AgnosticWeb.com - Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism (reply)

George Jelliss — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:17:50 +0000

We debated the Iraq invasion at Leicester Secular Society and apart from one non-member were totally against it. This was before it went ahead. You may recall that there were big anti-war demonstrations in London, which many of our members attended. - I've always had the impression that Blair somehow came under the influence of Bush, perhaps because of their mutual religious sympathies.

Fundamentalism (reply)

dhw — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:35:24 +0000

Carl says, "I will allow you to respond to what I have written here." He has written: "If Bush honestly believed that the WMD and Al-Qaida charges were true, then he was not dishonest." Thank you for allowing me to respond! - 1) General: I can scarcely argue against the statement that if someone is honest, he is not dishonest. That, however, is what we need to know, about both Bush and Blair. All we do know for sure is that they made claims which turned out to be untrue and which resulted in millions of lives being ruined. War must always be a last resort, and they defied the UN to wage it, even though they were told that the evidence was inadequate. After independent investigations, Clinton was impeached in order to find out whether he did or didn't lie over his earth-shattering affair with Monica. Until we have similar independent investigations into the conduct of Bush and Blair, we cannot know the truth. If they lied, you have agreed that they must be punished, and if their blunders were through incompetence, they will walk free. But at the moment, neither man is being held to account. What message does this give to the world? In my view, even your own post if made by a public figure (assuming you are not one already) would be acutely embarrassing: It's all right to defy the UN and bomb innocent people if you just made an honest mistake ... especially if you are "understandably emotional". However, I think we are generally in agreement, and the only real difference between us is that you are prepared to wait for history to deliver its verdict, whereas I think there is an urgent need for the truth to be revealed now through an independent inquiry. - 2) Personal: You say that the false reasons constitute "after-the-fact information, the 20/20 hindsight I referred to." Your reference to 20/20 hindsight was directed against Walter, whom you accused of dishonesty. I can only speak for myself. Having watched Blair make his 45-minute-WMDs speech to the House of Commons; having watched the UN debate in which Powell presented his blurred photographs, Straw bumbled, and Dominique de Villepin eloquently stated the case against invasion; having heard Hans Blix say there was no evidence of WMDs and the inspectors needed more time; having listened to and read the comments of innumerable experts on the terrible potential consequences of an invasion, I was 100% opposed to it. This was not hindsight. Of course the proof came afterwards ... that is the nature of forecasts. But I honestly believed at the time ... along with millions of others ... that invasion would be wrong, that we were not being told the truth, and there was a hidden agenda. And as you know, if someone honestly believes something, he is not dishonest. - 3) In your post of 14.49 on 8 November, you stated "The UN did approve the invasion. That is the mandate that is going to expire at the end of this year." This, I'm sure, was an honest mistake on your part, but now that you know the truth ... namely that Bush and Blair wanted a mandate from the UN and failed to get it ... perhaps you will allow me to ask you whether that changes your perception of the invasion. - Lastly, I do not recall firing any broadsides, though on the Al-Qaida/US analogy I would say that if you accuse someone of dishonesty, you must expect them to fire back. Thanks to the magic of the Internet, we are strangers able to exchange ideas, and if we didn't have disagreements there would be no discussion, but these should not become personal. I think we can shake hands on that.

Fundamentalism (reply)

