Sunday, October 1, 2006 | Science : In the News | print version

Collateral Damage: Part 2

by Richard Dawkins

Click here to read 'Collateral Damage: Part 1'

In warfare, public opinion is now prepared to tolerate far less collateral damage than used to be the case, and this is a revealing symptom of a more general and heartening trend. Not only are the civilian casualty rates in Iraq and Lebanon far lower than those in the bombing raids on Dresden, London or Hiroshima . Of greater moral significance, there was nothing collateral about those civilian casualties in 1945. In Dresden and Hiroshima, civilian casualties were part of the plan. Maybe there were military targets in Dresden but, on that terrible night of Feb 13th 1945, the theory of the British bombers was that of the firestorm – and you don't use a firestorm to disable a factory or a railway marshalling yard. A firestorm is designed for the specific purpose of burning people. As many people as possible. The following is from Alexander McKee's book, Dresden:

From a firestorm there is small chance of escape. Certain conditions had to be present, such as the concentration of high buildings and a concentration of bombers in time and space, which produced so many huge fires so rapidly and so close together that the air above them super-heated and drew the flames out explosively. On the enormous scale of a large city, the roaring rush of heated air upwards developed the characteristics and power of a tornado, strong enough to pick up people and suck them into the flames.

And here is an eye-witness account:

The firestorm is incredible, there are calls for help and screams from somewhere but all around is one single inferno. To my left I suddenly see a woman. I can see her to this day and shall never forget it. She carries a bundle in her arms. It is a baby. She runs, she falls, and the child flies in an arc into the fire. Suddenly, I saw people again, right in front of me. They scream and gesticulate with their hands, and then - to my utter horror and amazement - I see how one after the other they simply seem to let themselves drop to the ground. (Today I know that these unfortunate people were the victims of lack of oxygen). They fainted and then burnt to cinders.

Here is a picture of victims of the Dresden raid of 13th February 1945.

Collateral Damage 2

Now, contrast the fire storms of 1945 with the smart bombs of today. It is not just that modern electronic technology makes it possible to guide bombs, by satnav and other clever techniques, literally to a particular street address and not the house on either side. Such sophisticated targeting systems cost money, and it is spent specifically to avoid civilian casualties. Smart bombs are designed, at least in part, to minimize collateral damage. Obviously Air Marshall Sir Arthur 'Bomber' Harris, architect of the Dresden raid, didn't have at his disposal the technical know-how to make smart bombs. That's not the point. My point is that, even if he could have used smart bombs, he wouldn't have wanted to. The whole rationale and purpose of Bomber Harris was to kill civilians.

I am not arguing that Bomber Harris was morally inferior to Donald Rumsfeld. Judging each by the moral standards of his own time, they might come out as roughly equivalent. The interesting point is that the moral standards change on a timescale of decades. The moral Zeitgeist shifts as the years go by. That is the first of my two points, but why is it interesting? It is interesting because it forms part of a powerful argument against the proposition that our morals come from religion. Here's what I mean.
Religious apologists will try to persuade you that, without scriptural texts, we'd have no moral compass, no guidelines for what is right and what is wrong. Anybody who advocates basing our morals on the Bible has not read the Bible with sufficient attention. It is, of course, true that you can find verses of the Bible, and the Koran, which we today might regard as moral, for example the Sermon on the Mount. You can also find verses suggesting that the worst thing you can do is make a graven image or break the sabbath. Both deserve the death penalty, as does cheeking your parents. The Bible is an ethical disaster area with islands of decent morality dotted about here and there.

When sceptics point to particularly nasty bits of the Old Testament – for example the disgusting story of Abraham almost sacrificing Isaac (or his other son Ishmael according to Muslim tradition), religious apologists are apt to reply in exasperation: "Yes of course, but we don't believe that any more. We've moved on." And that is precisely my point. We have moved on. Theologians have moved on and have rejected the nasty verses (or written them off as 'symbolic' or 'allegorical' or 'poetic') while accepting the nice ones literally. But on what basis do they decide which verses to accept and which to reject? I don't know. But I do know that, whatever that basis is, it certainly cannot be scriptural.

