By Challi
First of all, way to suck, Port! I knew Geelong was going to win because they wanted it more, but yikes, a 119 point margin? That's just taking the piss. Also, I might know very little about AFL strategy, but maybe any defense at all would have helped? but hey, I'm just being an asshole. Who I really feel sorry for are those fans who spent all that money to go to the cesspool that is Melbourne, some even without tickets, to watch their team do their best, and that's definitely not what they saw.
Anyway, I was watching the Sunday program yesterday and there was this bit about a doctor deeming that Australia is racist in regards to our attitude to Muslims. Now, although I don't deny that Australians are racist (in fact, being part Asian, I've experienced it first hand), I feel like I need to clarify a few things:
1. "Muslim" is not a race of people, they're followers of a particular religion called Islam. Therefore it's not racism, it's religious discrimination. I'm not saying it's still not bad, just saying that it's dumb to call us racist towards something that's not even a race.
2. Race only exists as a social construct, not a biological one. I'm not too sure how this gets us off the hook for being racist, but I just felt like showing off my Uni intellectual prowess.
Racism is way too an obscure definition anyway and I still haven't quite grasped what it means. Apparently generalisation is a form of racism but I've been involved in a situation where it seemed like it was perfectly valid to generalise (in fact, it was impossible not to generalise in the context it was in) and I was accused of being racist even though I couldn't really avoid it. So in what situation could I have not avoided being generalistic? Well gather round and I'll tell you the story:
At our catholic school's year 11 spiritual retreat, we were put into groups of 10 or so people and we were given a scenario where there were several people on a boat and the boat was slowly sinking and the only nearby island was kilometre away and they had to get rid of some of the people on the boat and leave 5 so that they could make it to the island without sinking. Sounds ridiculous, I know, but bear with me. The people we could choose to save included a lawyer, a doctor and her husband, an Iraqi man, and a 24-year-old Aboriginal man. I don't remember the rest. I stated that the Aborigine should be on the boat because he could make smoke signals and get help.
but no, the supervising teacher was having none of that. She stated that not all Aborigines make smoke signals and since I apparently generalised that they do, I was racist for doing so.
That's just stupid. This is a fictional Aborigine in a scenario where we clearly had to make shit up, and I think it's perfectly valid that the Aborigine should be able to make smoke signals. They want to get off the island, don't they? Besides, since it's fictional and we're only given the detail that it's a 24-year old Aboriginal man, of course I'm going to assume everything else and use stereotypes to do so. I had no other option.
and why was the Aboriginal and the Iraqi man the only ones whom it was deemed their nationality was worth pointing out? Why not go ahead and give us the nationalities of the lawyer and the doctor? Why was it so damn important that the 24-year old man was Aborigine if we couldn't make use of it in the scenario?
Man, I hate retreats.
So that's my story. In the context I was accused of racist in, I think we are all racist in some way. We all generalise and assume things about races and we've all laughed at racist jokes, don't deny it. As long as we don't start Cronulla-esque riots or start a political party built on racism we can pretty much get away with it, and that's what makes Australia great.
-C
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, October 01, 2007
Sunday, June 24, 2007
stupor troopers?
By Challi
Like any lily-livered pinko in Australia, I want the Australian troops out of Iraq. My original reason for this was that they're participating in an unjust war in a god-forsaken hellhole and they might get hurt blah blah blah I want my mummy, but then I reattached my testicles and now actually have a practical reason as to why they shouldn't be in Iraq that even your average heartless bastard will understand:
They're not doing anything there!
Yes, according to a recent report from Iraq which I'll be sure to cite as soon as it comes up on a news site and obviously will have this sentence removed, Australian soldiers are being taunted by American troops for not participating as much as they should be. I tend to agree, mostly because the body count for American troops stands at around the 3500 mark, whereas the body count for Australian troops stands at a measly 2, and they were both accidental. If the Australian soldiers were really doing their jobs, we'd see a lot more dead Australian soldiers, and that's what we'd want to see! If it takes someone to be cleaning their gun and it accidentally going off for a death to happen, they may as well leave right now because they clearly aren't pulling their weight!
