Al-Zarqawi: Democracy a lie

Again you are trying to cast Al-Zarqawi as a defender of a point of view. One with which you may not personally agree, but can understand. You base this on the premise that the US is attempting to impose democracy on Iraq. It is a strange imposition that is supported by at least 60% of the population, and wanting to rule a country with an iron fist can hardly be described as a point of view.

Do you understand Hitler's aversion to jews, even though you don't agree with it? Do you understand the ethnic cleansing that took place in Serbia, even though you didn't agree with it. Do you understand why Hutus would slaughter Tustsis in Rwanda, even though you didn't agree with it?[/color]

Hitler hoped to exterminate Jews because Hitler and the Nazis were racist. They believed the German people were a 'master race', who were superior to others. They even created a league table of 'races' with the Aryans at the top and with Jews, Gypsies and black people at the bottom. These 'inferior' people were seen as a threat to the purity and strength of the German nation. When the Nazis came to power they persecuted these people, took away their human rights and eventually decided that they should be exterminated.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Again you are trying to cast Al-Zarqawi as a defender of a point of view. One with which you may not personally agree, but can understand. You base this on the premise that the US is attempting to impose democracy on Iraq. It is a strange imposition that is supported by at least 60% of the population, and wanting to rule a country with an iron fist can hardly be described as a point of view.

[/color]

Although you have an aversion to his methods (or his madness), I fail to see how this man does not have a point of view.
In the US, a slight majority supports Bush. In Iraq, 60% support democracy, leaving 40% supporting some other ideology.

Of course he has a point of view. His point of view is that he should be running Iraq. You, however, seem to want to suggest that there is some intrinsic validity to all points of view, and it is quite hard to escape the conclusion that you believe that he possesses at least a shred of honor for wanting to defend his own. This sort of post modernist slant on the world is something to which I most certainly do have an aversion. It not only allows for, it righteously demands serious consideration of all points of view, even those of a murderous lunatic.

The point that at least 60% of the population supports democracy is made to underscore the foolishness of any contention that America is imposing democracy on Iraq. That this implies that the other 40% of the population would prefer something other than democracy in no way means that they all want the same thing, or, more importantly, that Zarqawi represents that 40%, or any significant percentage for that matter.

In Zarqawi we are not faced with a charismatic leader of a popular movement based on any identifiable ideology. He is not a Mao, not a Juarez, not a Lenin, nor a Washington. He is not even Iraqi and therefore any claim to Iraqi nationalism would be false as well. His is not a political movement, it is the advancement of death and destruction.
I guess understanding where one's perspectives are derived, or how they manifest is something you are unable to do if you do not agree with it.
There are plenty initiatives Bush puts forth that I don't agree with, but I nevertheless see where it's coming from as irrational or repugnant as they may seem to me personally.
Agreeing with a perspective, an ideology or a philosophy is not a prerequisite for the recognition of a point of view.

That you would in any way compare George Bush to Zarqawi is not surprising, but it is ridiculous at best.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Do you understand Hitler's aversion to jews, even though you don't agree with it? Do you understand the ethnic cleansing that took place in Serbia, even though you didn't agree with it. Do you understand why Hutus would slaughter Tustsis in Rwanda, even though you didn't agree with it?[/color]

Quote:

Hitler hoped to exterminate Jews because Hitler and the Nazis were racist. They believed the German people were a 'master race', who were superior to others. They even created a league table of 'races' with the Aryans at the top and with Jews, Gypsies and black people at the bottom. These 'inferior' people were seen as a threat to the purity and strength of the German nation. When the Nazis came to power they persecuted these people, took away their human rights and eventually decided that they should be exterminated.

Source

In Rwanda, the genocide was similar in type to Nazi germany, as it was the result of a perceived racial superiority. It was the manifestation of tribal warfare, and the systematic elimination of one of the tribes by another.

Ummmm...I guess I have to say that, yes, I do understand what these leaders/nations/organizations motives, although I don't explicitly or tacitly support or endose their actions.
Similarily, there are few initiatives George Bush has implemented that I
agree with, but I nevertheless understand his point of view.
I realize that you are trying to take select worst case scenarios and make me out as evil for merely understanding the motives behind such decisions/actions. But I rarely agree with the things I go to lengths to attempt to understand.
To me, this is about a curb-height obstacle.

No, I don't believe you are evil. Not in the least. Wooly headed perhaps but not evil, because I don't believe you do understand why hundreds of thousands of Rwandans were hacked to pieces by their neighbors simply because they were members of another tribe, nor any of the other heinous examples of murderous slaughter that have taken place over the course of history. You may understand the social and political conditions that lead to these abhorrent acts, but that is something quite different from understanding what makes a man capable of sawing off another man's head, or hacking off the limbs of a woman while he is raping her, shooting children in front of their mothers.

And even if you can and do, to what purpose? Is there any set of circumstances that render these actions acceptable? Could your understanding ever be used to prevent them?

No, I think you and other who profess to understand Zarqawi's motives do so in reaction to those of us who see him for what he is, a murderous thug and nothing more. I appreciate that you are not trying to defend him, but you are trying to suggest that there is a lack of sophistication to our thought, and, more importantly, that George Bush is not so damned wonderful. Your repeated references to Bush in your replies is quite telling.

It grates you and your confreres that Bush thinks he's such a champion of freedom and democracy (and by extension any of us who think he is too).
How can he be so wonderful, how can our Iraqi adventure be so noble, when there is someone in Iraq who is leading an insurgency? It must be an insurgency with some shred of legitimacy or else the cause is noble the action correct. If those who are resisting the plan are merely murderous criminals or people who would rather not give up their former positions of power, then it's tough to find fault in the plan.

So combine a post-modernist view of the world with good old fashioned partisan hatred for Bush and we find someone who understands Zarqawi.