I have already posted about the ‘well respected’ Christian Jerry Falwell but while it may take some doing to usurp his position, other outspoken and very un-Christian Christians in American have gained media respectability.
I’m not talking about the obvious nutters like the Koran book burner Pastor Terry Jones or The Westboro Baptist Church’s Fred Phelps but people that are regularly chosen for media comment or even have their owns media spots and shows.
I can only describe such people as the Christian Taliban and one such darling of the airwaves is Ann Coulter.
She once stated "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
With attitudes like that in the popular media what chance will Christianity have of ever giving the peace they would claim their faith would bring?
Without each of us taking the personal responsibility to make peace then surely it can not happen but unfortunately many, including the religious do not want peace.
Lets be honest, if the second coming of Christ even happened and a bearded man of Middle Eastern appearance in a long night shirt was introduced to these guys, do you think it would cross their mind for a second to consider what he had to say about anything?
Wasn't the noted atheist Christopher Hitchens strongly in favour of the invasion of Iraq, the removal of the leadership there and the imposition of democracy by the occupying powers?
ReplyDeletePerhaps he is part of the secularist taliban?
It hardly matters what Hitchens was in favour off. Many people were in favour of bringing democracy to failed or extreme states with poor rights records.
ReplyDeleteOnly the Christian Taliban wanted to convert them at gun point.
So it's okay to invade a country and kill it's leader in order to impose something that Lazarus approves of but not okay to invade a country and kill it's leader in order to impose something that Lazarus disaproves of (this being the actions of the " taliban").
ReplyDeleteThanks for clearing that up.
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." = Taliban (boo!)
ReplyDelete"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to secular democracy." = fine and dandy (hooray!)
Thanks for the fine demonstration of the Straw man argument.
ReplyDeleteYou have comprehensively knocked down the little man saying we should invade a country to impose democracy - but where did I ever suggest I approved of doing that?
And you still do not criticise those who would invade a country to impost their religious faith - good job!
"And you still do not criticise those who would invade a country to impost their religious faith - good job!"
ReplyDeleteAnd you haven't said that you disagree with prominent atheist Christopher Hitchens' position that it was okay to invade Iraq, kill it's leader and impose democracy.
On the contrary, in response to my suggesting that if we were to judge people by the same standards this would make Hitchens part of a "secular taliban" you said:
"Many people were in favour of bringing democracy to failed or extreme states with poor rights records" which might be taken to mean that you were among this "many" and are supportive of Hitchens' position with regard to the invasion of Iraq.
I can say quite clearly that I disagree with both Coulter and Hitchens on this.
How about you?
Are you part of the "secularist taliban" who advocate the invasion of other countries and the execution of their leaders in order to impose secular democracy?
According to the logic that you have applied here: http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/01/myspace-still-no-place-for-atheists.html?showComment=1296218917754#c7039165372883482337 "It was reported on several sites and to my knowledge MySpace has never denied it."
ReplyDeleteyour refusal to deny that you are part of the "seularist taliban" is evidence that you are part of the "secularist taliban".
Run away! Secularist taliban in the house!
What are you on about? Secular Taliban? Please have a lie down with a cool cloth across your forehead - you need it, trust me.
ReplyDeleteNot denying something isn't evidence but that is not the point I made - there is no evidence is the point I made.
What are you on about? Christian Taliban? Please have a lie down with a cool cloth across your forehead - you need it, trust me.
ReplyDelete"there is no evidence is the point I made"
No, the point that you made is that you "have seen no evidence" to the contrary. You do not know whether the contra-evidence exists because you haven't sought it out, being content to accept the conclusions of a single partisan source.
You have said that because you have not seen any evidence of Myspace management denying allegations made against them that you consider it correct, as a self-proclaimed sceptic, to simply accept them as true.
I conclude that if if Anne Coulter is to be considered as part of a "Christian Taliban" for saying "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" then those who supported the invasion of Iraq, the removal of it's leaders and the conversion of that country to secular democracy are part of a "secularist taliban".
As Anne Coulter is "Christian Taliban" so Christopher Hitchens is "secularist taliban".
By your refusal to condemn the West's action in Iraq I suspect that you are too.
And by your refusal to deny it then, according to the "logic" that you have applied againt Myspace management, all sceptics should continue to consider you to be a "secularist taliban" until such time as you deny it.
