Iraq-Jesus Analogy

[Storyrider]

Yeah, I should have clarified. Most of our Christian imagery is drawn from late Medieval and Rennaissance art and from Italy especially. And it's completely taken out of the original middle eastern context which I think hasn't really changed that much in a lot of ways since antiquity. At least parts of the middle east.

 

Unfortunately we have no depictions from that time since rendering the human form was a religious offense, just as it remains among many Muslims today.

 

Yeah, I always appreciate it when I see a picture of Jesus or Mary where there is an attempt to make them look semitic.

 

I still enjoy the beauty of the Rennaissance pictures though.

 

It is funny, there has been talk on the forums since I got here about what does and doesn't constitute antisemitism. And the only thing I've seen that I would define as inherently antisemitic (and this is only my very humble opinion) is the concept that one can take Christianity as an idea and separate it entirely from it's Jewish/Semitic roots. It is, by definitition, antisemitic. Not saying any person on here is an antisemite, tho'.

 

Do you understand what I'm saying?

[alphamale]

Do you understand what I'm saying?

not really..

[Storyrider]

not really..

 

Oh, a wiseguy, eh? Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck.

[amerikajin]

It's occured to me that an imperfect and yet possibly useful analogy in imagining the context of the historical Jesus may be to look at Iraq. Many of us know that Islam is based on Judaism and retains many of the cultural aspects of ancient Judaism as many of them are based on Mosaic Law. These include manner of dress, dietary laws, purification rituals and so forth. Furthermore the Jews were related to the Arabs as all were Semitic peoples. Our modern Jews have only a small percentage of their traceable lineage that goes back to the middle east. Jews in Jesus day looked like Arabs.

 

So would it be surprising to find a group of Apocalyptic Muslims living in a place like war-torn Iraq right now? And would it be surprising that there would be cults formed around certain individuals? Think Muqtada Al-Sadr. I know he preaches violence and Jesus did not, but like I said the analogy is imperfect. I'm thinking more of context. There are non-violent Shi'ia as well.

 

I think that that's the best idea of what it may have been like in First Century Judea that we can imagine. I think that when we look at place like Iraq and imagine the United States as a Rome of sorts and look at all the individual factions who both hate the West, but also hate each other we can kind of get a blury glimpse of what it may have been like.

 

So what do you think?

 

It's a very complicated situation. People try to find a magic bullet explanation for what they see, but there is no such explanation that is useful to describe what is happening now. I think it has to do with how rapidly the world is changing, and where people throughout the world fit into the new world order - and in some cases, how they don't fit in, which is a more frightening prospect.

 

In the West, we have the global economy. It started out as a business relationship between interests in the U.S. and its post-war allies/entities in Europe and Japan. Trade flourished and, gradually, the economic relationships between these countries became stronger and more complex. Look at the business relationships we have now. Some of the largest investors in American businesses aren't American at all; they're European venture capitalists like Barclays, AXA, and a few others. American companies like Vanguard or big banks such as Bank of America and Citi invest throughout the world. Japanese banks are huge investors in the Western marketplace as well, and the EU and Americans invest in Japanese companies in return. That's just the tip of the iceberg, but you've got the backbone of this new economic world order right there. Nationalism, national allegiances are a lot less important than they used to be within this sphere.

 

The Western/Japanese capitalist machine is now excited at the prospects of expansion. It is now marching into places like China, India and Southeast Asia, and it is creating wealth for a lot of people who are on board, particularly those who have established themselves at the helm of this new power structure. Again, the nation-state is less powerful - the money is constantly going back and forth overseas, right under the noses of the politicians whom we assume to be governing on our behalf. Companies like AT&T, Vodafone (UK), NTT(Japan), and of course Microsoft and others, are engineering this instant economy. They are the ones integrating the marketplace for those who are in this new economic world order, and those who are trying to get in, like China and the rest of Asia.

 

Here's where it gets difficult: the Middle East and Africa are probably going to be the last regions in the world to climb on board and join the new world order. They have governments which are despotic and anti-democratic. And because of this, the people have no foundation upon which to develop an economy. Worse, the Islamic powerbase appears to be stiffening its resolve to remain on the outside of this new world order. It wants to establish a sphere of influence that would essentially allow it to become self-reliant first and foremost, which means controlling its natural resources. The problem here is, the outside world, and hence the new world order, still needs these resources in order for their system to work.

