Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 7
Tom Tancredo on Bombing Mecca
Topic Started: Aug 5 2007, 09:20 AM (2,058 Views)
Red Rice
HOLY CARP!!!
Mikhailoh
Aug 5 2007, 09:57 AM
... probably aimed at crippling their economies as opposed to population centers.

But since their economies are petroleum-based, that would probably hurt us as much if not more than them.
Civilisation, I vaguely realized then - and subsequent observation has confirmed the view - could not progress that way. It must have a greater guiding principle to survive. To treat it as a carcase off which each man tears as much as he can for himself, is to stand convicted a brute, fit for nothing better than a jungle existence, which is a death-struggle, leading nowhither. I did not believe that was the human destiny, for Man individually was sane and reasonable, only collectively a fool.

I hope the gunner of that Hun two-seater shot him clean, bullet to heart, and that his plane, on fire, fell like a meteor through the sky he loved. Since he had to end, I hope he ended so. But, oh, the waste! The loss!

- Cecil Lewis
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Dewey, you make a good argument for total war against Islamic extremism. The problem is, as soon as you bomb Mecca you're no longer at war with just the extremists.

And while I agree that Islamic extremists started the war against us, in bombing Mecca we would be the instigators of war with broader Islam.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
The only way to win a war is totally and unconditionally. Any other outcome of a war based on ideology is no end to the war at all; it's merely a temporary cease-fire. And the only way to win totally and unconditionally, is to fight on terms as brutal as, and if possible, more brutally than, your opponent. In order to win such a war, one must be able to threaten, and if necessary, to destroy, that which the enemy values most. It's only through exhibiting absolute willingness to cause utter destruction of that which they value most, that will either a.)alter their ideology; or b.)simply destroy both their will, and ability, to continue to fight.


I am utterly appalled that a man who has a calling to the ministry could say such a thing. The goal is to be more brutal than your opponent?

What would Jesus do, indeed.

I urge you to forward this statement, in its entirety, to whatever organization has accepted you into its ministry program, and see what they have to say about it.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
That is possible, jon. The catch here is that the very same outcome is likely, if not inevitable, even if we don't take that approach. The only difference would be in the timeline. The current asymmetrical (state vs. non-state) war that we're engaged in can ultimately only migrate into a state vs. state war. I don't take any glee from that viewpoint, but I'm not going to deny that I think it's inevitable just to remain in a state of blissful ignorance. My only hope is that if we made it painfully, brutally clear in a pre-emptive announcement that we would obliterate Mecca, Medina, and both the Dome of the Rock and the adjacent Al-Aqsa mosques, immediately after determinging that the next catastrophic terror attack was caused by radical Islam, that the Islamic world would realize that we were serious, and they'd clean up their own trash instead of us having to do it with substantially more fallout - figurateively if not literally.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
I think Jesus would kick some ass. As a matter of fact, I believe the second coming is supposed to include a great deal of that.

And if He can raise the dead, He can surely open up a BIG ol' can of whupass. I don't see the contradiction.

Posted Image
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
QuirtEvans
Aug 5 2007, 01:35 PM
Quote:
 
The only way to win a war is totally and unconditionally. Any other outcome of a war based on ideology is no end to the war at all; it's merely a temporary cease-fire. And the only way to win totally and unconditionally, is to fight on terms as brutal as, and if possible, more brutally than, your opponent. In order to win such a war, one must be able to threaten, and if necessary, to destroy, that which the enemy values most. It's only through exhibiting absolute willingness to cause utter destruction of that which they value most, that will either a.)alter their ideology; or b.)simply destroy both their will, and ability, to continue to fight.


I am utterly appalled that a man who has a calling to the ministry could say such a thing. The goal is to be more brutal than your opponent?

What would Jesus do, indeed.

I urge you to forward this statement, in its entirety, to whatever organization has accepted you into its ministry program, and see what they have to say about it.


Quote:
 
The goal is to be more brutal than your opponent? 


Yes, absolutely. I find it shocking that anyone would even question that statement.

Be appalled if you wish. I would offer the alternative viewpoint: that if you believe in that any war is morally just, then it follows that one must fight it in a manner that ultimately causes the fewest deaths and suffering. In a war of ideology, the only way to do that is through total war; to think that one can do otherwise is not only shortsighted and naive, but because it ultimately has a greater human toll, is actually the more morally reprehensible stance.

"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Posted Image
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
QuirtEvans
Aug 5 2007, 11:54 AM
I dunno, Horace. I think, to some extent, it's a fundamental disregard for the value of a human life. There are some people who have a far greater regard for the value of a human life among their own circle (whether that's a family, a locality, a religion, or a country) than they do for a human life outside that circle.

