Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
domgrima

causes of war

Recommended Posts

I have read these messages with great interest and would like to make a few of my own humble opinions.(Feel free to shoot me down in flames if you will)

As a confirmed atheist, I have a number of views on organised religions and their involvement with war and strife.

First, I believe religions ARE an important part of many people's lives and I have the utmost respect for peoples' beliefs.There is a strong argument for the necessity of religion in evolving civilisations, as tools of state for the control AND moral guidance of the general population.Historically, education seems to have been the privilige and duty of the religious sector, leading to more widespread literacy as a civilisation grows in stature.

Organised religions also seem to fulfill a deep rooted need for spiritual guidance and moral structure on an individual basis (hence most (ALL?) religions are founded on a basic set of tenets/dogma.)

The existence of an omnipotent figure seems to fulfill the need for a paternal authority figure, thus abdicating ultimate responsibilty to an external,all knowing source.This helps humans to make sense of many of life's inexplicable events ( or alternatively assumes that even if we cannot make sense of it, at least "someone" knows what is going on and our lives are not merely a random sequence of events.

(Please note - I do not necessarily assume that my beliefs are right and that others are wrong. But I do assume that I have the right to hold such beliefs without causing harm or stress to others)

With regards holy wars, I believe such catastrophes are founde simply on the fear of the "outsider". Such xenophobia exists in many threads of human existence ( notably racism, sexism,religious and political conflict)

This "them vs. us" attititude most easily finds justification through religion."They don't subscribe to our moral code and therefore are immoral....QED". This allows participants to deny the humanity of their enemy, relieving feelings of guilt.

Does anybody really believe that the majority of Afghans wish to kill all Americans/Christians? Not me.

I think that 90% of these people wish merely to live out their lives in peace and happiness surrounded by loved ones and with hope for the future ( don't you?)

September 11th was NOT caused by Afghan or Islams, but by a group of malcontent, undeniably evil men under the cover of a religious cause. No society is purely innocent, and no effect without its causes.

This does not excuse in any way the actions of these ( or any other) terrorist. But it does suggest that we, the developed world, if we seriously wish to defeat terrorism need to attack the root causes of such phenomena. I think this requires more subtle measures than those being carried out at present. Its an old argument, but how many more future terrorists will be born from this latest conflict? Old hatreds are renewed by these types of conflict and I think the cycle of vengeance can only be broken by diplomatic means. This means sitting down with people whom may disgust you ( to paraphrase Yasser Arafat " I will make peace with my enemies". Witness the progress made in Northern Ireland. Talks between the British government and the IRA was unthinkable when John Major first initiated events. But I believe that the IRA are now so involved in the peace process at a diplomatic level that they would find it hard to go back to their old ways. They have been given too much to lose.

Well I guess this is pretty rambling but hope my comments are of interest and will generate some meaningful commments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't disagree, however, with whom do we make peace? Do we pull away our support of Israel, abandon all military and support bases in the Middle East, coerce our own citizens and other first world countries to redistribute a great amount of their wealth to third world countries, and no longer move our interests and influence outside our own borders? This is what Isalmic militants on their jihad want.

The issue is never as black/white as simply saying we need to address the problem, not drop bombs. The logic is good: the idea is good, BUT I don't know how we implement diplomacy with a people who want nothing less than our destruction. We have been attacked on our homeland; not an attack against a military base in Saudi Arabia; not an attack against U.S. soldiers in foreign lands.

Would understanding the problems which created Nazi Germany have stopped Hitler? Would understanding Hirohito have stopped Imperial Japan? Should China decide to invade Taiwan and other regional Pacific rim countries, do we try to understand the "why"?

Both the idea to understand the root cause of any national/political problem, and the desire to avenge with fire transgressions are age old. Islamic militants have attacked Christian Europe at isolated intervals over the past 1300 years in jihad. We are just now the biggest infidel in the world, and our open society makes an internal attack easy.

Thoughts on how to appease terrorists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Thoughts on how to appease terrorists?

Eliminate them.

You can't appease fanatics, especially fanatics willing to die for their cause.

If it is simply a numbers game, then we will eventually win as there are 280,000,000 of us and less than 1,000,000 of them. If a quarter of them are in our country hiding in "underground sleeper cells," I assume that they are waiting for their signal to attack. I also assume that they have a "one-shot attack" as their lines of supply are either cut off, are very hard to maintain discretely, or the attacks are of the suicide variety. Therefore, attrition will work in our favor as they expend their ammo on whatever attacks are yet to happen.

