I guess you’re a better man than me when you can find the death of the man who cut off your son’s head “tragic.” And no, I’m not being sarcastic when I say that.
-
English Books on Korea... and More!
-
Visit My Brother's Film Review Site
31 Comments
Like Cindy Sheehan, this man has lost more than his son.
Well he’s right about one thing, the Muslim-Western clash is tragic, and it doesn’t help that there are sadistic, ‘my God is bigger than yours ‘ nutjobs on both sides.
In the strict sense he\’s probably right that \”His death will incite a new wave of revenge.\” Iraqis are killing other Iraqis because they\’re from a different sect OF THE SAME RELIGION. Killing men for wearing tennis shorts! The Middle East needs more than democracy, it needs to catch up a few centuries to the rest of the world.
I’d be pretty annoyed to have a cheesy TV journalist trying to coax such ugly feelings out of me on the air.
yeah this guy is a wack job
i met a guy once claiming Zarqawi was a made up figment of everyone’s imagination by the CIA
his son albeit tragic was in iraq on his own accord looking for finacial gain off lucrative government contracting
i do not see how bush is to blame
What’s tragic is that this guy’s moral compass is so out of joint. What will be doubly tragic is if his misguided sentimentalism gets any significant attention from the Delaware voters. There’s nothing admirable about it in the least.
Mook said: “it doesn’t help that there are sadistic, ‘my God is bigger than yours’ nutjobs on both sides.”
The world is just full of raving decapitating Christian fundamentalists, isn’t it? Or did I get it wrong and you were referring to Sunni vs. Shiite nutjobs.
Wedge, All Of The Above.
He’s a pacifist. They (sometimes) have a more long term view of things than the rest of us do. Most of the time they’re wackos, but this guy sounds like the real McCoy.
It’s nice that he can see past the death of his son to the deaths of all the other sons that may come from this. I don’t think I could do it either, but I would hope that I could.
“What’s tragic is that this guy’s moral compass is so out of joint.”
“He’s a pacifist.”
Well, then: res ipsa loquitur; quo est demonstratum. Take your pick.
I think this fear of revenge killings is unfounded. Al-Zarqawi’s minions have devoted themselves to killing Westerners anyway, and his death will provide them with a temporary motivation boost and nothing more. His death will have no measurable effect either way on the death rate in Iraq as one of his followers will rise up to take his place.
Sounds like the epitome of appeasement. “Don’t do anything to piss off our enemies or they might hit us again.” “Give them what they want, just as long as they don’t kill us.”
As one noted conservative writer said, it’s the fear of being envied. Just like many rich liberals who in effect say, “Please don’t hate me just because I’m rich. Here, I love your culture. It’s better than mine. Just don’t kill me, please.”
While I will concede that Mr. Berg is of the utmost integrity in sticking to what he believes despite his own personal loss, I would have to respectfully disagree with his use of the word “tragic” and protest his backhanded slap at Bush. Tragic is the fact that this guy needed to be killed, that he created such a destructive atmosphere in Iraq that killing him was the only way to begin any healing process. However, for Mr. Berg to place both Bush and Zarqawi in the same category is frankly an act of cowardice. Bush’s lack of foresight and ineptitude at coming up with a plan of action before jumping in both guns a-blazin is one thing; Zarqawi’s systematic terrorizing of the populace and in-your-face sensationalistic murder spree is entirely different. If Mr. Berg says they are the same he is either willingly ignorant, a liar, or certifiable.
Regarding Bush, revenge doesn’t even figure into the picture but I think gross ineptitude does. Michael had it right when he said the Middle East needs more than democracy. Bush’s notions of promoting democracy there are perhaps well-intentioned but show his ignorance. Islam today is like the Roman Catholic Church 700 years ago. Absolutely stagnant, mired in conservatism, and completely in charge of the political spectrum. Islam needs its own Reformation, its own Protestant “rebels” to force change from the inside. Lets just hope it doesn’t take 6 or 7 hundred years for Islam to produce a leader like Pope John Paul II. While a Protestant I ‘ll be the first to say JPII is a far cry from the stench that the Church was back in the middle ages and he signifies the kind of reform that is possible. For Islam, sooner rather than later please.
JPII signifies the kind of reform that is possible? While he might have done wonders for the Catholic Church’s public image and relations with other religions, he certainly wasn’t much of a ‘reformer’ where the internal policies of the Catholic Church are concerned. Really, the popes reigning during the Second Vatican Council did a lot more to reform the church than JPII did.