It's the sort of attitude that made slavery possible 200 years ago. Even if they aren't very religious.

I am startled that Dewey can reconcile this with his usual beliefs, though.

You're missing the boat.

It's not a disregard for human life, it's that you (well, I, in this case) place more value on "your" people vs "their" people when hostilities have already started.

And while I do believe that you love your enemy, and try to help him see the light, I also have no problem in waging war as effectively as possible. To win a war, you break your opponent's will and his ability to continue. Maybe not in the tradition of the avenging hordes of old (think the Red Army, circa 1945), but you have to break his will.

Or he will annihilate you.

Remember, winners write the history books....even in the Bible. Seen any Canaanites around lately?
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Dewey
Aug 5 2007, 01:46 PM
QuirtEvans
Aug 5 2007, 01:35 PM
Quote:
 
The only way to win a war is totally and unconditionally. Any other outcome of a war based on ideology is no end to the war at all; it's merely a temporary cease-fire. And the only way to win totally and unconditionally, is to fight on terms as brutal as, and if possible, more brutally than, your opponent. In order to win such a war, one must be able to threaten, and if necessary, to destroy, that which the enemy values most. It's only through exhibiting absolute willingness to cause utter destruction of that which they value most, that will either a.)alter their ideology; or b.)simply destroy both their will, and ability, to continue to fight.


I am utterly appalled that a man who has a calling to the ministry could say such a thing. The goal is to be more brutal than your opponent?

What would Jesus do, indeed.

I urge you to forward this statement, in its entirety, to whatever organization has accepted you into its ministry program, and see what they have to say about it.


Quote:
 
The goal is to be more brutal than your opponent? 


Yes, absolutely. I find it shocking that anyone would even question that statement.

Be appalled if you wish. I would offer the alternative viewpoint: that if you believe in that any war is morally just, then it follows that one must fight it in a manner that ultimately causes the fewest deaths and suffering. In a war of ideology, the only way to do that is through total war; to think that one can do otherwise is not only shortsighted and naive, but because it ultimately has a greater human toll, is actually the more morally reprehensible stance.

There is no possible way that it is consistent with Christian teachings to advocate that the goal is to be more brutal than your opponent. I do not accept that there is even a remotely reasonable argument about that.

If you have the courage of your convictions, you will send that statement, including the part about the goal being to be more brutal than your opponent, to whichever organization is sponsoring your ministry.

I doubt that you will.

I've lost quite a bit of respect for you over this. I have come to expect this sort of inconsistency and disregard for human life from Jolly ... who I firmly believe would have been a slave owner in the 1800s ... but not you.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
If all out war is the solution then why doesn't congress declare war and get it over with?

Instead of all this political pussy footing around.

Congress should declare war and let our generals fight to win.

We have not declared war.

How can you win a war that hasn't even been declared?

The president has not the power to declare war. Only congress can do that.

Oh wait! We stopped being that nation a long time ago.

Excuse me while I puke some more.

Over half of century to get this situation right and the situation has never been worse.

Over half of century of "undeclared war" that never ends.

I think it's way past time to re-think what the hell we are doing.
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Quote:
 
If you have the courage of your convictions, you will send that statement, including the part about the goal being to be more brutal than your opponent, to whichever organization is sponsoring your ministry.


Hmmm....such a monolithic view about religion....hate to upset you, but little Dewey said would have blinked an eyelash in a Baptist Sunday School class....
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Mark
Aug 5 2007, 01:05 PM
If all out war is the solution then why doesn't congress declare war and get it over with?

Instead of all this political pussy footing around.

Congress should declare war and let our generals fight to win.

We have not declared war.

How can you win a war that hasn't even been declared?

The president has not the power to declare war. Only congress can do that.

Oh wait! We stopped being that nation a long time ago.

Excuse me while I puke some more.

Over half of century to get this situation right and the situation has never been worse.

Over half of century of "undeclared war" that never ends.

I think it's way past time to re-think what the hell we are doing.

I think we've been through this before, but Congress did authorize Bush to use force. And they continue to fund the occupation. I see no abdication of Congress' authority or role in this matter.

Secondly, this is a war unlike anything envisioned in the 18th century, or even in much of the 20th. The means to enable very small groups of people to achieve mass destruction and casualties simply did not exist back then. Therefore, nobody ever mentioned declaring war on a single person, or group of people, bereft of nation-state status.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Mikhailoh
Aug 5 2007, 02:41 PM
Posted Image

That's brilliant.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
I think calls such as this, for the bombing of Mecca, rather than being a sensible or strategically well thought out idea, rather betray the frustration that America has in being unable to quickly win this war, despite it's much trumpeted military strength. There's an awful lot of impatience to get things done, and I think that whatever happens, the conflict is going to continue for a long time.

