Airstrikes in Pakistan
If you want something a bit under the radar to worry about, consider Greg Miller’s LA Times article on the increasing use of airstrikes in Pakistan against alleged al-Qaeda targets.
I can’t imagine that an American president ever would or should completely disavow the right to launch this sort of attack. But still, I think people should be concerned about our government’s growing enthusiasm for this tactic and the possibility that the Obama administration will start to rely on it even more heavily. Simply put, there’s little evidence to suggest that this kind of thing can achieve a strategic victory over al-Qaeda, though it may or may not reduce short-term vulnerabilities. In his analysis for CAP of the airstrikes, Colin Cookman observed:
While these strikes may bear some meaningful short- and medium-term successes, as a long-term strategy their value is less clear. Research from the RAND Corporation into the case histories of 648 terrorist organizations that carried out attacks between 1968 and 2006 found that only 7 percent were successfully eliminated through direct military force. This is in contrast to 43 percent who dropped their violent activities after some form of political accommodation and 40 percent who were broken up successfully through some combination of local policing, infiltration, and prosecution.
The impact of these strikes on public opinion in the Muslim world writ large, and specifically on political dynamics inside Pakistan, can easily outweigh the gains from killing even a bona fide bad guy. The fact that Miller’s intelligence sources deem the program an unqualified success based on what look to be pure body count considerations is disturbing. There’s no use in killing a terrorist if in the course of doing so you accidentally kill a civilian whose two sons grow up dreaming of avenging their father’s murder, or if it makes it impossible to stay politically viable in Pakistan while publicly cooperating with the United States. This is a delicate balance in which all the considerations need to be taken seriously.
49 Responses to “Airstrikes in Pakistan”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 22nd, 2009 at 2:15 pm
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I look forward to the Mexican government’s drone attacks on Arizona gun stores which are supplying the drug cartels.
Don’t tell me it’s not the same, because it is.
March 22nd, 2009 at 2:17 pm
They should avoid hitting wedding parties if possible. What, do the bad guys only come out of hiding to attend weddings?
I do think that Pakistan had a “color” revolution, like the Orange, Cedar, and Rose varieties. Civil society peacefully pushed out Musharaff and forced the current government to reinstate the admired chief justice, symbol of an impartial, unbiased legal system. Good for them.
March 22nd, 2009 at 2:27 pm
“I look forward to the Mexican government’s drone attacks on Arizona gun stores which are supplying the drug cartels.
Don’t tell me it’s not the same, because it is.”
And the bizzaro logic award goes to……
March 22nd, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Re: I do think that Pakistan had a “color” revolution, like the Orange, Cedar, and Rose varieties.
And just like all of them, this ‘color’ revolution will inevitably fail. Liberal democracy can never work in Pakistan, Lebanon, or the former Soviet countries, as it is completely foreign to the cultural, social, and economic makeup of those countries. It is a Western, Anglo-American import, and the sooner it collapses the better.
March 22nd, 2009 at 2:34 pm
One might have imagined that, once the idiot Bush was out of office, that sensible people would get rid of the stupid idea of ‘global democratization’, ’spreading the gospel of liberty’, and other such vile folly. But, evidently, on this matter Obama is no better than Bush.
March 22nd, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Aren’t these US drone flights based in Pakistan? It might be US technology and US operations but it looks an awful lot like Pakistan is kinda sorta OK with doing the strikes in it’s own territory, much of which is outside the effective control of government. The media dance of condemnations that is part of the politics shouldn’t be confused with actual operation.
I’m not saying it’s a good or bad idea to make these strikes. I am saying the sitting government of Pakistan is onboard everywhere but in official statements.
March 22nd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
“Liberal democracy can never work in Pakistan, Lebanon, or the former Soviet countries, as it is completely foreign to the cultural, social, and economic makeup of those countries.”
What makes Pakistan any different than India, where liberal democracy is possible? Aside from a different religious make-up, Pakistan is very similar to Northern India. Both were previously part of the British Empire and both were part of the Mughal Empire prior to that. The languages are pretty similar (Punjabi and Urdu are spoken by many Indians). In fact, Northern India has a lot more in common with Pakistan than it has with Southern India. Southern India was never part of the Mughal Empire, and much of it was never even part of the British Empire. The languages are completely different (Dravidian rather than Indo-European). The food is even different. And India can manage to keep the north and south together. I see no reason why democracy would be any less successful in Pakistan than it is in India. In fact, I’d expect Pakistan to be easier to govern given that it has a more homogeneous culture. Now, Pakistan does have one huge hurdle facing it: it has a military that’s prone to overthrowing democracies. But that is a problem with its military leadership, not the country. Democracy would have greater success in Pakistan if democratic leaders didn’t face the constant threat of military coups.
