O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! ... Hey, wait, isn't there a war going on? ... O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! ... A war that can never end, because ending it would supposedly mean losing or "surrendering" ... O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.!
O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! ... Even though there's not really anybody to lose to ... O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! ... And neverending war without purpose doesn't really sound like it makes us winners either ... O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! ... And no one, absolutely no one, seems able to tell us what "winning" would mean or look like other than never, ever ending ... O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.!
O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! ... So shouldn't we, maybe, be talking about this? ... O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.!
O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! ... Shouldn't there be hourlong nightly news specials asking questions like "What would winning mean?" ... O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! ... Or how will or can or should this ever, ever end? ... O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! ... Or just, you know, what's the point at this point? ... O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! ... Or is the situation just so completely insoluble, so massively FUBAR that we're desperate to latch onto any distracting bit of shark-attack, Anna Nicole, Paris Lohan nonsense we can find? ... O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.! O.J.!
Isn't it fairly well-documented that some of the hijackers from September 11th had been seen drinking a few months before the attack? So Al-Quaeda operatives aren't necessarily going to be the most rigid adherents to proper Islamic behavior. I believe they even consider it theologically justified to commit sinful acts to serve the larger goal of harming perceived enemies of Islam. And most terrorist groups trying to infiltrate the US would logically follow a similar policy.
So pressuring people to step on the Koran as official policy (and "Do this, and we'll offer you a way out of that country we've wrecked" is pressure) wouldn't weed out the sleeper agents. It also wouldn't be any more effective at sorting out the sane and secular Arabs (unless by "sane and secular" you mean both atheist, and having no respect for religious traditions) than a "Not a fundie? Prove it! Piss on a crucifix!" test would do for Christians. Sufficiently desperate people would likely do it and hate themselves afterwards, and a great many of the sane and secular would take deep offense at the petty bullying (I know I'd be offended if someone tried to bully me into stamping on a Koran, and I'm neither religious at all, nor part of a predominately Muslim culture). Plus, the US government would be effectively waving a giant "WE REALLY DO HATE YOU FOR YOUR RELIGION!!!" sign at the Islamic world.
So, fun all around?
Posted by: ako | Sep 19, 2007 at 06:41 AM
Oh, and if you want my official permission to not care about human suffering, you can wait a good long time for that.
Posted by: ako | Sep 19, 2007 at 06:43 AM
There was a legend in the 18th century (current at the time Jonathan Swift was writing Gulliver's Travels - he uses it in book 3, the one with the floating city) that the Japanese would only let Europeans enter/leave their country in safety if they would "trample the crucifix". *looks it up*
Yes, it's at the end of Part III. Interesting that the US is becoming culturally so similiar to Edo period Japan...
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Sep 19, 2007 at 08:33 AM
There was a legend in the 18th century (current at the time Jonathan Swift was writing Gulliver's Travels - he uses it in book 3, the one with the floating city) that the Japanese would only let Europeans enter/leave their country in safety if they would "trample the crucifix". *looks it up*
Yeah, that's pretty much where I got the idea, via Samurai Champloo.
Posted by: J | Sep 19, 2007 at 09:24 AM
These 'religious' wars are never really about religion, they're about tribalism and identity, power, money, land, pride, and status.
Mmmhmm. You go on and think that.
Posted by: J | Sep 19, 2007 at 09:26 AM
J: Yeah, that's pretty much where I got the idea, via Samurai Champloo.
You do know that, as far as historians can establish, the ceremony of "trampling the crucifix" never existed? It was a European invention made up to traduce the Japanese nation?
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Sep 19, 2007 at 09:31 AM
You do know that, as far as historians can establish, the ceremony of "trampling the crucifix" never existed? It was a European invention made up to traduce the Japanese nation?
Read closer. Read again.
Me: "That's pretty much where I got the idea, via Samurai Champloo."
Now use your hands and fingers to work the Google button on the Internet machine to look up Samurai Champloo.
Posted by: J | Sep 19, 2007 at 09:44 AM
J: Read closer. Read again.
Write more clearly. Stop blaming others for your own communication failures.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Sep 19, 2007 at 09:59 AM
J wrote: Here's how to rescue Riverbend the tiny minority of people she represents: Offer a U.S. passport and a free plane ticket to any Iraqi who will step on a Qur'an. Religiously discriminatory? Yes, I suppose so. But it should nicely filter out the sleeper agents and net us a new class of sane-and-secular Arab-American citizens.
After a succession of responses pointing out the classic errors in that line of thinking, J's response is to claim that we've misunderstood him/her/it and we need to read what he/she/it wrote again?
Okay. Here it is, again.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Sep 19, 2007 at 10:01 AM
After a succession of responses pointing out the classic errors in that line of thinking, J's response is to claim that we've misunderstood him/her/it and we need to read what he/she/it wrote again?
Sigh. Okay, want me to spell it out? Samurai Champloo is a fictional series about fictional characters and fictional history. I took a fictional example from it and made a semi-fictional, pseudo-serious, quasi-dark-humor suggestion.
But you insisted that I was taking fake history seriously, even as I attributed my ideas to a CARTOON.
But I doubt that matters to you, Jesu. You have a pretty well-established record of chasing people down the thread, insisting they meant one thing when they clearly didn't. So yeah, play your little game and tell me how I'm clearly a colonialist, phobist monster.
Posted by: J | Sep 19, 2007 at 10:14 AM
I took a fictional example from it and made a semi-fictional, pseudo-serious, quasi-dark-humor suggestion.
And when people didn't laugh at your joke, you got tetchy and complained. Yeah, we got that. Tough.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Sep 19, 2007 at 11:00 AM
Here's how to rescue Riverbend the tiny minority of people she represents: Offer a U.S. passport and a free plane ticket to any Iraqi who will step on a Qur'an. Religiously discriminatory? Yes, I suppose so. But it should nicely filter out the sleeper agents and net us a new class of sane-and-secular Arab-American citizens.
That might have worked before the invasion and occupation.
But at this point, you're going to have a fairly large group of non-religious patriots who are out for revenge for everything we've done. People with nothing left to loose, people who lost loved ones, people who just don't approve of having their homeland invaded.
You can't do insane things and expect the sane people to continue to like you...
Posted by: Ursula L | Sep 19, 2007 at 02:51 PM
J: > Offer a U.S. passport and a free plane ticket to any Iraqi who will step on a Qur'an.
So, that's the Richard Chamberlain/Shogun approach to immigration reform?
Posted by: Michele | Sep 26, 2007 at 06:06 PM