What follows may be a very scary proposal to some weak of heart. Certainly it is not a politically correct proposal that many social liberals would endorse, but scary situations require bold responses. Before I go on with the proposal, a few items need to be listed as known conditions:
1. The George W. Bush administration has finally conceded that we are in a religious war. Some may still say “Not so! That the religious fanatics have hijacked the Muslim religion.” Why then are Cheney and Rumsfeld now calling the insurgent terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere “ISLAMOFASCISTS?” Is that a Freudian slip since they have been careful not to use, again, the word “Crusade?” 2. The number of those religious fanatics is not miniscule. Bridget Gabriell, in her book “BECAUSE THEY HATE” says that 15% to 24% of the 1.2 billion Muslims on the planet are ready and primed Jihadists. That equates to about 200 million, or a little more, souls that are ready to counter our “staying the course” in Iraq. That’s a bit much to put the cream of our youth up against. 3. This administration has been losing the propaganda war with its flawed intelligence; snubbing of the Geneva Convention; snubbing many other historic allies; lying to Americans about the Iraq – al Qaeda connection and the Iraqis welcoming us with open arms; and the failure of conceiving an innovative and thoughtful plan of offense, occupation and exit. 4. That George Bush means what he says, that “We will stay the course. . . until we win. We will kill them over there so that they can’t kill us over here.” The fact that this may be the ‘Final Crusade’ seems included in his logic but is not hi-lighted and underlined. His policy is grounded in Biblical prophecy: “That there always will be wars and rumors of wars.” He wants us to accept that (‘cause the Bible tells us so), and he wants us to continue to elect Republicans to effect that policy!
I propose, herein, a startling reversal of policy that must be put into action as soon as possible. It is a policy that should have been thought of from day one (September 12, 2001). Of course such a policy would have been imaginative and innovative – both are attributes that have been woefully missed in the past five years or so. Instead we have suffered from the knee-jerk reaction of the ages – retribution – spending our most valuable resource, our youth, to rearrange the sand dunes of Afghanistan and Iraq. Really, all that was needed in those early days were a few men and women who had more than several brain cells rubbing together, and were not consummate, self-preserving ‘yes-men’ that this administration finds so palatable, if not downright adorable! (if I sound angry, please be assured that I am – talk about hijacking a culture, that is what the Bush administration and his pinup gal, Ann Coulter. has done to America. This nation is NOT the same country now, that I once grew up in)!
My proposal is simple and can be effected even at this late date. But the longer we wait, the more lives, and the more distrust will have cost us. We have the material resources to effect such a plan; all that may be lacking is the wherewithall and the audacity to say to the world that we plan to put an end to this Jihad nonsense.
THE PLAN
A. The president simply announces to America, and the world, that beginning tomorrow we are commencing a strategic withdrawal of all Coalition troops to the borders of Iraq. From that vantage point our military actions will be limited to safeguarding any overflow of violence to adjoining countries friendly to us. The withdrawal of our troops from the region will take place as the need for our presence decreases. We can no longer bear the brunt of the sectarian violence that obviously needs to be fought out. Yes, we opened a can of worms and don’t seem able to put the lid back on the can. We tried. We failed. We, and the rest of the world, will get over it. ‘Fess up to it George, NOW! The sooner the better for your legacy.
B. The withdrawal of troops will be made on one very sobering condition: That if ever another attack is made on the United States, its territories and protectorates, by an organization of Islam, or Islamic nation, an airborne destructive device will be detonated over or in an Islamic holy city, appropriately targeted. The magnitude of the device will be dependent on the magnitude and audacity of the perpetrated crime. The magnitude of the device will be at least ten times the destruction caused by the Islamic or Jihadist perpetrator(s).
I know it sounds simple – and apocalyptic at the same time. No one nation, least of all the United Nations, would endorse this proposed policy, but then we are doing very little now to appease their present complaining. As Conservative talk show host Mike Gallagher continually bleats “They want to kill us, and will gladly go to a sexual heaven to do just that! We must therefore win the war on terrorism,” mimicking George Bush like so many of those Limbaugh wannabes do. He offers no other imaginative alternative except to throw more of our soldiers into the fray. But then, Conservatives are not known to be imaginative; that is not their forte. With such a policy as this in place, the money saved from the black hole of Iraq could be used to restore OUR OWN infrastructure, fund Bush’s education initiatives, and protect ALL of our ports with needed homeland security – to name just a few.