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:02 pm
“The impact of these strikes on public opinion in the Muslim world writ large, and specifically on political dynamics inside Pakistan, can easily outweigh the gains from killing even a bona fide bad guy.”
Jesus Christ, it’s sometimes amazing just how much of a wussy you are. Yes, “the fact that Miller’s intelligence sources deem the program an unqualified success based on what look to be pure body count considerations is disturbing.” But is there actually ANY situation in which you don’t end up wringing your hands over the risk that the strategic costs of actually killing bad guys sometimes outweighs the tactical gains?
Some problems can’t be solved; they can only be managed. Terrorism, unfortunately, appears to be in this category. Should we be trying to “drain the swamp?” Sure, but killing people with critical operational and leadership skills will help too.
fostert raises a key question: Why did Pakistan and India diverge so much in their governance upon independence?
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Drum points out today a story saying that once we stopped telling the Pakistanis where we were going to hit and just did it, the leadership of the insurgents there began to turn on each other because we started killing so many of them. The government seems quietly okay with this as long as we keep the civilian collateral damage low.
So basically we are in a race: can we destabilize the enemies in that region before the populace gets fed up they revolt and hand over their nukes to AQ?
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:08 pm
“Why did Pakistan and India diverge so much in their governance upon independence?”
I’ll take a stab at it, but I’m not sure I really believe this theory. I think it has mostly to do with the different sizes of the the two countries. Pakistan has about 1/7th the population of India, but it’s army is about half the size of India’s. And it needs an army that big to have a credible defense against India. The result is that Pakistan’s military has a lot more clout within the country than India’s. It is more capable of mounting a coup, so it does.
Pakistan’s army is also much more paranoid than India’s, and with good reason. They lost a good chunk of their country when Bangladesh rebelled. And that rebellion was supported by India. The Pakistani army has every reason to fear rebellion from its people. So it tends to act quickly and aggressively in the face of instability. My guess is that Pakistan would be a more stable country if India were a more responsible country. I do know this: the Partition was a bad idea. Both India and Pakistan would be better off if they didn’t expend so much of their resources trying to kill each other.
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:20 pm
How come we only hear about how “counterproductive” it is to fight back when it is terrorists getting killed?
We never hear how it is “counterproductive” when terrorists deliberately blow up an American, or an Iraqi, or an Afghan. Never.
But when we shoot back, we are invariably treated to a handwringing session of angry relatives “fighting back” and “learning to hate America”.
The only problem is that we haven’t killed enough of these bastards. I’m no Obama fan but I welcome the use of American military power to crush the Taliban, al Qaeda, and anyone hanging around with them. It would be a pleasant surprise if Obama got this one right.
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Why are you people talking about an effort to export liberal democracy? These airstrikes aren’t an effort to export liberal democracy – they’re an effort to kill high-level al Qaeda leaders.
For that matter, why is Matt talking about here’s little evidence to suggest that this kind of thing can achieve a strategic victory over al-Qaeda This is an effort to achieve a strategic victory over al Qaeda; it’s an effort to keep their heads down, erode their capabilities and manage the problem.
If we are, indeed, finally growing up and treating the problem of a al Qaeda as something that needs to be managed and minimized, like trash collection or police patrols, instead of like a 19th century war that ends with a total victory for one side, and then everybody goes home because the war’s over, that is a very, very, very, very good thing.
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Some problems can’t be solved; they can only be managed. I agree with Larry Birnbaum who, whether he knows it or not, is agreeing with John Kerry.
How come we only hear about how “counterproductive” it is to fight back when it is terrorists getting killed?
We never hear how it is “counterproductive” when terrorists deliberately blow up an American, or an Iraqi, or an Afghan. Never.
What are you, nuts? We hear this all the time. Remember bin Laden telling Zarqawi he needed to chill out with the head-cuttings, because he was ruining al Qaeda’s image?
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:25 pm
IN #14, that should be “this ISN’T an effort to achieve strategic victory…”
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:11 pm
If you want something a bit under the radar to worry about
Wait a moment. Ever since Iraq started you folks on the left have been complaining that we were in the wrong war, and should be going after AQ in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region. Now you are complaining that we are doing that? Could y’all please make up your mind?