Ok, I don't actually wish death on the Australian troops and I understand they probably ran out of things to do, but they're also basically going in there and getting paid extra for nothing, except to stay in a war zone for a few months. So what? I went to the Philippines and Melbourne, I didn't get paid at all for that. Some of my brother's navy buddies, excluding himself, went to Iraq's coast and stayed there for a month or so and did absolutely nothing except stay there and await an attack that obviously isn't gonna happen (because the rebels have no submarines, duh) and they got paid extra for it. My brother went to Aceh and helped to rebuild an entire town after the Boxing Day Tsunami and he just got his regular pay. Injustice!
and to top it all off, it's American troops that are telling our troops that they're not doing enough in the war. That's got to be the last straw. Australians, either do your job and get a nice tally of deaths that somehow indicate a job well done, or get the hell out of there and stop getting paid for no reason whatsoever, slackers!
-C
Like any lily-livered pinko in Australia, I want the Australian troops out of Iraq. My original reason for this was that they're participating in an unjust war in a god-forsaken hellhole and they might get hurt blah blah blah I want my mummy, but then I reattached my testicles and now actually have a practical reason as to why they shouldn't be in Iraq that even your average heartless bastard will understand:
They're not doing anything there!
Yes, according to a recent report from Iraq which I'll be sure to cite as soon as it comes up on a news site and obviously will have this sentence removed, Australian soldiers are being taunted by American troops for not participating as much as they should be. I tend to agree, mostly because the body count for American troops stands at around the 3500 mark, whereas the body count for Australian troops stands at a measly 2, and they were both accidental. If the Australian soldiers were really doing their jobs, we'd see a lot more dead Australian soldiers, and that's what we'd want to see! If it takes someone to be cleaning their gun and it accidentally going off for a death to happen, they may as well leave right now because they clearly aren't pulling their weight!
Ok, I don't actually wish death on the Australian troops and I understand they probably ran out of things to do, but they're also basically going in there and getting paid extra for nothing, except to stay in a war zone for a few months. So what? I went to the Philippines and Melbourne, I didn't get paid at all for that. Some of my brother's navy buddies, excluding himself, went to Iraq's coast and stayed there for a month or so and did absolutely nothing except stay there and await an attack that obviously isn't gonna happen (because the rebels have no submarines, duh) and they got paid extra for it. My brother went to Aceh and helped to rebuild an entire town after the Boxing Day Tsunami and he just got his regular pay. Injustice!
and to top it all off, it's American troops that are telling our troops that they're not doing enough in the war. That's got to be the last straw. Australians, either do your job and get a nice tally of deaths that somehow indicate a job well done, or get the hell out of there and stop getting paid for no reason whatsoever, slackers!
-C
Friday, May 11, 2007
imagine no religion...
By PJK
For one thing, my tolerance is certainly strained after having personally encountered (on no less that two occasions in the past six months) representatives of organised religion who have either directly stated or implied that I am going to Hell.
Sure, we could ignore them. We could just walk away. But should we? Shouldn't we be opposed to this kind of hateful bile as a matter of principle? The idea that 'sinners' and 'unbelievers' will be subjected to a divine punishment (especially the Christian and Islamic conceptions of Hell) is an archaic and poisonous one, particularly when what is considered 'sinful' is based on ancient and erroneous notions of morality. But sadly this view continues to have an emotional stranglehold on millions around the world. Even simply implying that the godless will have no place in an eternal afterlife is in my opinion emotional blackmail of the most sickening kind. While there exist people and organizations that continue to espouse these views, they MUST BE OPPOSED by all rational and tolerant people.
So too must religious interference in politics. The faith of a political figure is one thing; it's as personal as my preference for coffee over tea. But when the leader of a secular democracy openly promotes the religious views of one sect over all others, then our liberty (in the Enlightenment sense) is compromised. This means no references to 'God' in official documents and ceremonies. No 'Day of Prayer'. No public money for pushing 'abstinence' or 'intelligent design' into schools. These are all aberrations. Thomas Paine would've been appalled.
Enforcing secularism and promoting tolerance is a noble cause, but I would suggest that it alone is not enough. Rational people have a duty to oppose intolerant faiths. When Churches and Sunday Schools evoke the concept of Hell and divine punishment, they are blackmailing and threatening people. Worst of all, they are blackmailing and threatening children. If I threatened or blackmailed a child, shouldn't I be prosecuted? And if there is any justice in the world, shouldn't I be punished for it? People are easily led astray by hateful rhetoric. So why let religions get away with propagating the worst threat of all? (ie. an eternity of the worst suffering imaginable!)
