From: Cory Przybyla (recherchetenet@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Jan 26 2003 - 18:37:35 MST
--- Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
>
> << Cory Przybyla wrote:
> Now a question for you. You have said repeatedly of
> the dangers of the islam in the war threads, no?
> And
> suggested it justifies bombing them as long as the
> end
> brings less intolerance. So, wouldn't this be
> killing
> in the name of <insert whatever religion or lack of
> you support> to the same extent as those who saw
> religion as a direct threat to their
> communo-paradise.
> How would this be distinct from what the communists
> supported? Or perhaps, is it different?>>
>
> I think I am not wrong in seeing what Islam has been
> transformed into, as a
> result of its inability to tolerate representative
> government.
You are almost certainly correct here. What came up
as a sort of afterthought was whether there was or
wasn't a distinction between the scenarios. Is any
nation attacking a muslim country because of the
threat of the intolerant religion (note to anyone who
catches just this post in the thread...I'm not
suggesting that those who are pro-war, hold their
views solely out of threat of religion), different
from say Russians in 1918 attacking Christians within
their own borders after the centuries of intolerance
and slaughters they committed, as a pre-emptive
measure. I guess one could point out proximities of
events. But then again, the Russians just raked in
the highest death count in world war I where, although
nations generally weren't fighting against a religion,
plenty were fighting for their God.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:03 MST