Sabre rattling & appeasement

[REDWAVE]

Well, the usual gang of suspects was working overtime today. In the U.N., Colin Powell, the butcher of "Desert Storm" (Desert Slaughter) and contemptible black lackey and lickspittle of the racist white ruling class, was ranting and raving, trying to make a case for Desert Slaughter Two. He was talkin' about lots of useless information, supposed to fry my imagination, and make me want to bomb Iraq back into the Stone Age. Ho Hum. France, Germany, Russia, and China weren't impressed either. Alleged "intercepts" of phone conversations and fuzzy satellite images showing something-- we're supposed to go to war based on that? The Iraqi spokesperson blasted through Colon's bullshit by pointing out all the so-called "evidence" presented could easily be fabricated with today's technology. Of course, the corporate mega-media was faithfully playing its role of helping to brainwash the public into compliance, by gushing over how "strong" and "convincing" Powell's speech was!

Meanwhile, North Korea continues to openly defy the U.S., but Bush doesn't want to go to war with them-- not yet, at least. It becomes clearer each day that the reason he is going after Iraq is precisely because it doesn't present any serious threat to us. (Of course, oil is in the mix too.) North Korea may well have nuclear capability already, so it's being left for later. But Bush's adorable little poodle, Tony Blair, recently crawled out of Dubya's lap long enough to let slip that North Korea was indeed next on the hit parade, after Iraq has been conquered. (Isn't it so cute how he barks on command? If Shrubbie tells him to, he'll even roll over and play dead.)

Meanwhile, back here at the ranch, homeless people freeze to death, the poor are evicted and forced into homelessness, and workers continue to lose their jobs and join the ranks of the newly poor.

It would all be funny in a way-- if it were not so dismal and horrifying.

 

[Jabo 69]