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Yes, “the fact that Miller’s intelligence sources deem the program an unqualified success based on what look to be pure body count considerations is disturbing.” But is there actually ANY situation in which you don’t end up wringing your hands over the risk that the strategic costs of actually killing bad guys sometimes outweighs the tactical gains?
Yes, ’strategic bombing’ and scoring body counts were key to our glorious victory in Vietnam, weren’t they?
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:19 pm
instead of like a 19th century war that ends with a total victory for one side
You’re thinking 20th century wars and specifically WW2. 19th century wars rarely ended with total victory for one side (1865 is a notable exception).
Reverting to a 19th century style a warfare is not only reversion to the mean, it’s the best – and only – option. (which is to say I agree with your point in #12 but just historically nitpicking as is my wont.)
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Wait a moment. Ever since Iraq started you folks on the left have been complaining that we were in the wrong war, and should be going after AQ in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region. Now you are complaining that we are doing that? Could y’all please make up your mind?
The next time you people make me agree with a wingut who writes things like “you folks on the left,” I’m going to start throwing things.
ronin,
This isn’t strategic bombing; it’s tactical bombing. We aren’t measuring our victory by body counts, but by whether he hit the specific individuals we were targeting.
You know, when I spent the last seven years saying “We shouldn’t invade/be invading/have invaded Iraq; we should be focusing on al Qaeda,” it wasn’t just something that was convenient to say when debating Iraq War supporters. It’s becoming depressing to realize that such arguments were precisely that for a lot of people who I thought were on the same side as me.
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:57 pm
I can’t imagine that an American president ever would or should completely disavow the right to launch this sort of attack.
Why? What right? Who the fuck do you think you are?
March 22nd, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Re: Jesus Christ, it’s sometimes amazing just how much of a wussy you are
Larry Birnbaum,
This is a surprise to you? The entire enterprise of the modern, Stuff White People Like culture is to celebrate the p*ssification of America. Hipster men aren’t big fans of the traditionally masculine virtues like courage, loyalty, obedience, and martial prowess, since they often don’t possess much of these virtues themselves. They would prefer the pot, porn, and Play-Station lifestyle. Hence their constant effort to suppress war, the military, authoritarian government, hunting, capital punishment, corporal punishment, the police, the drug war, and their fondness mealy mouthed burbling ‘can’t we all get along’ instead of swift, sure, and stern punishment of malefactors.
I guarantee you, if September 11 had happened in Russia we would not be hearing Putin and Medvedev dicking around about ‘public opinion in the Muslim world’ like a couple of English governesses at a tea-party.
March 22nd, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Re: Why? What right? Who the fuck do you think you are?
What we are, Novakant, is civilized people who reserve the right to utterly crush barbarians like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban when it pleases us to do so.
March 22nd, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Since when have the tough-guy wingnuts supported swift, certain punishment of malefactors?
Where’s Osama, Kaptain Keyboard?
March 22nd, 2009 at 9:37 pm
“…only 7 percent were successfully eliminated through direct military force…”
Irrelevant statistics. The Predator is a game-changer.
March 22nd, 2009 at 9:39 pm
can’t imagine that an American president ever would or should completely disavow the right to launch this sort of attack
And we wonder why, in so much of the world, ‘American’ is synonymous with ‘Asshole.’
March 22nd, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Joe from Lowell,
Er, I’m not a Republican. And I’ve never denied that Bush f*cked up the hunt for Osama. Mostly because, like Yglesias, he was more interested in spreading ‘democracy’, ‘liberty’ and ‘color revolutions’ than in actually doing his job of keeping the country safe.
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Did I call you a Republican?
I called you a wingnut.
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Here’s the bottom line: drone strikes can’t do anything at all to make either Al Qaeda or the Taliban fail in their primary missions (i.e., foment terrorism in the first case, and reclaim Afghanistan in the second.)
“Manage” the problem? Gimme a break. Show me the MONEY! There’s been no “management”. Half the strikes miss their targets and kill civilians, the other half kill some guy who can be replaced in 24 hours.
All these strikes do is piss off EVERYBODY in Pakistan AND most Muslims everywhere else.
And now Obama is considering striking Balochistan, which is NOT a “frontier territory” but an actual Pakistan province with a LOT of civilians in it. EVERYBODY considering that option says it’s a really bad idea which could seriously blow up in the Pakistan and US governments faces.