Carl — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:37:25 +0000

dhw: "The Afghan invasion was a direct response by the US, supported by a large number of other nations, to the terrorist atrocities of 9/11 that you have listed. This was known to be an Al-Qaida operation. The object of the invasion was to seek out the criminals and put an end to the terrorist organization itself and the body that aided them (the Taliban). The General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations agreed that the US and their allies were entitled to take action under the UN Charter, Chapter 7, Article 51 (al-Qaida had in effect declared war on the US). You ask about my feelings. The US had come under direct attack, and in my view they had every right to fight back." - The purpose of my question on Afghanistan was to establish a base principle. If you had been of the opinion that the Afghanistan invasion was unjustified, we would have a different conversation. However, you agree that the terrorist attacks justified response. - Dhw: "But no link has been found ... not for want of trying ... between Saddam and Al-Qaida. No WMDs have been found either. Those were the reasons given for the invasion, and there was mass opposition to it all over the world (including the UN). The reasons given were false, whole cities have been destroyed, and millions of innocent lives lost or ruined as a result (direct or indirect) of our intervention." - This is after-the-fact information, the 20/20 hindsight I referred to. It addresses the question of whether the reasons for invading Iraq were true. It does not address the question of whether the reasons were dishonest. If Bush honestly believed that the WMD and Al-Qaida charges were true, then he was not dishonest. Clinton was charged with perjury, a crime. Nixon would have been charged with obstruction of justice, a crime. So far, all we have shown of Bush was that he was unwise and incompetent. If those were crimes, the U.S. prisons would be full of politicians. What has not been shown is that Bush was dishonest. Emotion is as important as reason in understanding war, and Bush was understandably emotional at this point and did not want to be guilty of permitting another attack on the U.S. I suggest that, instead of firing broadsides at one another, we approach this incrementally. I will allow you to respond to what I have written here.

Fundamentalism (reply)

Walter — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:44:21 +0000

Thank you, dhw, for your support, but you are wasting your time. David is only interested in the wider question of how to fight terrorism and thinks its OK for Bush and Blair to drop bombs on people they don't like, which also happens to be the philosophy of the fundamentalists. Carl rather than admit his mistakes, eg. about the UN mandate, or apologize for calling me dishonest, simply changes the subject to Afghanistan. With tactics like that he should go into politics.

Fundamentalism (reply)

dhw — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:06:17 +0000

Carl asks about the 9/11 atrocities, and says that Walter and I "speak as if the Iraq War occurred in a vacuum. What is their feeling about the Afghanistan invasion?" David says, "How about the London bombings, and those in Spain?" - I obviously can't speak for Walter, but I will answer for myself. The Afghan invasion was a direct response by the US, supported by a large number of other nations, to the terrorist atrocities of 9/11 that you have listed. This was known to be an Al-Qaida operation. The object of the invasion was to seek out the criminals and put an end to the terrorist organization itself and the body that aided them (the Taliban). The General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations agreed that the US and their allies were entitled to take action under the UN Charter, Chapter 7, Article 51 (al-Qaida had in effect declared war on the US). You ask about my feelings. The US had come under direct attack, and in my view they had every right to fight back. Unfortunately, not even the US and its allies can ever win a war in Afghanistan, any more than the Russians could before them, and some experts think the time has now come to negotiate. But that is by the way, and I was in favour of the attack on Al-Qaida and the Taliban. - The London and Madrid bombings were in 2005 and 2004, so what on earth did they have to do with the Iraq invasion in 2003? The only possible connection is that some Muslims have been radicalized by the war in Iraq, i.e. it may well have been a causative factor. You both talk as if opposition to the war somehow entails support of terrorism. It doesn't. But no link has been found ... not for want of trying ... between Saddam and Al-Qaida. No WMDs have been found either. Those were the reasons given for the invasion, and there was mass opposition to it all over the world (including the UN). The reasons given were false, whole cities have been destroyed, and millions of innocent lives lost or ruined as a result (direct or indirect) of our intervention. Those responsible, to quote Walter, "should be held to account". - I have answered your questions. I would be interested to know why you have avoided responding to the points raised by Walter at 9.54 on 9 November, and myself at 13.10 on 10 November.

Fundamentalism (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:12:46 +0000

Thank you, Carl. I have the same questions. How about the London bombings, and those in Spain.

Fundamentalism (reply)

Carl — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:55:23 +0000

Both Walter and dhw have neglected to mention the elephant in the living room - the terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the aborted attack on the U.S. capitol building. They speak as if the Iraq war occurred in a vacuum. What is their feeling about the Afghanistan invasion?

