Post #11,513
10/3/01 2:34:03 PM
|
Oh, knock it off.
There's a perfectly legitimate point there, if you have the intestinal fortitude to address it.
Appeasement always backfires. Even the appearance of appeasment is bad policy.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
|
Post #11,517
10/3/01 2:41:00 PM
|
You misunderstand my position.
I'm not for appeasement. I'm all for blowing the Hell out of who needs to have the Hell blown out of them.
I'm just not for doing it based on religious persuasion, unless your religion specifically states "I must kill everybody who isn't a member of my religion," and you actively pursue that goal.
Which, much as I hate to say it, seems to be the state religion of just about every nation on this shithole planet these days. You seem to be a pretty feverent believer in it as well.
I say launch the nukes, and do the universe a favor before we figure out how to unmake it, and somebody does.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Post #11,522
10/3/01 2:52:29 PM
|
How do you define success?
That person's point of view seems to be that we need to blow up some Mosques in Mecca in order to win the war? Just how exactly is such a hardline response supposed to solve the problem of terrorists? Last I saw, Israel was still a target of terrorists, so I don't know that their strategy has a parallel to be drawn for "winning the war".
|
Post #11,547
10/3/01 4:13:24 PM
|
It's not a war on terrorists.
It's a war with terrorism. Note carefully the difference, and digest the implications. Please.
Islamic terrorism is determined to wipe us out. If that's not obvious by now, you're in denial. It follows that we must wipe out Islamic terrorism in order to survive. That means we destroy not just individual terrorists, but the cultural millieu that spawns them, so that they stop coming.
The side that starts the war gets to decide what kind of war it will be. They decided on a Holy War. I say so be it. We'll fight their Holy War, and let's make damn sure we win.
And no nonsense about tolerance, people. Unilateral tolerance is suicide. Tolerance either goes both ways or it goes out the window. And the first option has already been foreclosed by the enemy.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
|
Post #11,550
10/3/01 4:19:02 PM
|
Fine.
Then I guess that the next time some Christian zealot blows up a Mosque in India, that the rest of the world had better hold a "religious war" against all of Christianity, since Christians spawned Christian Terrorists.
Come on, Marlowe, do you really believe the shit that's flowing out of your ass? Oh wait, that's your mouth - easy to get the two confused.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Post #11,551
10/3/01 4:26:21 PM
|
Did that happen recently?
Then I guess that the next time some Christian zealot blows up a Mosque in India, that the rest of the world had better hold a "religious war" against all of Christianity, since Christians spawned Christian Terrorists.
I know the Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus have been attacking eachother's temples since the Brits left but have the Christian Indians joined in the fray too?
Ray
|
Post #11,552
10/3/01 4:30:16 PM
|
Thought that was pretty much everybody against everybody...
Hindus hate Islam and Christianity.
Muslims hate Hindus and Christians.
Christians hate Muslims and Hindus.
It's basically been tit for tat there for some time now.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Post #11,556
10/3/01 4:38:36 PM
|
Gawd, you're so blind.
And what the hell does what goes on off someplace in India have to do with the price of tea in China?
Do we have a right to self defense or do we not? No more evasions. No more knee-jerk blame America excuse-making for the terrorists. And no weaselly qualifiers. Just answer the damn question. Yes or no.
And no, self defense does not consist of holding hands and singing Kumbaya.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
|
Post #11,562
10/3/01 4:47:45 PM
|
Yes.
We have a right to defend ourselves.
That doesn't mean we have a right to commit genocide. There is a HELL of a lot of difference between killing all the terrorists (and ya gotta get them all - including OURS, and that's where you're falling on your face) and killing all members of a religion.
What happens in India is quite relevant. You are taking the actions of a small group of people (the leaders of SOME, not all, Islamic countries, as well as their supported Terrorist cronies fortunately) to condemn a whole society.
Imagine if somebody did the same for, say, the Roman Catholics. Hell, the IRA blows Prodestants up, it must be a Jihad, let's kill all the Roman Catholics.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Post #11,666
10/3/01 11:23:02 PM
|
Small group of people?
Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that the ones who would dance on our graves are but a tiny minority of Muslims. A minority, perhaps. But why is there so little condemnation of such atrocities from the rest? Even the few religious leaders who have condemned the attack have talked out of both sides of their mouths. People with an attitude like that fall into two categories: terrorists and potential terrorists. And when the potential terrorists choose to realize their potential, we'd best be prepared to kill them at the very earliest signs, because that's the last chance we'll get. They're not to come up to us and say "though you should know, I just decided this morning to turn terrorist. So look out!" We must be prepared do this, no matter what fraction of the total population they turn out to be.
But if by some chance you turn out to correct in your estimation, and they really are a tiny minority, that's fine with me. Just be sure. No wishful thinking. Wishful thinking can be fatal.
