Posted on 10/25/2002 12:14:19 AM PDT by jennyp
The Recent Nightclub Bombings in Bali Illustrate Just What the "War on Terror" Is Really About
On the night of Saturday, October 12--the second anniversary of the suicide bombing of the USS Cole, a year, month, and day after the destruction of the World Trade Center, and mere days after terrorist attacks in Yemen, Kuwait, and the Philippines--two car bombs detonated outside neighboring nightclubs on the island of Bali, triggering a third explosive planted inside, and killing nearly 200 people (the majority of whom were Australian tourists), injuring several others, and redirecting the focus of the war against terror to Indonesia.
Also on the night of Saturday, October 12, the following bands and DJs were playing and spinning at several of Seattle's rock and dance clubs from Re-bar to Rock Bottom: FCS North, Sing-Sing, DJ Greasy, Michiko, Super Furry Animals, Bill Frisell Quintet, the Vells, the Capillaries, the Swains, DJ Che, Redneck Girlfriend, Grunge, Violent Femmes, the Bangs, Better Than Ezra, the Briefs, Tami Hart, the Spitfires, Tullycraft, B-Mello, Cobra High, Randy Schlager, Bobby O, Venus Hum, MC Queen Lucky, Evan Blackstone, and the RC5, among many, many others.
This short list, taken semi-randomly from the pages of The Stranger's music calendar, is designed to illustrate a point that is both facile and essential to reckoning the effects of the Bali bombings. Many of you were at these shows, dancing, smoking, drinking, talking, flirting, kissing, groping, and presumably enjoying yourselves, much like the 180-plus tourists and revelers killed at the Sari Club and Paddy's Irish Pub in Bali. Though no group has come forward to claim responsibility for the bombings, they were almost certainly the work of Muslim radicals launching the latest volley in the war against apostasy.
Whether the attacks turn out to have been the work of al Qaeda or one of the like-purposed, loosely connected, multicellular organizations that function in the region--groups like the Jemaah Islamiyah (an umbrella network that seeks a single Islamic state comprising Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore), the Indonesian Mujahedeen Council (led by the nefarious Abu Bakar Bashir), Laskar Jihad (which waged holy war on Christians in the Spice Islands before mysteriously disbanding two weeks ago), or the Islam Defenders Front (which makes frequent "sweeps" of bars and nightclubs, attacking non-Muslims, and violently guarding against "prostitution and other bad things")--will ultimately prove to be of little consequence. What matters is that the forces of Islamic fascism have struck again, in a characteristically cowardly, murderous, and yes, blasphemous fashion that must register as an affront to every living human with even a passing interest in freedom.
The facile part: It could have happened here, at any club in Seattle. It's a ludicrous thought, of course--at least as ludicrous as the thought of shutting the Space Needle down on New Year's Eve because some crazy terrorist was arrested at the Canadian border--but that doesn't make it any less true. That doesn't mean we should be looking over our shoulders and under our chairs every time we go to a show. It simply means that it could happen anywhere, because anywhere is exactly where rabid Islamists can find evidence of blasphemy against their precious, imaginary god.
Which brings us to the essential part: The Bali bombings were not an attack against Bali; they were an attack against humankind. In all the jawflap about the whys and wherefores of the multiple conflicts currently dotting our collective radar screen--the war against terror, the war on Iraq, the coming holy war, et al.--it seems worth restating (at the risk of sounding pious) that the war against basic human liberty, waged not by us but on us, is at the heart of the matter. Discourse has justifiably, necessarily turned to complexities of strategy, diplomacy, and consequences. The moral truth, however, remains agonizingly basic. We are still dealing with a small but indefatigable contingent of radicalized, militant absolutists who believe that every living being is accountable to the stricture of Shari'a, under penalty of death. As Salman Rushdie wrote, in an oft-cited Washington Post editorial, the fundamentalist faction is against, "to offer a brief list, freedom of speech, a multi-party political system, universal adult suffrage, accountable government, Jews, homosexuals, women's rights, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing, beardlessness, evolution theory, sex." If these were fictional villains, you'd call them hyperbolic, not believable. But they aren't fictional. Their code would be laughable if it weren't so aggressively despicable.