Fundamentalism (reply)

dhw — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:10:17 +0000

The Iraq War has led to a skirmish between Walter on the one hand, and Carl and David on the other. - First of all, let me say that I stand "shoulder to shoulder" with Walter (an expression used ad nauseam during the unholy Bush-Blair alliance). The facts he has listed are indeed incontrovertible. However, I can't help wondering ... especially in view of certain remarks made by Carl ... whether the American government didn't make a better job of deceiving people during the run-up to the war. Why else would Carl make the extraordinary statement that "it is dishonest to judge Bush and Blair with 20/20 hindsight" ... as if prior to the invasion there had not been worldwide condemnation, massive scepticism over their unsubstantiated claims about Iraqi WMDs, and well documented warnings about the consequences from many specialists in the field, including academics and health experts. - Walter's main point, however, is by coincidence echoed in today's Guardian. An article by Max Hastings castigates the government for wasting Â£182 million pounds on an inquiry into 'Bloody Sunday' (in January 1972, 14 innocent people were killed in Ireland by British soldiers). Hastings concludes: - "By contrast, there is a real argument for an inquiry into how Britain became engaged in the 2003 Iraq invasion, to ensure no future prime minister makes the same mistakes or perpetrates the same deceits, and that the intelligence service never again becomes entangled in such chicanery." - This, if I have understood him correctly, is what Walter is demanding. The words "deceits" and "chicanery" would be libellous if untrue. I very much doubt, however, if this government will set up an inquiry, or if Blair (widely known as Bliar) will sue Max Hastings.

Fundamentalism (reply)

Walter — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 09:54:36 +0000

Carl, I am reassured by your agreement that Iraq was a complete disaster, and Bush should be charged with international crimes if he was guilty of deception. I think you are beginning to get the message. But there is still a long way to go. - You missed the point about Nixon and Clinton, whose conduct was officially investigated while they were still in office. Clinton was found not guilty, and Nixon resigned before he could be chucked out. There has been no inquiry into Bush's conduct (or Blair's), and I asked what sort of message that sends out to the world. Its OK to bomb foreigners under false pretences (whether through deception or through incompetence), but if you tell a few porkies at home, out you go. At least we now agree on this. I presume "malice aforethought" is a joke. The charge would be war crimes and probably crimes against humanity. - You are plain wrong over the UN approving the invasion. The mandate you refer to was passed in June 2004 (over a year after the invasion) to allow US troops to stay in Iraq and provide security and support for the transitonal government, though it's a mute point whether their presence does more harm than good. The UN never approved the invasion, and the Secretary General Kofi Annan said categorcally that it was illegal. When the US and Britain draughted a resolution to put to the Security Council, they could only muster support from four countries (they needed 9 out of 15). - Carl and David, I have not forgotten that the Iraqis have contributed to the millions of dead etc. My argument is that the US and UK are directly responsible because they created the conditions for civil war ... something that was predicted by many commentators in the run-up to the war. The chaos we created unleashed all the forces that Saddam kept under control ... quite apart from providing the breeding ground for new generatons of west-hating terrorists. This is no defence of Saddam, he was a brutal dictator and the world is well rid of him. But he was not the reason given for the invasion. - David, I said there were no WMDs and you say you beg to differ, because thisa fact only came to light after the war started. You've missed the point. The war was started because Bush and co said there WERE WMDs. The inspectors and the majority of the UN said there was not enough evidence, and that was why they opposed the invasion. The US had no right to start a war under those circumstances. You say about Al Quaeda, "it depends which analysts you read or listen to what the truth is. I tend to believe what I have read." That doesnt make sense unless you only read the analysts who share your beliefs. - What upsets me most about Carls comments is that you say its dishonest to judge Bush and Blair with 20/20 hindsight. My reasoning process is absolutely not overridden by my horror at the outcome, and its highly presumptous of you to even think that. Hundreds of thousands of us protested against the war even before the invasion, and if youir own condemnation of it is with hindsight, that is to your discredit. In February 2003, i.e.. before the invasion, there were massive demonstratons all over the world, including many in your own country, but perhaps you were not aware of them. 3 million people demonstrated in Rome alone. Robin Cook the British Foreign Secretary resigned in protest, with dire warnings about the number of innocent people who would be killed, and many commentaters predicted precisely what would happen. I got into heated arguments with people like yourself who simply didn't understand what was going on, but most of the people I know were as opposed to the invasion then as I was and I'm pleased to say that most of the others now acknowlege that they were wrong. The consequences were already clear before the invasion took place, although I will grant you that none of us could have predicted the actual scale of the disaster. When the invasion did take place, we all hoped it would be quick and somehow the coalition would find a way to keep the country under control. Now we hope that order will be established. But we also want to see those responsible for the chaos held to account.