Finally, I have this to add. People object to the way 'militant' atheists such as Richard Dawkins attack religion. You might be inclined to think he is just as bad. I would disagree. Dawkins is not threatening anybody. Unlike many religious believers, Dawkins is not suggesting that if you don't adopt his beliefs, you will be eternally punished. And though I haven't read The God Delusion, from what I've heard it mainly targets the fundamentalist God (ie. a bearded man in the clouds), and this I have no qualms with. If anything, Fundamentalists should be attacked more often and more harshly by noteworthy intellectuals, and their ludicrously primitive and dangerous beliefs like 'creationism' should be exposed for what they're truly worth (ie. nothing).
And if this argument sounds one-sided, understand too that my tolerance for 'Islamic sensibilities', particularly the hypocrisy involved in responding to cultural offences with senseless violence, is wearing thinner by the day.
Islamic sensibilities or Islamic double standards?
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion. It has been the most destructive to the peace of man since man began to exist."Atheist opposition to religion should be unnecessary in principle. It makes no difference to me whether you believe in an omniscient creator, or whether you believe in the tooth fairy. As readers may have noticed, I am firmly against the idea that anyone's beliefs (political, religious, cultural, etc.) should be grounds for discrimination in a democratic, secular, and pluralist society. But this is not the same as saying that belief should be immune from criticism, and when it comes to religion there is certainly a lot to critique, even oppose.
Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason.
For one thing, my tolerance is certainly strained after having personally encountered (on no less that two occasions in the past six months) representatives of organised religion who have either directly stated or implied that I am going to Hell.
Sure, we could ignore them. We could just walk away. But should we? Shouldn't we be opposed to this kind of hateful bile as a matter of principle? The idea that 'sinners' and 'unbelievers' will be subjected to a divine punishment (especially the Christian and Islamic conceptions of Hell) is an archaic and poisonous one, particularly when what is considered 'sinful' is based on ancient and erroneous notions of morality. But sadly this view continues to have an emotional stranglehold on millions around the world. Even simply implying that the godless will have no place in an eternal afterlife is in my opinion emotional blackmail of the most sickening kind. While there exist people and organizations that continue to espouse these views, they MUST BE OPPOSED by all rational and tolerant people.
So too must religious interference in politics. The faith of a political figure is one thing; it's as personal as my preference for coffee over tea. But when the leader of a secular democracy openly promotes the religious views of one sect over all others, then our liberty (in the Enlightenment sense) is compromised. This means no references to 'God' in official documents and ceremonies. No 'Day of Prayer'. No public money for pushing 'abstinence' or 'intelligent design' into schools. These are all aberrations. Thomas Paine would've been appalled.
Enforcing secularism and promoting tolerance is a noble cause, but I would suggest that it alone is not enough. Rational people have a duty to oppose intolerant faiths. When Churches and Sunday Schools evoke the concept of Hell and divine punishment, they are blackmailing and threatening people. Worst of all, they are blackmailing and threatening children. If I threatened or blackmailed a child, shouldn't I be prosecuted? And if there is any justice in the world, shouldn't I be punished for it? People are easily led astray by hateful rhetoric. So why let religions get away with propagating the worst threat of all? (ie. an eternity of the worst suffering imaginable!)
Finally, I have this to add. People object to the way 'militant' atheists such as Richard Dawkins attack religion. You might be inclined to think he is just as bad. I would disagree. Dawkins is not threatening anybody. Unlike many religious believers, Dawkins is not suggesting that if you don't adopt his beliefs, you will be eternally punished. And though I haven't read The God Delusion, from what I've heard it mainly targets the fundamentalist God (ie. a bearded man in the clouds), and this I have no qualms with. If anything, Fundamentalists should be attacked more often and more harshly by noteworthy intellectuals, and their ludicrously primitive and dangerous beliefs like 'creationism' should be exposed for what they're truly worth (ie. nothing).
And if this argument sounds one-sided, understand too that my tolerance for 'Islamic sensibilities', particularly the hypocrisy involved in responding to cultural offences with senseless violence, is wearing thinner by the day.
