A narrative essay by – Heather Spoonheim

 

 

It has, of late, become impossible to compare or contrast the Abrahamic religions without encountering the theatrics of fear-mongering Islamophobes. Coherent dialogue rapidly becomes a phantom as emotional pleas propel themselves up slippery slopes, launching into nationalistic tirades. The greatest trick of the labyrinth lay in the abstractly, yet inextricably bound concepts of religion, culture, and government.

 

The enemies are as elusive as the various deities, who are, ironically, one. Each of the Abrahamic religions can be blamed for, as well as declared a victim of, some historic atrocity. Devotees of each chapter of the Abrahamic trilogy have killed, or been killed by, devotees of both other chapters. Many nations have state religions, or at least religions alleged to be at their foundation, but none of them rely on their god for protection; they turn, in his stead, to the weapons of man.

 

For most of the life of this writer, the balance of religious violence has been confined to the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Having been cognizant of this conflict and observing, at times, daily reports on the violence, political contexts, ideologies, and grievances for over 30 years while also having read over a dozen books on the subject, one thing is clear: religion no longer has anything to do with it. Jesus Christ could appear in the Hubble Telescope tomorrow, zooming in faster than light to take his throne in Jerusalem and the Israelis and Palestinians would both start shooting at him, each declaring him to be a fraud perpetrated by the other.

 

Even if the entire Jewish population of Israel converted to Islam tomorrow, Palestinians would still hate them and want to kill them; so too would it be vice versa. The erasure of religion altogether would not erase the hatred of groups identified as murderers, racially defined boundaries, or the lust of politicians for garnering station and status. Failing all else, cultures would be redefined by ideologies as arbitrary as opening boiled eggs from the big or small end.

 

For the rest of us, this Jewish/Muslim conflict spilled out onto the world stage on the 11th of September, in the year of the Christian lord, two thousand and one. The images of the horror were burned into the Western mind in a televised holocaust. The broadcasts repeatedly informed viewers that 50,000 people worked at the World Trade Center. As the towers collapsed, many viewers, including this writer, fell to their knees and were reminded yet again that 50,000 people worked in those towers.

 

Before the estimates of fatalities had dropped below ten thousand, the face and name of Osama Bin Laden were branded into the Western psyche. He was an Arab, and a known Islamic terrorist who was at the top of the FBI’s most wanted list: a prime suspect. As the estimates of fatalities continued to drop, the hatred of al-Qaeda, Islam, and Arabs in general, escalated – and the proverbial finger of blame began to swing wildly.

 

A Democratic President had rocketed al-Qaeda training camps but had failed to capture the Islamic terrorist who had openly declared war on the U.S. over 3 years earlier. The Republican Commander in Chief at the time of the attacks had failed to act on intelligence reports that might have saved so many lives. The American intelligence community had dropped the ball repeatedly by not sharing information efficiently. Noam Chomsky was quick to blame Western civilization itself but that finger of blame was leveled too quickly, too harshly, and was bitten off; many still chew on it.

 

By the end of the month some backward clerics from a podunk country were given an international audience. Osama Bin Laden was there, it was claimed, and that shoddy lineup of holy men wouldn’t hand him over. There was no way to declare war on the country, however, because those holy men were not recognized as the official government and, in any event, had no connection with the attacks. The solution was to declare a military action and label it a ‘War on Terror’; Ted Turner must have peed a little.

 

By the end of the year it was clear that roughly 3,000 Americans had died at the hands of terrorists in the September 11 attacks; little to no attention was given to the fact that during the course of that same year Americans themselves had killed roughly 16,000 Americans; it was time for the enemy to start spilling some blood. Who was this enemy though? We were told that we weren’t at war with Arabs, Islam, or even any single nation. In a post hoc twist, we were told that we weren’t even at war with al-Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden.

 

We were at war with those who despised freedom, and we had to sacrifice freedoms to protect freedoms. We were killing people overseas so that we could spread freedom. In America, habeas corpus was suspended, the intelligence community began illegal wire taps, secret warrants, courts, and arrests were authorized, and the American President himself gave the green-light to torture – all in the name of freedom. The notion of protecting freedom became as convoluted as the notion of a god who fathered himself so he could kill himself to appease himself at the anger he harboured for that which he had himself created in his own image. The scripture for protecting freedom became bound in The Patriot Act; a scripture that was re-consecrated today, a decade after the infamous attacks.

 

Somewhere along the way Iraq was invaded as well; it is still occupied. The determination of civilians and enemy combatants in an occupied country is a philosophical paradox but, nonetheless, the Iraqi death toll from the ‘War on Terror’ is irrefutably into the six figures and terrorism is more rampant there than ever before. The death toll in the Afghani theatre of the ‘War on Terror’ is impossible to establish, but it isn’t any better than in Iraq. This is the death toll inflicted by the West in the ‘War on Terror’: a war that has never been declared on Islam but which, nonetheless seems to claim primarily Islamic victims.