Here’s another bottom line: it doesn’t matter one whit who has a “safe haven” where. What matters is that you can use counterintelligence to infiltrate and wreck their organization from the inside, and learn enough about their operations to “manage” them and prevent them from being effective when they stick their noses out of the “safe haven”.
This bullshit about “we have to destroy a state to destroy a terrorist safe haven” is just that – total bullshit. It’s merely a justification for starting more wars so the military-industrial complex gets more taxpayer money and the Pentagon generals get more career moves (leading eventually to them being on the board of directors of those very same military-industrial complex companies.
Get your heads out of your asses. The whole “War on Terror” is ruminant evacuation.
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Hector, there’s nothing you’ve ever written which suggests any authentic knowledge of masculinity or masculine values.
Maybe you should give it a rest.
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:49 pm
The Predator is only a game changer for video game addicts.
I think that its increasing use bears a remarkable similarity to the WWII Buzz bombs. Militarily ineffective, but mostly political, to help a largely stalemated party feel like its doing something.
The handicap of the Predator Drone is found in intelligence. Yep, its nice to travel around blowing people up. Are we blowing the right people up? Are we blowing up the right things? Or is it gratuitous carnage?
Indeed, depending on who controls or inputs the channels of information, we may well be blowing up the Talibans enemies for them.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:11 am
joe, does it sound like John Kerry? That doesn’t surprise me. I voted for John Kerry.
Hector, I enjoyed the poetry of your riff but I don’t agree. I think Yglesias is just suffering the post-modern blues. He thinks the fact that sometimes truth is what the power structure says it is, means that that’s always the case, and that the West’s obvious sins over the past centuries completely negate any claims to “Western civilization.”
fostert, interesting points, particularly about the relative sizes of the two armies. Although I’m not sure exactly how much India is to blame for Bangladeshi independence. My recollection is that the (West) Pakistani army didn’t act all that well there. Here’s another thought: that the incredible diversity of India is a strength because it naturally reinforces the necessity of compromise politics.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:39 am
There’s no “Western civilization” and there’s no “Asian (which mostly means Chinese) civilization”.
Humans are assholes worldwide and always have been.
“Civilization” is a con used to justify colonialism in both East and West.
Places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Bosnia, Colombia, North Korea, etc., etc. are accidents of history, nothing more. They can’t be fixed except in historical terms, meaning as things change someday they’ll change. But they’ll always be behind every place else just because that’s their history.
The notion that the US can go in and change them is ludicrous.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:54 am
Larry Birnbaum is what you would get if the New Republic were made flesh: librul, not too librul, not too fond of teh Muzlims, too smart to be ignored but too conventional and self-satisfied to make any real intellectual contribution. A bit like George Packer, Paul Berman and David Brooks rolled into one bland burrito with boring sauce.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:02 am
Hector, on the other hand, is a buff, bronzed warrior like his Homeric namesake — a totally not-gay representative of all the masculine faculties and manly attributes. Between smiting foes, he also trolls liberal blogs.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:33 am
Hector’s rant about the ‘pussification’ of the American male, such as it is, nags me to offer some pertinent comments.
I was born in a coastal lumber town facing the Atlantic. I was born within a thousand feet of the spot where my great grandfather was born, and such was the closeness of the extended family that my lifespan overlapped with my great grandfather, great uncles and aunts and assorted relatives. My parents lived in a two room shack at the time of my birth. Water was hand pumped from a well. Much of my clan worked in forestry, loggers, woodcutters, sawmill and papermill workers. We were also small businessmen, running groceries and garages. In my youth, learning to fight was as necessary a skill as learning to read, and these were both inferior skills to knowing how to fix a car, lay bricks and mortar, or building a house. I was the first in my family to get a university education, a gift I’ve tried to support my cousins in obtaining.
I can say without doubt or hesitation that I’m well aware of the old masculine values that Hector thoughtlessly preaches. I am myself something of an atavism, a product and creature of some of the last remnants of those old time values and culture. As such, I consider myself well qualified to speak of both the strengths and flaws of that culture.
The truth is that it has very little resembance to Hector’s fantasies of manly men, womenly women and nervous sheep. When he writes of it, it takes on the golden glow of something experienced only from afar and imperfectly understood. I frankly find it tiresome.
“traditionally masculine virtues like courage, loyalty, obedience, and martial prowess,”
Since when is servile obedience a masculine virtue? In Hector’s world, the manly man bends the knee, he does what he’s told, he salutes and genuflects his superiors, tugs his forelock for his master. How charming. And how utterly Un-American. A celebration of a fascistic impulse towards submission. One would think that independence of thought and spirit, a commitment to virtue or righteousness beyond petty loyalty or servile obedience would be true manly virtues. But not for Hector.