So, we absorb a few hits, make a few hits in return, and take more of a siege mentality regarding homeland attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by thanatos:

. The logic is good: the idea is good, BUT I don't know how we implement diplomacy with a people who want nothing less than our destruction. We have been attacked on our homeland; not an attack against a military base in Saudi Arabia; not an attack against U.S. soldiers in foreign lands.

Would understanding the problems which created Nazi Germany have stopped Hitler? Would understanding Hirohito have stopped Imperial Japan? Should China decide to invade Taiwan and other regional Pacific rim countries, do we try to understand the "why"?

Both the idea to understand the root cause of any national/political problem, and the desire to avenge with fire transgressions are age old. Islamic militants have attacked Christian Europe at isolated intervals over the past 1300 years in jihad. We are just now the biggest infidel in the world, and our open society makes an internal attack easy.

Thoughts on how to appease terrorists?

The first few lines of this quote encapsulate part of the problem I am trying to highlight.

1)"BUT I don't know how....etc."

But lack of knowledge does not exclude the possibility of an answer. I personally don't know how the internet is structured but I can still send this message

2)"a people who want nothing less than our destruction".

It is not "a people" but a defined group of individuals who are responsible for Sep 11. It should be these specific people who are hunted down and brought to justice, NOT killed for vengeance.And the concept of "collateral damage" should not be an acceptable one.

Without the "why" of historical atrocities we make no progress, we only indulge in the temporary satisfaction of vengeance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

Eliminate them.

You can't appease fanatics, especially fanatics willing to die for their cause.

If it is simply a numbers game, then we will eventually win as there are 280,000,000 of us and less than 1,000,000 of them. If a quarter of them are in our country hiding in "underground sleeper cells," I assume that they are waiting for their signal to attack. I also assume that they have a "one-shot attack" as their lines of supply are either cut off, are very hard to maintain discretely, or the attacks are of the suicide variety. Therefore, attrition will work in our favor as they expend their ammo on whatever attacks are yet to happen.

So, we absorb a few hits, make a few hits in return, and take more of a siege mentality regarding homeland attacks.

I find it interesting that you are willing to sacrifice the lives of a number of your countrymen to "win" this war. Who should these volunteers be? Members of your family?

Why must the loss of lives be balanced by more loss of life?

Please clarify who you mean by 1000,000 fanatics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Thoughts on how to appease terrorists?

Appease terrorists? Surely ye jest. There is only one way to erraticate terrorism Total and Complete Annihilation of the DNA pool of those that partake in such activity.

My 2-bits

TTFN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gallion,

Yes, I jest. Is seems to be the question that keeps being asked by those who want to "understand" why the terrorists don't like us. They say "we need compassion, not bombs. We need to send aid and money, not the military war machinery". This is the question that never has an answer from those who want to give peace a chance.

Was the conflict resolution of WWII a fluke? Is any principle or ideal worth sacrifice?

Should someone break into your home, kill your spouse and rape your children, do you try to understand what socioeconomical-political motivations led to this individual's action? Do you feel sorry for this murderer? Help him load your car up with your valuables and give him the keys right before he kills you? Would this be giving peace a chance? Isn't this what occurred September 11, 2001. If not, then what have I missed? Where am I wrong? Were the deaths of those thousands of Americans something else other than an act of war and murderous aggression? You know, was it just a political statement about how the U.S. foreign policy is displeasing to some in the Middle East. Oh yeah, too bad about all that mess with the people and their families and all, right?

Geez,...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts exactly, doc. Again, the minority is trying to rule a nation that is SUPPOSED to be ruled by the majority. The vast minority being terrorists and the peaceniks here on the homefront. They want *US* to surrender *OUR* interests because a *FEW* people desperately want us to. That last I checked, a democratic republic is not ruled by a *FEW* people, not to mention those that aren't even CITIZENS of that republic.

Frankly, it is my belief that those who believe that peace is the answer to EVERYTHING have no grasp of history nor have the courage to realize that sacrifice must be made for any gain.

They also don't have the knowledge of economics and supply to realize that gain is essential for any nation to survive.