How hard should I look for something that doesn't exist? There is no contrary evidence. I'm happy for you to prove me wrong.
ReplyDelete"I conclude that if if Anne Coulter is to be considered as part of a "Christian Taliban" for saying "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" then those who supported the invasion of Iraq, the removal of it's leaders and the conversion of that country to secular democracy are part of a "secularist taliban"."
That would be a very daft conclusion to make. If you can't see the difference in taking the extra step to impose fundamental religious beliefs on a population then there is absolutely no hope any rationality coming from your mindset.
What is it with the straw men?
When Have I refused to condemn the 'West's action' in Iraq, which leaves any suspicions you have without any foundation whatsoever.
But feel free to keep digging yourself deeper in to this hole of unfounded comments. It is an abject lesson in non-critical thinking and will provide ample examples for any future post on the subject.
"How hard should I look for something that doesn't exist?"
ReplyDeleteHave you looked at all? Other than the factual Wikipedia entry the 2 sources that you cite that state that the actions of Myspace management are the result of anti-atheist discrimination on their part are opinion pieces on secularstudents and friendlyatheists websites.
"That would be a very daft conclusion to make"
Why? You are saying that someone who supports the invasion of other countries and the removal of their leaders in order to impose Christianity is a "Christian Taliban" but refuse to apply the same label to those who support the invasion of other countries and the removal of their leaders in order to impose secular democracy. The only difference that I can see is that you are in favour of secular democracy but not Christianity. The means to the end remain the same in both cases. As does the assumption that we have some sort of right or even obligation to impose our values on other countries.
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." = Taliban (boo!)
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to secular democracy." = fine and dandy (hooray!)
"When Have I refused to condemn the 'West's action' in Iraq"
"I can say quite clearly that I disagree with both Coulter and Hitchens on this.
How about you?
Are you part of the "secularist taliban" who advocate the invasion of other countries and the execution of their leaders in order to impose secular democracy?"
http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/01/christian-taliban.html?showComment=1296220767172#c5579608383372378587
Let's make it clear cut: did you support the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent imposition of secular democracy on the Iraqi people?
Do you think that military means should ever be used to remove the rulers of sovereign states in order to replace their current system with secular democracy?
"Have you looked at all?"
ReplyDeleteI think we are getting our posts mixed up as this seems a more appropriate response to my MySpace post. If I'm wrong please explain what you mean.
"You are saying that someone who supports the invasion of other countries and the removal of their leaders in order to impose Christianity is a "Christian Taliban" but refuse to apply the same label to those who support the invasion of other countries and the removal of their leaders in order to impose secular democracy."
First you are making an error (another strawman?) by assuming I favour one over the other but they are entirely different things.
One leaves a theocracy in opposition to almost all the people religious beliefs and the other leaves self governance and self determination which large groups of the population want in place of what is basically a genocidal dictatorship.
The political and religious outcomes ARE entirely different.
"did you support the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent imposition of secular democracy on the Iraqi people?"
Your questions have no bearing on my post about the likes of extremeist Christians like Coulter.
But the answer is No.
"Do you think that military means should ever be used to remove the rulers of sovereign states in order to replace their current system with secular democracy? "
No really. Had you asked "Do you think that military means should ever be used to remove the rulers of sovereign states in order to replace their current system of government?", then Yes I can see cases where to prevent something like genocide military action may be justified to remove a countries rulers.
I am relieved to read your belated confirmation that you are not part of the "secularist taliban" and look forward to your blog entry denouncing Christopher Hitchens.
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as a Secular Taliban any more than democracy is a secular theocracy.
ReplyDeleteJust because I don't agree with Hitchen's politics does not mean that I don't respect him for his intellect, his uncompromising debating, his books or his opinions on religion.
"There is no such thing as a Secular Taliban".
ReplyDeleteThere's no such thing as the "Christian Taliban", it's something you made up.
However, if you are going to brand individuals as members of the "Christian Taliban" because you have found a quote where they advocate the invasion of other countries in order to impose Christianity then logically those, like Christopher Hitchens, who support the invasion of other countries for the imposition of secular democracy are the "secularist taliban".
"There's no such thing as the "Christian Taliban", it's something you made up."
ReplyDeleteI'd love to take the credit for it but I'm not sure it is.