Also, note ‘Martial Prowess’ as a masculine virtue. Well, I admit that in foolish days, I left a few teeth, my own and others in parking lots. I feel no particular pride in that. Getting into fights is a virtue? Hardly. Looking for them is no virtue at all. Only thugs and bullies have ever measured the quality of a man by his ability to dish out punches and kicks.
Ah, but perhaps Hector refers to ‘Martial Prowess’ in war. Quick, let us all strip to thongs, sport red capes, and re-enact 300. Hector’s criticisms of the American male’s lack of Martial Prowess is echoed by Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents who consider men who fly overhead and press buttons to drop bombs as cowards, and ache for some fantasied opportunity where some of these soft-handed boys could be stripped of their toys and brought face to face – bare fists.
The truth is that in the modern world, Martial Prowess doesn’t mean much any more. What it means mostly, is some nerd sitting in a darkened room watching a monitor screen and directing a predators missile with a touchpad. This is not Sparta.
“war,”
Smedley Buttler, Patton, Eisenhower, a great many other learned soldiers had unpleasant things to say about war. Hector, it seems is a big fan of war, so long as its other people dying.
“the military,”
The military that finds itself without a tangible enemy? Yet still manages to consume nearly 50% of the entire planet’s defense budget? The military as in ‘military industrial complex’ that Eisenhower denounced? Ah, Eisenhower was just a commie.
“authoritarian government,”
Because tyrannies have performed so spectacularly well. I mean, consider the paradises that fellows like Amin, Duvalier and Mobutu created, the martial prowess of the Galtieri regime,
“hunting,”
I grew up among people who hunted to put meat on the table. Asshats like Cheney who go to game farms to shoot their fill of clip winged fowl disgust me, and they disgust the people I came from.
“capital punishment,”
I used to be all four Capital punishment, but over time I noticed that there were a lot of cases of people who, it turned out, were innocent after all. As many as 7% of people facing capital punishment may be wrongly convicted. You can’t apologize to a corpse. Christ said that it is better to let a hundred guilty go free rather than convict an innocent. I’m not that liberal. But I will not countenance the real chance that an imperfect system will murder innocent men. I don’t respect people who shrug and find themselves perfectly willing to kill a few innocents, so long as most of the bad ones get snuffed.
“corporal punishment,”
Violence starts in the home.
“the police,”
“the drug war,”
“swift, sure, and stern punishment of malefactors.”
And here we have it. Not a call to traditional masculine virtues at all, but the nattering impulse towards fascism. Vindictive, hasty, irrational, impulsive and nasty. It’s an obsequious worship of power and authority in all its forms, an endorsement of violence by the mighty against the weak.
There is nothing of the traditional masculinity in this. If anything, it is at every point, its opposite. But sadly, traditional masculinity, for better or worse, is dead. On this, Hector and I can agree. It leaves me a lonely australopithecus, in a world I appreciate but do not quite belong to. And it leaves Hector free to despoil the corpse, appropriating it for grisly acts of necrophilia in which he parades around in its hollowed out skin to put a better face on his real impulses.
Traditional masculinity had its virtues and strengths, but it was always a flawed and uncertain model. Its obverse sides were rape and racism, ignorance, truculence, alcoholism and isolation. It died naturally, and justly.
As for modern masculinity. Well, I can’t say that its a worse thing. And for better or worse, modern masculinity grapples with problems that defied and destroyed the old masculinity.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:27 am
UGG
Air Max
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:40 am
Buy Viagra Online…
http://url.edna.edu.au/4bbN Buy Viagra Online…
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:21 am
Skeptic,
You should have written “p*ssification” as I did, rather than ‘pussification’. Now this thread is going to be taken over by porn spam. Oh well…
That was very interesting about your youth in the logging town, and let me just say thatI really respect and admire people that work in natural resource industries. Man was naturally intended to derive his living from the earth, as the book of Genesis suggests. We need more fishermen and woodcutters to be running this country, not lawyers and bloggers.
