Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 21:27:05 +0200
Subject: Re: yippi yi eh (New Yorker Article)


Bête as i am i thought one of the rules in war was to dehumanize the other : religious beliefs can be used in doing so, but are not the core of the process.

In the process of war one needs to demoralize the other camp. So using religious beliefs/ethics/tradition in such propaganda can play a role here too. But all because these are means to a certain end : winning your war.

I am still shocked by the images of iraqis being tortured, of iraqis torturing mercenaries, of pregnant women being killed, ...

but i am not surprised

Erik

At 20:07 -0500 03-05-2004, dan combs wrote:
>At 01:36 AM 5/3/2004, Ali Kazmi wrote:
>
>>
>>And it is working, even carp who usually has a pretty
>>good BS radar, is taking it as something to do with
>>religious mores, and repressed sexuality(?), equating
>>the "naked torture" iraqis with evangelists getting
>>caught in motels, and not the old fashioned bamboo
>>strip under the fingernail sort of stuff that it
>>actually is.
>
>
>Ah-ta-ta, Ali.  The torture of humyns is not what I was addressing.  What I was pointing out is the line of BS that says _because_ these men were islamic that somehow it was a worse fate than were they not.    I can't get worked up over people crying that something is more vile because it runs counter to some spiritual belief.  This stuff is vile but because the victims are muslim makes it not worse nor better.   I would prefer people leave the religious frame of reference out of it.  They were humyns.  I have as little regards for someone crying the xtian blues as I do the islamic ones.   I don't understand why the theist labeling was brought into it.
>
>
>carp


-- 

===========================================================================Ze Sprout  <anarchie-AT-buelinckx.net>
amour & anarchie & amour & anarchie
===========================================================================