Given the following example of another attack on U.S. soil, similar to the magnitude of 9-11, the following course of action could be put into play: 1st a complete and deliberate assessment of damages, and by whom were those damages caused. The guilty party must be pin-pointed without a shadow of doubt, but that should not be impossible – probably will be as obvious as the hijackers of 9-11. 2nd Let’s say that Saudi Arabia was again foremost in sending Jihadists our way. A warning would be given throughout the Middle East that a nuclear device would be detonated at high elevation similar to the one detonated over Hiroshima in 1945. The warning would give all residents of Medina, an Islamic holy city, ten days to evacuate or face immolation. 3rd In ten days the warhead would be delivered, effectively destroying everything within two or more miles of the central mosque. (If they want holy war, let’s give them a taste of the hell they preach about, sending the more pious among them to their 72 vestal virgins up yonder). 4th. Reopen SERIOUS talks with Iran and North Korea, on the curtailment of their offensive nuclear programs (if it isn’t too late), under threat of another devastating strike upon their facilities.
The sooner this policy is adopted and broadcast to the world, the more likely reasonable people will sit up and take note that the United States has undertaken a role reversal of dominating magnitude. After all, this nation is the strongest on earth – armed to the teeth with the means to bring recalcitrant and two-bit but ambitious states to heel. The above attack would cause some radiation fallout, but not near the amount that a dirty bomb delivered to our streets would cause. What little fallout from the above counterattack would drift and disperse on the peninsula or the Indian Ocean, far away from population centers. Political fallout would amount to many nations of the world crying “fowl,” but the outrage would be superficial in light of our stated warning policy, and suffering once again from those who would exercise jihad against us. The world would remember that we tried it the other way -- with no success.
Such a policy/program is not meant to thumb our nose at the UN, but more to drive home the need for its member nations to become increasingly proactive toward rogue states. Most importantly, holy cities must be held accountable instead of being given a free pass when the punishment is meted out. After all, everyone now agrees that we are in a holy war. This may well be the most serious threat to our civilization yet. And this may well be the turning point of reverence toward religions that espouse violence to insure their future.
Ron Stauffer (9-18-2006)
THE CONUNDRUM (the four frustrations of President #43, GEORGE W. BUSH)
WHEREAS, 9-11-01 happened.
WHEREAS, G. W. Bush's SECOND frustration was because he could not capture Osama bin Laden, even though he had Afghanistan torn up in the widely anticipated but hardly innovative search and war.
WHEREAS, because of this frustration, #43 casually linked Saddam Hussein with the 9-11 event and initiates a war against same for the following deceptive reasons: *---- Iraq had purchased nuclear material from Nigeria (he was wrong). *---- Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (they have yet to be found). *---- To effect a regime change even though it would mean rebuilding a nation (something he said he would never do when he campaigned for the presidency). *---- Agents of Iraq had met with Al-Qaeda operatives during the planning of 9-11 (wrong again -- no intelligence supports this).
WHEREAS, G. W. Bush's THIRD frustration was because he could not capture Saddam Hussein, even though he tore up a second nation in another war and search.
WHEREAS, the resulting, ongoing war with Iraq is really a religious war (at least the 9-11 attackers have defined it as such).
WHEREAS, #43 denies it, insisting that HIS war is to destroy the few terrorists who are trying to take our freedoms away. This may be the first war in history that has a definition gap. #43 says that Islam is a good religion, while out of the other side of his mouth he appeases his Christian fundamentalist friends who say Allah is a false god.
WHEREAS, the real reasons for #43's war on Iraq are: *---- to win his re-election, capitalizing on the FEAR factor (fear of terrorists, fear of Democrats, fear of intellectuals, fear of the unknown). *---- to resolve his FIRST frustration of his father's (#41) incomplete action in Kuwait. *---- to Christianize Iraq -- not the democratization that #43 says is his policy (notice how he proposes "secularization" of Iraq while pushing evangelistic services in this country). *---- OIL!