That said, I don’t believe I endorsed mindless war for its own sake, or obedience for its own sake. Rather, I think that that the willingness to fight for a good cause, and to show personal loyalty and obedience to lawful superiors, are things we are often called upon to do in a healthy life and a healthy society. And I loathe the fact that modern, late-capitalist civilization shuns these values, and the military virtues more generally. As was mentioned in the other thread, I think that the last stand at Constantinople, against the Turk, was a perfect exemplar of the kind of masculine virtues I’m referring to. It’s hard to imagine Yglesias and his crew fighting at Constaninople, though. It’s worth noting that the Byzantines could have been succoured by the West, had they agreed to convert to Catholicism. But they preferred to hold onto their faith, and die courageously. True heroism, and the kind of thing I wish our society had more of.
Nor do I support violence of the strong against the weak. Rather, I believe that the strong must defend the weak against malefactors, by force when necessary (and it will very often be necessary). That is why I support strict law and order, because crime hurts the poor more than anyone else.
Thank you for your thoughtful post, though, I appreciated it.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:57 am
Skeptic, I enjoyed it as well.
AJ, I’m not as self-satisfied as all that. But I think you’d have to be blind not to see how much worse things could have been than they are. Technological change remains the driver of human history and it’s driving faster than ever. I don’t think it will be very long before the capability exists to extend human life spans into the several hundred-year range. Then the fight over resources will really begin, unless we are extremely clever. So, yes, problem-solving remains our surest path to survival, and even happiness. Does that seem boring to you? Play some video games or learn to skydive.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:58 am
@Hector
Sound the trumpets and unfurl the banderoles! Our brave knight Hector, his breast emblazoned with the red cross of St. James, rides out into to the plain to meet the turbaned moor.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:40 am
AJ, I apologize for the patronizing tone at the end of my post above. I must admit your comment wounded me a bit; esp. the comparison with Brooks. I really hate apologists for the Republican dumbing-down of America; and he’s been one of those.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:51 am
Larry, I offer you my sincere apologies. I wouldn’t compare my worst enemy to David Brooks. It was a low blow.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Why is this this a binary or trinary choice? Can’t you do all three — direct military force and local policing as a stick, and political accommodation as a carrot? Don’t sticks and carrots work together better than one alone?
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Skeptic, Christ didn’t say it was better to let a hundred guilty people go free than to convict an innocent. Maimonides wrote something like that, but not Christ. Different religion.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. Sorry to burst your bubble.
“I don’t think it will be very long before the capability exists to extend human life spans into the several hundred-year range. Then the fight over resources will really begin, unless we are extremely clever.”
Actually human lifespan will be made an obsolete concept – as well humans. And nanotech will provide any resource required – as well as enabling “people” to be “extremely clever”.
Your concerns are a non-issue as long as you look beyond the next 25-50 years.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Re: Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Er, no, Hack, he wasn’t. He knew that God was a Trinity (being that he was a part of that Trinity), which Jews do not believe. He knew that He was God Incarnate, which Jews do not believe possible. Furthermore, while it’s true that He was ethnically Jewish through his adoptive father (Mary’s lineage is unknown), to call Him a Jew is to emphasize his humanity at the expense of his divinity, which is the error of the Arians.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:55 am
Hector, you are utterly full of shit about what he allegedly believed. The Dead Sea Scrolls and considerable Biblical study of the last four decades and beyond have pretty much trashed what Christians believe about Jesus to the point where Christianity is not taken seriously by anybody with a brain.
March 24th, 2009 at 7:55 am
Mr. Hack,
That’s rich, coming from a smack-addicted bank robber who fantasizes warmly about killing police officers, practicing Jews, and Christians. The so-called ‘Biblical Scholarship’ which you refer to tends to be written by people starting from basically materialistic presumptions, who don’t think that the supernatural exists. It’s therefore not unlikely they find material that supports their absurd prejudices. If you want an accurate picture of Christ, one that has been developed through the centuries by the descendants of the original apostolic church, see here:
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Hector, do you think Jesus would not consider himself Jewish? There were many Jewish messianic sects in Ancient Palestine with many diverging views of God, some more outlandish than the innovation of the Trinity. Assuming that Jesus was a historical person and that the Gospels roughly correspond to historical events (an assumption I do not make), Jesus clearly understands himself as a Jewish rebel against a Jewish religious establishment. To point out that Jesus was a Jew is not any more Arian than pointing out any biographical details of his fully human life. Indeed, to deny his Jewishness would imply a different Christological heresy.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Hector, Larry, just so we understand each other perfectly. I am the real thing. I am traditional to the bone, a creation of these values you claim to hold so dear. I am a Man.
When I look at you, I do not see men. I see mincing drag queens engaged in grisly acts of cultural necrophilia.