This is where the shifting moral Zeitgeist comes in. I am not going to attempt here to explain the shifting Zeitgeist. For my purposes, it is enough that it is a real phenomenon. And the shift in our tolerance of collateral damage in warfare is one powerful example of it. Another example is the change in our attitudes to racism, sexism, homophobia, slavery and many other such belweathers. You can call it 'something in the air'. Public opinion moves in a mysteriously synchronous fashion, usually in the direction of becoming more liberal and gentle, although there are temporary reversals such as the United States is undergoing at the moment. The vanguard of opinion in one generation may lag behind the most reactionary and conservative representatives of a future generation. Abraham Lincoln was far ahead of his time – but his time was the nineteenth century, when just about everybody was racist by today's standards. Here is what Lincoln said in 1858:

I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

I don't know why the Zeitgeist changes so consistently, but it does. Newspaper editorials, judges' decisions, parliamentary or congressional debates, dinner party conversations, all add up to 'something in the air'. Our rapidly decreasing tolerance of collateral damage in warfare is one manifestation and an important one.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Sunday, October 1, 2006 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 25 of 25 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #513 by Kevin Ronayne on October 2, 2006 at 1:44 pm

Richard Dawkins writes:

"I don't know why the Zeitgeist changes so consistently, but it does."

A full answer to this would take a while - there is probably an entire books' worth in it, if not several books! I suspect that a whole range of overlapping forces help to shape 'Zeitgeist' - scientific and technological advances, increased awareness through better education and communications, and the availability or lack of resources are just some. For example, our increasing concern for the environment is in no small part driven by the realisation that our resources are running out. If there were 'only' a few hundred million humans on the planet right now, I suspect that we might care far less about such matters, even if we had the same amount of scientific knowledge at our disposal.

Knowledge gained by hard-won experience - and its effective dissemination - is a key force in shaping opinion. Poison gas was used mainly to facilitate swift breakthroughs in the trench warfare stalemates of World War I, but the revulsion to its use meant that it has (despite continued production and stockpiling) been used only sporadically ever since - usually if the perpetrator expects to get clean away with it. On the other hand, the reaction to the aerial bombing of cities in World War I was much more ambivalent, partially because there was relatively little of it. In the inter-war years, there was a broad spectrum of opinion, ranging from the fatalistic (the observation by Stanley Baldwin in the House of Commons that 'the bomber will always get through'), to a firm belief that bombers would be unable to overcome properly organised defensive systems. Intervening events might have helped to clarify matters - indeed, if there was ever an example of art influencing the 'Zeitgeist', then Picasso's 'Guernica' must surely be it. It took the large-scale bombing campaigns of World War II to clarify to everyone just what aerial bombing could and could not do, and just how much damage it could cause.

It would be wrong to assume that mass killing by aerial bombardment represented some new low in human behaviour with no precedent. Throughout recorded human history, it was a regular occurrence (if not commonplace) for civilians to be butchered on a large scale. The view that it is wrong to target civilians during the course of organized warfare is a relatively recent development - and even then, much depended on the colour of the civilians' skin. In the last 150 years, the rapid development of new technologies has offered enormous possibilities for war as well as peace. Commenting on the submarine as being a 'barbaric' weapon, Admiral 'Jackie' Fisher went on to observe that '… the essence of war is violence, and any moderation in war is imbecility' - Total War, in other words. Such a view would have been widely subscribed to before 1914, but after two World Wars it has became almost impossible to justify to any rational person. The problem is that there are still plenty of irrational people around, mainly because of religion.

2. Comment #514 by Martin on October 2, 2006 at 1:53 pm

"I wonder how many years we're going to require before hitting your children becomes just as unthinkable"

It's illegal in Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Latvia, Norway, Romania, Sweden, and Ukraine. In Sweden, it's been illegal since 1979.

3. Comment #522 by Anonymous on October 2, 2006 at 2:48 pm

Just a thought- not necessarily connected to this page...

Are there any plans to set up an explicitly secular humanist school as an alternative to Blair's religiously funded academies? That would be an excellent use of RDF funds (in my opinion).

4. Comment #528 by Randy Ping on October 3, 2006 at 1:04 am

I live in New Orleans. The Academic landscape on all levels here is dominated by religious schools. I would love to have ONE decent secular school with proper standards for the here. Just ONE.

5. Comment #529 by Randy Ping on October 3, 2006 at 1:07 am

Sorry, that last sentance should have read:
"I would love to have One decent secular school with proper standards for the children here."

6. Comment #537 by Andrew on October 3, 2006 at 6:25 am

#523 - when you say 'explicitly secular humanist school', do you mean in terms of attitude or direct instruction? Although the idea is initially tempting, I wouldn't really be in favour of sending children to an atheist school any more than a Christian school. I'd rather they had a secular education that taught them critical thinking skills, as well as educating them about the major religions. I strongly suspect that teaching critical thinking would greatly reduce the chances of them becoming religious, which I'd obviously approve of, but the autonomy of children comes first. I was convinced of this by the BHA's proposal to the UK Government (http://tinyurl.com/c44qh), which suggests schools of this style, as well as Stephen Law's The War for Children's Minds (http://tinyurl.com/mddvw), which strongly argues in favour of an education liberal in thought.

7. Comment #539 by Will on October 3, 2006 at 8:21 am

Unfortunately, even on a site such as this where enlightenment should ensure considered comment, the insidious hatred generated by current religious thinking still worms its way into the debate.