That “Islam today is like the Roman Catholic Church 700 years ago” might speak more to the dangers of theocracy than those of Islam. Religious institutions that gain buttloads of temporal power tend to be pretty harsh and inflexible. After all, the basic premise of theocracy is almost always that the leader is acting under infallible authority (which usually comes from a book written hundreds if not thousands of years before). Unfortunately, theocracy has taken root in a large part of the Middle East, with pretty predictible results.
Zonath, you are right. I didn’t mean that JPII was the reformer I’m looking for. I simply meant that the reform that took place before allowed someone like him to become Pope. The changes and reforms took place over a very long period of time and JPII was a far cry from the crooks that were running the church in the good old days. And again, the Second Vatican Council like the First in late the 1800s was an internal reform which is what the Muslim community needs. But none of that would have been possible without the Reformation to get the ball rolling and start criticizing the church.
I’m not sure I get the connection to theocracy though. The Islamic community was once a dynamic and creative group but fell into stagnancy. I don’t think theocrats are any different from any other group of “conservatives” who find themselves with a longstanding grip on power. Inherited power, whatever your beliefs or religion, breeds arrogance and intransigence. What I want to emphasize though is that pressure from the outside is not enough to effect any real change. It has to take place from within, hence my reference to what changed the Roman Catholic Church. Personally I think they’re still messed up but they’re not running governments or terrorizing populations anymore…and that’s a good thing.
Yes, thankfully, the Roman Catholic Church has given up the habits of empire building and power brokering that it had throughout most of its history.
I see where you’re going, but I’m not entirely sure that Islam ruins all the countries that it touches. After all, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Turkey function as fairly open systems (sure, they’re not full-on democracies) even with Islamic marjorities. Sure, all three have their problems, but at least they’ve veered away (for the most part — there’s always radicals trying to spoil the party) from the more radical flavor of Islam that seems to have infected places like Iran and Saudi Arabia.
“the stench that the Church was back in the middle ages”
Certainly, MrChips, the church had some serious faults, but I think it’s a bit of a whitewash to view it as being all bad. The church has been a huge influence on western civilization, good and bad, including the building of the first universities, and these helped to develop the ideas of reasoning and science. The church was certainly a huge and powerful institution, unafraid of doing what was necessary to build its power, but it was also a positive in the development of the west, I believe. As with the traditional and false stereotype of the Middle Ages as being a Dark Age, I think its wrong to claim that the church’s history in that time was also a dark age. Negatives may very well have outweighted positives, but I think there is alot about the church to respect and admire, despite despicable actions of many claiming to be in the name of the church.
“Well, then: res ipsa loquitur; quo est demonstratum. Take your pick. ”
I’m sorry, Sperwer, neither I nor 99.999999999% of the population of the planet speak latin, so your argument was lost. Perhaps not using a dead language spoken only by pretentious idiots would help you get your point across?
This board seems to use Korean, English, and Japanese, why not try one of them?
then learn a little latin dude…it’s not like Western languages aren’t inundated with it. You can’t really call that sanctimonious, come on. Frankly, its the only way to say what Sperwer was really trying to say, with any emphasis. “It’s obvious, or speaks for itself” or “it must be proven” doesn’t have quite the same punch as the latin equivalent. No, please continue to use Latin everyone as it adds to the effectiveness for anyone willing to dig into the meat of the issues here. There’s nothing wrong with it…
MrChips,
No. It’s not. I’m sorry. Using a language that very few people understand in order to make a point is pretentious, sanctimonius, and just plain silly. If I start using German because it expresses an idea better than the English can, on a board where it is almost guaranteed that a large percentage of its visitors do not speak German, it’s silly.
“Thus it is proven” has a great amount of punch, because everyone will understand it. “Quod et demonstrandum” has NO punch because it comes from a dead language used only by mathematicians, lawyers, and historians.
You cannot say that expressing an idea in a foreign language expresses something better if no one speaks the language.
“Clarity through Obfuscation”
Honestly, this is almost a perfect example of pretentious.