 

It always comes down to power and autonomy. Sadr envisions himself at the helm of a theocratic Iraqi state, and Iran's theocracy sees Iraq as an extension of its own theocratic authority. But even in theocracies like Iran, it's never just about God. It is, but it isn't, if that makes any sense. Yes, they want a state based on strong Islamic law, but more importantly, they want to ensure that the Persian-Islamic ways of doing things don't fall prey to Western business interests, which are becoming not just Western business interests, but global business interests.

 

Some states like the Unitd Arab Emirates are trying to join the global economy. They have been doing so peacefully and progressively. They have law and order, and international relations that allow this to happen. It's the weak states, where there is no law and order that you have to worry about. Anything can emerge from this chaos.

[alphamale]

It's the weak states, where there is no law and order that you have to worry about. Anything can emerge from this chaos.

Actually, the country that is of the most threat to the "new world order" is actually Russia. Their nation is in a state of semi-chaos and to top it off they still have thousands of nuclear tipped missiles aimed at major targets all over the world. If Russia collapses or goes into civil war the consequences could be dire for everyone.

 

I really don't see the militant Islamiscists or Al-Quaeda as that big of a threat overall....they have little power and few weapons.

 

The real threat is still Russia and its satellite states. People forget this fact. The cold war really has not ended. It just LOOKS like it ended.

[Topper]

Alpha,

Keep in mind that many of those former Soviet States were historically and are now once again finding their Islamic roots. A couple of rogue scientist or others could get a Nuke into the hands of Al-Qaeda. Also Pakistan has Nukes and a large number of the Pakistan military Intelligence organization is pro Al-Qaeda. I feel that so far we have been lucky that someone has not smuggled in a suitcase Nuke bomb into the US. All they would have to do is get one aboard a regularly scheduled flight to The US Jet coming in from some country that would turn a bind eye to what was being put on the plane. Then detonate the device over major US City. Even a small bomb would take out a large part of say NY or Chicago.

In parts of China Their are a large number of people who are Islamic. In fact China has had a problem with their own Islamic terrorist blowing up police stations and the like.

To the original question? I'm not sure I am getting the point.

[alphamale]

Alpha,

Keep in mind that many of those former Soviet States were historically and are now once again finding their Islamic roots. A couple of rogue scientist or others could get a Nuke into the hands of Al-Qaeda. Also Pakistan has Nukes and a large number of the Pakistan military Intelligence organization is pro Al-Qaeda. .

98.5% of the world's servicable nuclear devices are owned either by the US or Russia. The biggest threat really lies with those two nations and not with some lone wacko militant moslem terrorist wearing sandals, a robe and a turban.

[Topper]

Never under estimate your enemy. They said the NVA and The Viet Cong were just sandal wearing ill trained peasants. Yet they had a very sophisticated infrastructure and command system.

The former soviet states have Nukes left from the Soviet Army. There are Nukes in Georgia. Chechnya, Karakistan and other former Soviet States. some of the facilities theses weapons are kept in are not that well protected and there is little accountability.

[alphamale]

The former soviet states have Nukes left from the Soviet Army. There are Nukes in Georgia. Chechnya, Karakistan and other former Soviet States. some of the facilities theses weapons are kept in are not that well protected and there is little accountability.

well yea, that's what i'm talking about

[amerikajin]

Actually, the country that is of the most threat to the "new world order" is actually Russia. Their nation is in a state of semi-chaos and to top it off they still have thousands of nuclear tipped missiles aimed at major targets all over the world. If Russia collapses or goes into civil war the consequences could be dire for everyone.

 

I really don't see the militant Islamiscists or Al-Quaeda as that big of a threat overall....they have little power and few weapons.

 

The real threat is still Russia and its satellite states. People forget this fact. The cold war really has not ended. It just LOOKS like it ended.

 

Russia's trying to find its identity. You have factions within who are fighting their displacement, and there has to be some way of bringing these factions into the fold so that they can join the WTO and open up their markets. I think Russia will eventually come around but there are going to be hiccups along the way, and we're seeing that now.

 

Al Qaida is definitely a threat, but a threat of a different kind. Part of the problem is that we don't entirely understood who Al Qaida members really are, and they also appear to have different factions within. Islam itself isn't going to unite under one umbrella, but there will be common objects of hatred along the way.

[alphamale]

Al Qaida is definitely a threat, but a threat of a different kind. .