Try googling 'Christian Taliban'.
And is Ann Coulter an actual member of a real Christian Taliban group or is that something that you have made up in order to demonise her?
ReplyDeleteAre you saying she needs me to demonise her? Doesn't the opinion she so clearly expresses do that enough for you?
ReplyDeleteI'm wouldn't say it demonises her. She is a person after all, not some kind of fiend. Just a person who holds opinions that you and I disagree with.
ReplyDeleteJust like Christopher Hitchens.
Yes she does hold an opinion that we disagree with - but it is a dangerous opinion and she is in a position to spread that opinion, get it accepted as mainstream and supported because she is in the public eye with television slots and the ability to reach possibly millions of Americans.
ReplyDeleteA dangerous opinion. Like the opinion that it is okay to invade another country in order to depose it's leader and impose secular democracy.
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly are you trying to say here?
ReplyDeleteYou shouldn't criticise someone for wanting to impose their fundamental religious beliefs on others after killing their leaders if other people have done something you think is wrong too?
"You shouldn't criticise someone for wanting to impose their fundamental religious beliefs on others after killing their leaders if other people have done something you think is wrong too? "
ReplyDeleteNo, what I'm saying is that you should be willing to criticise both.
And yet you seem remarkably reluctant to criticise Christopher Hitchens for his support of the military invasion of Iraq for the purposes of the imposition of secular democracy with the same vehemence with which you criticise Ann Coulter.
I am willing to criticise all I feel need criticism.
ReplyDeleteThis blog post is about criticising a fundamental Christian with dangerous opinions and access through mainstream media to promote them.
"I am willing to criticise all I feel need criticism."
ReplyDeleteSo why don't you feel the need to criticise those who support the military invasion of other countries and the execution of their leaders for the purposes of imposing secular democracy?
Hitchens did not call for 'the execution of their leaders for the purposes of imposing secular democracy'.
ReplyDeleteNo, he merely supported the (probably illegal)military invasion of a country that lead to the unnecessary deaths of at least 100,000 civilians of that nation* in order to impose secular democracy on that country.
ReplyDeleteI can see how it is of key importance that he didn't actually support the execution of the leader of that country.
Of key importance to a hair-splitting, hypocritical, pedantic, anti-Christian bigot who wants to desperately distract attention from the fact that he is a hair-splitting, hypocritical, pedantic, anti-Christian bigot.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3962969.stm
BTW - why have you started another debate about this same topic if you are intent on continuing this one?
ReplyDeleteOf course there is no difference in your selective cherry pick. Is it really honest to leave out the differences as if they don't exist and then claim hair splitting?
ReplyDeleteWhy not be honest and admit that killing and deposing are not the same? That establishing a democratic government that allows religious freedom is not the same as forced religious conversion?
Is honesty asking too much?
"Why not be honest and admit that killing and deposing are not the same?"
ReplyDeleteYes I must admit that causing the unnecessary deaths 100,000 civilians in a (probably) illegal invasion is very different to deposing a despot.
Your point being?
"That establishing a democratic government that allows religious freedom is not the same as forced religious conversion?"
Don't you mean imposing a secular democracy through the use of foreign military force is in fact little different from imposing Christianity through the use of foreign military force (there's a reason why Islamic polemicists refer to the West's forces in Iraq and Afghanistan as "crusaders", it's because they can't see the difference between what we are doing now and what went on in the middle ages) apart from the fact that one actually happened and the other was an intemperate rant made by a woman three days after her friend was killed in the worst terrorist atrocity to be commited against her country.
"Is honesty asking too much?"
It is from you, as demonstrated repeatedly in this blog:
http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2010/11/short-step-from-madness.html
http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2010/12/disfigured-are-barred-from-gods.html
http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2010/12/godwins-law-used-to-explain-why.html
http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-moses-got-10-commandments.html
http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/01/myspace-still-no-place-for-atheists.html
http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/01/alliance-of-christians.html
http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/01/christian-taliban.html
http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/02/anonymous-prejudice.html
All your alleging that have been dishonest, even if true, does not make you less so. All you are saying is it is ok for you to behave dishonestly because you think other people have.
ReplyDeleteHow many unnecessary deaths did Hitchens cause exactly? Be honest now?
"All you are saying is it is ok for you to behave dishonestly"
ReplyDeleteNo, I haven't been dishonest.