Fundamentalism (reply)

David Turell — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 01:19:56 +0000

Incontrovertable facts: the pretext on which the US went in was that Saddam had WMDs. Al-Quaeda links were thrown in as a sweetener. The UN was opposed to the invasion. International lawyers said it was illegal. Bush and his poodle Blair took no notice and went in all the same. As a result, there are millions of people dead, injured, homeless etc. There were no WMDs. Saddam had no link with Al-Quaeda. - I must beg to differ. The absolute fact that Iraq had no WMD's came to light only after the war started. Saddam, actually to protect his weakened country according to current analysis, boasted continuously of them. There has been some connection with Al-Quaeda demonstrated. It seems to depend on which analysts you read or listen to what the truth is. I tend to believe what I have read. The millions of dead are primarily the fault of Sunni and Shiite resistance groups killing each other and innocent neutral citizens. Saddam killed at will also until he was stopped. - As for the UN, I think you know my opinion. A paper tiger that is mainly a charitable conduit for third world countries. The orgainization itself is riddled with fraud, per Paul Volcker. The World Court and groups of 'international lawyers' have not been unanimously accepted by enough of the world to matter. Texas recently executed a deserving murderer whom the World Court demanded not to be killed. I'm glad Texas did not give up its own sovereignty. Note that in the States, the states have their own right to sovereignty. All Bush could do was ask Texas 'pretty please', which was ignored. - This is why I have raised the issue: we are still hunter-gatherers at heart. Can this group find a better solution?

Fundamentalism (reply)

Carl — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 14:49:29 +0000

Walter: "... you just don't seem to be concerned about the ethical implicatons of this war. Incontrovertable facts: the pretext on which the US went in was that Saddam had WMDs. Al-Quaeda links were thrown in as a sweetener. The UN was opposed to the invasion. International lawyers said it was illegal. Bush and his poodle Blair took no notice and went in all the same. As a result, there are millions of people dead, injured, homeless etc. There were no WMDs. Saddam had no link with Al-Quaeda." The UN did approve the invasion. That is the mandate that is going to expire at the end of this year. Perhaps I need to make it clear to Walter that I agree the Iraq invasion was a complete disaster, and that if there was total deception on Bush's part he should be charged with international crimes (and it would have been unethical). I suppose the legal term would be "malice aforethought". If it was just incompetence, that probably isn't criminal. Walter seems to forget that the Iraqis contributed to the millions dead, injured, homeless. It was the perversity of the Sunni insurgents and the Shia militia that caused all the blood and death, not the U.S. It was their suicide bomber that blew up the crowd of children gathered around the U.S. soldier passing out candy. The U.S. was guilty of incompetence and naivetÃ©, but it was the ruthless bloodthirsty ferocity of the Arab insurgency that killed the innocents. Walter, it is dishonest to judge Bush and Blair with 20/20 hindsight. You must judge based on the known facts and honest misjudgments on the eve of invasion. But deliberate deception on the core reasons for invasion at that point would be criminal. I suspect your reasoning process is being overridden by your horror at the outcome (which I share). There probably is no argument which will dissuade you.

Fundamentalism (reply)

Walter — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 13:04:01 +0000

I'm still unhappy about Carl and David's attitude towards the Iraq catastrophe. Carl only seems to be concerned about the incompetence of the campaign, and David wants to know how we should deal with rogue nations generally. Fair enough subjects, but you just don't seem to be concerned about the ethical implicatons of this war. - Incontrovertable facts: the pretext on which the US went in was that Saddam had WMDs. Al-Quaeda links were thrown in as a sweetener. The UN was opposed to the invasion. International lawyers said it was illegal. Bush and his poodle Blair took no notice and went in all the same. As a result, there are millions of people dead, injured, homeless etc. There were no WMDs. Saddam had no link with Al-Quaeda. - Speculation: either Bush and Blair lied, or they were guilty of incompetence on a scale that beggers belief. - After detailed investigations, Nixon was threatened with impeachment over a burglary and a succession of lies. After detailed investigatons, Clinton was impeached over a couple of sex scandals. After detailed investigations, the head of the BBC was forced to resign over remarks about dossiers being "sexed up". Bush and Blair bring death and chaos to a foreign country. There are no detailed investigations. They get off scot free. (Carl, I used the word "heroically" ironically.) What does this show the rest of the world about western priorities?

