Theory on Violence in the Abrahamic Faiths

Post Reply New Topic

No I won't. Several times each day it is Allah hu Akbar and Boom! When the Muslims stop killing other people I will stop picking on them. WHen a suicide bomb goes off there is a .99 probability that the hand on the detonator was a Muslim hand.

ruveyn

Frankly, until there is sufficient evidence that the religions are responsible for the violence as opposed to other relevant factors, this is a discussion about a phenomenon which may well not exist.

At least I would say that religions are often the cumulating point on which violence grows, perhaps only is canalized. The difficulty raises in my option not such that religions are the primary cause of violence, here other factors are to seek, but that when religion is introduced finding an end to violence is more difficult:

In the moment when an irrational and at same time absolute true demanding ideology is attached to a conflict, a compromise is hardly to find.

May I explain this on the example of the Crusades: The European society was very violent in the time of Crusades. The feud was seen as a legitimate way of solving legal conflicts. When Pope Urban II declared the First Crusade it was within the logic of his time. To the opposite to "normal" feuds the idea of ending the conflict via a compromise was closed, because to the violent action an absolute religious was attached.

---

BTW: It is therefore not that surprising that the only "Crusade" without bloodshed was the crusade of Emperor Frederick II Stupor Mundi, who was in his time suspected as religious indifferent, in almost constant conflict with the pope and maintained a Muslim Life Guard.

several times a day?

right.

i hate americans, cus theyre at war with at least 10 000 countries.

also, i have a sneaking suspicion these booms happens in places where american troops roam.

Ruyven, the point i was trying to make is you're preaching hatred, and that just creates more violence, which makes things worse. You can't judge an entire group just on the actions of a few crazy individuals. That would be like saying all christians are psycopaths because of the spanish inquisition.

not even the spanish inquisition, what about christianity promoting pedophilia? or nazi germany representing christianity? the branch davidian? the examples are endless.

Not so. I don't hate people who are not my enemies. I make the following points.

1. Protect and cherish your friends.
2. Destroy or neutralize your enemies.
3. Be polite to the neutrals.

If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, decapitate him and sh*t down his severed neck.

If we have to fight a war against our enemies in order to survive I would not be too stringent on the matter of colatteral damage.

During WW2 the Allies bombed cities and killed over one million civilians, many of them women and children. Such damages are one of the infelicities of modern warfare. Sh*t happens and it flows downhill.

To bring a quick end to the war in the Pacific and to minimize casualties for our people we nuked two Japanese cities. It worked just fine. Once we got their attention the Japanese folded.

To neutralize the threat of Islamic fanaticism to our very civilization we will have to resort to weapons of mass destruction. Since the fanatics live cheek to jowl with the not-yet fanatic we will have to kill the lot in order to get the bad guys. This is not hatred. It is a hard headed approach to killing our enemies, the most dangerous at this time are Islamic fanatics like the Shiah, the Wahabi and the Sunni. If Suffi Muslims (who are mystic and non-violent) die in the process. that is just tough luck. War is a nasty business.

And if you don't think there is war, just recall 9/11. That is when I got my epiphany. I am a 9/11 Patriot.


Is that simple enough for you to understand?

ruveyn

.......There are no words for how WRONG that is.

You would be willing to NUKE the entire middle east to take out Al queda?

You sir, are a monster. I have nothing more to say to you.

Yeah, I know. He doesn't go far enough! Like, doesn't he recognize that there are terrorist groups all across the globe? Nuke it all. If you do it well, then the deaths will be quick! Only nuking a small group is just wrong though, that just hurts the living.

We control our own continent so we can use subtler means of dealing with Muslims in this country, such as deporting the foreign born ones to a place where we can kill them and keeping the home born Muslims under close watch. Overseas we have no such ability so we have to use a sledge-hammer approach.

Remember the name of the game is to make it safer for us and the hell with the rest of the world. We have weapons of mass destruction. It is about time we used them again. The last time we dead we brought down the Japanese Empire in a matter of weeks. What works, works.