Islamic sensibilities or Islamic double standards?Friday, February 16, 2007
officially un-Australian.
By PJK
Yes, that's right. I am now officially un-Australian. Explanation follows.
When you log into MSN Messenger, you have the option of displaying "MSN Today", which summarises the daily news as decided by our good friends over at Murdoch's Nine Network. You know this already, but read on! Each day it has a user poll pertaining to a particular news item, which is the main reason I look at it rather than turning it off — the polls are always so absurdly biased, set-up or worded in such a way that they almost always coincide with the government's latest talking-points, or whatever blatant rightwingery Rupert Murdoch has decided we ought to be buying-into at the moment.
Today's poll is possibly the most outrageous I've seen thus far: "should the government cap immigration for particular religions?" If you didn't manage to take that in properly at first glance, what it's asking is this: should the government limit the number of people belonging to a certain religion from living in Australia or not.
Here's what MSN users have to say thus far:
And gee, I wonder what the "particular religion" is they had in mind?
Democracy, people. Ever hear of it? It entitles people to certain freedoms. One of those freedoms is the one that allowed you (and I'm now addressing the average Joe nationalists who voted yes in the above poll) to wake up this morning without being beaten to within an inch of your life by men with large sticks, for example. There are others.
One freedom that we've associated with democracy since, well, let's say the American Revolution OVER 200 YEARS AGO, is called Freedom of Religion. The deal is, you get to worship whatever make-believe deity you want, and get this: as a bonus, you don't get a hot iron rod inserted into your anus (ala a certain Spanish Inquisition). Until recently it has generally been thought of as a good idea.
But I guess now you want to shit upon that idea huh? Those Muslims, they don't respect OUR way of life, do they? And terrorism and things. Therefore we don't want THEM coming HERE anymore. Yeah, I can totally understand where you're coming from. I get your line of thinking. Oh wait, hang on a mo', THAT'S RETARDED.
Religion and culture are two different things. The former is just an idea. The latter is how you put it into practice. Now I'm not saying there aren't aspects of people's culture that are definately NOT compatible with the Australian way of life. There most certainly are. Treating women like sub-human scum for example is going to get me very mad at you indeed. Blowing yourself and others to smithereens in order to promote medieval bullshit like Sharia law is another. That kind of shit severely riles me.
But belief in a particular God or a particular Holy Book is no basis for discrimination in any civilised society, and until recently I was sort of hoping Australia was still one of those. If the majority of you fucktards though want to make this country into one giant Cronulla riot then I guess that makes me what you're not.
And judging by the Stormfront posters I've been seeing all over town, including at the bus stop by my house, I guess such thinking is becoming the norm.
Guess that makes me un-Australian. Meh.
Enjoy your Crusade, bitches.
Yes, that's right. I am now officially un-Australian. Explanation follows.
When you log into MSN Messenger, you have the option of displaying "MSN Today", which summarises the daily news as decided by our good friends over at Murdoch's Nine Network. You know this already, but read on! Each day it has a user poll pertaining to a particular news item, which is the main reason I look at it rather than turning it off — the polls are always so absurdly biased, set-up or worded in such a way that they almost always coincide with the government's latest talking-points, or whatever blatant rightwingery Rupert Murdoch has decided we ought to be buying-into at the moment.
Today's poll is possibly the most outrageous I've seen thus far: "should the government cap immigration for particular religions?" If you didn't manage to take that in properly at first glance, what it's asking is this: should the government limit the number of people belonging to a certain religion from living in Australia or not.
Here's what MSN users have to say thus far:
WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK???
And gee, I wonder what the "particular religion" is they had in mind?
Democracy, people. Ever hear of it? It entitles people to certain freedoms. One of those freedoms is the one that allowed you (and I'm now addressing the average Joe nationalists who voted yes in the above poll) to wake up this morning without being beaten to within an inch of your life by men with large sticks, for example. There are others.
One freedom that we've associated with democracy since, well, let's say the American Revolution OVER 200 YEARS AGO, is called Freedom of Religion. The deal is, you get to worship whatever make-believe deity you want, and get this: as a bonus, you don't get a hot iron rod inserted into your anus (ala a certain Spanish Inquisition). Until recently it has generally been thought of as a good idea.