 

Today there are those who feel the need to declare Islam a threat, to ring the alarms, sound the bells, and run madly down the street screaming; others are much more eloquent in their declarations of the Islamic threat. Although terrorist have never, in a single calendar year, around the world, killed more people than Americans kill Americans in the same calendar year – they are a scourge on humanity and must be stopped. They have no nation other than Islam common to them, so it must be that religion of theirs that drives them to such madness. Their madness could not possibly derive from the occupation of their lands by foreign powers, for they have always been terrorists, all the way back to Sayyid Qutb, who was born as the world was shifting into a petroleum economy. This sarcasm only grows a little dry when it is pointed out that suicide bombers are far more frightening, even if less deadly, than American criminals with handguns.

 

The ‘War on Terror’ is an oxymoron, an hypocrisy, and an abject failure. The death tolls prove that the West has been the greatest terrorist in the world for the past decade. Freedom cannot be delivered to a nation; it must be won by that nation. Will the West recognize an elected Iraqi or Afghani government that does not espouse Western values? Are they free to adopt sharia as their system of law if they freely choose to do so?

 

Perhaps the greatest failure of the ‘War on Terror’ is the toll it has taken on the capacity and moral stance of the West to respond to the nuclear proliferation of Iran. The one country in the Middle East that was actually on course to pose a serious threat to the world has been left to develop its nuclear capabilities. Rather than chasing phantom enemies or developing a hatred for Islam, we would have been far better reasoned to focus on Mouhmoud Ahmadinejad. Let us not, however, make the mistake of calling this man an Islamic threat.

 

Unlike Osama Bin Laden, Mouhmoud Ahmadinejad is a head of state who openly declares his hatred of the West and all Judaism. He is actively pursuing nuclear technology and, although we have him surrounded, any move against him is going to seal our fate with all of Islam. We are at a precipice overlooking the eternal hatred that exists between Palestine and Israel. If we allow Islamophobia to control our adrenal gland, all the terrorists need do is say boo and we’ll be diving into an ocean of hatred that will outlast our species.

 

How can the West justify an attack on Iran while North Korea has been dealt with through economic sanctions? Islam is no justification at all considering the cult of personality that surrounds Kim Jong-Il; that guy makes Mouhmoud Ahmadinejad look like Sigmund Freud. Islam, however, will be seen as the culprit whether declared as such or not.

 

With the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, the tolerance of torture and secret prisons, and a death toll that is still ticking, the West has lost the advantage of any moral stance to which it ever laid claim. Our open ended ‘War on Terror’ is one step away from being a war on Islam and most in the East perceive the West to have crossed that line 8 years ago in full sprint. Adding cultural hatred of Islam to our repertoire will only serve as the cement that binds us to our extinction.

 

If the West engages the East in a war of ideologies it will only be a matter of time until, like Israel and Palestine, religion will no longer be needed to perpetuate the violence. Honestly, this writer feels that the only option we have left is to allow Iran to develop its nuclear capability as we get our asses the hell out of there. We can always take solace in the fact that the only planet destroying nuclear arsenal in the world resides in the United States of America; let’s just make sure fundamentalist Christianity doesn’t gain control of it.

Views: 82

Comment by R1Gami on June 1, 2011 at 12:33am

Nice piece. I absolutely agree with you that Islamophobia has run wild and needs to be tamed in order to have any semblance of a rational foreign policy.

 

Unfortunately, the United States is not the only country with a planet destroying nuclear arsenal however.

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on June 1, 2011 at 12:37am
Are we still worried about the Soviets?
Comment by R1Gami on June 1, 2011 at 12:56am

"We" being...the United States military?  Or "the west"?

I cannot say for sure, but given that the United States government (on balance) is ever-interested in signing/extending/updating the START treaty (as they should) then..yes they are worried about the Russian arsenal.  Given that the Russian arsenal is even larger than the American one, that makes sense.

 

As for myself personally, nuclear weapons are a threat as long as they exist.  Having the finished product is more dangerous than having it on the way.  A built Russian, American, Chinese, French etc. etc. nuclear weapon is more dangerous than a potential Iranian nuclear weapon.

 

Additionally, the environmental fallout from a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would be no joke for the rest of us.  No they don't have a 'vaporize every major city' size arsenal between them, but if they unloaded on each other the outcome would still be...ugly.  For humans everywhere and the planet in general.

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on June 1, 2011 at 1:16am

My problem with the estimated size of the Soviet arsenal has always been the comedic preposterousness of all cold war anti-Soviet propaganda.  We were shown pictures of Orthodox Churches and told they were missile silos disguised as churches.  The supporting claim was that all Russians were Atheists so the churches were obviously a ruse.  The Hungarian, Polish, Ukrainian, and Russian immigrants in our local churches begged to differ.

 

I spent the first 9 years of my life in a sleepy Canadian prairie town with a population of around 20,000.  We were told at least twice each year that the Russians had a nuke with our name on it and it could arrive within 6 hours of the button being pushed.  We were told that since the Russians had targeted towns as small as ours they must have tens of thousands of those missiles on hand.  The local Soviet defectors were often witnessed shipping toilet paper, tooth paste, and soap back to the homeland because apparently the Russians couldn't maintain the factories that produced such luxuries.

