The Indelible Risks of Blind Faith
The best and only way to reach amicable agreement, or even the agreement of expediency in avoidance of truly nasty outcomes is to communicate, to reason intelligently one to the other until either all or most of the issues of disagreement are mutually understood and a joint decision to reach a general understanding resulting in peace is reached.Reason: is defined as:
- Use argument with person by way of persuasion.
- Form or try to reach conclusions by connected thought silent or expressed (from premises about; of; upon subject; discuss what, whether, why, etc.; conclude, assume as step in argument.
- Express in logical or argumentative form (exposition, manifesto, article - in which reasons are embodied with a view to directing course of debate).
- Persuade by argument.
- Think out (consequences, etc.)
People who so passionately believe what they wish to believe cannot be successfully communicated with, they cannot be brought to reason, they cannot be persuaded to observe a situation in a neutral manner simply because they are incapable of neutrality, of backing away from their emotional and psychical need to believe what they believe.
What they believe so utterly, so beyond the ability of anyone to penetrate the psychological armour against truth, reason and adequate cerebral functioning, let alone personal responsibility is that what they believe is irrefutable; they are wronged and blameless.
A case in point: Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's visit to the White House. Where he emphatically denied that a civil war is now being waged in Iraq, despite the ongoing, unstoppable carnage, Shi'ite against Sunni; total sectarian violence. "God willing" said Mr. al-Maliki during the White House conference, "there will be no civil war".
Last week Mr. al-Maliki, himself a Shi'ite Muslim, outright condemned Israeli air strikes, refusing to name Hezbollah a terrorist group, calling for an immediate ceasefire. It is Israel that is responsible for the crisis in Lebanon, certainly not Hezbollah, according to this man, the Prime Minister of Iraq. Yet it is terrorists, not Sunni and Shia militias who are attempting to destroy his country, according to his fine analysis.
Arabs believe what they believe, their beliefs will not be tempered or swayed by reality. An Islamist jihadist therefore is a terrorist only if he attacks one's own self-interest. In Iraq, dissidents, sectarian thugs are terrorists. Because Hezbollah acts in God's name against Israel they are not to be condemned as terrorists. Logic? There is none.
"Your failure to condemn Hezbollah's aggression and recognize Israel's right to defend itself raise serious questions about whether Iraq, under your leadership, can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing (sic) stability to the Middle East", Democrats in the Senate wrote. "As you know, the American people have given so much in the name of fighting global terror and helping build a better future for the people of Iraq. Americans deserve to know whether Iraq is an ally in these fights."The sacrifice of thousands of U.S. soldiers, killed in this ongoing conflict, the burden of supporting the fledgling Iraqi attempt at democracy has bled the U.S. treasury dry in the sum of 300 Billion U.S. to date. And for what? What, actually has been accomplished? While refusing to condemn terrorism as it raises its deadly head other than in Iraq, while tentative overtures are ongoing with Iran, Mr. al-Maliki still comes humbly, head-covering in hand, to praise the efforts of the United States and its people, and to insist that the U.S. needs to deliver to this utterly failed venture more troops, more money.
Risks? Risks for whom?
posted by Pieface @ Wednesday, July 26, 2006
<< Home