Further Comment on Islam and the West
Ethical Angst in the West
On August 6, 1945 the West entered into a new era of politics. On that day “Little Boy” fell on the city of Hiroshima, instantly killing at least 66,000 people and injuring an additional 69,000. These figures represent more than 50% of the total population of the city. Nagasaki followed a few days later with slightly fewer casualties. But the world changed. Suddenly the terrible potential of mass destruction became a tangible reality. The conscience of the West, willing to override moral constraint in this instance, was seared by the results. From that point forward, Western military capability has been tempered by a palpable angst about the havoc wreaked by weapons unimaginable in all prior human history. This ethical angst contributes to the reticence of the West to exercise its capability of eliminating aggressor populations with swift and utter destruction. It also contributes to the fallacious idea that no one in his right mind would ever make such a decision again. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were America’s equivalent of the Holocaust, revealing in one short moment the enormous capacity for evil that Man now possesses.
Today this ethical angst is found in the liberal commitment to refuse to consider the possibility of a nuclear event in the Middle East. Because those in the West feel the enormity of the decision to destroy thousands of people who were not directly involved in any combat role, they cannot conceive of any wartime scenario that would justify the use of weapons of mass destruction again. The liberal agenda’s review of the outcome of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while admitting that Truman’s decision undoubtedly brought an early end to the Pacific conflict and saved hundreds of American lives, views the extermination of all those non-combatants as a morally heinous act. If the circumstances were presented today, liberals would retreat to the negotiating table even as the war raged on, claiming that a political solution morally outweighs any form of nuclear option.
This is the reason liberals today refuse to believe that Islamic jihadists will actually use nuclear capability as a military weapon. Liberals argue that no sane person, given the overwhelming evidence of utter and indiscriminate destruction and the moral atrocity of nuclear attack, would ever actually use such tactics. Threats may occur but in the end the nuclear option represents the most morally repugnant choice anyone could make. It is therefore, unthinkable. The fact that neither American nor the U.S.S.R took this option when it presented itself only underscores how morally reprehensible (and ultimately self-destructive) both sides viewed nuclear war.
The problem, of course, is that Islamic jihadists do not share this moral and ethical angst. They do not have a common history of the total annihilation of an enemy and its consequent ethical questions. And they are utterly committed to a world where the extermination of the enemy, regardless of combat status, is the real goal. Islam is a religion dedicated to total world domination. So is Christianity. The difference is that Christianity attempts to bring about this goal through the persuasive power of cognitive and moral influence. Islam will bring about its goal through fear and violence. For Islam, the nuclear option is just one additional tool in its arsenal of conquest, no less likely to be used than a sword or a backpack bomb. Collateral damage is part of the victory. There is no moral or ethical angst involved here.
As Lee Harris observed, those who are ruthless usually win. The West finds ruthlessness morally repugnant. Therefore, it will lose. God help us.
Skip,
Sorry to be the “date watcher,” but the date of the Hiroshima bombing is 1945, not 1941.
Apparently I am unable to deal with any date later than 100 CE. Thanks. I have corrected it.
” Islam will bring about its goal through fear and violence.”
How bout’, Islam will attempt to bring about its goal through fear and violence. While it’s certainly true that the western world needs to wake up to this reality, I’d prefer not to give them my permission.
YHWH bless you and keep you……..
You’re right, of course, but from a purely human perspective, the ruthlessness of Islam will prevail. Ruthlessness always has. The West is no longer prepared to respond with the same ruthlessness and it will fall. YHVH could intervene, but I am not counting on that. Therefore, unless something unanticipated happens, and it could, the ruthless will win this round. No one can defeat an army that is made up of men everyone willing to die for the cause.
My apologies if I seem somewhat contradictory, but I try to apply the principle of the man who hears a rash oath from his wife or daughter. I’m not absolutely positive whether that extends to this situation, but I have a strong inclination towards that direction, i.e. the complaint of those who were to enter the land. I just don’t want to be responsible, by my words, to add to the chaos, so to speak. In the introduction to the book “the prophets”, it was stated that the Nazi’s didn’t conquer Germany by guns, but rather by words. “let us make man in our image”….. a beautifully terrifying statement.
