WMD; Weapons Or Words?

The term WMD, in recent history, came to be known as an abbreviation for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Those things that the Americans said existed in Iraq, who dragged the British along with them into a war which rid the world of a dictator, but left a legacy of internal conflict in the country that shows no signs of abating. Oh, and just as an aside there didn't seem to be any WMDs - strange that!

On the other hand we have the North Koreans who most definitely do have WMDs, and a dictator, but nobody seems terribly interested in knocking him on the head and giving that country a chance of escaping from abject poverty and starvation. Where's the justice in that - or did everyone wake up to the idea that invading Iraq under some pretext or other was just wrong? Mind you, Iraq had oil - North Korea doesn't.

But it occurs to me that WMD could just as easily stand for Words of Mass Destruction - at least in Iran most recently where some bloodthirsty cleric is proclaiming that all rioters should be executed.

To re-cap, there can be few people in the world today, civilised or otherwise, who believe that the recent elections in Iran were fair and just. Of course, it is quite possible that both sides were trying to rig the ballot boxes, but there are just too many anomalies in the results to believe that the incumbent President won the election by anything like the claimed majority. He might have won, I cannot comment, but certainly not by the proclaimed majority.

The strength of negative feeling from the opposition within Iran, and from Iranians outside the country, is massive and powerful. They have been giving vent to their feelings, and show little appetite for remaining silent - almost at any cost. Which leads me to ponder on the words of the Islamic Cleric Ahmad Khatami, a known hardliner, who said "I want the judiciary to... punish leading rioters firmly and without showing any mercy to teach everyone a lesson," Khatami, a member of the Assembly of Experts, said the judiciary should charge the leading "rioters" as being "mohareb" or one who wages war against God. "They should be punished ruthlessly and savagely," he said. Under Iran’s Islamic law, punishment for people convicted as "mohareb" is execution.

One must assume that Khatami is equating rioting against a corrupt President Ahmadinejad as waging war against God; surely a dangerous and heretical supposition, but then perhaps he is becoming fearful of his own position and, like a cornered snake, is prepared to come out fighting.

The fact that inflammatory words can be as destructive as weapons is not in doubt. Comments such as these will lead Iran into a bloody domestic conflict that will end in tears. The fact that these words can can come from a man of religion is even more worrying. If religious leaders promote violence, from a religious base that is supposed to preach tolerance - and by religious base I mean all religions - what hope will there ever be for the people of this world to live a life where differences are respected, where freedoms become the right of everybody, and where the ambitions of dictators are not allowed to flourish. I hope that Iran does not descend into more bloodshed on account of the words of mass destruction uttered by its supposed men of peace. 

Comments

[Noah Webster]

Sir,

Accepted!

[David Eldon]

I do not usually respond to individual points of view, because many people have differing opinions - many of which are valid, depending on the angle one approaches it from. However ... one of the problems of democratic elections is that they are not always reflective of the popular vote. Mr Ahmadinejad was democratically elected, so we are led to believe, like Mr. Mugabe! In reverse, we have the tragedy of Ms Aung San Suu Kyi who was democratically elected.
In the case of Mr Blair, I recall that the Conservative Party in that election actually polled more votes in total than Mr Blair's Labour party, but the result rested on the number of seats won. The democratic process does have its flaws I think - but then there is probably no "perfect" system.
Rather than graciously endorse your comment, may I nevertheless graciously acknowledge your point of view and thank you for your generous comments about my blog?

[Noah Webster]

Sir,

Your opening words, "Fair point, which I accept..", fooled me into thinking that you were about to graciously endorse my comment that one could hardly say that the British were "dragged" into the war in Iraq by the Americans.

Imagine my surprise, then, when you go on to write that my point (which I thought you had "accepted"!) rests on the "assumption" that Mr. Blair was representative of the British people. He was the democratically elected Prime Minister, for goodness' sake! How much more representative can you get? I really think you should concede defeat on this point!

As for your main point concerning the destructive potential of inflammatory rhetoric, we are in complete agreement. Indeed, signs of a rising tide of intolerance around the world are very troubling.

I enjoy your blog very much and always look forward to the next instalment. Thank you for writing it.

[David Eldon]

Fair point, which I accept, but there is an assumption here that Prime Minister Blair was representative of the British. He and many, but not all, of his Government it would seem went blindly along believing that what they were being told was the truth. If you care to make the distinction, it sounds a little like America under Bush, perhaps?
But let's not drift away from the main point, which is that weapons (existing or otherwise) and words can have equally devastating outcomes, and it is unhealthy.

[Noah Webster]

If it makes you feel better to think that the British were "dragged" into the Iraq war by the Americans, that's fine. Fair-minded observers would say that Prime Minister Blair and his government went along quite enthusiastically.

[Bob]

Very well said! Corruption of Koranic teachings by vengeful, spiteful & ill educated Muslim clerics should be highlighted more often by journalists & politicians!!
(In another sense- See the lead article in the latest Spectator, hopefully WORDS ,in the forthcoming UK enquiry,(now fortunately in public),into the Iraq war, may (&it's a big 'may') lead to Mass Destruction of Blair! If only!!)