But I guess now you want to shit upon that idea huh? Those Muslims, they don't respect OUR way of life, do they? And terrorism and things. Therefore we don't want THEM coming HERE anymore. Yeah, I can totally understand where you're coming from. I get your line of thinking. Oh wait, hang on a mo', THAT'S RETARDED.
Religion and culture are two different things. The former is just an idea. The latter is how you put it into practice. Now I'm not saying there aren't aspects of people's culture that are definately NOT compatible with the Australian way of life. There most certainly are. Treating women like sub-human scum for example is going to get me very mad at you indeed. Blowing yourself and others to smithereens in order to promote medieval bullshit like Sharia law is another. That kind of shit severely riles me.
But belief in a particular God or a particular Holy Book is no basis for discrimination in any civilised society, and until recently I was sort of hoping Australia was still one of those. If the majority of you fucktards though want to make this country into one giant Cronulla riot then I guess that makes me what you're not.
And judging by the Stormfront posters I've been seeing all over town, including at the bus stop by my house, I guess such thinking is becoming the norm.
Guess that makes me un-Australian. Meh.
Enjoy your Crusade, bitches.Monday, December 04, 2006
the cash-in of the christ.
By Challi
I'm curious. Why the hell is there a movie out about the birth of Jesus? We Christians and all those other serious denominations of the Catholic church have already suffered as much as Jesus did because of hearing about the freaking birth of Jesus every single Christmas when we get forced by our parents or religious significant other to go to church and sit through that whole story about Mary and Joseph looking for a place to give birth to their magical ninja child and they found a barn because there was no room at the hotel. Sure, they could of tried the hospital but they didn't want to pay the bill.
We've heard this story over and over again every year at school. What was even worse was that we had to watch it played out by a whole lot of year 1 kids that are clearly poorly schooled in drama, but that's ok I guess, all of that is free. Now we are given an option to pay to watch a poor reenactment of the birth of Jesus, which we have heard and seen so many times before? I don't think so, Tim. I'll just stick to having to hear about it for free at church.
Oh yeah and lol @ the idiot protestors who tried to fill up the MCG on November 15 with people protesting about the Industrial Relations laws. They only managed about 120,000 when they were aiming for half a million. You know why they fell so short of the amount of people they were expecting? It must have something to do with everyone else having jobs! Despite the hype, these new laws have somehow improved Australia's employment figures dramatically, or so Kevin Andrews states: "We have seen 1.7 million extra jobs created in Australia, more than a 14% increase in real wages. Part of the reason for that is because of the reforms that we made in 1996.". So stop complaining!
-C
I'm curious. Why the hell is there a movie out about the birth of Jesus? We Christians and all those other serious denominations of the Catholic church have already suffered as much as Jesus did because of hearing about the freaking birth of Jesus every single Christmas when we get forced by our parents or religious significant other to go to church and sit through that whole story about Mary and Joseph looking for a place to give birth to their magical ninja child and they found a barn because there was no room at the hotel. Sure, they could of tried the hospital but they didn't want to pay the bill.
We've heard this story over and over again every year at school. What was even worse was that we had to watch it played out by a whole lot of year 1 kids that are clearly poorly schooled in drama, but that's ok I guess, all of that is free. Now we are given an option to pay to watch a poor reenactment of the birth of Jesus, which we have heard and seen so many times before? I don't think so, Tim. I'll just stick to having to hear about it for free at church.
Oh yeah and lol @ the idiot protestors who tried to fill up the MCG on November 15 with people protesting about the Industrial Relations laws. They only managed about 120,000 when they were aiming for half a million. You know why they fell so short of the amount of people they were expecting? It must have something to do with everyone else having jobs! Despite the hype, these new laws have somehow improved Australia's employment figures dramatically, or so Kevin Andrews states: "We have seen 1.7 million extra jobs created in Australia, more than a 14% increase in real wages. Part of the reason for that is because of the reforms that we made in 1996.". So stop complaining!
-C
Saturday, November 04, 2006
a letter to the UN, re: Australia's nuclear threat.
