Political Debate Sans Knowledge

Hello to all, I hope this finds everyone well,

Last night, I made a post. Someone said I was being a hater because I am opposed to US foreign policy, and accused me of an anti-American agenda. I do not, but I felt a need to prove myself.

As a result, I decided to show something good--not that I believe the bloodshed was an acceptable price-- nevertheless we were talking about Iraq therefore I showed Arbaeen processions in Kerbala, Iraq. www.youtube.com...

Understandably, no one would be able to understand the words, but words are unimportant. The video footage's I shared I am unable to watch without being moved to tears and words cannot describe my heart concerning the knowledge that Kerbala, Iraq is, once again, free to Shi'a of Iraq and the world, that we may participate in mourning processions among other events at the shrine of Imam Hussain (as).

I posted links to a few video's of this, with the statement "here is one good thing that came out of this". (or something to that effect) Everyone posting postured themselves as being very knowledgeable on the topic of Iraq, the war, blackwater, basically every aspect. Therefore, I assumed pictures of 15-18 million people in Kerbala, Iraq for Arbaeen would be common knowledge.

But apparently most did not understand what they were seeing. I was tired, and I should have explained the video's for those who had no knowledge of Iraq, which was my mistake; yet, more should have known.

My point being, how can anyone support a war in foreign countries they no nothing about?

If you do not know the people, the country, the dynamics of the politics in the country, the values of the people, or any other aspect, how can you posture being either for or against any action? If you have never even seen a picture, or spoken to those living inside the country, how can you take sides?

I do not believe you can! People are relying solely on what they are told, by media they believe lies, yet, when it comes to foreign occupation, and foreign wars, everyone is quick to take sides.

This time, this war which is coming, I ask one thing. Find the truth, speak to the people, learn all you can about the country, find the middle ground, the one which is to neither extreme, and then make a decision. But make it based on as much knowledge from ALL sources.

An informed citizenship is necessary. Key word; INFORMED

I agree with you entirely about positions being taken on places most of us have never seen and never will set foot in. I guess we have freedoms like that here and thankfully, little to no power to go with it in making decisions based on that empty position. Fair enough on your points...just remember we're all bloggers out here (well...most of us) and so, not quite needing to meet the same standard as say...Colin Powell at the UN.

At the same time..I read your OP and couldn't help think what I wrote above with another thought equally dominant. As much as the lack of position, duties and education apply for a little forgiveness in Bloggers.....the same problems pretty well exist for lack of experience or knowledge in Congress and the White House (This..and previous ones). THAT is what scares me.

We debate sans knowledge all too often. Our leaders make DECISIONS with that same lack of understanding.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

We debate sans knowledge all too often. Our leaders make DECISIONS with that same lack of understanding.

I understand the 'we are all bloggers out here' that you said. Therefore taking a middle ground position and perhaps spending more time attempting to decipher the truth concerning 1 topic instead of blogging on 10 sans knowledge might be a good start. This is when you begin to find the informed citizenship, it is better to read 1 well researched article than 20 copy paste articles, from nefarious sources.


You however, pointed out one thing that was not occurring to me. You are absolutely correct about the policy makers having similar lack of knowledge. They also are getting their information from elsewhere, and that elsewhere may have a serious agenda, one harmful to everyone.

You are correct, that is probably scariest of all!

A most excellent post and wonderful contribution!

An important message.

As I said to the OP in a U2U, life is such that it often demands we support our own "group" - family, tribe, country. This seems unavoidable. And yet, even as we do this, we lose our humanity if we cannot accept the fundamental humanity of the "other," too. Part of this is a committment to attaining objective knowledge of every situation, insofar as we are able.

I want to add something to this, and that is to emphasise to everyone who reads this thread, that there are good Muslims in the world. I don't claim to know everything about the religion, and I'm also not trying to deny that the violent radicals and jihadists do not exist; I know they do.

Too often, though, negative generalisations are made. To a mind polarised with fear, everyone who self-identifies as Islamic is viewed as a terrorist; and it is an inappropriate generalisation.

Most of all, we need to start viewing people, not as terrorists, and not even as Muslims, but as human beings. The first and most cruel step which any campaign of demonisation must take, is to depict the presented "enemy," or threat as non-human. We don't want to kill other human beings, and the psychopaths know that. They also know, therefore, that the most important thing for them to do, in order to break down that resistance, is to depict the people they want us to kill, as literally being something other than human.

They did that with the Japanese in WW2, and with the Germans. The enemy ceases to be regarded as human. The Germans became, "Jerries," the Japanese, "Japs," the Vietnamese, "gooks," and the Iraqis or other Muslims, "ragheads," or "hajjis."

The psychopaths want us to see the people who they depict as enemies, in exactly the same way that Alfred Hitchcock wanted an audience to see the monsters in his movies; as a shadowy, elusive, alien, utterly unknown "other," that can manifest at any time, and which operates purely as a force of nature. This "other," is depicted as having no ethics, no empathy, no coherent thought, but which murders human beings and causes mayhem within a logical vacuum; supposedly purely because it can.

This is how the American government, media, and AIPAC want Americans and non-Muslims to view Islam; and it is also, incidentally, how the American government wanted people to view Russian Communists. Russia as a nationality probably still hasn't entirely recovered from America's demonisation; the Iron Curtain was arguably more of an American invention than a Russian one.

Don't fall for it. Realise that Islam is being treated as merely another in a long line of bogeymen, in order to feed the fires of the industrial war machine. Islam hasn't been the first scapegoat, and it also won't be the last.

reply to post by silent thunder


As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy.
Christopher Dawson, The Judgment of the Nations, 1942

Those who study evil are studied by evil.

I myself do what I can to research the actual facts and sift through what's actual propaganda before I decide to support a military action or war or not.

For example, many people oppose the war with Iraq, but many people don't know that we did have treaties with Kuwait to act on their behalf if they should come under attack.

So should we ignore our treaties and contracts with other countries? If we did so, what kind of nasty reputations would we develop and why should countries do any business with us if we don't keep our word?

Overall I support the War On Terror. But I don't support losing our rights and liberties over it.