Another point of interest is that they *ARE* knowledgable of the First Ammendment which allows them to speak freely, but they seem to have stopped reading there, because the Second Ammendment, which allows them to bear arms, is apparently wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aramike, may I refer you to your signature

quote:

"You can only love or hate something you truly understand."


Please be clear, I do not believe it is necessary to feel sorry for terrorists. or to condone or try to understand their actions. But there should be an attempt to determine what causes people to hate America and the western world in general. If you wanna fix a problem you gotta undestand what causes it, treat the disease and not the symptoms.

quote:

They also don't have the knowledge of economics and supply to realize that gain is essential for any nation to survive.


I think the most important word here is ANY.

quote:

Should someone break into your home, kill your spouse and rape your children, do you try to understand what socioeconomical-political motivations led to this individual's action? Do you feel sorry for this murderer? Help him load your car up with your valuables and give him the keys right before he kills you? Would this be giving peace a chance

No, you bring him to justice and get him the hell out of your society. But you don't condemn his whole family and acquaintances along with him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I keep thinking that old peacenik saying, Violence begets violence and the violence stops with me.

Oh, OK, so you are going to be the victim, cool, what a little martyr. Then the violent people will feel that they can continue to violate you and prety soon you will be dead.

Now if only the peaceniks actually lived that way. We wouldn't have any!!

Violence begets stronger violence, which keeps the first violence from happening again.

"Strength" Strike that, it should be.

Peace through superior firepower!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Please clarify who you mean by 1000,000 fanatics?

By fanatics, I mean the extremists who take literally the words of their religious text in order to entice the youth of their culture to give their lives in quests of mass destruction of those who do not believe. The 1,000,000 was an anecdotal estimate.

quote:

I find it interesting that you are willing to sacrifice the lives of a number of your countrymen to "win" this war.

1. I am not alone in thinking this way.

2. I am not making the decision to sacrifice anything -- people who go do so voluntarily.

3. Terrorism must stop sometime. If not now, then when? If not our countrymen, then whose? We were the ones attacked -- we are the ones who have to respond.

quote:

Who should these volunteers be? Members of your family?

Alas, I don't have members of my family who are of fighting age. If I were younger, who knows? If I lost a family member (I could have, except for a last minute change of plans of my aunt), perhaps.

quote:

Why must the loss of lives be balanced by more loss of life?

Because, in the long run, the loss of life would be greater if we were to do nothing. And the lives lost would be more civilian than military if we do nothing. If there is to be loss of life, then let it be the lives of those committed to the defense of this country, as they are the most trained to protect their lives. As for civilian lives of the opposition, they have their own rulers to appeal to. They are the ones who put their people into harm's way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

Our bombs dropping now are not enough. CNN gets queasy everytime there is a civilian death accidentally.

Sadly, if the Taliban chooses to hide among their people, we have no choice but to strike them there. If we were to drop tons of explosives in the mostly deserted cities now, we may kill 200 innocent people. But in the end the fighting in their country would be over sooner, and you wouldn't have 15-20 deaths at a time stretching out to equal 600 or more civilians overall.

In world war 2 the allies killed 300,000 German civilians due to bombing. If we had had CNN back then, Europe would be speaking German right now, and quite possibly every island up to Hawaii and Australia would be speaking Japanese.

We need to get over it. It's a good thing war is so terrible because those who are in it are less likely to start another one.

We need to hurry up and finish it - by that I mean killing every single person we have set out to kill- and move on to Iraq or Iran or Egypt or Somolia or whoever is next.

The reason these wars happen is because the US has taken the easy way out of a conflict. Even now we are preparing the UN to form a post Taliban government.

I say we kill the Taliban, replace them with a pro-US government, and Leave them be in freedom.

For Iraq, same deal - then we steal their oil.

Sorry if I sound mad but CNN and MSNBC are driving me nuts with their anti-American propaganda machines.

And so are those tree hugging hippies and anti war protesters.

Grrrr........

P.S. I have vented in this post, and if you wish to debate me logically on points I have made I will gladly display the well-informed intuitiveness that is my hallmark and tell you if you are a commie or not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$ilk wrote:

quote:

P.S. I have vented in this post, and if you wish to debate me logically on points I have made I will gladly display the well-informed intuitiveness that is my hallmark and tell you if you are a commie or not...

LOL. Very well put, $ilk.