By PJK
Dear the United Nations,
Grave news: my countrymen are planning to harness nuclear energy — supposedly for electricity, but how can we be sure? For the sake of consistency and for the safety of the Free World™, I call for immediate sanctions against Australia. This is a real threat to the stability of the region and there can be no delay. I know how effective the UN has been in past emergencies and I’m sure you’ll come through for us again.
Yours in good faith,
Patrick Keeley — Citizen of the World
Dear the United Nations,
Grave news: my countrymen are planning to harness nuclear energy — supposedly for electricity, but how can we be sure? For the sake of consistency and for the safety of the Free World™, I call for immediate sanctions against Australia. This is a real threat to the stability of the region and there can be no delay. I know how effective the UN has been in past emergencies and I’m sure you’ll come through for us again.
Yours in good faith,
Patrick Keeley — Citizen of the World
Friday, October 20, 2006
unenthused debate: the human cost of the Iraq War.
By PJK
In contrast to what normally passes as a post here on the unenthusiast(s), I want to discuss one of the most important issues our time: the Iraq War. It's a pretty mammoth topic, so for the sake of brevity I'm going to leave out the debate over casus belli, war-aims and the broader situation in the Middle East and just focus on the recent controversy surrounding loss of human life. After all, is that not the most important thing at stake here?
The facts: The number of confirmed US military casualties in Iraq is currently 2776; the number of British losses is 119. Of the other coalition members, 118 military personnel have been killed, of whom 2 were Australian. 85 journalists have lost their lives covering the Iraq War. If we are to believe the new Johns Hopkins estimate of Iraqi civilian losses (and there are certainly plausible reasons why we should), the current death toll stands at around 655,000 (31% of this directly attributed to Coalition forces), which would equate to around 2.5 percent of the population. Civilian casualty numbers are disputed however: the L.A. Times points to a figure around 500,000, and the White House claims any estimate above 300,000 is "not credible". In any case, these numbers are pretty hard to comprehend out of context. To put it in perspective (and no, I am not infering moral equivalency), Human Rights Watch estimates that deaths under Saddam range from 250,000 to 290,000. Perhaps we will never know how many were murdered by the Baathist regime, but with the current civil war showing no signs of abating, any plausible figure would likely be exceeded by the time Iraq is stabilised (and indeed it may have already been exceeded). I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.
Baghdad on Google Earth. If you haven't looked it up yet you should.
The opinion: History will make up its own mind whether or not the invasion of Iraq was justified. In any case, we cannot simply undo all of these deaths. They are the price that has been paid for Saddam's removal, and we must now ask ourselves the question: are we responsible for Iraq's future? Supporters and opponents of the war alike mostly agree that we are. The challenge therefore is to debate responsibility in a rational and nonpartisan manner, and to fufill whatever responsibility we accept to the best of our ability — especially if Iraq was, as many believe, a mistake.
Comments welcome.
Sources for this post:
Japan Times Online: 'More Deadly Than Saddam'
PBS Online NewsHour: 'Study Finds Iraq Death Toll Higher Than Previous Estimates'
Editor and Publisher: 'Iraqi Death Rate May Top Our Civil War'
Iraq Coalition Casualties
Iraq: Journalists in Danger
In contrast to what normally passes as a post here on the unenthusiast(s), I want to discuss one of the most important issues our time: the Iraq War. It's a pretty mammoth topic, so for the sake of brevity I'm going to leave out the debate over casus belli, war-aims and the broader situation in the Middle East and just focus on the recent controversy surrounding loss of human life. After all, is that not the most important thing at stake here?
The facts: The number of confirmed US military casualties in Iraq is currently 2776; the number of British losses is 119. Of the other coalition members, 118 military personnel have been killed, of whom 2 were Australian. 85 journalists have lost their lives covering the Iraq War. If we are to believe the new Johns Hopkins estimate of Iraqi civilian losses (and there are certainly plausible reasons why we should), the current death toll stands at around 655,000 (31% of this directly attributed to Coalition forces), which would equate to around 2.5 percent of the population. Civilian casualty numbers are disputed however: the L.A. Times points to a figure around 500,000, and the White House claims any estimate above 300,000 is "not credible". In any case, these numbers are pretty hard to comprehend out of context. To put it in perspective (and no, I am not infering moral equivalency), Human Rights Watch estimates that deaths under Saddam range from 250,000 to 290,000. Perhaps we will never know how many were murdered by the Baathist regime, but with the current civil war showing no signs of abating, any plausible figure would likely be exceeded by the time Iraq is stabilised (and indeed it may have already been exceeded). I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.