As headlines about Bali cross-fade into news of North Korean nukes, and there are further debates about the finer points of Iraqi de- and restabilization, it's crucial to remember that there is, in fact, a very real enemy, with a very real will, and the very real power of delusional self-righteousness. How to remember? Consider the scene of the attacks (as reported by various Australian and European news sources):
It's a typical hot, sweaty, drunken, lascivious Saturday night. People, primarily young Aussie tourists from Melbourne, Geelong, Perth, and Adelaide, are crammed into the clubs, mixing it up, spilling out into the street. Rock band noises mix with techno music and innumerable voices as latecomers clamor to squeeze inside. Just after 11:00 p.m., a car bomb explodes outside of Paddy's, followed a few seconds later by a second blast that smashes the façade of the Sari Club and leaves a hole in the street a meter deep and 10 meters across. The second bomb is strong enough to damage buildings miles away. All at once, everything's on fire. People are incinerated. Cars go up in flames. Televisions explode. Ceilings collapse, trapping those still inside. Screams. Blistered, charred flesh. Disembodied limbs. Mangled bodies. Victims covered in blood. Inferno.
Now transpose this horrible, fiery mass murder from the seedy, alien lushness of Bali to, say, Pioneer Square, where clubs and bars are lined up in the same teeming proximity as the Sari and Paddy's in the "raunchy" Jalan Legian district, the busiest strip of nightlife in Kuta Beach. Imagine a car blowing up outside the Central Saloon and another, across the street at the New Orleans. Again, it seems too simple an equation, but the fact remains that the victims were not targeted at random, or for merely political purposes. They were doing exactly what any of us might be doing on any night of the week: exercising a liberty so deeply offensive to religious believers as to constitute blasphemy. And the punishment for blasphemy is death.
There is an ongoing lie in the official governmental position on the war against terror, which bends over backwards to assure us that, in the words of our president, "we don't view this as a war of religion in any way, shape, or form." Clearly, in every sense, this is a war of religion, whether it's declared as such or not. And if it isn't, then it certainly should be. Not a war of one religion against another, but of reason against religion--against any belief system that takes its mandate from an invisible spiritual entity and endows its followers with the right to murder or subjugate anyone who fails to come to the same conclusion. This is the war our enemies are fighting. To pretend we're fighting any other--or worse, that this war is somehow not worth fighting, on all fronts--is to dishonor the innocent dead.
Well, let me be a little more specific. You are hanging your argument on the fact that I've used an abstract concept labeled "the ovens" to stand for the death camps like Sobibor or Auschwitz. Which were, just to be clear, a complex of buildings, including incinerators, sorting and packaging rooms, rooms labeled and touted as showers, into which zylon B gas was pumped to kill jews in masse, who were shipped there, in no small measure, thanks to the priests of Slovokia, for loading the cattle cars, the priests of Germany, for supplying ancient marriage records so the Waffen SS could sort the lambs from the sheep, the priests assigned to the Waffen SS to absolve the troops engaged in rounding up and shipping the Jews to Sorbibor&etc., and Pope Pius XII, who had nothing to say about all this, despite repeated requests from the Allies and the free jews, until it was absolutely certain the allies would win the war.
If you pointed out that you are a good parent, and a loving husband, do think that should prevent you from being prosecuted as a serial killer?
That's why I can't treat you seriously Don.
I'd be more inclined to guess that you can't take me seriously because you can't stay on point long enough to make a cogent response because, like the rest of the christian world, you don't recognize that the Holoucaust was, and quite obviously to the objective observer, prepared for and nurtured by 1600 years of disgraceful christian behavior toward jews, encouraged and re-inforced by the christian gospels, most spectacularly, in John and Mathhew, as I have given you specific verse reference to demonstrate. Even the officials of the Catholic Church have acknowledged this in official pronouncements arising from the furor over the "we remember" coverup.
The fact that you are hiding this truth from yourself, as the vast majority of the christian world does, is what is causing the inability to engage the issue in the straightforward manner that would be required to heal this wrong, if the christian world actually wanted to do so.
You say that good parents and loving husbands should be persecuted as serial killers, not because they are guilty but because you don't like them.
No. I don't like them because they are patently obviously guilty, and because their refusal to make the effort of moral repair will guarantee that jews will face another millennia of the boot in the behind. I think that's acutely disgraceful in an institution that is supposed to work for the moral and the good in the world.
Ovens are not an abstract concept.
‘Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan.’ ( John 8:48).