WHEREAS, an utter mess has evolved in Iraq, and America wants to withdraw but can't: *---- because we promised to finish what we (Bush) started. *---- because the Republicans claim they are the only party that has the staying resolve to defend against terrorism (have they forgotten the werewithall of Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy?). *---- because it really is a religious war and that it is better to fight over there. *---- because the rest of the world community won't help until we take our balls and tanks and go home. *---- because of fear, and no knowledge of what to do next.
THEREFORE, I deduce that there are only two courses of action that can take place in the future.
1. That hostilities will eventually modify to a whimper, and America will be forgiven. If this is not a religious war, the above may happen if the following takes place:
*---- There has been a regime change in the United States and Great Britain (amounting to 43's frustration NUMBER FOUR), providing for a more secular, diplomatic and pragmatic administration. *---- The U. N. takes overall responsibility of rebuilding Iraq. Only then will other nations chip in toward that effort.
2. That, if this is a religious war, it could well be the beginning of the end of civilization as we know it, and EXTREME, RADICAL realization must be achieved to alter the genocide and hostility that is sure to come.
HOW will all of this affect Atheists, agnostics and free-thinkers?
*---- The cultures of the world, driven by their religious and ethnic fervor, are on a collision course. There is very little we can do without getting in their way, for, as "heretics," (though, as enlightened as we are) we are seen by too many of our own countrymen as being just as bad as the enemy. If item 1. Is the ticket, then we have some time to try to make a difference. If item 2. Is the routing, then we must step aside from the fray, and wait for the day when reason (if ever) may again be recognized.
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
*---- If item 1. Is the ticket, it is important that we skeptics continue to get in the faces of the deluded children, continually defining the problems of their nationalism and attendant religion(s); the problem cannot be solved until the patient knows what the problem is. Right now, the world is a very sick patient! *---- What's in it for us? A good question that I can only answer for myself -- skeptics are generally too independent minded for me to anticipate how they will react: a) As one of Mother Nature's ultimate care-givers on this planet, I feel it gives me meaning to try to advance civilization -- thanking Her for my wonderful existence. (Religious people, to the contrary, are always saying that Atheists find no meaning or purpose in life.) b) Because it's great fun to antagonize the fearful. Our insults (they call it arrogance) may well be the only thing that jump-starts their ability to think again. Thinking is what the world needs now. The fearful must crawl out from behind the Star of David, Cross or Crescent and consider a new -- NAY-- a revolutionary course of action, though as Quixotic such an expectation might be. There are too many good people that the transcendant vehicle of religion is no longer needed! LOOSE CANNON (11-20-03)
FROM SECURITY BLANKET TO MATURITY
Those who start a war have, I suppose, the dubious honor of labeling what that war will be all about! That's the way it has been down through the millennia -- the ultimate expression of despair -- usually well defined, if not thought out. The defense is taken aback by the revolt, or counterattacks, characterizing and confirming the reason for the revolt in the first place.
Though the United States was unquestionably attacked on September 11, 2001, by religious zealots in the name of Allah, killing 3,000 mostly American citizens, our president and his political party (as religious as they are) are in denial that this was the beginning of a religious war. "It is a war on terrorism" George W. Bush insists. But has he the right to controvert that faith-based initiative with his own imaginative label (coming from a rather unimaginative man)? He tried, but too many of his party are reacting quite negatively to any hint of Muslim existence. And, of course, the Muslims for the most part are not hypocritically hiding their animosity for Christians and Jews (I shall withdraw from giving them any credit though).
Although the Religious Right and Conservative Cretinists have disdain for "political correctness" what else could their motive be to avoid using the label of religious war? Is it because of their self-preservation, as people of faith, is at risk? Can they no longer safeguard their delusion that religion in general and theirs in particular is the answer for world pacification? "They hijacked the religion of Islam" too many Republicans/Christians chant, but they go ahead anyway and systematically destroy two Islamic countries -- kill as many as need be, and let God sort it out. "Surely we'll get most of 'em," I know many of those "good" Fundamentalist Christians said.
Yes, this is another rant by a bleeding heart liberal who is all for full prosecution and jail time for the biggest sleaze-ball of recent time, Rush Limbaugh. But my heart does not bleed for the Moslems who are trying to avoid exploitation by the western nations. Nor does it bleed for the Christian fundamentalists that hate Islam. They deserve each other's hatred -- may they kill well, each other. I, myself, do not mind to see the slaughter, for they deserve to be slaughtered -- each in their delusion of eternal bliss.