Colin Powell bashing

YOU TREASONOUS LITTLE NIGGER--YOU WOULDN'T MAKE A BUMP ON COLIN POWELL'S ASS..I'LL PAY FOR A ONE WAY TICKET FOR YOU AND HARRY BELLAFONTE BACK TO AFRICA ANY DAY AND DAMN GOOD RIDDANCE....


~~~JABO~~~

 

[busybody..]

Well, the usual gang of suspects was working overtime today. In the U.N., Colin Powell, the butcher of "Desert Storm" (Desert Slaughter) and contemptible black lackey and lickspittle of the racist white ruling class, was ranting and raving, trying to make a case for Desert Slaughter Two. He was talkin' about lots of useless information, supposed to fry my imagination, and make me want to bomb Iraq back into the Stone Age. Ho Hum. France, Germany, Russia, and China weren't impressed either. Alleged "intercepts" of phone conversations and fuzzy satellite images showing something-- we're supposed to go to war based on that? The Iraqi spokesperson blasted through Colon's bullshit by pointing out all the so-called "evidence" presented could easily be fabricated with today's technology. Of course, the corporate mega-media was faithfully playing its role of helping to brainwash the public into compliance, by gushing over how "strong" and "convincing" Powell's speech was!

Meanwhile, North Korea continues to openly defy the U.S., but Bush doesn't want to go to war with them-- not yet, at least. It becomes clearer each day that the reason he is going after Iraq is precisely because it doesn't present any serious threat to us. (Of course, oil is in the mix too.) North Korea may well have nuclear capability already, so it's being left for later. But Bush's adorable little poodle, Tony Blair, recently crawled out of Dubya's lap long enough to let slip that North Korea was indeed next on the hit parade, after Iraq has been conquered. (Isn't it so cute how he barks on command? If Shrubbie tells him to, he'll even roll over and play dead.)

Meanwhile, back here at the ranch, homeless people freeze to death, the poor are evicted and forced into homelessness, and workers continue to lose their jobs and join the ranks of the newly poor.

It would all be funny in a way-- if it were not so dismal and horrifying.

Yeah? And your point is what?

 

[busybody..]

.
La France et l'Allemagne ont lamentablement échoué dans leur tentative de faire monter les gouvernements européens contre les Etats-unis. Ils étaient désarmés d'une facilité déconcertante par une simple lettre publiée dans un journal américain. Ils comprennent desormais à leur grand désarroi que l'Union Européenne élargie sera plus pro-américaine que tout ce qu'ils pouvaient imaginer. L'Axe des Blaireaux seront bientôt en train de mendier à l'aide d'un panneau libellé 'Philosophie contre nourriture'. On dirait que ce sont bien la France et l'Allemagne qui sont les amers loques.

 

[REDWAVE]

Lesser trolls

Damn, I'm getting a declining quality of trolls these days.

 

[busybody..]

Gang rape and Christian duty
Last Friday I saw a short piece in Nashville's Tennessean newspaper that reported the convictions of four men for gang rape. It was not a local case and I don't recall where the crime occurred, sorry. The men raped the woman on a billiards table in a pool hall while the rest of the customers clapped and cheered. I am imagining using that terrible crime as a model for a conversation about Just War theory.

DS - Is what the four men, now convicts, did "Christlike?" That is, does gang-raping a woman imitate the life and teachings of Jesus?

Ms. X - No, of course not.

DS - SO could the rape be considered godly in any way?

Ms. X - No.

DS - Then was the rape just or unjust by human standards?

Ms. X - Absolutely not. It was a crime and that's why the men were convicted.

DS - The bystanders who clapped and cheered. Did they act Christlike? Was their enthusiasm for the rape something that sprung from Jesus' teachings?

Ms. X - No.

DS - What I want to focus on is the bystanders, then. I am trying to discern what they should have done that would have been Christlike. Suppose they had simply ignored the rape on the other pool table. They might have taken the view that since no crime was being committed against them personally, then they had no obligation to respond to it at all.

Would that have been Christlike?

Now, gentle reader, you surely see where I'm going with this. The fact is that the ethics of Christ are often difficult to apply to concrete cases. They are a good guide for the overall conduct of one's life, and in many ways for collective ethics or public policy. But in very specific cases they often simply do not suffice, wholly on their own, to help us know what to do.

I ask you to imagine now that I, a man of the cloth, had also been coincidentally in that pool hall when the rape began. What could my Christian response have been?

"Jane Doe" is being brutalized by four men; three holding her down and one doing the assault, taking turns. Which of my following possible responses do you think would be the most Christly thing to do? Leave a comment with your thoughts.



I urge Jane Doe to turn the other cheek because Jesus was a man of peace. It would be sinful of her to resist.

I admonish the men that what they are doing is morally bad and unlawful. I tell them they must stop immediately. When they don't stop, I tell them again they must cease. I continue to tell them to stop the entire time they rape her.

I ignore the rape because I have enough problems of my own. Interfering would not be a spiritual thing to do.

I think that the rapists must be stopped. Even though I am a tough guy and could compel them to quit, I do not. First I try to enlist the others present to help me. I think it would be wrong for me to intervene on my own. At the least, I want the other bystanders to endorse my intervention even if they don't help me. If they don't, I won't.

Realizing that I do not need anyone's permission to stop this crime, I order the rapists to stop. When they do not, I intervene using physical force as necessary.

Something else? What?

Forget the police. In this thought experiment, there are no police. In the real event, the police didn't stop the crime anyway. There are just the victim, the rapists, the bystanders - and you.

I already explained why I do not ask myself, "What would Jesus do?" In this particular case, I have no problem imagining Jesus visiting a pool hall. But the question for this case is not really WWJD, but what he have me do?

Here's the conundrum: To say that my duty as a Christian could never include the forceful intervention to stop the rape would have to mean that the gang rape of an innocent woman is more pleasing to Christ than stopping it. If so, then Christ is a fiend, not a savior.

Christians are obligated to defend the innocent from aggression, not exempted from doing so. To fail to act when it is possible to do so is to become an accomplice to the next aggression. To restore justice - the right ordering of things - serves the cause of peace, even if justice is restored forcefully.

I cannot imagine Jesus permitting the gang rape to proceed unhindered. To imagine it would literally require me to surrender my faith in him. But I can imagine him forcefully stopping it. After all, he used violence for less provocation than that (well, less in my eyes).

And at what point would intervention have been justified? Should it have been only after the rape had begun? Or, when the actions of the men made their intentions clear, would intervention have been called for before the rape had technically been accomplished?

Abstract reasoning does little good when faced with concrete situations. The rape is going on now, Ms. X, and when they are done with Jane, they are coming for your daughter, and then you. You have the ability to stop them and bring them to justice, but force will be necessary. Or you can just let the terror continue.

What would Jesus have you do?

 

[teddybear4play]

France, Germany, Russia, and China weren't impressed either.

How dim you are. The speeches on behalf of all of those countries were written before Powell's presentation or adlibbed just afterwards. Hardly enough time to mull it over and consider it. Germany and Russia are in, China will likely come along, and France will probably reluctantly so because they realize they're the last holdout.

For someone who thinks the weight of the world does not want to go to war, your crowd of supporters is thinning.

Alleged "intercepts" of phone conversations and fuzzy satellite images showing something-- we're supposed to go to war based on that?

It's called the tip of the iceberg. And even on that, Iraq is demonstrating their noncompliance to U.N.S.C. Resolution 1441. They're therefore in material breach, and therefore action should be taken.

The Iraqi spokesperson blasted through Colon's bullshit by pointing out all the so-called "evidence" presented could easily be fabricated with today's technology.

Are you trying to be funny?

Of course, the corporate mega-media was faithfully playing its role of helping to brainwash the public into compliance, by gushing over how "strong" and "convincing" Powell's speech was!

It was, to everyone but you.

Meanwhile, North Korea continues to openly defy the U.S., but Bush doesn't want to go to war with them-- not yet, at least. It becomes clearer each day that the reason he is going after Iraq is precisely because it doesn't present any serious threat to us.

In a way, you nailed it: if Hussein had nuclear weapons, they'd be North Korea. We have to treat N.K. with kid gloves because they have the bomb. We can give Iraq what they deserve because right now, they don't.

Congratulations for making Powell's point. When it gets right down to it, you're such a good little capitalist American.

Have a Big Mac and a Twinkie.

TB4p