"What's in a name? More particularly, What's in a nickname? Many nicknames don't mean much at all. For example, its hard to explain why a person named Robert by his mother, should be called Bob by everyone else. Or why should Richard be known as Dick?"
"Other nickname derive from certain eccentricities that individuals become known for. I had an uncle whom everyone called 'Pong.' At first I couldn't understand that, but I did later."
"In religion, nick names abound. Bible basher, holy roller, devil dodger, psalm singer, amen snorter. Protestants were once called left-footers. Catholics were called fish."
"Jesus was called a Samaritan. It was meant to be disparaging. They way that it was spoken to him indicates that it was probably a standing accusation levelled against him. We know from John's gospel, something about the... prejudice---that existed among Jews, against Samaritans. The woman at the well alluded to it when she frankly observed: "Jews have no dealings with Samaritans"(John 4:9). There was a religious basis to this prejudice. Jews believed that Samaritans had compromised the law. Therefore they were ritually unclean, and a threat to all who came in contact with them. By calling Jesus a Samaritan, they were accusing him of the same uncleanness; the same laxness with regard to the faith. See how powerful nicknames are? We ought to be careful what we call people."
Yes, exactly.
It took me awhile to figure out that by "symbol" you mean tactile sign language, equivalent to sign language for the deaf but not blind. Am I understanding you correctly in this as well?
Yes, as well. It was the same sign language for spelling words with hands developed for the deaf, that was all they had at the time.
So...?...getting into heaven or avoiding hell is the only reason I might want to obey god's law? That I simply might want to behave morally isn't a factor? The carrot and stick approach to morality?
If you don't care about God and you are not concerned about consequences - then all you have to do to lead a moral life is to do what seems right to you.
The freedom we Christians enjoy is not to commit consensual adultery as you suggest. It is this:
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness.
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together. Romans 8:1-17
John the Baptist referred to the Pharisees as a generation of vipers in Matthew 3 and Luke 3. Jesus Christ also referred to them as vipers in Matthew 12 and 23. In Matthew 23, Jesus specifically indicts the Pharisees of that generation. In Matthew 12, He explains the cause – a wrongful heart:
I hope your Thanksgiving was perfect!
Yes, exactly.
So the mental process precedes the first concept, and it was a tabula rasa mind, a mind without concepts, that performed the mental process that produced the first concept?
Pharisees is just another word for jews.
Or, to be a little more exact: what "wrongful heart" means is clinging to the laws of one's fathers, and refusing to believe in Godhead of Jesus, as that violates the Commandments.
I rest my case.
You are welcome, and thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to try to make the case for something that concerns me, and which I rarely get to expand on at length.
As always, I find your contributions here extremely thoughtful.
Then I rest my case.
The spread of mad cow disease in britain has been attributed to this.
Very well, how many outbreaks of Mad Goat disease are recorded? How about Mad Gazelle disease? Herbevores are not built to digest meat in any remotely relevant sense, and it is a fundamental contraint of terrestrial biological reality that herbevores are going to outnumber carnavores by quite a bit.
Nonsense.
Quote the law please so that there is no confusion.
Give me a break. What child does not know that Jews don't eat pork because of the long list of Laws handed down by God along with the 10 commandments?
I have provided on this thread a long list of references I ought not to have had to without any spectacular acknowledgement on your part. I have lost patience. I don't need to prove things I've been asked for that are common knowledge. Everybody who actually reads the bible for themselves knows the Jews killed Jesus according to the gospels, everybody knows that Germany was the most staunchly christian country in Northern Europe, both before and after WWII. Where do you think Martin Luther made is chief inroads? Where do you think the 30 Year's war was chiefly fought? Everybody knows the christian world, from 414 to 1943, confined jews to ghettos, accused them of christ-killing and infant-killing, and periodically slaughtered them on that account. That is a fundamental part of European history in any textbook. Everybody knows the root christian concept of salvation by grace is predicated on the jews being christ-killers, and specifically excludes orthodox jews from salvation, as a matter of biblical authority in the Gospels and Acts. That's why, when jewish scholars make presentations in 3rd world countries in catholic churches, they have that epithet thrown at them.
What a bucket load of moral fog this salvation by grace business turns out to be in practice. Why can't christians, at least once in a while, take some rudimentary responsibility for the practical results of their chosen beliefs?
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.