Comment number 2 above (495) by Anonymous2 shows how the 'Zeitgeist' has shifted to include vilification of Moslem nations based solely on US propoganda. The offending quote:

"Rich Moslems drive Bentleys. Poor Moslems drive Toyotas. What cars to Moslems design and produce? QED."

The implication being - none. I would suggest this ignorance and Islamophobism, generated by the evangelical, christian neo-cons in the US government (apparently intent on pursuing a holy war), is rather wide of reality.

As an example, Malaysia is a Moslem nation and that nation plays a vibrant part in the rapidly developing Asian economies. They have the following car company which admittedly is not (yet) a true behemoth, but exists, nonetheless, in direct contradiction of the chauvinistic quote above:

'PROTON is Malaysia's own indigenous automotive brand marketed in over 50 countries. Its own engine family, the Campro, powers the Gen.2 making PROTON a truly independent automotive manufacturer. Proton was ranked 11th by JD Power statistic 2004. Lotus Engineering UK, one of the world's leading automotive engineering consultancy companies is a wholly-owned subsidiary, giving PROTON valuable research and design capabilities.'

Incidentally, Samand is the Iranian car company that exports to 10 Arab nations... etc etc. For more on Moslem commercialism see:

http://dinarstandard.com/rankings/ds100/DS100Brands.htm

Er, QED?

8. Comment #585 by Will on October 4, 2006 at 9:13 am

Anon2 says:
"Will's use of the perjorative "vilification" to my criticism of Islam suggests that he holds to the previous position that a person's religion should be somehow sacrosanct and above criticism, regardless of the consequences to the person or society."

Wrong. I have no truck with ANY religion and agree with Mr Dawkins view that religious belief is irrational. I just dislike prejudice.

The point I made is valid. You (A2) are guilty of 'vilifying' the Moslem religion, yet again in your last post - by taking instances of extremism and extrapolating it to all Moslems (female circumcision etc). Most Moslems, like most so called Christians, are decent peace loving people. Many are as bright as the brightest the West has to offer. The recent demonisation of Moslems is edifying - mostly in connection with how western media/governments get a band wagon rolling. You make the mistake of thinking they all want to destroy your (much deserved, superior*) lifestyle. It is an extreme minority, just like in many religions, that make the most 'noise'.

Consider this: more UK citizens have died at the hands of the IRA terrorist movement than all the people who died (non-US citizens included) in the horrific and senseless attack on 9/11. Yet where was the American "War on Terror" during the previous 30 years? Er, sponsoring terror, actually. I am not talking here about the CIA etc but can point to one specific illustrative case in point:
The biggest funders of the Irish Republican movement, the people who raised the cash to buy the arms and bombs to be used indiscriminately against the British, came from the misty-eyed Irish Americans with their romanticised view of 'The Struggles' back home... And their cause? Furthering the aim of the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland to dominate the Protestant majority.

For thirty years we had anti-democratic, irrational religious warmongering (they profess to pray to the same God), supported by the very (ignorant religious) nation that, a few years after the worst of the IRA sponsored violence, now pursues a holy war against Moslems (Islamofascists)...

Finally, your point about progress is illustrative of the other form of constrained thinking that moves the planet in a self-destructive direction. You talk about innovation etc and implicitly laud the western model of consumption/growth, yet the truth is that, if everyone on the planet consumed the same amount of oil as the average American, we would squander all proven reserves in just 10 years. Yet isn't the American model the one we are all urged to aspire to?

*I make the assumption you were lucky enough, like me, through nothing more than an accident of birth, to have been born in one of the richest nations in the world. I am British - currently fourth wealthiest country - and constantly thank my lucky stars I was not born poor on some dirt farm in Africa or Asia... or more particularly in apartheid Israeli occupied Palestininian lands as a Moslem, but in the relative comfort of a council (state owned) house in the UK. No doubt I would think differently if my family had been persecuted and imprisoned without charge by a terrorist state, funded and backed by the most powerful nation in the world. I might even have bought some of the Islamist fundamentalist claptrap, since I recognise my western morals and beliefs are a product of my education and upbringing (privileged in global terms, though ordinary by UK standards).

9. Comment #657 by boxmonkey on October 5, 2006 at 5:16 pm

I agree with Sean. Additinally, it is important to realize that smart bombs are not nearly as smart as we are lead to believe. I highly recommend that everyone watch the movie "Why We Fight" which is basically about the Military-Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned against when he was leaving office.