Perhaps sometime in the future, after all the bloodletting, those reasonable enough will see why they survived. Then maybe, just maybe, some progress can be made to understand the folly of parochial religiosity. No one politician dare take up that challenge now, for it would be career suicide. When in the future reason will trump "true" faith is far long a time that I'll never live to see.
Either God is playing with us, or there is no God -- so much for the loving, caring Almighty who would condemn most of mankind to Hell. There are a few of us who see through all the smoke quite plainly, but our suggestions are not considered or even heard. So, in turn, we laugh and make fun of those who plod through life so seriously, expecting better things in a heaven they have no inkling about. Such sad souls, full of fear, killing one another in the name of Allah or whatever. Is this God's Plan that the clergy often talk about from their pulpits?
Until man understands he must assist his fellow man; that he, and only he, is solely responsible for his actions; and that happiness can only be achieved when fear is laid to rest, can his kind progress to a saner, more stable civilization. Objective perception of our wondrous surroundings must hold sway over the wishful and ungrateful conception of even better things in the nebulous beyond. There IS, or there ISN'T -- and we can perceive with certainty that there IS. It is not necessary to conceive of anything else!
Ron Stauffer, (10-23-03)
September 11, 2001, has brought a lot of unexpected trauma to the citizens of the United States and, to a lesser extent, the citizenry of the world. Depending on what philosophical bent one is, the effect of the assault has more or less bound people up in confirmation of their personal philosophy: to the moderate Christian it was an attack by jealous thugs under guise of religious fervor (a__hole zealots, that are everywhere. . . in every jaded, extremist persuasion -- as one Episcopalian friend shared with me); to the fundamentalist Christians it was retribution by God on the sinful ways of present day America -- putting the blame on us rather than the nation of the assassins; to the Muslim, it was payback for the crass materialism of the West, put upon the innocent and poor of the Middle East . . . and the support of Zionism in the midst of their religion; and to the atheist, it was stark proof of the brewing of a religious war -- an extension of the early Crusades.
The above mentioned four interpretations and attitudes hardly form a consensus of why the heinous, premeditated intent to destroy the most obvious and vulnerable symbols of America's might occurred. Perhaps it is all of the above, and may very well represent the remainder of the world as a fifth opinion. Now, the question is: where do we go from here? Certainly, the future does not look very bright. It is not hard to see where the thugs are going -- they are going to jail or execution if they can be caught before accomplishing more terrorism; the fundamentalist (evangelical, some might prefer to be called) Christian, prepared for the coming rapture is, mysteriously and out of character, asking for the select destruction of national regimes that harbor or might supply terrorists -- at the collateral expense of killing and maiming innocent civilians; the Muslims are particularly incensed at what they perceive as America's intent to annihilate them; and the atheist, unwilling to take sides in such folly as a religious war, sits back and reminisces of a not too distant past when religion seemed to be in remission -- the "silent, or moral, majority" was content to fight crabgrass.
No, it is not a rosy picture of the future. The world is in contortion (not that we weren't in confusion before), because we are in a second war of attrition that is only going to drain the resources of America rather than secure its constituents in their homes. No matter WHAT we do, there are no viable options that will deliver us safely to the relatively innocent and nostalgic years of before: thugs will continue their idiotic suicidal bombing (which seems faith-based to me); the fundies, not altogether convinced that they will be swept up into heaven anytime soon, will support George Bush's wars ". . . no matter how long it takes"-- even as it violates the teachings of their Christ (the ultimate irony of their confused position is that two of their leaders, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, blamed the 9 - 11 assault on American citizens' deserved punishment by God for their sinful acceptance of the ACLU, gays and Democrats); the Muslims will continue to react negatively to the West's cultural and physical domination and hypocrisy.