YHWH bless you and keep you………
Since when has the West not been ruthless? Were the bleeding hearts the ones who dropped the Bomb, or were they only the ones who convinced themselves to carry the guilt? Who started those massive wars, anyway? Who mans the Red Buttons, and who determines the power? Who negotiates for arms in the bizarre bazaars where the brokers gather to evenly distribute the weapons so as to ensure the maximum future business? Who gathers in the secret rooms and societies to perfect the dialectic that the rest of us then follow? They are all the same at the top. And then, there are the rest of us, but we are just the catecumin, the goyim, who do what we are told… and believe what we are told to believe… and pony up to pay for it. Why should I take responsibility where I have not been given the authority? Wait, I have been given all authority. But of what kind? The Kingdom of heaven is not of this world. So why am I out on this field in the first place? What if we all actually did follow the Kingdom, and refused to a man to pick up the weapons we were told we must pick up? Oh, I can hear it now. “I won’t lay down mine until you do”. But what were we told? We were told that we are to be counted as sheep to the slaughter all the day long. Hmm Something political must be missing here…
I like what Michael said, that the last of those who fought with full hearts are going to be laid in the dust before the West begins to roar. Conflicts are always artifical, not beneficial, but don’t they all require the full hearts of those who have to lay their lives on the line for another’s greed? Such is the twisted nature of evil. One of my biggest sorrows is how miserably we treat our veterans. To me, it reveals the callousness that sent them in the first place. I deal with some of those disasters at the other end, where they don’t even have the basics of human dignity, much less the gratitude and sorrow we truly owe them. The plight of the veterans can always make me angry and extremely embarrassed.
I think you are missing the point. Of course the West has been ruthless. That’s what wins wars. But since the atomic bomb, the West has been in an ethical quandary about such decisions, and, as a result, has allowed its enemies the opportunity to become ruthless. That does not excuse what happened in the past, but it doesn’t bode well for the future.
Skip, I agree with your conclusion, but I am puzzled by your statement that ” Truman’s decision… saved hundreds of American lives”. Hundreds? Declassified Top Secret documents from the War Department show that there were 2 planned American invasions of the Japanese home lands, code named Operation Downfall and Olympic, which estimated that the number of soldiers dying at the early stage of the invasion would be over 1,000 every HOUR. The final death toll was estimated to between 3-4 million, with over a million of those being Allied troops. That is a far cry from your ‘hundreds of American lives’. Suggesting such a low ball number weakens your argument that the use of the atomic bomb was a necessary, though ugly, moral imperative. President Truman weighed the cost of not acting and out of a TOV principle of valuing life, chose to save millions of lives (on both sides) by deploying the atomic bomb. The Iranian Imams, on the other hand, are willing to kill millions of men, women and children with that same technology from of an evil principle of valuing death over life in the service of their God. May YHWH continue to protect Israel from such vile and villainous zealots. As for us…I am afraid that the handwriting is already on the wall, just as in the days of King Belshazzar.
I was not aware of the declassified documents. Your addition certainly adds to the argument.