You have.
Time and time again.
As all those blog entries demonstrate.
"How many unnecessary deaths did Hitchens cause exactly?"
So far as I can tell, none.
How many deaths have Ann Coulter's knee-jerk reaction to her friends death in the 9-11 attacks caused?
How many invasions have Ann Coulter's knee-jerk reaction to her friends death in the 9-11 attacks caused?
How many executions have Ann Coulter's knee-jerk reaction to her friends death in the 9-11 attacks caused?
How many enforced conversions to Christianity have Ann Coulter's knee-jerk reaction to her friends death in the 9-11 attacks caused?
What was your point?
If Hitchens never caused any deaths and never asked for anyone to be killed then how can you compare him to Coulter? Coulter created the idea for her invasion, Hitchens didn't create any at all.
ReplyDeleteEven if I accept that a comparisons could be made wouldn't Bush be a better, less prejudiced example to use? Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz?
And it IS dishonest to misrepresent as you have done by not including Coulters call for killing when comparing your scenarios.
It is also dishonest to equate freedom of religion to forced religious conversion, unless you really believe they amount to the same, then I'd be interested in any precedents you can use to show that your belief is based on more than your desire to look right when you know you have been found to be very wrong.
"Coulter created the idea for her invasion"
ReplyDeleteWhat invasion would that be then? The one that hasn't happened and hasn't resulted in the unnecessary deaths of at least 100,000 civilians.
Doh!
"It is also dishonest to equate freedom of religion to forced religious conversion"
ReplyDeleteYes, but it is not dishnest to compare one sort of enforced cultural change with another sort of enforced cultural change.
What is dishonest is saying that they can't be compared because one related to an enforced political social change and the other related to an enforced religious social change.
"unless you really believe they amount to the same"
I believe that the military invasion by foreign powers to impose a change of political system on a sovereign nation is morally of little difference to the military invasion by foreign powers to impose a change of religious system on a sovereign nation.
I believe that I have been quite clear about this already.
(You might need to read back again ;-) )
"If Hitchens never caused any deaths and never asked for anyone to be killed then how can you compare him to Coulter?"
ReplyDeleteIn some regards Hitchens' position could be considered to be worse.
Ann Coulter made an intemperate, knee-jerk in immediate response to the murder of her friend in the worst terrorist attack that her country has experienced (the comment that you have quote-mined in your blog entry). So far as I am aware she has not repeated this call since.
Hitchens has repeatedly expressed his support for the invasion of Iraq both before, during and after. He has continued to be an apologist for the invasion even after it the horrors that resulted from the invasion (such as the appalling price in unnecessary civilian deaths) have become crystal clear.
"In some regards Hitchens' position could be considered to be worse."
ReplyDeleteNot in any rational or civil regard it isn't. And why single out Hitchens when his opinion is not unique? I hope Coulters is but there are millions of Christians with the same opinion as the atheist you continually single out.
Lots of people have lost loved ones to terrorism and now you trying to justify Coulters comments - something she has never expressed any regret over saying - and I find that verging on sick.
Here is some more of Coulters Christian wisdom;
"If we're so cruel to minorities, why do they keep coming here? Why aren't they sneaking across the Mexican border to make their way to the Taliban? "
"Liberals are stalwart defenders of civil liberties - provided we're only talking about criminals. "
"Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy. "
"Taxes are like abortion, and not just because both are grotesque procedures supported by Democrats."
"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant. "
Your new heroine has a lot of knee-jerk days it seems.
"And why single out Hitchens when his opinion is not unique?"
ReplyDeleteBecause you persistently refuse to condemn his support for a real invasion with the same vehemence that you use to condemn Ann Coulter's support for a hypothetical invasion.
Why is that?
"Lots of people have lost loved ones to terrorism and now you trying to justify Coulters comments"
No I'm not. I don't believe that they are justified at all.
However when you understand the context in which they were made (something that you were studious to avoid doing with your careful quote-mining) you begin to understand why she may have made them even if you don't agree with them.
"Here is some more of Coulters Christian wisdom"
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't agree with any of them.
Would you like me to go off and quote-mine a load of right-wing comments from Chris Hitchens so that you can avoid condemning them with the same vehemence that you reserve for Coulter?
