Forums Index >> General >> WWIII
Page : 1 . . . . . 5 : 6 : <7>
God bless, 44.
Pray to GOD for him to reveal himself to you.
Well, I'm disappointed. Since I go for the theatrical, I was hoping some something more dramatic today with President Ahmadinejad. Something more along the lines of...
The President is standing behind a podium. As the speaks, a big, red button slowly rises from within the podium. At the end of his fervent speech, he closes with..."So, you want my answer, eh? That's what you want? That's that you gonna get!" He slams his hand down on the button. There's a distance rumble and an arsenal of nucular missles the blast off behind him. Cue the national anthem as the President says, "Say hello to my little friends!"
And then ya gotcha WWIII!
But then, I came back down to earth and I realize that once again the media just wanted to move a few more copies, get a few more webhits and sell a couple more commercials. In this day and age, I don't think any nation is really stupid enough to launch an outright nuclear attack against another nation. Asymmetrical terrorist attacks is definitely the way to go and will probably be used more and more as weapons and techniques become more sophisticated. Things are definitely going to get more interesting, I just hope we can hold onto the "American Way" instead of tumbling into the chasm of fear.
Anybody watch 60 Minutes. Their was a segment about Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Theo van Gogh.
Hirsi is a tough chick. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali
Only relevant in regards to whom we classify as radical Islamists. I thought the most interesting thing was when she was asked why Islamists killed van Gogh when he'd already insutled most groups throughout the world. It didn't take long for Van Gogh to end up dead after the release of Submission
Just think she's interesting to read about considering she denounced Islam and is now an Atheist. Kinda puts the nail in the coffin for me and my views on radical Islam in accords to their bias against women.
Like a midget at a urinal, I was going to have to be on my toes.
Invite a retard to a picnic and you'd better expect to get drool in the potato salad.
Last edited: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 4:30:03 PM
"I just hope we can hold onto the "American Way" instead of tumbling into the chasm of fear."
But rabby, the only thing the GOP has to run on is "fear itself." so, I expect will be getting more fearful this fall, and then again in 2008.
As long as we respect each other's individual rights and our governments do the same we'll get along just fine. Specifically, the use of force in human interactions is a big no-no. [edit: I meant to write initiation of force is a big no-no in human interactions. Its ok to defend against initiation of force.]
In that vein, I saw this show on C-SPAN's Q & A in which Robert Spencer talks about a documentary that he took part in called "Islam: What the West Needs to Know." He suggests that Islam itself is a problem because when taken at full value it nessesarily forces itself upon everybody. Translation: Islam = Become a devout Muslim or die an infidel at our hands.
It caused me to take note and I'm keen to confirm or deny. Comments?
Last edited: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 4:39:04 PM
Old School Christianity had the same intolerant basic concept of conversion by the sword. The missionary branch is more of a non-violent approach to the same concept. For the most part , that approach has been moderated to be more of a "religion of choice" and induction of youth rather than by force or argument.
Islam is hopefully making the same transition - there are many Muslims that do not support the 'convert or die' stance. With luck they will steer the religion along the same non-violent track.
Disclaimer: Please note that I am not a religious scholar. The statements above are an indication of opinion, not incontrovertible truths, and do not reflect the beliefs or opinions of PlanetThinkTanks.com as a whole. If you have evidence or opinions contradicting the above statements please feel free to state them in a non-agressive post.
Last edited: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 12:57:45 PM
Good posts lately
At TMO: good idea, the disclaimer. Prepare to be misconstrued. Btw: that's my take on BC's point/question as well.
^^ Nice TMO. I should've thought of that over 300 posts ago.... :)
I think the main element of Islam that worries me is the mystical notion that Allah has made sure that the Koran is literal and uncorrupted in meaning. As soon as a man has made the fundamental mistake of accepting mysticism, his integrity turns him into a potential killer in the name of Allah.
Muslims would have to reject the whole premise that the Koran is the uncorrupted word of Allah before they could steer Islam away from violence. Its more likely that Muslims that have a sense that violence is wrong are just going to stand passively by while paying lip service to the principle underlying the violence. The Christians and other mystics are unlikely to be allies in the wholesale rejection of mysticism.
Perhaps Islam has not destroyed the rest of the non-believing world in the past due to limited means. Islam + modern technology = WWIII? Its not so unlikely in my mind.
@Master TMO - I think "Middle School Christianity" would be a better choice than "Old School" and I think it was driven more by the Catholic Church rather than anything taught in the New Testament. As noted above, the Koran the "convert or die" theme throughout. To be fair, in the Old Testament the infidels were never overtly given the convert option.