10. Comment #680 by Robert on October 6, 2006 at 3:55 am

To RnBran

The Lebanon war started when Hizbollah launched a raid over the border and captured Israeli soldiers. Soldiers, not civilians. That may have been an act of aggression but it was a legitimate military operation. Israel by contrast targeted the entire Lebanese population with the result that they now nearly all support HIzbollah as the defenders of their country. So quite apart from the morality Israel's actions were a mistake.

The use of disproportionate force is as much a moral issue as who started it. But Israel can be condemned on both counts because any objective look at the Middle East conflict will find that the Arab Israeli wars can all be traced to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by the Zionist invaders in 1948. There will be no security for Israelis until compensation is paid for the crimes committed against the Palestinian people and the theft of their land.

If the Israelis and Palestinians abandoned Judaism and Islam and became atheists the tribal divisions would be vastly easier to overcome.

11. Comment #788 by Marcus on October 7, 2006 at 12:29 am

My Father narrowly escaped from the firestorm of Dresden as a young boy, so I can well sympathise with Richard’s point.

However, Richard’s whole motivation for this website and his book is that “appeasement” is never the answer. Not appeasement of religion, nor appeasement of “religiously motivated” dictators.

Whether is was Shinto-based fascism, Catholic NAZI-based fascism or Stalinist based fascism that simply substituted and intensified former Czarist Orthodox Christian based fascism.

It doesn’t matter how much the Moral Zeitgeist shifts in the future. Murder will always be wrong, theft will always be wrong, censorship will always be wrong and appeasing dictators and religious ideologues will always be harmful - if you care about enlightenment values, reason and science.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Thomas Jefferson.

12. Comment #800 by beepbeepitsme on October 7, 2006 at 3:23 am

RE: "Murder will always be wrong, theft will always be wrong, censorship will always be wrong"

The evolution of codes of conduct are better served through reason than through religious texts; even though religious people will claim that religion/s provide the basis of morality.

How successful really is any basis of morality which involves fear and punishment? Especially, a fear of punishment after death? It smacks of (pardon the pun), psychological abuse to me.

Far better to have codes of conduct based on reason, than any 2 thousand year old religious ideology which mentions stoning adulterers or homosexuals to death.

Human beings have probably always created laws through a reasoning process which involved mutual benefit as opposed to mutual harm.

Unfortunately, this process of mutual benefit/mutual harm has rarely translated well outside each group in which it is formulated.

So, the rules which apply to one group, may not apply to members outside the group and the rules which apply to one nation may not apply to people who are not citizens of that nation.

The International Charter of Human Rights has certainly tried to address this, by at least providing to what amounts to as a "wish list" for all human beings. The job is then to convince people, through reason, that all humans deserve these rights and that they are afforded to them on the basis of being human alone.

13. Comment #1279 by Will on October 11, 2006 at 5:59 am

Anon2 - Ok the Moslem religion has been under a spotlight and many barbaric things have come to light. I agree that female circumcision is the most abhorrent facet - but I was well aware of this before George Dubya's holy war, and many people still don't know the worst of it...

For example, the 90%* of young women in the Sudan who suffer pharonic circumcision (clitoris and both inner and outer labia removed) then have their vaginas sewn up to leave just a tiny orifice. Their new husbands often need a knife to 'deflower' these virgin brides (usually in a hut well away from the main village to ensure no-one has to hear the screams). Of course, you could argue this practice is more for the man's pleasure rather than to do with religion:

*http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12290600&dopt=Abstract

Regardless, let's condemn all Moslems for their barbarous, medieval, misogynist religious claptrap, eh? Let's jump on the western media led bandwagon of vilifying them in particluar, rather than all religions per se, as they represent such a threat to our 'freedom' and 'way of life'.

Yet much more worryingly to me than the (relatively few) fanatics of the Moslem religion is the rise of the evangelical movement, the born again christian right wing, most especially in the US.

The neo-cons, the hawks, the American Zionists who, unlike the 'demonised' Islamic extremists, actually have the money and means to end my way of life. And yours and everyone else on the planet. Really.

The reality is that some of them relish the prospect of Armageddon as it (apparently) will pre-empt the second coming of the Lord. And remember, that born again alcoholic George W has his finger on the nuclear button.

Worried?

How about the fact that much of US foreign policy in the Middle East is geared towards ensuring there are Jews living in the 'promised land' - why? Because it is believed by these very same evangelicals to be a prerequisite of Jesus's return.

Believe me, the real danger is from the US and Israel...

Incidentally, I am not anti-semitic but anti all religions. However, I happen to believe that Israeli propoganda has managed to entrench a view in the west that the minority militias (Hamas, Hezbollah) are responsible for the on-going violence there.Yet the true victims are, and have been since the modern state of Israel was created, the Palestinians and the Lebanese.

Who happen to be largely Moslem.