My dad’s WWII experience supports your premise. He was in a high school graduating class of 15 males. 14 of them lost their lives in the war. Only my dad survived. By the time 1945 rolled around my dad was an officer in Army intelligence and worked under Gen. MacArthur. He was sent in to Japan shortly after the 2 bombs were dropped. He went through Hiroshima and Nagasaki several times. The impact on him from what he saw can not be overstated. He talked to me only 3 times in the 46 years we were both alive about the carnage he saw, once right before he passed away. He was visibly shaken each time he talked about it. However, he totally supported the use of the bombs in Japan, as he was aware of what the US had planned in the event the bombs were not dropped. He was also painfully aware of the friends he lost in the war. Some of the guys that served under him in Japan later became prominent US generals and politicians. He loved the discipline, and opportunities, the Army had provided him, but by the early 1950s he was not happy with the way the US conducted the war in Korea, as one friend after another was lost in a “war we didn’t try to win.” By the time Vietnam came around, and I was old enough to be drafted, he was completely disillusioned with how we conducted warfare. He was offered a job in the Pentagon and refused, and retired from the Army. He told me that US had lost the will to do what was necessary to win wars, and that the only time we should enter a war was when we were committed to the total, complete destruction of our enemy. Now, we live in a day where we believe we can fight wars like video games, and the enemy has the same view of “war crimes” as the NY Times does.
Hawks eat doves
Hawks eat doves. Succinct and very relevant to our conversation. For the “what it’s worth department”: Hawks are considered to be unclean birds and doves clean.
I am not sure that we need to try and interfere or even fear, spaceship Earth has always been steered purposefully despite us doing our worst as can be concluded by the mouths of Yesha’yahu and Yirmeyahu:
I am YHWH, and there is none else; beside Me there is no Elohim. I have girded you, though you have not known Me. That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside Me: I am YHWH, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness. I make peace, and create evil. I am YHWH, that does all these things. (Is.45:5-7)
… The House of Yisra’el, and the House of Y’hudah, have broken My covenant which I made with their fathers. Therefore thus says YHWH: Behold, I will bring evil upon them, which they shall not be able to escape. And though they shall cry unto Me, I will not hearken unto them. (Jer.11:10-11)
… and they shall have none to bury them: them, their wives, nor their sons, nor their daughters. For I will pour their evil upon them. (Jer.14:16)
…. Wherefore has YHWH pronounced all this great evil against us? Or, What is our iniquity? Or, What is our sin that we have committed against YHWH our Elohim?
Then shall you say unto them, Because your fathers have forsaken Me, says YHWH, and have walked after other gods and have served them, and have worshipped them, and have forsaken Me, and have not kept My TORAH.
And you have done WORSE than your fathers: for behold, you walk every one after the stubbornness of his evil heart, so that you hearken not unto Me. (Jer.16:10-12)
I appreciate your confidence in the invisible but sovereign hand of YHVH. However, it seems to me that human history clearly demonstrates the YHVH only rarely demonstrates direct interference in the evils of men (e.g., the Holocaust). While I don’t think we need to fear, it seems rather naive to assume that we can simply let things continue without attempting to stop evil. Someone said, “All that it takes of evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.” Doing nothing as a religious statement of confidence in the Lord also does nothing. If God really wanted to change the shape of history, He would, as is evident with Genesis 6. If, in the meanwhile, we simply do nothing and wait, I am afraid we too will be caught in the flood.
There are deep philosophical and religious beliefs at work in the present ineptitude of politics. I will be talking about these at the Winter Garden First United Methodist Church on Sunday July 5 at 6PM. Once we realize the history of these assumptions and beliefs, I think we can understand all the more clearly why the West seems paralyzed to act and the Islamic East is willing to set the whole globe on fire in order to win.
Will that session be taped? I would very much like to hear it, but I am not up to making a cross-country trip right now. 🙂 I am sure that others here would also be interested in an audio recording.
The position I would like people to consider is that it is a separate matter to discern truth and establish wrong (evil); in contrast to realizing that it is supposed to happen as part of YHWH’s plan. Job’s suffering was to demonstrate a point in heaven; so probably was Adam’s sin. Rachel’s untimely death was to comply with TORAH; as was Yeshua’s. A complex tapestry being woven wherein we are minuscule but essential links (Vessels for the Ruach).