Fundamentalism (reply)

David Turell — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:51:08 +0000

All of this discussion about Iraq still begs the question I raised. We are One World and with world trade the way it is, we are one economic world, suffering thru mutual growth and mutual recession. But how does the world govern itself against rogue nations? Iran, previously Iraq, possibly in the future China and once again, Russia? As Carl says, war is dangerous: it destroys things and kills people. And I still think we are hunter-gatherers under a thin skin of civilization. So far weapons of mass destruction has worked, but that is living on a sword's edge.

Fundamentalism (reply)

Carl — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:15:05 +0000

Walter says "And now Bush and Blair ride off heroically into the sunset, leaving a trail of blood behind them." With approval ratings around 25%, rejection by his own party and the label of "incompetent" already applied by historians to his administration, Bush's ride into the sunset is not very heroic. "The argument that Saddam already had WMDs was clearly ridiculous. Ask yourselves if you would attack a country led by a brutal dictator who you thought had WMD which he could launch against you within 45 minutes?" Saddam was believed by the military to have WMD, and the troops were equipped and trained to deal with that. Hey! War is dangerous. Walter has assumed the verdict of history. He may be right.

Fundamentalism (reply)

Walter — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 12:49:51 +0000

Both David and Carl have misread my post. I was the one who mentioned oil (which many sources have identfied as a major factor behind the invasion). After that I wrote: "...or, according to Carl, to take revenge against one man." Your actual statement was: "It appears the only clear objective of the Bush/Cheney administration was revenge against Saddam." - The argument that Saddam already had WMDs was clearly ridiculous. Ask yourselves if you would attack a country led by a brutal dictator who you thought had WMD which he could launch against you within 45 minutes? The only evidence they had was falsified. The so-called "dodgy dossier" typified the UK government's determnation to go ahead, regardless of the truth. As for Al-Quaeda, there wasn't a shred of evidence for that either. So ask yourselves why they made the claim in the first place? - As regards oil, David says the USA only gets 20% of its oil through the Middle East, which he regards as "strong evidence that oil was not the reason." Its not evidence of anything. Iraq has the world's second largest reserves of oil, behind Saudi Arabia. Do you honestly think your goverment didn't consider that? Are they that naive? Or are you? - Whichever way you look at it, downright lies or gross incompetence on such a scale that it would demand immediate resignation if not prosecution, the invasion was a crime against humanity of gigantic proportions. The American and UK governments were told beforehand that it was illegal (log onto http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6917.htm) and they could be charged with war crimes, but they went ahead. And now Bush and Blair ride off heroically into the sunset, leaving a trail of blood behind them.

Fundamentalism (reply)

Carl — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:33:49 +0000

Walter says "I find it disturbing that Carl thinks the "most notable" thing about the invasion of Iraq was the incompetence of US leadership, and David supported the invasion but says the "post-war handling was atrocious". It seems that in principle you are both in favour of your government lying to its people and the rest of the world (about WMD and Al-Quaeda), and invading another country in order to get at its oil or, according to Carl, to take revenge against one man, so long as its done competently." I looked back at my post, and I never mentioned oil. I would be surprised if I did, because that is not one of my convictions, though I can see it as a possible ancillary motive. There are two possibilities of the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq. One is that they honestly believed (with some paranoia) that Saddam was dealing with Al Qaeda and had biological and chemical weapons and a nuclear program with radioactive material. Most of the World believed this because Saddam went to lengths to pretend it was so. Even his own people believed it. The other possibility is that they knew the truth and deliberately deceived the entire world (including Colin Powell) for other motives. There is no doubt that they had a grudge against Saddam they wanted to settle. Remember, Cheney was secretary of defense under Bush I, and would not have been pleased at being orderd to stop his troops at the Kuwait border. If the premise for invasion had been true, that Saddam had chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and was dealing with Al Qaeda, I would have approved of the invasion as justified self defense. The fact that the premise was untrue but was acted on could be either deception or incompetence. History will have to judge that. The fact that the entire operation was incompetently administered is beyond question.

