« Ratzinger's Early Years | Main | Rearranging »
March 16, 2006
Concilium...you said it.
Our new translating friend sent this along as well: her translation of a recent post of Sandro Magister's at his blog (which I repeatedly complain should be provided in English as well...I mean...a few paragraphs every other day or so..how hard is that?)
Anyway, the translation:
Apologia for Islamic terrorism
Signed by....
Take a guess where the following quotations come from:
“Many persons have been branded as terrorists, whereas in reality, they could simply be persons who are fighting for justice and their own human rights.” “Countries like Iraq or Palestine cannot fight a conventional war against enormously superior forces. Wherever, in a similar context, oppressed and subjugated people resort to non-conventional forms of war – human bombs are one type of weapon used in these cases – to label them as terrorists is abisolutely devoid of validity.”
“One can therefore look with understanding on the kamikaze who have realized (homicide/suicide) attacks against Israel or against the coalition of Western nations in Iraq. The fact is that these muhjaheddin are not trained killers or people who have a taste for violence, as some protagonists for instance in the Northern Ireland conflict, but are profoundly religious individuals who have usually had no practice in the arts of war and violence.”
“The fact is that whether in Iraq or Israel, justice has been trampled on, and so, the acts that have been labelled terrorism can be interpreted as legitimate warfare. In the end, the suffering of civilians can simply be considered – to use American jargon – collateral damage.”
All of these quotations were taken from issue number 5/2005 of the international theological journal Concilium which was dedicated completely to Islam, with articles by Hans Kueng, the Jesuit Thomas Michel (secretary for inter-religious dialog of the Society of Jesus), and other scholars, mostly Dutch, starting with the editors of the issue, Erik Borgman and Pim Valkenberg.
In its March 8 issue, the Osservatore Romano published an article critical of Borgman, who is a lay Dominican, for his “superficial reading” of John Paul II's encyclical Fides et Ratio. But that is a venial sin compared to this apologia for homicidal mujahiddin who have caused massacres (including that of their fellow Muslims) in mosques, buses, schools and business places!
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/4472794
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Concilium...you said it.:
Comments
"apologia for homicidal mujahiddin"
Whether or not I agree, I didn't read the remarks as a defense (apologia) but as a statement of fact: there's a war on and one side has rockets, tanks, helicopters, an air force, multi-ton bombs, a standing army, bulldozers etc. and the other side has to improvise with rocks and homemade IEDs.
When the British were running Palestine, they were opposed by Jews using explosives and engaging in assasinations - including the chief UN negotiator Folke Bernadotte. They improvised. Not that any of it - then or now - is to be supported or admired, of course. We should support talks and peace with justice in all places at all times.
By the way, insofar as the remarks apply to Palestine, the Palestinians are, in the words of Father Peter Vasko, who lives there and runs the Franciscan Holy Land Foundation, a "very secular society" not, in your words, "mujahiddin".
Posted by: marianne at Mar 17, 2006 2:12:00 AM
It read like a defense, to me!
And that Dutch Catholic theologians should write in defense of militant Islam, especially after what was done to Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh on the streets of Amsterdam not two years ago. . . the only explanation I can come up with is . . .
they smokin' crack.
_________________________________
Nov. 5, 2004 ". . . The (Amsterdam) police released the note pinned to Mr van Gogh's chest, which was written in Arabic and Dutch with phrases from the Koran, addressed to Ms Hirsi Ali.
"It complained that the Netherlands was controlled by Jews, and called for jihad (Holy War) against infidels, America, Europe, the Netherlands and Ms Hirsi Ali. It said: 'Islam will be victorious through the blood of martyrs. Only the death will separate the truth from the lies.'"
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/312
Dutch theologians wrote
Posted by: Catherine Vergne at Mar 17, 2006 7:07:36 AM
--Father Peter Vasko, who lives there and runs the Franciscan Holy Land Foundation, a "very secular society" not, in your words, "mujahiddin". --
Maybe you haven't been following the news but these examplary secularists have now voted in the all green Hamas. I don't know how long Father Peter can keep up his schtick, but his kind have never let facts get in the way of opinions.
Posted by: Ivan at Mar 17, 2006 9:16:41 AM
Soldiers often commit acts in combat with full knowledge that they will die as the result, so supposedly "suicidal" conduct of insurgents/terrorists in the Middle East is hardly exceptional and, at best, only marginally different that what is regarded as heroism when done by American soldiers.
