may be onto something there.
A thousand thanks.
The Syrians lined up kneeling rebel soldiers and shot them in the backs of their heads. Does this foolish arabist truly think that they’d hesitate to do this to women or even children?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.