Fundamentalism (reply)

David Turell — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 17:20:01 +0000

I find it disturbing that Carl thinks the "most notable" thing about the invasion of Iraq was the incompetence of US leadership, and David supported the invasion but says the "post-war handling was atrocious". It seems that in principle you are both in favour of your government lying to its people and the rest of the world (about WMD and Al-Quaeda), and invading another country in order to get at its oil or, according to Carl, to take revenge against one man, so long as its done competently. - Walter: Although we disagree, you raise a good point. We cannot police the world with the UN. It hasn't worked. We have a society of nations. Should there be rules and policing as in any society to set norms of behavior? We do it at the individual citizen level, but how about the international level? I don't think that will work because each nation has its own national interests that come first. The EU is a great example. This is why I have rasied the issue of just how civilized are we as humans. The hunter-gatherer period is not that long ago for most of us. There is still a kill or be killed, stick with your own kind mentality which underlies every emotional problem. I'd like to hear if you have any answer for this. I don't, except the usual one, keep talking, keep negotiating ,and look what happened to Neville Chamberlain. - As for Carl's comment about oil: 20% of USA oil is self-produced, 60% comes from the Western Hemisphere, and only 20% from the Middle East. That is strong evidence that oil was not the reason.

Fundamentalism (reply)

Walter — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:29:42 +0000

I find it disturbing that Carl thinks the "most notable" thing about the invasion of Iraq was the incompetence of US leadership, and David supported the invasion but says the "post-war handling was atrocious". It seems that in principle you are both in favour of your government lying to its people and the rest of the world (about WMD and Al-Quaeda), and invading another country in order to get at its oil or, according to Carl, to take revenge against one man, so long as its done competently.

Fundamentalism (reply)

David Turell — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:41:18 +0000

One other point. You say the UN is toothless. One of the reasons why its toothless is that the major powere like the US are only prepared to go along with decisions they like. If the world's most powerful nation flouts the authority of the UN over Iraq, just as Israel ... backed by the US ... flouts UN resolutions over illegal settlements, there's no chance of ANY international organization having teeth. The same applies to all the major powers, of course, but that's no excuse for the US. If you believe in democracy, you can't pick and choose which bits you'll go along with. - I agree with you exactly, which is why I raised the issue of nation ethics. Individual person ethics are somewhat controlled by societal rules, and the fear of anarchy if we have full out libertarianism. How do we get to a worldwide set of nation ethics, if we can? My feeling is that our emotional set is still in the hunter-gatherer phase (only 8,000 years ago) and group-think at a national level is still set there. The discomforts within the EU are a good example: they yelled at the Irish being the first to support banks, and now they are all doing it. - As for Iraq: yes, I supported the idea when our troops went in. The post-war handling was atrocious. It seems no one studied how post-war Germany was handled in the 1940's. There were huge resistance groups that were quickly decimated.

Fundamentalism (reply)

Carl — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:07:21 +0000

The invasion of Iraq was most notable for the incompetence of U.S. leadership. From the apparent reliance on an intelligence source appropriately named "Curve Ball" to the failure to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to finish their work, failure to provide enough troops and resources to police Iraq once it was defeated (which was never in doubt), no realistic occupation and recovery plan, no realistic idea of the reality of Muslim politics in Iraq, the list goes on and on. It appears the only clear objective of the Bush/Cheney administration was revenge against Saddam. Once that was accomplished, they didn't have a clue. I recall watching video of Baghdad after it fell where looters were waving to U.S. soldiers as they carted away equipment and supplies from hospitals, power plants and government offices, thinking "This is amateur hour." The lies and deceit with which this incompetent plan was sold to the U.S. and the world is a separate issue. Hopefully, history will illuminate the full extent of that.