Targeting or killing disproportionate numbers of civilians with such tactics is another matter and is clearly immoral. As long as a military goal is sought, however, it is hardly different to blow up a pizza parlor with a few soldiers but mostly civilians than to drop 500 lb. bombs ("smart" or not) that can demolish most of a city block on a house or deliver a cruise missle on an village where a Enemy Leader is supposed to be. The potential for collateral damage is grossly disproportionate in either case. So our righteous complaints against "terrorist tactics" can be awfully like the pot calling the kettle black.
Moreover, insurgents/terrorists can justify attacking children on the same grounds that we try to justify preemptive war. If the children are being trained and will grow up to be soldiers who will attack you, how is it different to attack them now before they are able to do so than it is to, say, attack Iraq because it might someday develop and/or launch a WMD against you?
Posted by: Celine at Mar 17, 2006 12:53:53 PM
I happen to know Pim Valkenberg slightly and while he is in fact Dutch and a theologian, I'm not sure he deserves sneering dismissal as a "Dutch Theologian." He's very well grounded in the theology of Thomas Aquinas and is one of a number of theologians in the Netherlands of the post-post-Vatican II generation who are engaged in a valiant struggle to see what they can salvage of the Church. Putting dismissive labels on people is simply a substitute for thinking about what they are saying.
Posted by: F. C. Bauerschmidt at Mar 17, 2006 2:00:05 PM
Celine, if your insistence upon American malignancy is not impervious to argument, here goes:
1. I cannot think of any instance in American history in which soldiers purposed their own deaths, deliberately and in advance, as a tactical military objective. Your accusation is slanderous until you can cite counterexamples. An instantaneous and unplanned decision to sacrifice oneself to stave off battle losses (e.g., throwing oneself on a grenade to prevent the deaths of one's comrades) does not count. I can think of no commander in Western history who would be shamed or disgusted to learn that his men avoided death while accomplishing an objective.
2. Collateral deaths are something we seek to avoid (e.g., through the billions expended developing weapons that are precise), and they seek to foster. This is so obvious as to need no further comment.
3. Iraq did not need to develop WMD before the war; they proved they had them by using them both against Iran in war and Iraqi Kurds and Shiites other times. The Instapundit just linked this article today describing how seized Iraqi documentation supports arguments made before the war.
Posted by: craig at Mar 17, 2006 2:06:52 PM
F.C.B., Forgive me for being unclear. My intention was not to convey disrespect toward Dutch theologians in general, or toward any Dutch theologian in particular.
Far be it from me, or any of Amy's readers to do so. I have utmost respect for the contributions and unique gifts of Dutch theologians.
But not for a Dutch theologian who smokes crack and then writes and submits for publication an article containing an opinion such as, "human bombs are one type of weapon used in these cases – to label them as terrorists is absolutely devoid of validity."
But terrorists is precisely what they are. And only someone high on crack cocaine would argue otherwise.
It's theologians - of whatever nationality - high on crack I have a problem with.
Don't you?
Posted by: Catherine Vergne at Mar 17, 2006 6:09:19 PM
Sorry folks, but this is a no brainer. "Collateral damage", by definition, means unintended deaths of those not actively engaged in the war effort (non-combatants). Jihadists and Islamists target non-combatants purposely. It may be that there is, at times, a disproportion between the goods attained by the use of defensive force and the number of non-combatants killed, but direct attacks against innocent non-combatants is intrinsically evil, and defense force used against unjust aggression is not intrinsically evil even if, per accidens, it is wrong because of the disproportion between goods attained and unintended non-combatant deaths.
I'm opposed to the war because I think it's impossible to establish true democracy and respect for human rights without deislamizing a society. But clearly there's a huge difference between the many fatwas endorsing not only suicide bombers, but the intention to target non-combatants and the frequently expressed regrets about unintended deaths (unfortunately euphemistically referred to as "collateral damage") by Western forces.
I've read both Concilium and Continuum for years. The former becomes more and more superficial in its Catholicism Lite by the issue; the latter continues to produce work of very high quality.
Posted by: Tom Haessler at Mar 17, 2006 9:18:23 PM