I would say they are a minor threat at best. The western media has trumped these clowns up to get ratings. Yea Al-Qaeda has pulled of some successful jobs but in general they are not as big a threat as people make them out to be. A powerful and omnipotent Al-Qaeda is great for the media and to rally Americans but doesn't really exist in reality.

[amerikajin]

I would say they are a minor threat at best. The western media has trumped these clowns up to get ratings. Yea Al-Qaeda has pulled of some successful jobs but in general they are not as big a threat as people make them out to be. A powerful and omnipotent Al-Qaeda is great for the media and to rally Americans but doesn't really exist in reality.

 

They're certainly not powerful enough to invade and fundamentally change the character of the United States; although that's a very real possibility in Europe in the years to come. Islam presents a potent challenge to the Western world and the traditions of secularism. Muslims come from places where secularism is seen as something that evil governments do, and while a lot of Muslims are capable of adapting to Western life, those who are having a hard time economically might find it easy to find fault with their new homes and be inspired to "bring a new era of justice to the world."

 

Wars between nation-states like the U.S. and Russia are becoming less and less of a threat; wars between different ideological factions and insurgencies constitute 95 percent of all combat operations. The possibility of a collision between powers as we saw during the 20th century is less likely, in large part because power was consolidated over a much wider area, and the marketplace has sought to be inclusive. The European Union is a prime example of this. What Europe has struggled with is how to annex economically the countries that were left outside the Western marketplace, especially Russia. There will be hiccups along the way, but I think Russia will eventually come around. It won't necessarily be a bastion of libertarianism but it doesn't have to be.

 

A lot of this, too, depends on how we play our cards. If Bush insists on confrontation and unilateralism, then the signal sent to others is that the creator of the new world order has lost faith in that order, and others will lose faith in kind. That is the folly of the neo-con doctrine: the very order their mentors created is one predicated on the cooperation of others; coalition building; intelligence sharing; and good old fashion police work. To reject that system is to go back to the era that preceded the Cold War, in which nation-states were isolated and competed with each other as distinct national entities. There is a romantic appeal to this, but two world wars and the many colonial skirmishes before it should have been enough proof that this system is outdated, and dangerous.

 

But back to militant Islam for a moment -- while I don't think it can be a force that supplants Western clout, it can seriously damage it, and the chaos that might ensue would be something none of us here would want to deal with. Coming up with the right elixir to deal with this situation isn't easy, but the main component here is stability.

[alphamale]

But back to militant Islam for a moment -- while I don't think it can be a force that supplants Western clout, it can seriously damage it,

How? "Militant" islam probably makes up like 1% of all of Islam. Or even less. The vast majority of Islamic nation-states are freindly towards the West....or at least neutral.

[amerikajin]

How? "Militant" islam probably makes up like 1% of all of Islam. Or even less. The vast majority of Islamic nation-states are freindly towards the West....or at least neutral.

 

You saw what happened to the stock market after 9/11. Markets don't like instability, which is the real threat they pose.

[alphamale]

You saw what happened to the stock market after 9/11. Markets don't like instability, which is the real threat they pose.

Look...all I know is that a lot of people are making a lot of money by blowing this "threat" all out of proportion. I'm really much more worried about the 7,000+ nuclear warheads that Russia has pointed at us.

[amerikajin]

Look...all I know is that a lot of people are making a lot of money by blowing this "threat" all out of proportion. I'm really much more worried about the 7,000+ nuclear warheads that Russia has pointed at us.

 

It's not just the numbers, Alpha; you have to take into consideration the willingness to use them. Not once has Russia even attempted to attack U.S. soil with so much as a bomb, let alone a nuclear weapon. It would be suicide for either one of us.

[alphamale]

It's not just the numbers, Alpha; you have to take into consideration the willingness to use them. Not once has Russia even attempted to attack U.S. soil with so much as a bomb, let alone a nuclear weapon. It would be suicide for either one of us.

well the Cuban Missile Crisis came close....in addition, Russia has historically been quite aggressive in other theatres of the world. Either way, they're still sitting on a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons with a less-than-ideal political and economic base.

 

I'm really not that worried about a couple of radical moslem dudes in sandals and turbans attacking my home.

[amerikajin]

well the Cuban Missile Crisis came close....in addition, Russia has historically been quite aggressive in other theatres of the world. Either way, they're still sitting on a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons with a less-than-ideal political and economic base.

 

I'm really not that worried about a couple of radical moslem dudes in sandals and turbans attacking my home.