Why are you so disparaging one right winger but so keen to avoid being neagtive about another one? It's not because you agree with the right-wing, neo-con utterances of either (according to your comments here).
Is it just because one is a Christian and the other an atheist?
There's a word for that you know?
Begins with "P".
Ends with "rejudice".
;-)
"Your new heroine"
ReplyDeletePlease provide links to the comment where I have said that Ann Coulter is my heroine or have even expressed any admiration for her.
(I won't hold my breath).
"Why is that?"
ReplyDeleteWhy should I condemn Hitchens above all the millions of others and the many that had a more direct involvement?
I know your prejudice makes you happy to single out someone from a particular group even though that groups beliefs are not relevant but I am not like you.
"Why should I condemn Hitchens above all the millions of others and the many that had a more direct involvement?"
ReplyDeleteWhy should you condemn him less for his support of the invasion of other countries in order to impose social change on them than you do other individuals?
Is it because he is an atheist and the other person, that you selected for villification, is a Christian?
"I know your prejudice makes you happy to single out someone from a particular group even though that groups beliefs are not relevant but I am not like you."
ReplyDeleteNo prejudice, as I have explained elsewhere:
"I have explained my reason for this selction: to expose the fact that you are not fair-minded with regard to this. On the contrary you are entirely prejudiced against Christians since you seek to justify treating the Christian Ann Coulters comment differently from comparable comments from the Atheist Christopher Hitchens."
http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/02/anonymous-prejudice.html?showComment=1297807707044#c8161800626431613101
Why do you insist on conducting essentially the same debate in two places?
BTW why did single out Ann Coulter?
Oh yes, because according to you she is part of the CHRISTIAN Taliban.
So no prejudice on your part there then!
"but I am not like you"
ReplyDeleteThat's right.
You post racist jokes on the internet.
http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-moses-got-10-commandments.html
You make blog entries about old news stories regarding defunct organisations inorder to promote your prejudice against Christians.
http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/01/alliance-of-christians.html
You make blog entries quote-mining knee-jerk comments made by right wing Christians in the immediate aftermath of the murder of their friends in order to promote your prejudice against Christians.
http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/01/christian-taliban.html
You misrepresent events in order to make out that atheists are being oppressed on the internet.
http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/01/myspace-still-no-place-for-atheists.html
You knowingly misrepresent passages of the Bible in order to promote your prejudice against Christians.
http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2010/12/disfigured-are-barred-from-gods.html
I do none of these things.
I am thankful that you have pointed out that I am not like you.
I will say again, accusing me of racism or prejudiced, even if true, does not detract from your own. All you are really saying is that you are prejudiced but justify it because some others are too.
ReplyDelete"On the contrary you are entirely prejudiced against Christians since you seek to justify treating the Christian Ann Coulters comment differently from comparable comments from the Atheist Christopher Hitchens"
And here is one of the many problems your intellect seems not to grasp. Coulter is a Christian who made a comments about killing and converting non-christians. Her faith has a direct bearing on her statement. Hitchens atheism HAS NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on his political views, that do not included either killing or conversion BTW.
One is a valid comment about an individuals views and faith and the other is a prejudiced comment against atheists.
"And here is one of the many problems your intellect seems not to grasp. Coulter is a Christian who made a comments about killing and converting non-christians."
ReplyDeleteAnd Hitchens has made repeated comments in support of the invasion of Iraq and the imposition of secular democracy even after it has become clear that this action lead to the unnecessary deaths of at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians.
So why aren't you as vehement in your criticism of Hitchens as you are of Coulter?
Is it because Coulter is a Christian and Hitchens (like you) is an atheist?
I have been equally critical of the comments of both.
Your strident denouncement of one and limp criticism of the other is what leaves you open to accusations of prejudice against Christians.
"Hitchens atheism HAS NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on his political views, that do not included either killing or conversion BTW."
ReplyDeleteThey included the enforced conversion of the Iraqi political system.
What did he expect all those US soldiers to do to their Iraqi counterparts, by the way?
What did he expect the result of the use of all those bombs and shells and bullets and cruise missiles to be?
So far as I can see one cannot be supportive of war without being supportive of killing.
Or did Hitchens support some new, magical war where everyone gets to go home safe at the end?
We know Hitchens support the removal of Sadam through military invasion. What does repeating what we all know achieve? So did George Bush and he actually instigated it - no condemnation from you for this Christian for doing that yet. Perhaps you are being tribalistic?
