Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)
Entry 1750, on 2015-11-16 at 22:18:58 (Rating 4, News)
My regular readers will be very aware that I like to discuss politics and religion in this blog. After the terrorist attacks in Paris, and events following those, it is to be expected that I would comment on them, right? Well, actually, I don't want to do that right now because I am somewhat conflicted.
Obviously I totally abhor the mindless violence perpetrated by ISIS in Paris - no sane person would support anything so totally profoundly immoral. But the real question is what to do about it. I have seen opinions ranging from "kill all Muslims" to "let's talk about it and see what they want". I personally think both of these extremes are utterly idiotic but what is the correct response?
Is it to send in the military, as France has done, to bomb ISIS targets and inevitably also kill innocent civilians and thereby most likely create even more resentment against the West? Is it to do nothing, as some have suggested? Is it to start a land war in the Middle East? Is it to block all Muslim immigrants and asylum seekers from entering Western countries?
Well maybe some of these ideas have merit but I'm just not sure yet. I think I will give it a few more days and catch up on more news and commentary on this subject before commenting. And that is probably what everyone should have done instead of coming out with some of the comments I have seen.
There is also the big debate over how much blame Islam in general should take for its radical extremist elements. There is no doubt that religious belief is a significant factor in the motivation for these attacks, but is it the main factor? Does that mean the Islam itself is the enemy? And can we ever trust Muslims as a result?
Finally, if we are so outraged by this violence how should we treat the military violence of the Western powers? There is no doubt that the US and its allies have killed many times more innocent people than Islamic extremists have, but those deaths have been primarily collateral damage rather than deliberate murder. But does that make it OK?
So the situation is both simple and complex. It's simple that anyone willing to perform such atrocities deserves little sympathy and if they encounter a violent death themselves I don't think many people would be too concerned. But what is the answer to the bigger problem? Military raids might be the answer but they might also be the source of the problem in the first place.
So surprisingly, I don't have a quick answer to the biggest problem facing the world today. But give me a few days and wait for a new post where, no doubt, my opinion will be a lot clearer!
Comment 1 (4446) by kaptonok on 2015-11-17 at 10:03:55:
You're sitting on a dangerous fence. Just as Chamberlain did when Hitler reared his head. The only answer is force and I abhor force.
Initially boots on the ground would have wiped out Isis before it took root it is far more dangerous than Saddam ever was. Removing him was interference removing Isis is essential.
Comment 2 (4447) by OJB on 2015-11-17 at 10:04:19:
Yes, I see what you mean but I'm not really sitting on the fence. We agree that the threat from ISIS needs to be eliminated and that some sort of military intervention is probably necessary. It's just the long term solution to the greater problem which I'm unsure of.
By the way, I agree with your comments regarding Saddam Hussein.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.