SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : My House
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Solon who wrote (5946)3/12/2003 9:30:55 PM
From: Lazarus_Long  Read Replies (1) of 7689
 
I have no time to research those questions and I will not answer them off the cuff.
The question is simply this: You launch a war against a neighbor. You lose. In the treaty (or truce) ending that war, the neighbor puts provisions to keep you from getting into a position where you can again present a threat. You violate them. That neighbor takes military action to remove the threat you present before it gets worse. Is the neighbor justified?

THis does not require hours or days of research. A quick application of reason and ethics should give an answer.

Islam has the authority to control the behaviour of all adherents.
Ah, does it? Change that to
"Christianity has the authority to control the behaviour of all adherents."
How does it sound now? Which Islam? THere's more than one sect, just as with Christianity.

And hardly all predominantly-Muslim nations are theocracies. So some imam gets up and screams and yells his head off? If the state is not a theocracy, is this any different from when Oral Roberts or Jerry Falwell do the same?

Islam controlled States WILL forcibly convert or murder all those who do not voluntarily convert.
So shalll the US and Canada (and Britain and Australia and ...) deport all Muslims? That is the only way to safety if what you say is true. And to really achieve safety, we must then nuke the ()*) out of any area that is occupied by Muslims. Is this what you advocate?

but I have talked to many and the expression of this point has so far been unanimous.
My experience has been different. Your mileage may vary.

In my mind, ALL religious States or countries (where a representative of some cultural "God" is the HEAD of STATE), must be contained from FORCIBLY expanding their religious imperialism.
If I understood what you said correctly, this covers all Muslim countries. They have a religious duty to try to expand and will eventually do so. Shall POTUS issue the launch orders?

There must be a world effort to cooperate in disarming and capturing madmen
Maybe you should take a look at what has been going down in the UN and the ever-so-civilized European Union lately. They appear to think different.

Economic levers (as always) are great persuaders...
Against religious fanaticism? Useless. It doesn't even work against secular states like Cuba and Iraq which can't nearly muster the fanaticism that old time religion can.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News