The “Jews” have no “legal right” to be in Israel (the first born / land right is Ephraim’s) but they have a “destiny” to be there. The fact that I feel very sad that they will probably be killed eventually, should not interfere with my objectivity in trying to interpret the facts and the scriptures (“law”) to come to a better understanding. For the record: Even though the “Palestinians” may be the original genetic Yehudaites, they also have no Biblical right to HaEretz. The Holocaust is a complex subject, why did YHWH allowed this “burnt-offering”. Why is he allowing the preamble to a another? I do not know, but I can feel it coming.
I have been and was trying to do my part. It took me to war and I can still vividly smell the blood and festering wounds and hear the moaning, even though it was a long time ago. More recently, I have been involved in a 6 year stint arguing legal cases as a non-legally trained person in regards to “human rights” abuses in a supposedly highly civilized system… In neither did God supported my cause. Because it was probably not His. He kept me alive but made me deeply realize that if He is not moving (Num.9:18 At the commandment of YHWH the children of Yisra’el journeyed, and at the commandment of YHWH they encamped), I should not be moving, otherwise: Vanity of vanities, says Kohelet: vanity of vanities, all is vanity. What profit has man of all his labor wherein he labors, under the sun? One generation passes away, and another generation comes, and the earth abides forever. … All things toil to weariness; man cannot utter it. The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. That which has been, is that which shall be: and that which has been done, is that which shall be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing whereof it is said, See, this is new? It has been already, in the ages which were before us. (Ecc. 1:2-10). There is no Rule of Law, only Rule of Money.
From Adam until now, the world is run by HaSatans:
And the third was named Gadreel: he it is who showed the children of men all the blows of death, and he led astray Eve, and showed [the weapons of death to the sons of men] … and all the weapons of death to the children of men. And from his hand they have proceeded against those who dwell on the earth from that day and for evermore.
And the fourth was named Penemue [probably a QC – Queens Counsel Barrister]: he taught the children of men the bitter and the sweet, and he taught them all the secrets of their wisdom. And he instructed mankind in writing with ink and paper, and thereby many sinned from eternity to eternity and until this day. For men were not created for such a purpose, to give confirmation to their good faith with pen and ink. For men were created exactly like the angels, to the intent that they should continue pure and righteous, and death, which destroys everything, could not have taken hold of them, but through this their knowledge they are perishing, and through this power it is consuming me. (Enoch 69:6-11)
The Muslims may have a point that all needs to end soon. And they may just be the hammer by which YHWH is going to accomplish His will.
Interesting accumulation of material for your argument. On the other hand, at what point does YHVH instruct us NOT to combat evil and work toward righteousness?
The question is, who specifically would be the “he who is without sin” who can throw that stone? That is not a pedantic question. Who designed this setup in the first place, and what are the real reasons it exists, and is more innocent cannon fodder the answer that heaven would have? Is the West truly innocent of reasons for the fostering of the fester that is the Middle East? Why did we turn back the Jews who wanted to come here after the 2nd WW? Why did we want them there instead of here? I have yet to find somebody who can answer that one. Shouldn’t we start back there? We have yet to talk about the power brokers and what they want. I am talking about those money men that Pieter fingered… Wars have always been about the money machine; not about the ostensible interest of heaven. Let’s not get the two confused here?
Look at Daniel; Paul; Kefa (he hung up his sword); Yakov (the Just)…
They were engaging at spiritual warfare: Sandals of Shalom (against oppression); Belt of Truth [Torah] (against deception); Breastplate of Righteousness (against pride); Helmet of Salvation (against accusation). Resist the Satans and Shadim with prayer. Pray for your enemy (Islam) to heap fiery coals on their heads.
I spent a day with a Muslim friend on Monday and realize that evening that his righteousness (not his understanding) surpasses mine. I have a lot of beams to remove before I can even attempt to stop Islam.
They understand that Yeshua is not God; that the Ruach is an emanation form the God that See (Allah); they understand that Yeshua is coming a second time and are waiting for that with Joy; they are preaching against the “anti-Christ”; etc., etc.
What fascinates me is a revelation that I had a few years ago: Allah may correspond to the “lesser” YHWH, Yeshua / the Word as He appeared in the TeNaK. When “Christianity” got perverted, He interfered by calling Mohamed.