I'm perfectly willing to let a version of Islam survive. But not a version that would fail to condemn terrorism in the strongest terms. And not a version that condones blaming other nations for one's own failings. That's just further up the same slippery slope. And if they can bring themselves to admit that the Jews had Palestine first, that would help a lot. Unless they want to give it back to the Canaanites.
Oh, and their centuries old tradition of absolute rulers has got to go. That's a major source of their misery. And since they insist on blaming us for their misery, it's in our interest to lift them up out of that cesspit. Even if they don't want to come out. Especially if they don't want to come out. Force democracy and human rights on them. I'll meet them halfway: I won't absolutely insist they let women vote. But they've got to let *some* people vote.
Note: there is nothing quite like suicide terrorism in any other religion or cultural tradition, except for the Kamikaze pilots of Japan, and that's a much more recent development. The Crusaders were much more conventional than this. Likewise the Assyrians, Genghis Khan, the Vikings, the Goths, the Jacobins, the Apache and any other great non-Muslim terrorist organizations of history. The IRA don't actually sit in the dynamite-laden vehicles they detonate. The anarchists have the sense to run away after they throw their bombs. Suicide terrorism is an Islamic innovation.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
|
Post #11,783
10/4/01 2:01:22 PM
|
Too far
marlowe: That means we destroy not just individual terrorists, but the cultural millieu that spawns them, so that they stop coming.
inthane-chan:Then I guess that the next time some Christian zealot blows up a Mosque in India, that the rest of the world had better hold a "religious war" against all of Christianity, since Christians spawned Christian Terrorists.
No. You go too far. Not all christianity. Only the Chrisitian fundamentalists. And I say go get 'em. They're already raising militias and planning to overthrow the US Gov.
|
Post #11,790
10/4/01 2:21:49 PM
|
Go back and read what I said again...
I was turning it around on him. Believe me, I have no desire to label everybody from a singular religion as Evil, unless they really are Evil with a capital E.
There was this little Cult of Hitler during the late 1930s/early 1940s that was definitely that...
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Post #11,740
10/4/01 10:54:30 AM
|
They want it to be a holy war
because that would give them more strength. They need the support of all Islamic countries to be able to seriously stand up against the opposition. If we want to keep the killing to a minimum (and this will be important to the worldwide community) we have to show that we are NOT fighting it as a holy war. Those other Islamic nations will need to be able to see that we will NOT be coming after them after we finish off the terrorists just becuse they're Muslims. This War should be only about taking out the forces necissary to end this kind of terrorism.
America is ABOUT religious freedom. That was the reason for our colonization in the first place. We can not turn around now and say "you don't deserve to live because you believe in Allah instead of God". There are plenty of Muslims in America as well. Are we supposed to pick all them up now and move them to concentration camps? I have a very good friend fighting beside me (figuatively, since we are currently not in battle) in the US Air Force that is a Muslim. I would trust this man with my life, and in the military, that is very important. I would not support a holy war against any religion simply because extremists in that religion want to use such a holy war to unite the whole religion against us. You're just playing into their (the extremists) hands.
~~~)-Steven----
|
Post #11,743
10/4/01 11:21:20 AM
|
Those other Islamic nations?
Which ones are those? And are you sure? Even Saudi Arabia is far from an unequivocal ally. The Kuwaitis may be full of gratitude and goodwill toward us, but they don't count for much. They can't even defend themselves against their own neighbors. Qatar may be on our side. Pakistan is very ambiguous. Some of these countries may be useful as tools, but we musn't trust them. Keep the chain guard on.
Put not your faith in imaginary friends.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
|
Post #11,750
10/4/01 11:46:54 AM
|
whether or not we can count them as allies
I'd rather not have to count them as enemies. If we allow this to become a holy war, we'll be fighting a whole lot more than if they remain neutral or ambiguous.
~~~)-Steven----
|
Post #11,791
10/4/01 2:25:07 PM
|
Fine. But let's watch our backs. (nomsg)
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
|
Post #11,816
10/4/01 4:52:49 PM
|
That goes without saying
~~~)-Steven----
|
Post #11,588
10/3/01 6:33:31 PM
10/3/01 6:36:38 PM
|
A swing and a miss...
No, the point of the writer was his incredulity that one should ask a Muslim to pray for the souls of Americans that were killed by the attack. After all, this implication goes, Muslims killed these Americans, so why would any of them be in the slightest bit interested in praying for these satanic infidels?
Appeasment my ass. This article had nothing to do with appeasment (which, BTW, I agree always backfires). This had to do with the writer's righteous indignation at the Resident suggesting that rank-and-file Muslims might actually be as shocked, upset, saddened, and angry as he (the writer), and the rest of the non-Muslim world, was.
Inthane was (as pwhysall might say) spot-on.
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
Edited by jb4
Oct. 3, 2001, 06:36:38 PM EDT
|