Lately I've been thinking it would be a good idea to buy a copy of the Koran and read it for myself. Since it seems to be the up and coming religion of the day, not to mention talked about a lot lately, it would probably be a good idea to have some first hand knowledge of the text rather than some pundit's view of it.
^ http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/HolKora.html
Though I don't own a copy I've been glancing over the Koran.
I thought this was especially interesting from Chapter 109. "You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion. "
Kinda the opposite of what's going on today by Radical Islamists isn't it?
Like a midget at a urinal, I was going to have to be on my toes.
Invite a retard to a picnic and you'd better expect to get drool in the potato salad.
From some stuff I've read over the last few months, I believe the "religious intolerance" originates from Judaism. And by "religious intolerance" I don't necessarily mean forcible conversions but rather "my God is the only God. I'm right, you're wrong." The other polytheistic religions were more of a "praise whichever deity you need to praise at that time to get what you want." Up to and often inclusive of other pantheons.
In the Bible, whenever the Isrealites reverted to this mechanism they were punished - the golden idol incident while Moses was on the mountain receiving the 10 Commandments; the scattering of the Tribes of Israel and the enslavement under the Babylonians. This is all Old Testament stuff.
If you take that attitude and extend it, it becomes a fairly valid rationale for the 'convert or die' philosophy. If I'm right, and you're wholly, incontrovertibly wrong, then I am doing you a favor by forcing you to convert to the right religion. Taken to extremes, even if I have to kill you or someone else to open your eyes, it's still better for you than the alternative.
There was a pretty interesting article in the August 2005 issue of Discover magazine, over the cultural divide between desert and forest peoples. Races coming from desert terrains tend to have more authoritarian, monotheistic societies, while the forest peoples tended to be more polytheistic and less centralized or autocratic.
Page 41:
The desert mind-set has proven to be more resilient in its export and diffusion throughout the planet. Granted, few of those folks still live like nomadic pastoralists, guiding their flocks of sheep with staffs. But centuries, even millennia after the emergence of these cultures, they bear the marks of their desert pasts.
...
.., the rain forest mind-set appears not only less likely to spread than its desert counterpart but also less hardy when uprooted, more of a hothouse attribute.
Disclaimer: Please note that I am not a religious scholar. The statements above are an indication of opinion, not incontrovertible truths, and do not reflect the beliefs or opinions of PlanetThinkTanks.com as a whole. If you have evidence or opinions contradicting the above statements please feel free to state them in a non-agressive post.
: :
Edit comment:
Oh, I should probably specify that Judaism and it's offshoots were not the only 'intolerant' religions out there. They're just the most influential in modern day.
And I must disagree with Flea's assertion that intolerance is a learned behavior. IMHO, our competitiveness and tribal roots combine to make us potentially intolerant of all other 'tribes'. In good times, when there is no competition for resources or other conflict we can co-exist peacefully with our neighbors. If the coexistence lasts long enough the two tribes might merge. But if the situation changes (famine, pestilence or war) the two tribes often ostracize the other as alien or dangerous.
Last edited: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 2:00:35 PM
Dangit! Forgot my disclaimer! XO
Israel buys two German subs for 1.3 billion.
Good insurance policy for Israel vs. Iran.
Did somebody call my people intolerant? Musta brother stand upa?
Tally your back! XD
On vacation or what?
Thought some of you might appreciate this...
War is Not a Solution for Terrorism
There is something important to be learned from the recent experience of the United States and Israel in the Middle East: that massive military attacks, inevitably indiscriminate, are not only morally reprehensible, but useless in achieving the stated aims of those who carry them out.
The United States, in three years of war, which began with shock-and-awe bombardment and goes on with day-to-day violence and chaos, has been an utter failure in its claimed objective of bringing democracy and stability to Iraq. The Israeli invasion and bombing of Lebanon has not brought security to Israel; indeed it has increased the number of its enemies, whether in Hezbollah or Hamas or among Arabs who belong to neither of those groups.
I remember John Hersey's novel, "The War Lover," in which a macho American pilot, who loves to drop bombs on people and also to boast about his sexual conquests, turns out to be impotent. President Bush, strutting in his flight jacket on an aircraft carrier and announcing victory in Iraq, has turned out to be much like the Hersey character, his words equally boastful, his military machine impotent.
