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.
It's not anti-terror, it's anti-religion. It seeks to confound the murderous religion of Islam with the peaceful Christian religion.
There is quite a difference between between a religion which spread itself by love and sacrifice and one that spread itself by murder and rape. Americans have a hard time realizing that a religion could be so evil (and of course the commie press tries to hide it). However, were we see the evil and true intent of Islam is not so much in the murders and the terrorism itself - but in the approval such murders and such terrorism receive from the muslims that dare not commit such acts.
I would say you are completely on the wrong track with that. Problems arise when people want to subjugate and dominate others. It has nothing to do with 'subjugating reason'. Nobody goes to war and kills others to 'subjugate reason'.
I don't know if you really need to prove such a thing - it's pretty much true by definition...-you-
If that is the case then you must agree that atheism is based on faith, not reason.
In that case then, it seems to me that 'natural selection' is also nonsense. You cannot see it, touch it, feel it or make love to it.
I think you are taking reason way too far when you say you can use it beyond the boundaries of our universe. How can one 'know' something which no one has any experience of? You can use reason and mathematics as science does to verify experiences, but reason alone cannot provide knowledge of something so foreign that no one has any experience of. In other words, knowing that 2+2=4 does not tell you what's for dinner.
I am not sure if I would say that man rebels against his environment, but more that man seeks to control and turn his environment towards his purposes. Man in a great sense, creates his own environment, animals are more or less tossed and turned by it.
Alamo-Girl, this is probably the most aggravating "expert public pronouncement" ['anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything'] that I have ever had to endure in my lifetime so far.
Sadly, it appears there are quite a few who cannot accept that anything exists beyond the ability to observe it. IMHO, that is the most destructive form of arrogance.
Can't they can see how wrong-headed it would be for a starfish to have such a notion about his "world?"
And yet there are many who truly believe that God cannot exist because they cannot measure Him, weigh Him, subject Him to trial and punishment --- or lookup the registration of His copyrights --- or even because He doesn’t give them a bag of M&M’s on demand. I am not kidding.
[It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Hebrews 10:31
Or in the case of a starfish, a seine...
Seems pretty true to me, reason is limited and those who claim one can arrive at the ultimate truth through it are wrong.
What you say is true concerning the physical environment. It was my intention to include the other environmental aspects as well - God, family, society.
IMHO, man can be so rebellious as to put his own desires above everything. For instance, selling national security secrets that could cause the death of millions including his own family - or raping and killing a young girl and posing her body in a "suggestive" manner.
Man is the only creature known to me that is capable of such rebellion.
I agree that ultimate Truth is beyond the reach of rational thought. Hugs!
You remind me of what I see missing in this thread, a discussion of human passion. It is not so much faith that is opposed to reason, but passion and human desires that are opposed to reason. Is murder reasonable? Is any sort of destruction reasonable? Does not seem so to me, yet it is passion and desire that most often leads to such actions.
Now this, bb, is right on the mark IMHO. And the universities are just filled with these people, insecure, adolescent in the extreme, pining to give unfettered expression to their every immature sexual urge, to alter their consciousness with drugs. So what do they do? They justify, they excuse, they explain -- they paper everything over with WORDS, endless treacly words, as though words had some independent existence and power all their own. And when their deceptions are made plain, they adopt and twist another word or concept (self-esteem!) to deceive (You don't like "liberal"? How about "progressive"?). It is an endless game, signifying nothing. And they are ALL liberals. Well, hey, "Intellectual Elite", grow up first, THEN lecture us as to how to live!
Here's hoping Ann Coulter lives forever! There now, I do feel better ... ;-}
it is passion and desire that most often leads to such actions.
I agree! The motivations for murdering innocents, particularly in large numbers, include hate, greed and lust for power. Islamic fundamentism is the only significantly large religious movement that breeds such hate. Putting all the other religions in the same bucket is wrongful and divisive.
tt...
Things like logic, which is grounded purely in mathematics, are transferable to all spaces and would work as well outside our universe as inside it. The presumption that most people have that mathematics only extends as far as the boundaries of our universe is wrong, and leads to idle speculation of dubious value.
g3...
I think you are taking reason way too far when you say you can use it beyond the boundaries of our universe. How can one 'know' something which no one has any experience of? You can use reason and mathematics as science does to verify experiences, but reason alone cannot provide knowledge of something so foreign that no one has any experience of. In other words, knowing that 2+2=4 does not tell you what's for dinner.
246 posted on 10/28/2002 7:44 PM PST by gore3000
lsd 'science'---evolution!
Nonsense aside, natural selection and evolution by itself is a rational belief. It may not be correct, but it is definitely rational. It has no null priors, unlike a number of other theories positied on this board. It does compete with other ideas with no null priors in specific cases, but not being able to touch something has absolutely nothing to do with anything, nor did I make any such claim. But as usual, you apparently didn't read what i wrote.
2+2=4 doesn't tell you how to design a piece of good software either, but the proper application of mathematics can get you there. Just because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean that no one does, or that someone couldn't. For example, I can easily discern the fallacy of "argument from incredulity", but many people quite apparently cannot (hint). It doesn't mean that this fallacy doesn't exist or that it wasn't used.
And for the last time, mathematics is not bound by the same constraints as science, nor is "reason" if you qualify it appriopriately. Intermixing the two as though they are interchangeable is a hallmark of fundamental ignorance on the matter.
Evolution certainly does have null priors. The a priori is that everything results from materialistic causes. That is an a priori. As to its being rational, I don't think so. It seems pretty laughable to think that one species transforms itself into another. No one has ever seen it happen and all the 'proofs' of it are highly questionable and of course based on the a priori that everything results from materialistic causes. That is why when questioned about their 'science' evolutionists eventually start attacking religion. They cannot rationally prove their beliefs.
You are turning my statements around to attack them. I did not say that mathematics cannot help in certain applications. What I said was that mathematics, logic and reason are useless and can tell us nothing new about reality if we have no facts about that reality. Such a mode of thinking, that you can deduce through math, logic or reason a lot from hardly any facts is in fact irrational. Reason not based on reality leads to insanity.
Yep, the power of rhetoric over reality. The power of "incantation." Words are "magic," you see. I think it all heakens back to Hegel's Zauberwerte -- the "magic word" that -- Presto-Changeo! -- makes the entire objective world disappear....
What a primitive mind set!!! And yet these are the people who are supposedly ushering in "Progress."
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.