But then we still have the problem: “…or an angel (Gabriel) from Heaven, should proclaim apart from what we have proclaimed, he should be accursed. (Gal.1:9)
I agree with Skip, absolutely, in his replies above!
In NO way “does YHVH instruct us NOT to combat evil and work toward righteousness ” !!!!!
We cannot be passive, when it is in our power to act, to protect, as in Michael C’s post and teaser link, many were saved by acts of self sacrifice, as with the hiding of the Jews.
We are to dispel the darkness, to turn folks to Torah ways and truth, to turn them from deception.
We need to play our part, if not the least bit, to cry out to plead for YHWH’s intervention.
What a fascinating discussion with so many layers and possible tangents!
The sentence that struck me in my first read-thru was “Hiroshima and Nagasaki were America’s equivalent of the Holocaust, revealing in one short moment the enormous capacity for evil that Man now possesses.” My interpretation was a moral equivalency between the two actions, and that’s an equivalency I’m not ready to affirm. Subsequent comments about Truman’s calculus seem to bear that out (thanks Michael). Perhaps the idea here (Skip?) is that Truman’s actions influenced American culture/politics in a way analogous to the way Hitler’s actions influenced German culture/politics, regardless of each actions moral justification.
This conversation brings two passages of scripture to my mind. They are ones that I find fascinating.
The first is Joshua 11 (particularly events related in vv 10-15), where Joshua-led forces eradicate their foes (not just combatants) as per God’s instruction. This follows events related in Joshua 10 where the Lord Himself rains hailstones down to take out more combatants than did Israel’s swords. I lost a lot of respect for a preacher one time who skipped over these chapters in a preach-thru of Joshua. These stories do not square well with the warmer, fuzzier “God” many who claim Christ prefer to focus on.
The other passage I’m drawn to is Luke 13:1-5, where I perceive that Jesus essentially says that the people coming to him about Pilate’s actions and the tragedy at the tower of Siloam are missing the point. There are greater tragedies than those, and if one becomes preoccupied with the minor tragedy, one may find oneself caught up in the greater eternal tragedy that flows from a lack of repentance. Forgive my crude paraphrase, but my take-away there is that Jesus is essentially saying “sh*t happens, you should recognize that reality and not lose sight of the bigger picture”.
Perhaps I digress from the main point of this thesis, which is that liberal nation-states’ aversion to ruthlessness should not be projected on nation-states guided by Islam, and that making that mistake has some eminently foreseeable consequences.
Of course, the question remains, “so what should be done about it?”. Be ruthless first?
Regardless of whether a given nation-state’s response is proactive ruthlessness or acceptance of others’ proactive ruthlessness, Jesus’ counsel to personally repent seems applicable.
I expect you’ll have some interesting conversation at Winter Garden.
Skip, following Rick’s lead as the date watcher, I’ll be the guy who points out I think you meant “wreaked”. Feel free to criticize my grammar! 🙂
Thanks for the additional correction. That’s done.
As for any parallel between Hiroshima and God’s instruction to Joshua, the crucial difference is, of course, the direct instruction from God. I doubt Truman would have claimed a divine announcement to exterminate the Japanese. Furthermore, it seems clear that the destruction ordered by God was for total elimination of the entire population, not merely one or two cities within that population. Of course, your parallel strikes a familiar chord with the claim of the jihadists about the Jews. They are intent on TOTAL annihilation and would claim divine instruction to do so. But since Hiroshima the moral stance of the West has been wrestling with such claims, to the point that the West no longer seems capable of making such a decision, even if it is limited to a few cities.