It does indeed seem that the human race, because of its primeval reliance on the spirit world, has painted itself into a corner. Perhaps the analogy is too mild: one can extricate oneself from the unpainted corner with some little consternation; but who in the world is willing to say: "Hey, maybe we're wrong. . . let's start all over again -- before it's too late. HA! Yeah, everyone from Martin Sheen to the Pope (and even some of your neighbors) are crying out: PEACE, PEACE. Correct me if I'm wrong, but have not these same people, in a mix with others, been asking and praying for the same thing for eons? So what's different now to expect that their wishing and beseeching are going to result in success? Fat chance, my friend, fat chance! Unless someone -- and I mean SOMEONE -- who has the ear of the world, who is above the political and cultural fray, can and is willing to step forward and lead us, maybe then we can avoid almost certain disintegration. I know of no one with that kind of stature, unless Madison's and Jefferson's indifferent God exists whereupon HE or SHE or IT might willingly set us all straight. HA! Who in the world would be a party to THAT?
Let's face the facts: No one is going to change the way he or she believes -- accepting the truth that they might have been passively brainwashed from birth. A few of us have made the quantum leap, but we Atheists have little voice shouting over Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Kay Parker and the village priest or parson. Even in this country, the wall separating church and state is crumbling, with the help of ALL THREE branches of our government. The so called liberal press, controlled by conservative Rupert Murdoch, and other heartless (and mindless) corporate conglomerates are doing little more than treading water in our rush to reaction. "INSANITY! INSANITY!" a British Army Officer was seen crying in the aftermath of the bridge's destruction at the end of the 1958 film "BRIDGE OVER THE RIVER KWAI." He would more than shudder if he saw the dilemma that we face today!
Considering a worst case scenario where eradication of the Moslem holy cities and most of that faith were somehow decided upon and successfully effected, then what? It is still a chess match with hardly more than a faint chance for stalemate. Why? Because the successful Christians and Jews would eventually reopen their festering differences. Then it would be the fight between the two remaining "true faiths," Catholicism and the Christian Fundamentalists. All this after we cleaned North Korea's clock and sent their faithful packing.
I don't know of any viable options. DO YOU?
Ron Stauffer
TELEVANGELIST'S PAL CHARLES TAYLOR AGAIN LINKED TO AL QAEDA MONEY LAUNDERING, "CONFLICT DIAMONDS" (Posted 01-04-03)
A European intelligence report confirms that Liberian President Charles Taylor is deeply involved in a money laundering scheme by al Qaeda terrorists, and received kickbacks on the sale of "conflict diamonds." What ISN'T being discussed in the American press, though, is the cozy business relationship between Taylor and prominent evangelist Pat Robertson. "It is indeed a strange nexus linking those who say that they serve God, but are also able to do business with Mammon." (1-2-03)
Visit us on the world wide web at http://www.atheists.org/flash.line
(11-11-2002) Rebuttal of Paul M. Weyrich's 10-30-02 CNS News Commentary
Is Paul M. Weyrich serious? He wants atheists, agnostics, humanists and other freethinkers to join the Judeo-Christians in their conflict with Islam! Yes, we know that we are as much an enemy to Islam's 'truly faithful' as Weyrich's charges, but we are not about to join either side in some holy war! Mr. Weyrich still does not understand that we altruistically and realistically offer ourselves as the only reasonable alternative to religious fanaticism--his brand included.
Yes, I suppose it would be safe to stay in the closet and join our pious white (and scared) brethren, but to what end? Even if the J-C tradition wins this ugly and utterly unnecessary conflict, what has it gained? Perhaps genocide of the cross-planet gang that, incidentally, believes in the same Abrahamic God (though their love of God is quite unique from that of the western white folks). And if the J-C's gain the whole world through a monstrous war, will they in turn lose their own souls? (your words, not mine) I always thought that the intent of Christianity, if not Judaism, was to 'turn the other cheek' and to 'love one's enemies.' Is our white believer's (which surprisingly includes many halo wannahave blacks) faith so thin that they will go against the tenets of Christ's teaching to save their bacon and thin-skins in the here and now?
I love his "moral disarmament . . . is no option, period." So religion against religion is a morality play? Wow! Why then do we even bother with religion at all? I know, I know--we unbelievers are going to be in harm's way, being the enemy of both sides--but, HEY, did not one of our founding fathers once say: "Give me liberty or give me death?" Mr. Weyrich is quite short in several areas: history; Bible interpretation, new and old testament; and classical ethics. He is long on fear, short term CYA and rude misunderstanding. He doesn't understand that there are pundits on the other side (over there) saying the same things he says, but maybe with more conviction.