Meanwhile, Israel thumbs its nose at the UN while running an apartheid state, and their new 'Berlin wall' is yet another of their continued human rights abuses that barely gets a mention in our media. As was the dropping of 3 million cluster bomblets in urban areas of Southern Lebanon - done with the full knowledge that 1 in 3 would remain unexploded and act as illegal anti-personnel mines after hostilities ceased. (Those figures and that condemnation came from the UN, but how much press did that get?)

If you doubt the Zionist agenda then check out this prescient article from the British newspaper 'the Guardian' from 4 years ago:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,785394,00.html

To understand more of why the Isreali state is the real cause of the 'war on terror' check out Bin Laden's own words, from 1998:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html

Religion stinks.

14. Comment #1280 by Will on October 11, 2006 at 5:59 am

15. Comment #1284 by Will on October 11, 2006 at 6:19 am

Sorry for the dual post - computer problems.

Meanwhile, if you cna't be bothered to read the whole Bin Laden interview from 1998 - and pre 9/11 hysteria - then at least read this extract to understand whose way of life is actually threatened by him and why:

Miller: 'The American people, by and large, do not know the name bin Laden, but they soon likely will. Do you have a message for the American people?'

Bin Laden: 'I say to them that they have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration ... . We believe that this administration represents Israel inside America. Take the sensitive ministries such as the Ministry of Exterior and the Ministry of Defense and the CIA, you will find that the Jews have the upper hand in them. They make use of America to further their plans for the world, especially the Islamic world. American presence in the Gulf provides support to the Jews and protects their rear. And while millions of Americans are homeless and destitute and live in abject poverty, their government is busy occupying our land and building new settlements and helping Israel build new settlements in the point of departure for our Prophet's midnight journey to the seven heavens. America throws her own sons in the land of the two Holy Mosques for the sake of protecting Jewish interests. ...'

'The American government is leading the country towards hell. ... We say to the Americans as people and to American mothers, if they cherish their lives and if they cherish their sons, they must elect an American patriotic government that caters to their interests not the interests of the Jews. If the present injustice continues with the wave of national consciousness, it will inevitably move the battle to American soil, just as Ramzi Yousef and others have done. This is my message to the American people. I urge them to find a serious administration that acts in their interest and does not attack people and violate their honor and pilfer their wealth. ...'

***

16. Comment #1418 by Will on October 12, 2006 at 10:24 am

Jay Brown's comments smack of a well read, intellignet guy who has all the hallmarks of religious brainwashing. Sorry Jay - and I have scanned the www.christian-thinktank.com site and checked out the thoelogical arguments you recommend, but frankly it is just a waste of my time.

You see, like many people on here, I cannot take seriously any of the pronouncements in the bible -to me it is a work of fiction, embellished and embroidered by numerous anonymous religious fanatics over centuries. For much of history only the clerics and nobility could read or write, and their translations/copies of the scriptures have been written and rewritten over time based on their own interpretation, to fit the order of the day.

The order of the day? For example, I could not believe a recent serious BBC news interview of a member of the Roman Catholic Church commenting on the existence of 'limbo' for stillborn and other unbaptized children. Apparently the church wants to drop the concept (it is not dogma apparently, merely something that needs 'tidying up'). Why? To save the poor souls of innocent babies who were cursed - firstly to be born to RC parents, and then to die before a priest splashed them with holy water?

Er, no. To combat the upsurge of Islamic recruiting in developing nations. Apparently all Moslem/Muslim babies are innocent and go to heaven when they die. Big selling point where infant mortality is high.

So interpretation of the bible/religious tenets over time will have been affected by Dawkins's zeitgeist. Something similar, in my mind, to Chinese whispers through the ages - but with intent...

Or you could call it propaganda. For goodness sake, even today Bush and his cronies are trying to convince us that Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda despite a 300 page Congressional report that contradicts this assertion. So, to attempt to analyse 'the word of god' in a current English translation surrounding mythical events from thousands of years ago is somewhat redundant.

Furthermore, to take refuge behind claimed pseudo-academic mis-interpretation is naive: christian moral dichotomies exist in modern teachings. And popular evangelists like Pat Robertson (a former US presidential candidate and a man credited with swinging millions of voters for Bush) reach the masses more than obscure theological arguments - they interpret the religion for the general population in terms of their so-called Almighty as vengeful etc. Hence Buchanan's idiotic and offensive comments on the Asian tsunami, amongst other things.

So, can you conceive of my belief that all religion based on some supernatural entity is merely formalised superstition. Accounts of a biblical miracle worker, written some 2 millenia before my time, are of less relevance to me than understanding how David Blaine manages to convince people his illusions, including levitation, are 'magic'. Or how the western media manages to re-interpret events in the Middle East for the benefit of Zionism, and how the CIA factbook entry on Israel airbrushes Palestinian lands out of existence.

