The Losing Game

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

When 9-11 when down my first analysis of the affair was to compare Christian fundamentalism with Muslim fundamentalism. Kamikaze Muslim fundamentalists were clearly willing to die for the freedom of their own people. What about Christian fundamentalists? They seem to only be willing for others to die for the freedom of fundamentalist action. As we can see by the recent deaths of the hit men who carried out the assassination of bin Laden, the whole affair is a lose-lose situation for both sides. Let's face it: fundamentalism is for losers.

William Casey saw warfare in economic terms. In his time the bigger economy prevailed. Perhaps he would seek out the bigger economy that was propping up the Taliban and al-Qaeda. He would trace their funding through Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to find that his own policies have pitted the US against the US. Two factions of religious bigotry supplied by petro-dollars butt heads with each other in a race to the bottom. Which will be the biggest loser?


(BTW, my observations on Christian fundamentalist cowardice predated my learning about Air Force policies of promoting dominionism and protecting their pilots from enemy capture.)

Comments

Crassness

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yeah, OBL made a remark immediately after 9/11 the 'strong-men' on the 4 planes had no idea what was really planned (i.e. suicide missions). Pretty telling, and of course, and he wanted all their unused money for the project returned to his bank accounts too.

[zeitgeistic.livejournal.com]

This, and even the pawns they sent over to "die for their beliefs" had the sole mission of taking out as many unwilling American people with them as possible.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I agree with this. They weren't fighting for freedom; they were aggressively fighting for the expansion of Islam.

In their eyes...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... that constitutes freedom, just as wage slavery is seen as freedom in the US.

Re: In their eyes...

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

I'm not really getting the analogy there. And the assertion that waging an expansive jihad to extend Islam's influence over others is comparable to fighting for one's own freedom just doesn't hold up imo.

Re: In their eyes...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Just as it does not make sense that re-installing an Arabic despot constitutes a "return to democracy," as was claimed for the case of Kuwait.

Re: In their eyes...

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

Okay.

Re: In their eyes...

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Well, the Southern Baptist Convention was founded to defend the idea that civilization's "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal."

It was a Southern Baptist minister who converted Hong Xiuquan, China's Charlemagne, who attempted to spread the Gospel by the dim and flaring lamps and burnished rows of steel.

By this logic we should outlaw the Southern Baptist Convention as a hate group and a potential danger to the entire human race.

(I'm nominally Southern Baptist and saying this, and I'd be lumped as one by any such standard as this).

Re: In their eyes...

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

Okay, that was very interesting - really.

But what does it have to do with jihad, 9/11, and fundamentalism? (Yes it is an example of fundamentalism, at least maybe, but what I was talking about was fighting for one's freedom.)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately Christians are just willing to do that for Christianity. Just ask Uganda which is bringing Christian love to its gays right now, and don't forget to ask Azerbaijan why a genocide almost 100 years ago justifies expelling 1 million people in the 1990s. While you're at it, also look up the Taiping Rebellion, the last Crusade.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

don't forget to ask Azerbaijan why a genocide almost 100 years ago justifies expelling 1 million people in the 1990s.

The same reason the Kurds think they're entitled to part of Turkey that they used to live in 1000 years ago.

That sounds familiar.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

It reminds me of an beleaguered ethnic minority that sought its long lost home land as a solution to its problems. Be careful what you pray for, you just might get it.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And the same reason Greeks think they're entitled to all of Turkey because of a bunch of feuding Roman overlords and generals.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

And that reason is entirely unconnected to religion.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

"Unfortunately Christians are just willing to do that for Christianity."

Maybe they are. I'm sure some are. That wasn't my point though, and I was in no way making a statement about Islam itself. I was only talking about the actions of the hijackers and whether it can be constituted as fighting for their freedom, which I have asserted it cannot.

Assert all you wish.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

It will not prove your point.

Re: Assert all you wish.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

But my assertion is my point. I'm not sure what you're getting at. (again.)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Well, sure it ain't fighting for anyone's freedom. I never said that it was. I'm simply noting that Christians use genocide and armies and that's awright, Muslims make clumsy pinpricks and it's Charleton Heston confronting the Statue of Liberty time.

In the Christian tradition...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... you are only free when you worship Jesus in your heart as your lord and savior. It is all relative.

Re: In the Christian tradition...

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

That is the notion that you are free from sin. It isn't the same thing as being free from any number of other things - government oppression, an abusive relationship, physical bondage, or anything else that limits a person's independence.

Re: In the Christian tradition...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Government oppression: A Saudi prince who tortures dissidents.
Abusive relationships: Providing fraudulent intelligence to the Saudi prince to rationalize invasion.
Physical bondage: Being forced to live in exile from your family for criticizing the torturous prince.

Re: In the Christian tradition...

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, what is the connection? A minute ago you were talking about the Christian notion that only in Christ you are free. Now you're ranting about a Saudi prince - and certainly nothing you say is incorrect, but it does seem irrelevant.

Re: In the Christian tradition...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I am sorry that you hurt your knee.