ReplyDeleteWhat we don't know is if you understand the difference from supporting a political view to deposing a leader and calling for them to be killed. Or whether you are so mentally crippled you think one as bad as the other.
"So did George Bush and he actually instigated it - no condemnation from you for this Christian for doing that yet."
ReplyDeleteI'm happy to condemn George Bush and everyone else who were involved in organising the invasion of Iraq.
I'm happy to accept that they deserve more condemnation than those who simply cheered them on from the sidelines.
But that's not the point.
The point is to try and understand why you are so condemnatory of Ann Coulter with respect to a knee-jerk response that she made to the murder of her friend in the worst terrorist atrocity to take place one American soil calling for the invasion and forcible conversion to Christianity of nations reponsible for this sort of action and the repeated support of Chris Hitchens for the invasion and forcible conversion of Iraq to secular democracy.
Why are you less condemnatory of Chris Hitchens cheering on an ACTUAL invasion than you are of Ann Coulter calling on a HYPOTHETICAL invasion?
You seem to be saying that the major difference is that Coulter called for the specific assassination of unspecified leaders where Hitchens didn't.
Do you really think that Hitchens, as an intelligent man, couldn't see that the death of Saddam would be a reasonably probable outcome of the invasion that he was trying to whip up support for?
Do you think that he thought that the Americans, rather than specifically targeting him, would set up some sort of protective shield around him?
Do you think that, as an intelligent man, he couldn't reasonably foresee the hoorendous human cost of the invasion?
"So far as I can see one cannot be supportive of war without being supportive of killing.
Or did Hitchens support some new, magical war where everyone gets to go home safe at the end?"
"But that's not the point."
ReplyDeleteYes it certainly is. Supporting your government and believing that what they say is a necessary thing to do is not un-typical.
Calling for killing and religious conversion is something completely different. The fact you refuse to accept this as obvious shows the lengths and rubbish you will come up with to protect an indefensible position.
"Why are you less condemnatory of Chris Hitchens cheering on an ACTUAL invasion than you are of Ann Coulter calling on a HYPOTHETICAL invasion?"
Because Hitchens reaction is typical of millions, and his atheism is unrelated. Coulters is extreme.
"You seem to be saying that the major difference is that Coulter called for the specific assassination of unspecified leaders where Hitchens didn't."
Hitchens didn't call for ANY assassination specified or unspecified. Have you a quote of him calling for anything other than what his government claims was necessary?
"Do you really think that Hitchens, as an intelligent man, couldn't see that the death of Saddam would be a reasonably probable outcome of the invasion that he was trying to whip up support for?"
So now your straw clutching has you needing to make assumptions you have no support for as a 'probable outcome'?
Are the facts of what people actually said no longer good enough? I suppose it isn't as bad as claiming they said things they didn't as you previously claimed about Hitchens but you are still stooping low especially when Saddam was not killed in the conflict but caught, arrested and tried. Hitchens specially came out against the death sentence as you well know so please stop your 'reasonably probable' outcomes that you cannot support.
"Calling for killing and religious conversion is something completely different."
ReplyDeleteDifferent to supporting killing in the name of socio-political conversion?
"Because Hitchens reaction is typical of millions"
So because millions of people support an action it can't be extreme?
"Hitchens didn't call for ANY assassination specified or unspecified."
No but he did support an invasion where it was reasonably foreseeable that thousands of people would be killed including the leader of the regime that the allies were trying to depose. To suggest that Hitchens supported a war but didn't support killing is to suggest (as I have pointed out previously) that he thought this was to be some new, magical sort of war where everyone gets to go home unscathed at the end of it.
The only differentiator that you seem to offer between Hitchens and Coulter is that Coulter overtly said "kill their leaders" (despite the fact that she never actually specified who these leaders were) and Hitchen never overtly called for any individual to be killed, but supported an invasion where one of the key war objectives was the decapitation of the regime and therefore it was reasonably foreseeable that it would lead to Saddam's death.
"Different to supporting killing in the name of socio-political conversion?"
ReplyDeleteYes, very different.
"So because millions of people support an action it can't be extreme?"
No, by the simple definition of 'extreme' of course it can't be.