Interestingly too, a member of the god-squad above was claiming we would lack a moral compass without the benefit of some sort of omnificent creator... As Batman rightly and eloquently states, we don't need it as humanists.

Incidentally, Buddhism is based on a mere mortal - a man who became 'enlightened' almost 500 years before the birth of Christ - rather than some ficticious ehereal being. Funnily enough no wars have ever been fought in the name of this particular increasingly popular religion. Making it unique, I think. Mmm.

17. Comment #1420 by Will on October 12, 2006 at 10:33 am

Sorry - should have edited that last post:
for Buchanan read Robertson

18. Comment #1504 by Will on October 13, 2006 at 6:18 am

Jay

Let's be honest, eh?

The so-called Christian-Thinktank is just one man's view. His name is Glenn. He is an IT nerd. He quotes a modern English translation of the bible as 'data'.

Puh-lease!

I studied English and the curriculum included Shakespeare. The language from a few hundred years ago is difficult enough for most of us these days... Chaucer is worse, yet he was writing just 600 years before our time. His Middle English is largely impenetrable without a line by line reference for the modern reader. Hence my point about translations over time and the idiocy of trying to analyse the modern versions of the bible as 'the word of God'.

(My comparison with fairy-tales is outwith this point.)

It is facile debating the issues of morality posed by Christianity and our understanding of 'god' - other than by referring to popular teachings of the day. As Dawkins does so eloquently.

Most of us in the west have a sufficent (enforced) grounding in Christian propaganda to make our own minds up. We don't need a zealot who has spuriously set himself on the web up as a 'Thinktank' to guide us to his idiotic conclusions.

For anyone who doubts the way our language has changed over just six centuries here is some Chaucer - bear in mind that in his day many spellings were largely phonetic as the dictionary had yet to be invented:

"Whan Zephirus eek with his swete breeth,
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open eye,
(So priketh hem Nature in hir corages);
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages."

So Jay, are you really expecting us to believe the Christian Thinktank's edition of the bible contains the word of God???

19. Comment #1745 by Will on October 16, 2006 at 9:53 am

AnonAlso

Your use of the term 'the bad guys' and your insistence that the so-called terrorists are the 'initiators' confirms your bias and unwillingness to consider any argument being advanced. Ok, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, but that is not my point. Could I ask you to read the following with an open mind and then let us know who you think are the real bad guys/initiators in Iraq..?

This is a quote from Bush's top terrorist adviser, Richard Clarke, speaking about his conversation with Rumsfeld soon after the terrible Al Qaeda inspired assault on 9/11:

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said... "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

From: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

Mmm. 'Bad guys'?

Incidentally, Clarke had warned of an impending Al Qaeda attack on the mainland of the US for years. The senior members of the Government did not take Bin Laden seriously: they saw him as a joke (yet see my link to his interview above, where he warns the US that he will attack their homeland - and why). No-one in power was interested in what Clarke had to say: their eyes were firmly on Iraq, because (I believe) Bush wanted to finish the job his father started. Clarke's first audience with Bush in his role as the US government's chief terrorist adviser did not occur until after 9/11.

***

And how about this illuminating quote from that alcoholic, born again Christian, the self-styled leader of the free world (not sure when we in the rest of the 'free world' voted for him but there you are, 'democracy' to Americans - in international terms at least - seems to mean the nation with the most money and power can do as it pleases)...

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said. (Washington Post Friday, June 18, 2004)

He is still trying to fudge things despite a 300 page report from his own Congress that denies any link between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Check out the White House website and look at his 'putting the record straight' page to see the mendacious spinning he promotes. It says:

"...He (Bush) Was NOT Drawing An Operational Link Between Al Qaeda And Saddam But Was Making The Point That Both Posed Threats To The World..."

Or how about this, from the BBC site today, a quote from a White House spokesman speaking about US evangelism (ie fundamentalism by Christians), adding yet more fuel to the Islamists' fury?:

"When [the president] talks about the Faith-Based Initiative, this is one of these things where he believes years and years down the road... this is going to be one of the signal accomplishments - harnessing the power of faith in dealing with some of the most intractable problems our society faces."

Frightening, eh?
***

Now, let me ask you, can you try and put yourself in the position of an Iraqi who has seen his country invaded - and now disintegrating - without valid reason? A Muslim Iraqi who understands Bush is a fervent Christian? Could you perhaps conceive of the whole Iraq fiasco as an unjust invasion and part of a holy war?

***
Now, regarding checkpoints, Batman has a valid argument that you pooh-pooh disdainfully. The US has enormous military capability. It spends almost half the total military budget for the entire planet. They do have technology that can help. They have many ways of sniffing out bombs and other explosives in vehicles - if they wanted to use them.