Brains, and not brawn, are sometimes needed in order to win a fight. This politician is not demonstrating that he possesses the former, even if he works for a country that possesses the latter in abundance.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
There is no possible way that it is consistent with Christian teachings to advocate that the goal is to be more brutal than your opponent. I do not accept that there is even a remotely reasonable argument about that.


Then you would be very much mistaken. You seem to hold the view that the Christian faith requires a person to be a pacifist. It requires no such thing. Christianity teaches that one must seek, and work for peace, but to reach that end goal most effectively sometimes requires fighting, and defeating, those who would not live peacefully.

Quote:
 
If you have the courage of your convictions, you will send that statement, including the part about the goal being to be more brutal than your opponent, to whichever organization is sponsoring your ministry.

I doubt that you will.


It would be unnecessary. Those people to whom you're referring are already well aware of my views in this regard. Actually, about the same number within my church who agree with your stance, agree with mine; it's pretty evenly split.

Quote:
 
I've lost quite a bit of respect for you over this. I have come to expect this sort of inconsistency and disregard for human life from Jolly ... who I firmly believe would have been a slave owner in the 1800s ... but not you.


Well, I'm sorry to hear that, but it doesn't change my opinion at all. I've reached my opinions over a long time, and with a lot of very careful thought, While no one in any war comes out morally clean, I think that my views on war are not only right, but that they're far more compassionate, and closer to the moral ideal, than the alternative - because it ultimately results in less human misery, pain and suffering.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
There is no way brutality is compassionate. None.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
This is and has been (for the last 1000 years of so,) the Catholic Church's position of what constitutes a Just War, From Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3040.htm

Article 1. Whether it is always sinful to wage war?

I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Romans 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Psalm 81:4): "Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority."

Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (QQ. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."

Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine's works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1): "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good." For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Dewey
Aug 5 2007, 11:26 AM
Well, I'm sorry to hear that, but it doesn't change my opinion at all. I've reached my opinions over a long time, and with a lot of very careful thought, While no one in any war comes out morally clean, I think that my views on war are not only right, but that they're far more compassionate, and closer to the moral ideal, than the alternative - because it ultimately results in less human misery, pain and suffering.

I don't see it as a foregone conclusion that targeting mecca would result in less aggregate human suffering. If it would then it's definsible but I see it as a perfect plan to make hostilities permanent and permanently bloody. If the lever of hatred is religion based, no amount of persectution of that religion is going to make that hatred go away - it will only strengthen it. There is nothing like persecution and martyrdom to convince someone that their religion is the True Way. The only way your plan makes potential rational sense to me is total extermination of muslims and Islam in general. But total extermination being the mimimum aggregate suffering would be a pretty tough sell to me.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Horace
Aug 5 2007, 02:37 PM
Dewey
Aug 5 2007, 11:26 AM
Well, I'm sorry to hear that, but it doesn't change my opinion at all. I've reached my opinions over a long time, and with a lot of very careful thought, While no one in any war comes out morally clean, I think that my views on war are not only right, but that they're far more compassionate, and closer to the moral ideal, than the alternative - because it ultimately results in less human misery, pain and suffering.

I don't see it as a foregone conclusion that targeting mecca would result in less aggregate human suffering. If it would then it's definsible but I see it as a perfect plan to make hostilities permanent and permanently bloody. If the lever of hatred is religion based, no amount of persectution of that religion is going to make that hatred go away - it will only strengthen it. The only way your plan makes potential rational sense to me is total extermination of muslims and Islam in general. But total extermination being the mimimum aggregate suffering would be a pretty tough sell to me.

I understand your position, Horace, but I disagree with it. For starters, we need to modify vocabulary a bit. I don't believe the current war is "religious-based," I believe it's "ideologically based," and I think there's an important distinction between the two. Ideology is shaped by religion probably more than any other input, but there are other inputs. Furthermore, once those inputs adjust one's ideology, then one's ideology gradually modifies one's religion (in a cultural, not primarily an individual, sense).

Because I see many Muslims who are devout believers, who do not share the Islamists' hatred for us, it is obvious that Islam per se is not the real issue - in short, it's not a "religious" issue. It is, however, very much an ideological issue.