In my view, what happened in the Holocaust signaled the enormity of Man’s complete disregard for life. As such, the fact that a Western country could do such a thing caused, and continues to cause, significant moral perplexity over the possibility of radical extermination of such a scale. While the Holocaust was purely evil, the choice of using the atomic bomb converted what would have been considered purely evil in outcome (i.e., the deaths of thousands of bystanders) into a strategic decision based on the greater good. And that created the dilemma. What is the greater good? Is it served by destroying thousands of lives in an instant? Truman’s decision might have been justified but it brought to light the ethical dilemma that such power, even used for good, is inescapably evil in result. This consciousness creates the ethical problem for the West. America does not want to appear to be another Nazi Germany. America believes itself to be “good.” Therefore, obliterating thousands with the touch of a button becomes a true ethical problem, as is evidenced in the continual Hollywood movies of violence that depend on the justification of reprisal for some more heinous evil.
We could solve the problem of jihadist Islam today. A small device dropped on Mecca or Medina, with the threat of additional devices should there be reprisals, would effectively end the conflict. The man with the biggest stick wins. But the problem is that the West is ethically hamstrung. Can we justify such wanton destruction on the basis of a “greater good” argument as we did with Hiroshima? Apparently not. The hesitancy of the West is its angst over making such a decision. Instead, we hope against hope that either the man men will become sane or God will somehow interfere so that we don’t have to. Neither seems likely.
Ruthlessness will win unless divine intervention prevents it. We can pray for divine intervention, but we should be prepared for the victory of the ruthless unless we are ready to act with ruthlessness ourselves. Reputation is much easier to maintain than to recover. Once we make the decision to act ruthlessly, how will we ever regain our reputation as reasonable, peace-loving men?
Reasonable, peace-loving men who carry the biggest stick! I do not believe these are mutually exclusive for Godly men.
One only has to look to find the latest horrible means of execution that ISIS is using to see their brand of ruthlessness. They will continue horrifying us to win the war because they understand the idea of a no-holds psych-ops. By their fruit it is obvious they are evil (completely). They are surely capable of producing the abomination of desolation. They do this for their own glory and imagined future reward. They have no concept of humanitarianism. I will say it–these brutal, ruthless thugs need to be exterminated!
We must not continue to be passive about such things however, there are big global forces at work with a global goal in mind no matter the cost. In the end the whole thing is about good vs evil. Will God raise up a man (men) to lead this country and deal with this issue? Time will tell.
Thank you Skip for bringing up this subject and pointing out some very important details. It is VERY timely and needed. Perhaps the right people will have ears to hear. Please watch your back as you travel.
I am happy to be among lions. I can understand their ruthlessness. It is borne of survival and hunger. Men, however, exhibit a ruthlessness borne of ego and desire. That is not only unpredictable but also insane. I would rather turn by back to a lion than a man who believes that God has directed him to uncompromising violence.
I am grateful for all the lessons we can find in God’s creations and His creatures. I have learned a lot in observing these things. Man certainly has a great capacity to be insane. Sometimes I think the ability to think (overthink) is a curse. Yetzer hara sure can run a mile or two with this one!
I have never been among lions personally but I sure appreciate what you have shared from your experiences with them. Gives a little more depth to the lion laying down with the lamb in a practical sense.
Skip, you said: “A small device dropped on Mecca or Medina, with the threat of additional devices should there be reprisals, would effectively end the conflict. The man with the biggest stick wins.”
Your conclusion reminds me of a quote from Albert Einstein: “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” (emphasis added)
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has a new book out on the issue we are discussing. It is titled “Not in God’s name: Confronting Religious Violence”, and while I have yet only read excerpts from the book, I fear he may be either too optimistic or too naive when he concludes that “if religion is part of the problem, then religion must be part of the solution”and “wars are won by weapons, but peace is won by ideas”. Share that sentiment over a steaming cup of Earl Grey with the Iranian Mullahs and see if they can contain their laughter. When discussing the Torah I have great respect for the Rebbe from England, but as I recall, Neville Chamberlain was British too…and thankfully, so was Winston Churchill.
I did not save the first comment written on Islam and I cannot find it in past articles? I would like to have it as well as the one on this day.
Skip-did it not get saved?
Thanks