Read this very slowly;
Supporting military action, war or conflict, even when innocent people are likely to get killed may be necessary for security and protection of a nation and it's people. It is not the same as calling for assassination of a countries leadership to forcibly convert them to a rival belief system.
"Yes, very different."
ReplyDeleteHow exactly?
Remember "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
;-)
"No, by the simple definition of 'extreme' of course it can't be."
Which definition are you using?
According to the definitions of "extreme" given here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extreme
the invasion of one country by another can be considered extreme by virtue of it's difference to the norms of international relationships.
I fail to see how war can be considered to be anything other than an "extreme" action.
"Supporting military action, war or conflict, even when innocent people are likely to get killed may be necessary for security and protection of a nation and it's people. It is not the same as calling for assassination of a countries leadership to forcibly convert them to a rival belief system."
But supporting the invasion of a sovereign nation by foreign powers in order to impose a different political system upon it is virtually identical to supporting the invasion of a sovereign nation by foreign powers in order to impose a different religious system.
You are just using the weasel words of an apologist to try and make them sound different.
"Which definition are you using?"
ReplyDeleteOutside of what is considered generally normal. It was not the general opinion of either the politicians nor the people to invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.
The dictionary definitions that can be applied are;
of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average
farthest from the center or middle; outermost; endmost:
farthest, utmost, or very far in any direction
*exceeding the bounds of moderation*
going to the utmost or very great lengths in action, habit, opinion, etc.
All can be applied. I repeat the majority can't support an extreme action simply by the very definition of the word.
The invasion to get rid of Sadam was what the government said was necessary to provide security - not extreme but necessary. Killing and converting wasn't.
"Outside of what is considered generally normal."
ReplyDeleteGood. It is not "normal" for international relations to be conducted through military invasion. Hence the invasion of Iraq was an "extreme" action.
"I repeat the majority can't support an extreme action"
Of course they can. If the majority support an action which is "exceeding the bounds of moderation" or "of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary" or "going to the utmost or very great lengths in action" then they have supported an "extreme" action.
I believe that military invasion is so far removed from the norms of international relations that it will always be an "extreme" action. It is certainly one that is not entered into lightly or routinely, hence the attempts by the US and her allies to gain the endorsement of the UN Security Council for their proposed invasion.
However, by your definition, if the majority of American supported Ann Coulter's statement at the time that she made it (a few days after the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers by Islamist terrorists) then the action that she advocated could not be considered to be "extreme" either. However I am confident that you would consider it to be "extreme", by virtue of nature of the action being advocated alone, irrespective of the context or level of public support at the time.
I know I do.
"It is not "normal" for international relations to be conducted through military invasion. Hence the invasion of Iraq was an "extreme" action."
ReplyDeleteDo be a dick. Wars are very common but you well know I was talking about the ordinary peoples support for military action that was a common view and therefore not an extreme opinion.
Killing and forced religious conversion by comparison was.
Have you any evidence, opinion polls etc that Coulters statement was supported by the Majority of Americans? Do you really believe that the average US citizen wanted to invade Islamic countries, kill their leaders and convert the to Christianity?
"Wars are very common but you well know I was talking about the ordinary peoples support for military action that was a common view and therefore not an extreme opinion."
ReplyDeleteNo. What you said was that war was not extreme if it is supported by millions of people:
""So because millions of people support an action it can't be extreme?"
No, by the simple definition of 'extreme' of course it can't be."
http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/01/christian-taliban.html?showComment=1298380327377#c9136529352103791029
"Have you any evidence, opinion polls etc that Coulters statement was supported by the Majority of Americans?"
No. I don't believe the American people en-masse were asked to offer an opinion on a single article amongst the many that were written in the days immediately after the 9/11 attacks.
"Do you really believe that the average US citizen wanted to invade Islamic countries, kill their leaders and convert the to Christianity? "
Three days after 9/11 (when the article was published)? Very possibly.
BTW - exactly which countries did Ann Coulter say should be invaded? Exactly whom did Ann Coulter say should be killed? Exactly which countries did Ann Coulter say shuld be converted to Christianity?
Would you consider Ann Coulter's suggestion to be "extreme", by virtue of nature of the action being advocated alone, irrespective of the context or level of public support at the time?
ReplyDeleteOops, missing comments again!
ReplyDeleteFunny how that only happens once a "discussion" starts to get protracted.