I think this is a good thing for us. If, in fact, Islam itself were truly, structurally dedicated to our destruction and subjugation, then I'd agree with your assessment that the only way to win a war with them would be to eliminate every last Muslim - an approach as impossible as it is reprehensible. But interestingly, while ideology is hard to modify, it's a lot more easily modified than modifying religious beliefs.

Given that, to face a very real threat to not only one's self, but to those icons that help to give life meaning - even if that icon is of a religious nature - will have more impact on someone who is ideologically driven, versus strictly religious driven. Taking it further, if we ever had to actually follow through on such a threat, it would have far more demoralizing effect on someone ideologically driven. All of a sudden, given new realities that the ideology must address, the ideology may shift.

But as I said earlier, I have every expectation that, even if we didn't adopt such a policy, that the current state versus non-state war will eventually migrate into a war between/among states. I think it's inevitable. Unfortunately, the only way to end a war of ideology being waged against you is to find a way to alter the ideology (which includes among other things, the enemy's assessment of the potential for its victory), as well as to make fighting the war more costly than the enemy is willing to pay to continue it. This concept is nothing new; it's as old as the concept of war itself.

"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
jon-nyc
Aug 5 2007, 01:14 PM
Announcing that the next attack will be met with the destruction of Mecca may in fact accelerate rather than deter the next attack.


In fact maybe Osama could eliminate the middle man and nuke Mecca.

Then blame the US.

The New York Times would believe him.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Copper
Aug 5 2007, 04:06 PM
In fact maybe Osama could eliminate the middle man and nuke Mecca.

If Osama had a nuke, you would know. And there's a good chance I wouldn't be posting.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
I've lost quite a bit of respect for you over this. I have come to expect this sort of inconsistency and disregard for human life from Jolly ... who I firmly believe would have been a slave owner in the 1800s ... but not you.


Well I'm not Dewey and I'm not Jolly, but you need to have the sh!t slapped out of you for that statement.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Aug 5 2007, 04:42 PM
Quote:
 
I've lost quite a bit of respect for you over this. I have come to expect this sort of inconsistency and disregard for human life from Jolly ... who I firmly believe would have been a slave owner in the 1800s ... but not you.


Well I'm not Dewey and I'm not Jolly, but you need to have the sh!t slapped out of you for that statement.

And then Quirt would just turn around and sh!t out of his girlfriend. :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klotz
Middle Aged Carp
Larry
Aug 5 2007, 10:42 PM
Well I'm not Dewey and I'm not Jolly

I know your name,
I've seen your face,
But who are you really?

Your chesnut hair,
With bright blue eyes,
I've seen them cry.

I've seen them point,
I've heard them laugh,
They thrive on tears.

Perhaps one time,
Or maybe twice,
I've joined their game.

But beneath the clothes,
Behind the glasses,
Who are you really?

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Dewey
Aug 5 2007, 11:55 AM
Horace
Aug 5 2007, 02:37 PM
Dewey
Aug 5 2007, 11:26 AM
Well, I'm sorry to hear that, but it doesn't change my opinion at all. I've reached my opinions over a long time, and with a lot of very careful thought, While no one in any war comes out morally clean, I think that my views on war are not only right, but that they're far more compassionate, and closer to the moral ideal, than the alternative - because it ultimately results in less human misery, pain and suffering.

I don't see it as a foregone conclusion that targeting mecca would result in less aggregate human suffering. If it would then it's definsible but I see it as a perfect plan to make hostilities permanent and permanently bloody. If the lever of hatred is religion based, no amount of persectution of that religion is going to make that hatred go away - it will only strengthen it. The only way your plan makes potential rational sense to me is total extermination of muslims and Islam in general. But total extermination being the mimimum aggregate suffering would be a pretty tough sell to me.

I understand your position, Horace, but I disagree with it. For starters, we need to modify vocabulary a bit. I don't believe the current war is "religious-based," I believe it's "ideologically based," and I think there's an important distinction between the two. Ideology is shaped by religion probably more than any other input, but there are other inputs. Furthermore, once those inputs adjust one's ideology, then one's ideology gradually modifies one's religion (in a cultural, not primarily an individual, sense).

Well, religion, ideology, etc, this is just semantics since all wars are over power fundamentally. The ostensible "reasons" are whatever will appeal to the most people on an emotional level. Religion is probably a better lever for that than ideology but I don't see it as an important distinction since if you specifically target religious sites, then the best lever will become religion in any case.

Full scale state vs state war seems unlikely, I don't see any established power structure of a nation entering into MAD (or at least their own assured destruction) because that defeats the purpose of attempting to gain power.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 7