Regardless, in Northern Ireland, at the height of the Troubles (euphemism for major terrorist/freedom fighter activity on the part of the IRA) the Brits had many occasions to worry about cars approaching roadblocks too fast. (Yes, I know the IRA was far too enlightened/cowardly to have suicide bombers, but lobbing grenades, strafings etc were commonplace attacks from speeding vehicles.) Barricades do not have to be concrete bunkers - vehicles can be used, or other items of substance. The correct set-up and a more circumspect approach than that displayed the US in Iraq meant very few deaths from similar incidents.

The Brit soldiers also knew they would be subject to incredible scrutiny by the press and the rule of law for any over-reaction. Something I suggest that is sadly lacking in Iraq, though I also suspect (I admit, I don't know the numbers, but the impression I get is that this is so) there are fewer 'roadblock' shooting incidents in Iraq with the Brits. Certainly one respected BBC reporter in Iraq suggested the attitude of the Brits was markedly different to the defensive yet hostile US approach - and consequently was resulting in fewer confrontations.

Perhaps the reality is that American soldiers are trigger happy and believe, self-righteously, that they are better than the natives (and of course that one US life is far more valuable than one 'rag-head'). They are bolstered in this unsavoury belief by their Commander-in-Chief, who also claims God is on their side.

Maybe you doubt what I have said, in which case I suspect you would prefer to maintain your illusions of the 'good versus evil' fight that George Dubya has foisted on us.

Or is your 'bad guy'/'initiator' argument a little less clear now?

20. Comment #1859 by Will on October 17, 2006 at 9:10 am

'those who oppress women based the "teachings" of a prophet 12 centuries gone by'

Terrorists? Mmm. Interesting that you include this in your definition. You really are a right wing reactionary aren't you AnonAlso? Frankly, lumping this feminist point in with your 'terrorist' definition is rather lame. But ok, let's just think about this one before turning to the rest of your post...

Don't get me wrong, I don't approve of oppressing women, but the US is not blameless in this, (check out the Amish, and others such as the
Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - see:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=527 and related articles. How can such a thing happen in the US? Today?).

Ok, there is none of the hideous female circumcision practised by the worst misogynists in the name of Islam (male oppression rather than religion, in truth), but there is plenty of female oppression in the US right now - a supposedly, advanced and enlightened nation.

More importantly, you seem to find it very difficult to empathise with anyone that has not been born as pampered as you (and I do not assume you are American, just western), but I would ask if you can at least comprehend this in your condemnation of terrorists and your dismissal of the 'freedom fighter' claim:

If you had been born in a country that is technologically backward, that was invaded by aliens with the most sophisticated weoponry in the known universe, if you believed they were trying to destroy your way of life, to overthrow your religion (something you hold dear through your lack of education - but that fact, actually, is through no fault of your own), that life wasn't all that valuable to you, that life might not really be worth living - especially when you are told you can have a much better existence in the hereafter - could you (I ask this rhetorically as you have already shown your inability to think outside your pampered western box) conceive of dying for your cause? With a bomb strapped to your chest? Thinking there was no other option for defiance as the enemy have such massive military superiority.

And maybe even think the current wave of suicide bombings is a reaction to the massive spend on arms by the US and Bush's religious war?

Suicide bombing is their only USP. I use that term semi-facetiously - 'Unique Sales Proposition'. To Al Qaeda and their ilk, this religious advantage is worth more than hundreds of cruise missiles. But can you really blame them for using it, when they are up against the most powerful (and self-righteous) military force in the world? They have no choice. Their barbarity is a consequence of Bush's 'initiation'.

And, is their so much difference between Al Qaeda's indoctrination of suicide bombers than that of the US 'training' and 'conditioining' grunts (usually the poor and disadvantaged who end up as cannon fodder for the likes of George W) to put their lives on the line for political ends?

No doubt you think I am some sort of scruffy, misdirected leftie - but you would be wrong: I do not approve of Al Q's methods; I do not support Bin Laden; I am not anti-semitic; I am not even anti-US (just the current administration)... I am not even anti-war!

However, can I shrug off my western roots sufficiently to envisage a different life, a struggle for life, one that might leave me fighting against a bloated bigoted behemoth that invades and bulldozes my country, that imposes their will on my way of life, that threatens me at every turn, disparagingly calling me a barbarian, dehumanising me and my compatriots... one that barely recognises my right to exist?

I wonder how I would react... Could I strap a bomb to my chest if the circumstances of my birth had been so very different?

Maybe I could... Does that make me a barbarian too?

21. Comment #1865 by Will on October 17, 2006 at 10:00 am

Sorry - some typos in my last but I think you get the gist...

I forgot to mention that the Iraq invasion was not by the UN. It was a coalition outside of the UN, without formal backing. So Anonalso alluding to the 'UN forces' in Iraq currently is just plain wrong.