Is it just me, or is this really the way it has become?

1. terrorist=freedom-fighter (if anti-U.S.)

2. terrorist who crashes plane into WTC killing thousands=hijacker (or even better, an alleged hijacker)

3. carpet bombing=unacceptable, immoral military act to kill enemies (if bombing done by a high-tech bully superpower)

4. civilian casualities=unacceptable, immoral occurrence associated with act of war (if done by a high-tech bully superpower)

5. civilian casualities=unfortunate consequences of civilians living in high-tech bully superpower country; deaths not necessarily undeserved due to policies of said superpower around the globe

You know, I have to stop. This is so true I can no longer see any satire in it.

Somebody wake me up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

It's so true, just because we have been more sucessful we have to deal with these acts of rage as though it is a natural occurence of our being so good.

We should pat them on the back and say "chin up Bin Laden" and turn the other cheek.

i guess. Hell I don't know maybe we have taken too much from the "disadvantaged"

read : those who haven't earned it.

Well, I guess we'll see how this turns out.

I think it would be so great if the Nation of Islam is behind this anthrax stuff. Of course it would get pushed under the rug because it would be "racist" to accuse them of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

And the Palestinians wouldn't feel persecuted if they didn't attack Isreal during the 50's in the first place. The Palestians made their own bed -- now they must sleep in it.

That's not exactly true. It all started by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which Guaranteed at homeland for the Jewish people. Unfortunately, similar guarantees were made to the indiginous Arabs. You know what happened next.

Did you know Menachim Begin was a leader of one of the more extremist Jewish terrorist groups who killed 100s of British servicemen and policemen?

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Sound familiar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

You should be cautious with ridiculous statements like that here -- MANY of us have served in the military. MANY of us *WERE* those volunteers.

Indeed, you need to be VERY cautious with statements like that. I was one of those volunteers, and I was offended to say the least.

If my country called upon me to go fight a war, I would be there in a heartbeat.

Peace through superior firepower is not just a saying, it is a necessity!!! Clinton brought this countries security to it's knees in just 8 years. Think Osama would have tried this with Reagan in office, I don't think so!!

Bush hadn't had enough time to put humpty dumpty back together again, that is the ONLY reason that Osamma got away with it in the first place, and if you think that I am placing the blame on Clinton's shoulders, YOU ARE CORRECT, it is his fault that this was able to occur.

The WTC is Clinton's legacy!!

After the terrorists in Afghanistan are handled, what do you think the chances of a terrorist organization thinking twice before going after civilians again? I would say that they would be very high. A terrorist may be wiling to give his life for Allah, but when it will result in the destruction of all that he holds dear, then he will hold back and try for a political solution, don't ya think?

Peace Through Superior Firepower!!

LIVE IT!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

I find it interesting that you are willing to sacrifice the lives of a number of your countrymen to "win" this war. Who should these volunteers be? Members of your family?

Just wanted to apologise sincerely for the remark I made recently. I genuinely meant no offence.

Sorry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

September 11th was NOT caused by Afghan or Islams, but by a group of malcontent, undeniably evil men under the cover of a religious cause

The problem is this is where many of these Terrorists are hiding.

quote:

Why must the loss of lives be balanced by more loss of life?

Unfortunatly, we are a violent species. The Bully on the play ground is only a bully until somebody gives them a bloody nose, and that is exactly what these terrorists are, and that is what we are doing. As far as understanding why they(the terrorists) want to do this... bin laden is angry at us for our occupation of his "Holy Land". Regardless of the fact that the US presence in Saudi is TOLERATED, and WANTED by the Saudi government. bin laden Blames US for events that happened before we were Born.

quote:

4. civilian casualities=unacceptable, immoral occurrence associated with act of war (if done by a high-tech bully superpower)

hehe, Well said Thantos. Civilian casualties are unfortunate. The only thing I have to add is If the U.S. were trying to kill Civilians the death count would be ALOT higher than it is alleged to be. Do accidents happen? Yes, and it is unfortunate. The only difference is we do NOT set out to target civilians, THEY intentionally did.

And THAT is what changes a Freedom Fighter into a Terrorist - Hitting Military targets is one thing. Targeting Civilians is UNACCEPTABLE. Collateral Damage happens, it is something that you TRY to avoid, but no matter how hard you try, it is still going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×