The history of wars fought since the end of World War II reveals the futility of large-scale violence. The United States and the Soviet Union, despite their enormous firepower, were unable to defeat resistance movements in small, weak nations -- the United States in Vietnam, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan -- and were forced to withdraw.
Even the "victories" of great military powers turn out to be elusive. Presumably, after attacking and invading Afghanistan, the president was able to declare that the Taliban were defeated. But more than four years later, Afghanistan is rife with violence, and the Taliban are active in much of the country.
The two most powerful nations after World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union, with all their military might, have not been able to control events in countries that they considered to be in their sphere of influence -- the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe and the United States in Latin America.
Beyond the futility of armed force, and ultimately more important, is the fact that war in our time inevitably results in the indiscriminate killing of large numbers of people. To put it more bluntly, war is terrorism. That is why a "war on terrorism" is a contradiction in terms. Wars waged by nations, whether by the United States or Israel, are a hundred times more deadly for innocent people than the attacks by terrorists, vicious as they are.
The repeated excuse, given by both Pentagon spokespersons and Israeli officials, for dropping bombs where ordinary people live is that terrorists hide among civilians. Therefore the killing of innocent people (in Iraq, in Lebanon) is called accidental, whereas the deaths caused by terrorists (on 9/11, by Hezbollah rockets) are deliberate.
This is a false distinction, quickly refuted with a bit of thought. If a bomb is deliberately dropped on a house or a vehicle on the grounds that a "suspected terrorist" is inside (note the frequent use of the word suspected as evidence of the uncertainty surrounding targets), the resulting deaths of women and children may not be intentional. But neither are they accidental. The proper description is "inevitable."
So if an action will inevitably kill innocent people, it is as immoral as a deliberate attack on civilians. And when you consider that the number of innocent people dying inevitably in "accidental" events has been far, far greater than all the deaths deliberately caused by terrorists, one must reject war as a solution for terrorism.
For instance, more than a million civilians in Vietnam were killed by US bombs, presumably by "accident." Add up all the terrorist attacks throughout the world in the 20th century and they do not equal that awful toll.
If reacting to terrorist attacks by war is inevitably immoral, then we must look for ways other than war to end terrorism, including the terrorism of war. And if military retaliation for terrorism is not only immoral but futile, then political leaders, however cold-blooded their calculations, may have to reconsider their policies.
Last edited: Monday, September 04, 2006 at 5:58:20 AM
44...
Wow.. So I guess the Allies were immoral by your definition in WWII.. Hmm.. Not sure I can agree with you there.. Or would most of the world..
Hezbolah... Are a bunch of cowards.. PERIOD.. They put there rockets in populated areas intentionally.. Its a no win for Isreal.... Lets see how long you would let someone lob rockets at your house before you responded.. Sheesh....
^Hezbolah are not cowards, they are in fact very clever. They are fighting a war where the opinion of the people is 100 times more important than the actual military actions. By placing their rockets in populated area's they are guarenteed to have many civilian casualties. For every one innocent that is killed in this type of war there are hundreds who's opinions are swayed to their side. This gives them money, manpower, and places to hide in the future and creates an environment that is even more explosive than before.
Isreal by indiscriminately bombing any site that might even look suspicious are falling right into their plan. Israel is unwilling to send in ground troops as casualties on their side would be extremely high. So instead they drop bombs and kill innocents while hiding behind their armor from miles away.
Many other things to say on this subject but Doc kind of hit a nerve. Only a fool underestimates his enemy.
^it could also be they know they are out numbered and out gunned
so out of fear of immediate annihilation they put their men in highly
populated areas, knowing that if isreal strikes there and killing many
civilians may bring the interational community to call for a cease-fire
so they may regroup and plot some more.
Either way it is very clever to fight use innocent as a shield.
Some may think using women and children as a shield is a sound
military tactic when fighting a superior army, and their are some who
think hiding behind women and children are cowards.
Personally I think killing innocent people is never just
either by using them as shields, or by bombing them
just to kill your enemy.
Last edited: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 at 3:40:44 PM
Hezbollah IS the population. It's not a professional army like we're used to see in most nation-states; it's more of a militia, each to their own town and territory. So they fight from where they live; it's a huge advantage to fight in your home town - except when your enemy counter attack and wipes your town! :(
Score so far:
Hezbollah: 0, Israel: 0, Civilians: 0, Arm Dealers: 1, Mass-Media: 1.
Howdy Y'all!
World War Three could be right around the corner.
Radical Islamists vs. The Free Western world. Be prepared. Things are giting sticky in Lebanon Vs. Israel.