However, even if the UN were the initiators rather than the US, the reality is that the UN is a US led body: they are on the select team of just 5 permanent members and (like the UK) have the power of veto over any motion - which they regularly use to squash any criticism of Israel... ie they regularly, almost invariably, use the veto against Islamic nations.

Fact.

Eleven of thirteen US vetoes - out of the entire 19 vetoes in total - between 1989 and 2004 were used by the US, giving Israel the green light to continue human rights abuses and other humanitarian travesties. Check it out.

And, if you doubt the origins of the war on terror, please read what Bin Laden has to say in my link (posted above and again now) below - especially the last couple of paras:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html

NB. I still think religion stinks...

22. Comment #1963 by Will on October 18, 2006 at 5:46 am

Anonalso - Your mind seems totally closed: why don't you actually read the links I posted and not just scan them? You keep missing the point - and even accuse me of things I have not said.

You might also find some interesting insights. But I suspect you have an entrenched view that is totally comfortable with the biased western media attitudes that have been inculcated in you.

Why not look into Al Qaeda and the Israeli connection? The Lebanese and the Palestinian dimension? Can you take off the blinkers for long enough? Bin Laden is one of the world's most hated figures but have you ever taken the trouble to actually read anything he has said - apart from some selected soundbites in the western media designed to make you revile him?

Remember, Bin Laden was a US ally when he was fighting the evil empire of the day (the USSR) in Afghanistan. His methods have not changed - he was a terrorist/freedom fighter in those days too - merely the target. Yet the US administration actively supported him back then. The US, frankly, has no moral status in the anti-terrorist argument.

I am not anti-American (but very anti-Bush and co), but you seem enamoured. Did you deliberately understate the number of people in that particularly barmy sect I mentioned (the figure is nearer 10,000 - which suggests to me you did not even read the article). There are plenty of similar travesties in the US. Check it out for yourself. You seem to ignore the Amish too, but perhaps should look more closely at their feminist rights...

By the way, in the US generally, anti-abortionists regularly terrorise civilian clinics. This is a good question posed to Bush in 2001, taken from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3693/is_200111/ai_n8963163:

'In a letter to George W. Bush, Dr. LeRoy H. Carhart revealed the extent of terrorist attacks on abortion providers, staff, and clinics. Since 1977 there have been 7 murders, 17 attempted murders, 41 bombings, 165 arsons, 82 failed bombings and arson attempts, 942 acts of vandalism, 100 butyric acid attacks, 207 anthrax threats, 122 assaults, 340 death threats, and 3 kidnappings. So why isn't Dubya "roundin' up and smokin' out" these right-wing fundamentalist terrorists?'

Makes me wonder - could George Dubya actually condone such a thing?

I do appreciate your thoughts on suicide bombing, though this is not the sole domain of Muslims: in WW2 the Japanese used kamikaze planes against military (ok) targets. In the sixties my parents refused to buy Japanese items because of a similar vilification process that the Islamists now suffer. Fortunately the 'zeitgeist' has definitely moved on regarding, what is now, the second richest nation in the world.

However, US troops in Iraq are rightly perceived as 'aliens' by the indigenous people. The term is not exclusively the domain of ET and his ilk. It is even used in official documentation regarding foreigners in the UK. In Iraq the grunts at checkpoints and elsewhere are legitimate targets, being part of an 'alien' occupying force.

That said, I do not approve of terrorist methods, especially when targetted at civilians (I have been closely involved in an incident - as an almost victim): I was merely confirming that I can empathise with why a subjogated population might resort to this form of attack. Ok, now their attention has turned inward and they are terrorising each other, as you rightly point out. Iraq is descending into sectarian civil war. You might ask yourself 'why?'... and whose fault that really is?

Though I doubt you will, as your mind seems made up.

This is my very last post here - Anonalso. You can have the 'last word' but I will be back to read it.

23. Comment #5165 by Orac on November 7, 2006 at 5:51 pm

Interesting thoughts, but Dawkins' treatment of the whole issue of the morality of strategic bombing and civilian casualties is maddeningly simplistic:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/11/collateral_damage.php

24. Comment #14848 by Veronique on December 25, 2006 at 11:05 pm

Morten Comment 503

Seems to show, though, that the most powerful nation in the world is also morally bankrupt. And these things seem to dance in tandem?

Other Comments by Veronique

25. Comment #40893 by humphrys on May 15, 2007 at 7:08 am

I did not submit the above comment. It is a forgery.

I wrote an Open letter to Richard Dawkins, but it does not work without the links. The forged post above stripped the links.

To see my letter, visit:
http://markhumphrys.com/letter.dawkins.html

Mark

Other Comments by humphrys