Baghdad on Google Earth. If you haven't looked it up yet you should.The opinion: History will make up its own mind whether or not the invasion of Iraq was justified. In any case, we cannot simply undo all of these deaths. They are the price that has been paid for Saddam's removal, and we must now ask ourselves the question: are we responsible for Iraq's future? Supporters and opponents of the war alike mostly agree that we are. The challenge therefore is to debate responsibility in a rational and nonpartisan manner, and to fufill whatever responsibility we accept to the best of our ability — especially if Iraq was, as many believe, a mistake.
Comments welcome.
Sources for this post:
Japan Times Online: 'More Deadly Than Saddam'
PBS Online NewsHour: 'Study Finds Iraq Death Toll Higher Than Previous Estimates'
Editor and Publisher: 'Iraqi Death Rate May Top Our Civil War'
Iraq Coalition Casualties
Iraq: Journalists in Danger
Monday, September 18, 2006
reactions to the pope's comments.
By PJK
Just some quick thoughts RE: the Pope's comments. Now, obviously the comments were bound to spur controversy, and if the the Pope didn't think people would overreact, or was hoping for that effect, he's an idiot, plain and simple (yes, I am allowed to call the Pope an idiot if I want, and remember that what I just said was a conditional statement). HOWEVER, there is no reason why anyone should arrive at the conclusion, as one commenter on our Cbox remarked, that "the Pope doesn't like Muslim people".
First of all, the Pope was QUOTING. He made perfectly clear that the quote was not a reflection of his own view, so unfortunately for all you rabid anti-Papal nutjobs, we have to give him the benefit of the doubt here. And if you look at the comment in context, it's a valid point. The Pope was speaking on the subject of "faith and reason", specifically, suggesting that anyone who spreads faith through violence shows a lack of reason. I agree. And it is a historical fact that the religion of Islam, at the command of its own prophet, did at one time spread the Islamic faith by the sword, killing many innocent people in the name of Allah. Let's not sugar-coat history here people. Christians did the same thing, so did Hindus and Buddhists and probably at some point even Jews. The fact that he focused on Islam was probably a bad move, but so what? Why do we allow one religion's sensitivity to blanket any criticism of its radical elements? Particularly something that happened over 600 years ago? Any religion should be open to criticism. Yet the hysteria mounts, and even in this enlightened age, we see people firebombed for drawing cartoons of Muhammed (for example). How can anyone who believes in free speech defend that? Political correctness, if taken seriously (and that is a whole other discussion entirely), should not accept double-standards.
Just some quick thoughts RE: the Pope's comments. Now, obviously the comments were bound to spur controversy, and if the the Pope didn't think people would overreact, or was hoping for that effect, he's an idiot, plain and simple (yes, I am allowed to call the Pope an idiot if I want, and remember that what I just said was a conditional statement). HOWEVER, there is no reason why anyone should arrive at the conclusion, as one commenter on our Cbox remarked, that "the Pope doesn't like Muslim people".
First of all, the Pope was QUOTING. He made perfectly clear that the quote was not a reflection of his own view, so unfortunately for all you rabid anti-Papal nutjobs, we have to give him the benefit of the doubt here. And if you look at the comment in context, it's a valid point. The Pope was speaking on the subject of "faith and reason", specifically, suggesting that anyone who spreads faith through violence shows a lack of reason. I agree. And it is a historical fact that the religion of Islam, at the command of its own prophet, did at one time spread the Islamic faith by the sword, killing many innocent people in the name of Allah. Let's not sugar-coat history here people. Christians did the same thing, so did Hindus and Buddhists and probably at some point even Jews. The fact that he focused on Islam was probably a bad move, but so what? Why do we allow one religion's sensitivity to blanket any criticism of its radical elements? Particularly something that happened over 600 years ago? Any religion should be open to criticism. Yet the hysteria mounts, and even in this enlightened age, we see people firebombed for drawing cartoons of Muhammed (for example). How can anyone who believes in free speech defend that? Political correctness, if taken seriously (and that is a whole other discussion entirely), should not accept double-standards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