So it is sad to see a bunch of freethinking Americans exercising their First Amendment rights on a sunny day in Washington, D.C.? Paul, we are not going to take sides in your religious war! We want you pontificating troglodytes to cease and desist in your never ending "My God is better than your god" mentality. You and their mindless, self-serving efforts are ruining our planet and could very well bring to an end the existence of our species, if not all life. And since you are worried about our existence, that makes me very happy, for I live to be a thorn in the side of you pious, non-thinking, arrogant, holier-than-thou war mongers.
LC
DUEL BETWEEN SADDAM HUSSEIN AND GEORGE W. BUSH? (10-06-02)
An interesting proposal, indeed. Let's see, such an event would be an innovative way to: 1. defuse the current steps being taken toward going to war. 2. save the lives of many young combatants 3. save billions of dollars in war effort by both sides 4. save the rebuilding of Iraq via a Marshall Plan type aid.
It has been said that wars are declared by old men (that will remain above the fray), while the youth of the nation risk their very lives to survive. In this coming encounter, President Bush is waving a saber and wagging his tongue that there must be a "regime change over there." He does this behind the protection of the greatest armed forces on Earth--some bravado! He does this in the face of serious criticism from our allies and member nations of the UN. He may be doing this to influence petroleum prices and that commodity's control. He may be doing this in order to hamstring the Democrats in Congress. He may be doing this to ensure the Republicans gaining control of both houses of Congress and bolstering his re-election chances. Whatever his reasons, too many of us are unconvinced that he has thought this thing through completely.
It has also been said that Iraq might have nuclear capability within two years--that in itself is a scary thought. It is true that Saddam has been giving reward money to the families of human bombers. This is a frightening man, but he is only one of many frightening men on the planet, and what are the odds that his regime's successor will be any less frightening? This administration's election campaign included a promise there would be "no nation building," but, like so many of Dubya's other campaign promises, this one has bit the dust too. ("Oh, but Afghanistan was necessary," some might say--but then, on whose watch was it that 9/11 occurred?)
The one with the mouth deserves a challenge such as this--and it is in no way irresponsible. Unconventional? To say the least! But it seems a responsible suggestion in light of all the havoc that would come from our all out assault on the people of Iraq. Bush's "Irresponsible" is the conservative (Republican) word that dismisses inventive ways to solve problems. ". . . deserves no serious response," is the conservative's way of walking away from a fist fight. Now, the Arab world can add cowardice to their list of things they don't like about the West!
Okay, if Bush were to accept the challenge and save the world from more blemish, he would have to prepare himself as well as make safeguard guarantees that if he lost, the evil he would be standing up against would terminate. To that end, such an event would have to secure certain guarantees:
If Bush wins the duel or fight-- *Saddam is gone and the regime change is effected--case closed. If Hussein wins-- * He will retain his status quo, but if Iraq achieves entry into the nuclear club, and issues hints of using it in any future attack, the country of Iraq will become history! If ANY muslim country or any of their citizens (rogue or not) dare use weapons of mass destruction again, Mecca will be obliterated. * Al Gore will become president.
Yes, the suggested challenge--floated by a high ranking official of Iraq--is highly irregular. But then, this war is one of great irregularity--begun by the highly irregular and innovative attacks of 9/11. Are we so hidebound that a suggestion for an alternative to mass destruction be dismissed out of hand? We know that conservatives are not comfortable with innovative ideas except in the field of high finance and accounting practice--but let's get REAL! Let's get DOWN--let GEORGE, JR., get in the mud, and kick Saddam in the balls.
An earlier (October 2001) innovative suggestion to ensure capture of Osama Bin Laden was sent to Senator Arlen Specter by an Altoona constituent (with the hopes that Specter had the President's ear--which evidently was not the case). That suggestion was also dismissed as "irresponsible." That suggestion: TO DROP OUR GARBAGE ON AFGHANISTAN UNTIL THEY WERE HUMILIATED ENOUGH TO HAND BIN LADEN OVER TO US. Irregular? Yes. Irresponsible? How can anyone compare innocuous humiliation with utter decimation of a country? Well, it never happened, and we pounded the shit out of them, killing many and maiming many more--including our own. And as far as we know, Bin Laden walked. Conventional slaughter is the ONLY resort of the unimaginative conservatives!
