Welcome Guest
( Log In | Register )
The time is now 9:38 pm
You last visited January 24, 2017, 8:15 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Think about it

Published:

Last Edited: September 9, 2006, 12:53 pm

It's neither right, nor proper to take over LottoMike's blog for today for a fight I could allow to become ugly.

So I'm going to say this here on my own blog as a continuation of my comments there:

Going to war with a religion is a tough gig and it needs careful thought on the part of anyone contemplating it.

  • Hitler didn't even manage to kill all the Jews in his own country.  There were some left in the aftermath who felt an inclination to get damned ugly about what he did.
  • The Red Chinese have never even managed to wipe out entirely a tiny religion held by the Tibetans.
  • The Romans, the Spanish, the Russians, the Germans, the Holy Roman Empire have conducted the longest protracted war against a religion in the history of humanity, against Jews, and failed to wipe them out.
  • The US did everything it could think of to wipe out Mormons, but they escaped.  Look at them now.
  • If you think about it, consider the efforts made by the Romans to nip Christianity in the bud.  Consider the miserable, abysmal failure of their efforts.  Consider the mass murders the early Christians applied to all those Roman pagans they could catch during the revenge-stage of Christian power.  Read Eusebius.

If you believe you can conduct a war against Radical Islam you, or your children won't one day regret, think again.

Jack

Entry #570

Comments

1.
justxploringComment by justxploring - September 9, 2006, 3:19 pm
I agree. So many people think a "Holy War" is much more virtuous than just bombing the crap out of people for land, oil or money. So this is the new buzz word. If it's something Holy or Christian that attacks our morals and virtues, it must be destroyed, annihilated, exterminated so that our world will be pure. I once saw a Twilight Zone where everyone had to have plastic surgery to fit into a mold. Everyone else was considered to be ugly.

Nobody wants to hear the truth. Everyone is on a mission to destroy Evil. Why not? If they fight Evil that means they have to be soldiers in the "Good" army. Fighting Evil is always the right thing to do so nobody has to even hesitate..the choice is clear. BTW, people like Mike who compare the Nazis with al-Qaeda or the Taliban are using a poor analogy. The Radical Muslims feel their battle is moral and just. The Nazis weren't slaughtering people out of a moral commitment. Actually the former is more dangerous, since they don't really care about what happens on this Earth. I think it's ironic that so many people bring up Nazi Germany, when it's so obvious that the Bush Administration has tried to mimic Hitler in his attempt to form a police state where our civil rights are trampled upon.

Well, Jack, just wanted you to know someone read your blog....I'm too worn out from reading all the right wing, holier than thou garbage posted on this board. Think I need to look somewhere else for my "entertainment."

Peace, Nancy
2.
Comment by Rip Snorter - September 9, 2006, 3:21 pm
Peace, Nancy.
J
3.
LOTTOMIKEComment by LOTTOMIKE - September 9, 2006, 3:49 pm
i remember when muhammad ali refuse to go to war he said those viet congs never did anything to him.thats kind of how i feel about the whole iraq deal.what they do over there and what they choose to believe is their business.i know some here think i might be against republicans but i'm not.i simply see that we are fighting a losing battle over in iraq.those people have been doing what they do all these years and we went and interfered with that.we done messed with a hornets nest and the bees are loose.......
4.
Comment by jim695 - September 9, 2006, 4:52 pm
"The Romans, the Spanish, the Russians, the Germans, the Holy Roman Empire..."

Jack:

It's ironic that you'd use those specific examples; a few more would include the Etruscans, the Ancient Egyptians and Joseph McCarthy.

The ironic part is that NONE of those regimes exist any longer, having been brought down by their own needs for superiority over others who had differing beliefs. Historically, when one people cannot conquer another, they inevitably turn inward in an attempt to conquer their own.

When the day comes that I am arrested and incarcerated for stopping a fleeing felon after he hurt my mother (and it has, on April 27 of this year), when my governor can "lease" our state assets without regard to the will of the people, it's time to take a stand. The Indiana legislature has voted itself into a condition of COMPLETE immunity from prosecution from ANY wrongdoing, whether it be criminal or civil. This was a gradual process which began in 1993, and I suspect that other states' lawmakers are either in the process of duplicating Indiana's all-encompassing shield, or they soon will. What this means is that our elected "representatives" now hold us, the general constituency, to a higher moral and legal standard than that to which they hold themselves. "Re-education" camps are the next logical step here in what used to be America. We've reached a point where state laws supercede contradictory federal laws, which means, apparently, that they also supercede the United States Constitution and the federal Bill of Rights.

Our government has become more and more about the two dominant parties, and less and less about the people it's charged with governing; a very sad state of affairs, and one with no apparent remedy. Generally speaking, one is unable to get a congressman or a senator to take a stand for what's right or what's just, or even to capture his interest on such an issue.

Back to the topic - I've said it before, and I'll say it again: We can't win in Iraq unless and until we take off the gloves and fight the enemy on his own terms. Radicals and insurgents don't observe the Conventional Rules of Warfare nor the Geneva Doctrines; those are for "civilized" warriors, and those we are currently fighting recognize no such civility - they are animals who deserve to be put down like animals, without regard to whether they or their "religion" are offended by the manner in which they die.

As I write this, Indiana is the ONLY state where recall elections are illegal (big surprise), but the rest of you have the option of THROWING THE BUMS OUT on their ears if they don't do their jobs!

I suggest you get on it...

Jim
5.
Comment by Rip Snorter - September 9, 2006, 5:06 pm
Jim---" I've said it before, and I'll say it again: We can't win in Iraq unless and until we take off the gloves and fight the enemy on his own terms. Radicals and insurgents don't observe the Conventional Rules of Warfare nor the Geneva Doctrines; those are for "civilized" warriors, and those we are currently fighting recognize no such civility - they are animals who deserve to be put down like animals, without regard to whether they or their "religion" are offended by the manner in which they die."