 

The Russians themselves, however, had no qualms about our overestimations; it played right into their own impotence.  Growing up as the third generation to fear them, the fear had come to be spread rather thin.  Even so, some ridiculous small prairie towns still test their air raid sirens every single day, to this day.

 

I guess it could very well be that the Russians have as many nukes as the Americans but I've honestly never seen any convincing evidence of it.  On the contrary, all I've seen and heard makes me believe the threat of their arsenal is as fictitious as hell.

Comment by Albert Bakker on June 1, 2011 at 1:24am

Making a nuclear weapon can be easy, a "gun type" a.b. - in principle, but making an effective one is very, very difficult. Miniaturizing it, to the point where you can fit it on a (guided) delivery system is extremely complicated.

In order for Iran to even be able to make a crude weapon, they'd first have to kick out the IAEA, advertising their intentions, presumably so we can prepare, then try to fabricate a nuclear stockpile from scratch and then fly their untested bomb in one of their antique aircraft across half the planet to deliver a bomb that - in the off chance it works - won't hit the ground before Teheran is transmorphed into a glass desert.

I thought the US and Russian arsenal were roughly in balance, but it seems you are right that the Russians are a little ahead (or maybe a little less cost-effective.) These are the estimated stockpiles: http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on June 1, 2011 at 1:31am

The FAS estimates are, like many others, based on a great deal of speculation.  It's been a decade since I investigated such estimates, but the last time I did several source citations were listed as 'classified'.  To me that has always mean that the estimate for the Russians is exactly what the U.S. intelligence community wants it to be - much like the estimate of WMD's in Iraq.

 

They state:

Accordingly, while the estimate for the United States is based on real numbers, the estimates for several of the other nuclear weapon states are highly uncertain. 

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on June 1, 2011 at 1:35am
As far as Iran's delivery capability - they really only need to get their nuke as far as Israel, and they have a lot of friendly territory available for such travel plans.  Israel is the biggest wild card in the equation, and I am interested in their targeting priority.
Comment by Asma Anonymous on June 1, 2011 at 1:46am

This is a very interesting article, nicely-written. You phrased a multitude of problems particularly well. It's a very explosive situation and I really hope somehow humanity as a whole manages to execute some method of disarming it. 

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on June 1, 2011 at 2:01am
Thanks, AA.  I hope we can find a way out of turning the entire Middle East into the West Bank.
Comment by R1Gami on June 1, 2011 at 2:46am

I should clarify that I'm not attempting to diminish the size of the American arsenal by saying "hey look at the Russians over there!"  But I am trying to make a contribution to your blog.

 

Yes the USSR suffered economic collapse, and I believe you that defectors were sending back what we'd consider basic goods...but that says nothing about whether some of the resources the government did have were spent on nuclear weapons.  China, India, Pakistan, North Korea...all of them developed, built, and tested nuclear weapons while the majority of their populations suffered economic deprivation.  World history is replete with examples of leaders deciding that military hardware is more important than basic public welfare.

 

As for the U.S. Intelligence Community having a WMD fabrication habit...certainly the Russians could issue a counter-claim if the number is fabricated as you suggest.  If that truly is the case, it seems odd that they would agree to START II and the inspection of their weapons by American officials it entails.  If you felt that the US government was running around telling egregious lies about the status of your nuclear arsenal, would you so readily agree to a treaty about it?  Couldn't you use the new version of the treaty as a moment to exercise leverage in getting the USA to stop lying about your weapons programs like they did about Iraq?

 

The point is, the data suggests the Russians have an arsenal at least as large as the United States.  Even if the Russians have 'only' ¼ the arsenal that the numbers suggest...that's still well over 2500 nuclear warheads.  A number which would qualify it as a "planet destroying nuclear arsenal" by any reasonable standard.

 

Ultimately that's all immaterial to my position, which is:

1. ANY nuclear weapon poses a threat because nuclear weapons are inherently dangerous

 - A nation has to not only never elect to launch the weapon, but keep it maintained, prevent malfunction, keep it secure from military launch in the absence of government approval, and prevent it from being stolen by those who would use it (or transfer it to others who would).  All of which means even if you trust a nation's government...any nuclear weapon is a liability against human well-being.

 

Incidentally, my position means that even if the Russian nuclear warhead count was zero...I'd still consider our world to have a nuclear weapon problem.  If the USA followed suit and hit zero...I'd still consider the world to have a nuclear weapon problem.  If the UK followed suit and hit zero...I'd still consider...you get the point.

Until the global count is zero, we have a nuclear weapons problem.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Blog Posts

My Dad and the Communist Spies

Posted by Brad Snowder on August 20, 2014 at 2:39pm 0 Comments

Breaking Free

Posted by A. T. Heist on August 20, 2014 at 9:56am 4 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service