 

It's not a very popular thing to say, but the Cuban missile crisis was as much a product of American foreign policy mistakes as it was Russian errors. I don't see us going back to that point anytime soon, though it's a possibility. Without question, the Russians (like us) have enormous potential to do damage, but the likelihood of it happening is low. They could have utterly annihilated Chechnya or Afghanistan, but didn't; I think it proves there's some modicum of rationality there.

 

The interests of Al Qaida are entirely different, and so are their tactics. They want war; they want to provoke a massive response. As they've proven already, they are more than willing to attack civilian population and infrastructure.

[alphamale]

The interests of Al Qaida are entirely different, and so are their tactics. They want war; they want to provoke a massive response.

You're talking about a few hundred or at most a few thousand militants. WTF are they going to do? $10 million bounties are posted on their leaders. Al-Qaida is nothing. They pulled of a couple big jobs that they got very very lucky with and all of a sudden they are public enemy #1. They're a bunch of buffoons...

 

As they've proven already, they are more than willing to attack civilian population and infrastructure.

EVERYONE has attacked civilians in the past, going back thousands of years.....two words, Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[amerikajin]

You're talking about a few hundred or at most a few thousand militants. WTF are they going to do? $10 million bounties are posted on their leaders. Al-Qaida is nothing. They pulled of a couple big jobs that they got very very lucky with and all of a sudden they are public enemy #1. They're a bunch of buffoons...

 

And yet the buffoons caused 3,000 deaths and billions in economic damage with just one attack. They're not a danger capable of erasing life as we know it, but we are well beyond the days when they would open up with an AK-47 in a European airport; they have the power to get a lot more bang for the buck. I agree the threat is exaggerated in some respects, but what's not exaggerated is the likelihood of another spectacular attack.

 

What I wanted to say earlier is that Al Qaida/The War on Terror isn't necessarily what it seems. I think it's a clash of civilizations of sorts, but not really so much Christendom and the West vs. Islam. Rather, I think it's the global economy establishment vs. the anti-establishment, of which Al Qaida is a part. The struggle is to fit within this new economic world order, which of course is also a political world order. If people don't do that, they will turn to the likes of Al Qaida, or perhaps radical leftism in South America. But it's not Team USA vs. the Islamic world. There's a bigger picture.

 

EVERYONE has attacked civilians in the past, going back thousands of years.

 

Not saying otherwise; I'm just pointing out that paramilitary fringe groups are more likely to resort to that kind of violence for obvious reasons, and they are hence, a greater immediate threat thatn the Russians are. Russia, for all its might, never has had any real design on attacking the U.S. because it knows doing so would mean its own destruction - there's a return address on its bombs; not so with Al Qaida.

[alphamale]

What I wanted to say earlier is that Al Qaida/The War on Terror isn't necessarily what it seems. I think it's a clash of civilizations of sorts, but not really so much Christendom and the West vs. Islam. Rather, I think it's the global economy establishment vs. the anti-establishment, of which Al Qaida is a part. The struggle is to fit within this new economic world order, which of course is also a political world order. If people don't do that, they will turn to the likes of Al Qaida, or perhaps radical leftism in South America. But it's not Team USA vs. the Islamic world. There's a bigger picture. .

This "game" has been going on for thousands of years...just replace the names of the players. This is nothing new to the human race, it is actually part of the human race. Conflict is constant.

[amerikajin]

This "game" has been going on for thousands of years...just replace the names of the players. This is nothing new to the human race, it is actually part of the human race. Conflict is constant.

 

You're wrong, Alpha: it all started on September 11th, 2001. Never forget. Before that date, we were all living in the Garden of Eden.

[alphamale]

You're wrong, Alpha: it all started on September 11th, 2001. Never forget. Before that date, we were all living in the Garden of Eden.

yea thats what everyone said on Dec 7, 1941. Sixty years later we're all eating Sushi and driving around in Camrys

[amerikajin]

yea thats what everyone said on Dec 7, 1941. Sixty years later we're all eating Sushi and driving around in Camrys

 

Because America won and laid the foundation for the new world order, of which Japanese business interests became a major part. Japan, though, was easy to integrate into the system; their group cohesion kept factions from forming. Shinto and Japanese ideology doesn't really extend beyond its borders.

[alphamale]

Shinto and Japanese ideology doesn't really extend beyond its borders.

What about Japanese expansionism pre-WWII? What about the crazy suicidal Kamikazes? What about the evil slit-eyed Japs who would never give up their homeland so we had to drop a couple atom bombs to make them submit.