Okay, Jim.

Animals, you call them. Animals.

You and I are old enough to remember when 'Japs' were animals in the eyes of people who were then the age you and I are now.

You and I played at killing Japs and Krauts and Indians a long time after WWII was over. A long time after the last Apache raided the last wagon.

You and I once called the Russkies animals with no respect for human life.

You and I once called the Communist Chinese animals.

Just who the hell, precisely, are you calling animals now, amigo? Everyone who lives outside the boundaries of the United States? Every Muslim, both inside and outside the US?

Everyone with brown skin, maybe?

Everyone who doesn't subscribe to what-the-hell-ever religion it is you happen to belong to?

Everyone who isn't a member of your political party?

Jim. You ain't any different than a Muslim fundamentalist sending terror bombers into the US because that terrorist believes you are a God damned animal.

Well, by God, animals are better than both of you. At least they're able to recognize the species of their own kind.

J


6.
Comment by Rip Snorter - September 9, 2006, 5:31 pm
LottoMike:

It ain't a Democrat or Republican thing. Prez of both those parties have squandered US treasure and the lives of US young people for military ventures as idiotic as this one, though maybe without the long-term consequences this one will have.

It's all about de-humanization, Mike. It's about allowing the wormtongues of our leaders, both political and religious, to tell us who is human and who isn't. Based on their interests of the moment.

And it's about our hunger to become mindless killers of other men, justified by the orders from headquarters.

And it's about how fun, how satisfying it's going to be when we finish handcuffing the other side to what we believe is right and making them march lockstep with us at gunpoint.

Jack
7.
csfbComment by csfb - September 9, 2006, 6:48 pm
My oh my, methinks I go to the forums and conduct a poll: Who's for the war and who is not. Or: A Republican or a Democrat thing, is it?

One of my favorite quotations from junior high was: If to do were as easy as to know what was good to do, chapels would have been churches; cottages, palaces.

Exact words may not be, but I think that is attributed to Shakespeare. I may have digressed some. Cheers!
8.
Comment by Rip Snorter - September 9, 2006, 8:33 pm
This is my blog, csfb. What might be appropriate here mightn't be appropriate on the forums.

I wouldn't even have thought it appropriate on a blog on LP had I not watched the daily litany of fear mongering and hate-spittle drooling down the screen-list of blog entries daily.

I haven't gone to the sources of that drivel to present another viewpoint, though I'll confess I've felt a mild bit of attitude just reading the headings. If I'd posted on those blogs I'd have expected whomever had the blog to speak his mind.

Here, on my blog, I don't mind that that Jim's revealed himself to be what he is, calling human beings animals and showing himself to be a lickspittle for the propaganda machine and the brainwashing media.

I don't mind Jim, nor anyone else who wants to have a shot at it doing so right here on the Rip Snorter blog.

And if they do, there'll be two sides to the issue up for thought.

Jack

9.
Rick GComment by Rick G - September 9, 2006, 11:03 pm
Ideological warfare will not be won or lost on a battlefield. In fact the only "war" that will be won or lost on a battlefield is territorial warfare. The term "war" has become misused in our current vernacular.
10.
Comment by jim695 - September 10, 2006, 3:08 am
Hmmm... I was pretty sure I typed my response in English, and having re-read my post, I don't see anything there which condemns the Iraqi people, the Muslim nation, the Japanese, the Germans or Soviets, nor brown, yellow or green people. I would think someone who is as well-informed as you are would know that we aren't fighting the Iraqis anymore, but I forgive your name-calling, anyway.

Just to be clear, you and I didn't call the Japanese animals; YOU did. In our house, they were Japanese, not "Japs" or "Nips." You and I didn't call the "Krauts" animals; YOU did. In our house, they were either Germans or Nazis, and a marked distinction was made between the two. I could go on, but I believe my point has been made (My parents were politically correct long before that term became popular; we weren't even allowed to call black people "black;" back then, the proper term was "Negro," and this was when we still had separate drinking fountains and other such nonsense). To be fair, I understand that when you say, "You and I," you mean to say, "Most people during those times," and I do get your point, but it has nothing to do with anything I said in my initial post here.

No, Jack; specifically, I'm speaking of the insurgents and suicide bombers who have no respect for human life or dignity. I have no hatred toward the Iraqi people themselves, nor do I hate the Afghanis; the citizens of those countries are also victims of the insurgents (I now consider the Taliban to be an insurgency, since we've killed most of them) and, from what I saw when I was there in 1991, the Iraqis are willing to die for their country, but NOT for their religion.

By insisting the insurgents and suicide bombers are human beings, you're essentially implying, "I am like them; they are as I am." So be it. I, on the other hand, am nothing like them, nor are they like me by any stretch of the imagination. I do consider myself to be a human being, with human values, emotions and aspirations for a better future. The "people" you speak of have no such attributes; they live and train solely to kill those who disagree with their bent philosophies and twisted doctrines. Therefore, I heartily defend my use of the term, "animals" to describe those who feel they must kill, and die, in order to obtain life.

What I'm suggesting is that, at least for the time being, we break out the pigs' blood in order to remove the incentive bin Laden's followers and admirers have for blowing themselves up and kidnapping and beheading civilians. I couldn't care less if they're brown, yellow, red, white or plaid with blue stripes and orange polka-dots - they should be killed by the most heinous methods we can devise; they deserve nothing better.

I can't make it any clearer.

Jim
11.
nassaufinestguyComment by nassaufinestguy - September 10, 2006, 3:57 pm
nice page rip i like it

You must be a Lottery Post member to post comments to a Blog.

Register for a FREE membership, or if you're already a member please Log In.