Coulters suggestion is only extreme by being in a minority. Extremes can't be in the normal majority.
ReplyDelete"What you said was that war was not extreme if it is supported by millions of people"
ReplyDeleteAnd it can't be if it is considered as the measured response by millions of people.
"Very possibly."
Here we go again. When is your evidence to support such a possibility?
"Coulters suggestion is only extreme by being in a minority. Extremes can't be in the normal majority."
ReplyDeleteSo you're saying that if a majority of Americans supported the idea of invading other countries and imposing Christianity on them this WOULDN'T be an extreme idea?
Simply because a majority of people (hypothetically) supported it?
Personally I think the idea of invading other countries in order to impose a change of religion will always be an extreme suggestion irrespective of how many people support it (but no more extreme than suggesting the invasion of another country in order to impose a change of political system though).
"And it can't be if it is considered as the measured response by millions of people"
ReplyDeleteWhan is war ever a "measured response"?
It's a "measured response" when compared to nuclear annihilation I suppose, but not much else.
"So you're saying that if a majority of Americans supported the idea of invading other countries and imposing Christianity on them this WOULDN'T be an extreme idea?"
ReplyDeleteBy the very idea that it was a majority of course it wouldn't be to them - but they don't do they?
"Whan is war ever a "measured response"?"
Just about every time a country declares it will be seen as the correct and measured response.
Are you a total pacifist? Do your beliefs not allow you a right to self defence and protection. Do you believe Britain should have surrendered to Germany and America to Japan in WWII?
It's a serious question because that is pretty much the stance of Jehovah Witnesses, some Buddhists and other religious sects.
"By the very idea that it was a majority of course it wouldn't be to them"
ReplyDeleteSo an opinion is not "extreme" by virtue of the fact that the person espousing it doesn't consider it to be "extreme" because most of the people that they know feel the same way then.
Utter gibberish.
"Just about every time a country declares it will be seen as the correct and measured response."
What even if it is a totally unjustified and disproportionate response to a minor provocation and all lesser options for resolving the situation haven't been exhausted first?
Specifically with respect to the invasion of Iraq this was an hysterical response by the Bush administration (there were no links between the Iraqi regime and Al-Quaeda) to a virtually non-existant threat where the actions short of war that could have been taken to resolve the problem had not been fully exhausted prior to the invasion.
War should always be an option of last resort not of routine. For that reason war is always an "extreme" action.
I think the term 'Utter gibberish' more correctly applies to you. How can people consider something to be extreme when it is the view of most of them?
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't really matter if you think it was extreme, the only people it concerns in this case is Coulter and Hitchens (since you brought him into it).
Coulters view is extreme because she appears alone in expressing it. It has not gained popular support.
Hitchens can't be as he just agreed with the reasoning put forward by his government and accepted by most as a measured response to increase protection.
Its not a difficult concept though you seem intent on making it so.
"How can people consider something to be extreme when it is the view of most of them?"
ReplyDeleteI was starting to feel that you were being harassed skilfully but perhaps with dubious justice - and you come up with that.
Rock Beyond Belief Canceled - US Army Being Sued In Federal Court
http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-national/rock-beyond-belief-canceled-us-army-being-sued-federal-court#ixzz1FzoXcBCU
Here's an example of promotion of the false 'Christianity' - actually Satanism, as I consider Dominionism and perhaps the Southern Conference that - used as a conditioning agent to minimize guilt and PTSD of 'troops' charged with murdering civilians in the name of 'defence' in lands far from home.
Viewpoint: Egypt and Tunisia – The 'arc of crisis' being radicalized!
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2011/01/egypt-tunisia-arc-of-crisis-radicalized.html
What people believe is a function of what they are told. Your 'anonymous' could have been much more accusatory about going to Iraq.
http://www.leadingtowar.com/ ( a website/online movie ) and both its genesis and execution.
http://www.crosscurrents.org/gordon.htm
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
If you're starting to wonder how things veered away from what you believed...you were conditioned to belief.
http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com/2009/07/perception-alteration.html
Opit
ReplyDeleteThanks for responding and the interesting links.
I think mind control is too strong a term. People respond to authority so indoctrination might be closer. However your links have an air of the conspiracy theorist, which if you believe it it would seem to more fact than theory, but I think this gives governments far to much credited intelligence.