Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,597
Re: Hellfire & Brimstone
Sorry, but I don't buy Galloway's statements that US troops will burn in hell as an apology. And as for the two being from the same religion, well, I actually disagree. Bush's statements clearly come from a Christian perspective, I don't think we're in disagreement about that. Galloway himself doesn't strike me as particularly religious, so I don't think he's expressing any religious sentiment of his own. Rather, I think he's pandering to the religious sensibilities of his audience, in this case a mostly muslim audience. So in what sense is Galloway's statement Christian, rather than islamic? Because he lives in a country that's still more christian than islamic? I'm not sure that's really the relevant factor, and his own current district is predominantly muslim anyways. In the absence of any indications of Galloway's personal religious beliefs (I don't care to search extensively, but I haven't run across any so far), the only logical religious label I can see to attach to his statement is the label of his audience.
Iraqis are getting killed every day by insurgents. If Galloway actually had sympathy for Iraqis, rather than just a simpering hatred of the US, then he would oppose those insurgents, who now primarily kill their fellow Iraqis. But he doesn't. He considers people who kidnap retarded children and send them to die to try to kill people for the sole crime of wanting to vote as more legitimate than the people that 8 million Iraqis elected to government. Sorry, but in my book, that's not empathising with suffering, that's siding with the enemy. You can argue all you want to about whether or not we should have invaded, and that's fine, but it's inhuman and evil to side with the monsters who think that suicide bombing against civilian targets is an acceptable form of expressing political opinion.
Mephisto said:
Sorry, but I don't buy Galloway's statements that US troops will burn in hell as an apology. And as for the two being from the same religion, well, I actually disagree. Bush's statements clearly come from a Christian perspective, I don't think we're in disagreement about that. Galloway himself doesn't strike me as particularly religious, so I don't think he's expressing any religious sentiment of his own. Rather, I think he's pandering to the religious sensibilities of his audience, in this case a mostly muslim audience. So in what sense is Galloway's statement Christian, rather than islamic? Because he lives in a country that's still more christian than islamic? I'm not sure that's really the relevant factor, and his own current district is predominantly muslim anyways. In the absence of any indications of Galloway's personal religious beliefs (I don't care to search extensively, but I haven't run across any so far), the only logical religious label I can see to attach to his statement is the label of his audience.
Iraqis are getting killed every day by insurgents. If Galloway actually had sympathy for Iraqis, rather than just a simpering hatred of the US, then he would oppose those insurgents, who now primarily kill their fellow Iraqis. But he doesn't. He considers people who kidnap retarded children and send them to die to try to kill people for the sole crime of wanting to vote as more legitimate than the people that 8 million Iraqis elected to government. Sorry, but in my book, that's not empathising with suffering, that's siding with the enemy. You can argue all you want to about whether or not we should have invaded, and that's fine, but it's inhuman and evil to side with the monsters who think that suicide bombing against civilian targets is an acceptable form of expressing political opinion.