*quo est demonstratum ==> quod erat demonstrandum
Besides, this is not like writing a full comment in Latin, German or Romanian, but rather using Latin expressions that are attested in many languages like English or French. And the fact that you’ve never seen the expression only means one thing, that your education has gaps…
dda,
“And the fact that you’ve never seen the expression only means one thing, that your education has gaps…”
And here you show your true colours. Using Latin in any context outside of the ones I mentioned above is both pretentious and fucking stupid. Can you not wrap your mind around this? Here, let me use big letters;
IF YOUR AUDIENCE DOESN’T UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE YOU ARE USING YOU ARE NOT BEING CLEAR.
Do you understand this now?
And my education was just fine thank you, what with all the mathematics, international relations, and rocket science (See? Anyone can say they’re smart on the internet!).
I didn’t say I didn’t understand it, I said that I and most people don’t speak Latin so his arguement was lost. Why hamstring your own speech in order to seem smarter? I don’t understand that.
“IF YOUR AUDIENCE DOESN’T UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE YOU ARE USING YOU ARE NOT BEING CLEAR.”
How the hell would you know what everyone else on this blog understands?? That, folks, is the epitome of pretentious. Somehow you get to stand on a pedestal and determine what shall or shall not be used. Pretentious! Only you and you alone determine what contexts are acceptable for Latin usage. Pretentious!!
Perhaps we can pass special rules on not using words that are too big or words that have any “foreign” flavor (as if that’s possible in English). Perhaps we should also not use any idiomatic expressions not readily understood by a 5 year old.
Obviously you had some kind of beef with Sperwer beyond just his use of latin. Don’t bring up the latin just because you can’t come up with anything else. Reserve your air for a worthwhile comment.
And just for the record, Greek is the language of mathematics. Latin is only used for theoretical math terms and most of those are derived from Greek.
Funny how some get all defensive as soon as someone doesn’t agree with them, eh?
Bah, I’ll rephrase: don’t identify yourself with the rest of the audience… The fact you don’t understand it doesn’t mean others don’t…
> Islam today is like the Roman Catholic Church 700 years ago.
Does that mean we have a Renaissance starting in the Middle East? There’s a Bellini over there? Or a Dante? Because I would trade a few jihads for a Dante.
And score one more vote here for the Latin. Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur. Braccae tuae aperiuntur.
Fine. Nescio quid dicas.
MrChips and dda,
This has gone way beyond the topic, but I’d like to reply one more time and then leave this as unsolvable amongst us.
“That, folks, is the epitome of pretentious.”
Wasn’t it you that discussed the usage of the red herring with the crazy guy in another thread? Fine. You’re right. Assuming that I’m on a forum not populated by lawyers, mathematicians, and historians was a mistake. Pretentious? No. Presumptious? Yes.
“Perhaps we can pass special rules on not using words that are too big or words that have any “foreign” flavor (as if that’s possible in English). Perhaps we should also not use any idiomatic expressions not readily understood by a 5 year old.”
I only said that one should use on the three languages seen on this board. English is a language of other languages and has words and phrases that come from all over. If you use the word, “peripatetic”, you’re making good use of an oft-misused word. If you use the word, “sesquipedalian”, you’re either a linguist or pretentious.
“Obviously you had some kind of beef with Sperwer beyond just his use of latin. ”
I have no beef with Sperwer, from what I’ve seen so far of his posts I agree with almost everything. I disagreed with his use of language in one post.
“And just for the record, Greek is the language of mathematics.”
For the record, Greek is the language used to define terms. Latin is the language of mathematics.
DDA:
“Funny how some get all defensive as soon as someone doesn’t agree with them, eh?”
I’m not defensive, I just think you’re wrong. What possible way could I have argued my point without you thinking I was becoming defensive?
“don’t identify yourself with the rest of the audience… The fact you don’t understand it doesn’t mean others don’t… ”
Absolutely. On this you’re completely correct. However, considering the fact that the VAST majority of people on the planet have never used, seen, or even briefly thought about the phrase QED, means that statistically I am also correct.
BOTH:
Look. Use what you want. But when you use esoteric (can you deny this? Come on, QED?) terms in a forum not related to the situations in which those terms are normally used, don’t be surprised when someone calls you a pretentious twit.
It’s the Google age. People can look up something they do not understand quite easily. And I do not consider QED to be very obscure (it’s in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, after all).
If you have a problem with someone’s usage, using terms like “idiot” and “twit” are far problematic than a little Latin. You are pretty much guaranteed to raise more hackles than awareness.
QED is now known by the world’s GEDs?!
Ours is an age of wonder.
I concede defeat. I’m obviously in the minority here in taking umbrage at his comments. I apologise for my tone.
LOL