As General Patton once said: the idea is not to die for your country.The idea is to make the enemy son of a b***h die for his. In the case of Muslims we have a win win situation. We send them to paradise to diddle ther 72 whatevers and we are rid of them. They are happy and we are happy.

Screw the co-lateral damage. They die and we live.

ruveyn

why dont you want to nuke ireland or the western pyrinees?

Why? The IRA and the Basque Seperatists are no danger to the U.S.. Who cares about them?

The name of the game is not to make a Better World, but to make the U.S. safer for its own ends.

ruveyn

amazing.

so what your saying is, since i am norwegian, i should take back every ounce of sympathy i had for the 9-11 victims, right?
they didnt matter, cus im norwegian

OR

the U.S. should matter more to even a norwegian? would you tell a spanish guy, that his family member, killed by a basque car bomb, doesnt matter, cus they werent americans?

how do you relate to everyone who isnt american, but who claims to take your side?

There is an import difference: The 2nd World War was a war between states. There is in international law a well established system to determinate the end of a war. This system is based on the fact that only governments are legitimate players in this game. When the governments of Japan or Germany signed the Instruments of Surrender it was clear that the was over.

But there is no "Government" of Islam or Terror. The methods used in "orderly" wars do not work here.

---

Semi-Off-Topic:

This is one of the main difficulties I have with terms like "war of terror" or "war on drugs". Since centuries international law has clear theory regarding the nature of war as a conflict between states or inside a state between governments which claim in concurrence to be the legitimate government or in the case of that a part of state declares itself independent. In all such cases we have a legal framework, widely accepted and quite clear when a state of war, truce or peace is established. In the case of the so-called "war of terror" and "war on drugs" such a system does not exist and can't developed, because there is no institution or person how make binding statements on the behave "terror" or "drugs". But not having such institution prevents the normal channels of ending a war.

When we look into what "terror" or "drug abuse" really means, we see that this is a classical area of policing, bond in western countries by numerous rules of justice and rights of people (Habeas corpus, fair trail, Nulla poena sine lege, in dubio pro reo, etc.). The laws governing war are much looser (inter arma enim silent leges - in times of war the law is silent; Cicero). Declaring such a war without a clear measurement when the war is over is for governments just to convenient, as in some court cases recently shown.

Since Norwegians are neutral w.r.t. the U.S.A. it behooves us to be polite to Norwegians. Who knows they might want to do business with us, or we with them.

But in prioritizing our policies, the benefit the U.S. derives is the first and foremost consideration for us folks in the U.S. If we are not for ourselves, then who will be for us? Americans must consider Americans and America as the most important thing and greatest good, if we want to survive in an ill behaved world.

To answer your question directly, anyone who is civilized and decent deserves my courtesy. I do not have to love my fellow man to show good manners.

There is a rabbinic saying: Derech eretz kadmat Torah: Translated: Good manners comes before God's law.

To those who are not civilized or decent, my lowest regard, contempt, loathing, contumely, hostility, annoyance and anger. Sh*t should be treated as excrement.

On 9/10/2001 I had no particular grief with anyone. On 9/12/2001 I wanted to expunge all traces of Islam from the Earth. I am a 9/11 Patriot. The bastards made war on us and I want revenge.

If my enemy smites me on my cheek, if I can I will decapitate him and take a dump down his severed neck.

ruveyn

May it is overseen here that Norway agreed in Session of the NATO-council to invoke after 9/11 Art. 5 of the NATO-treaty and Norway's military is active in Afghanistan.



Such interest are more difficult do define than here shown. The USA are a powerful nation, but not almighty nation. Any action which has a chance to sustain time must be done in accordance to other powers. Each attend in history since the development of state in modern sense since the 16th century of a nation to act unilateral failed on the long term: Habsburg learned this in 16th and 17th century than France and Sweden learned this, in the 20th century German. In each case on the hard way.