talkpolitics | The Losing Game

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.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

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.

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.

It is in response to your denial that al-Qaeda fights for the freedom of their people. This is a list of some of the reasons that they do what they do. If you do not recognize them, then you probably know very little about the history of al-Qaeda.

I've studied al Qaeda, though I'm by no means an expert. What I'm missing is the connection you are making between that and Christian beliefs - and how waging external jihad is fighting for the freedom of current Muslims.

When I made my initial observations, I knew very little about al-Qaeda. I assumed that the kamikaze pilots were fighting for freedom. I simply compared their chutzpah to their moral equivalent on the other side of the religious divide. Much of what I had speculated turned out to be spot on after I researched the matter.

Bin Laden was considered a "freedom fighter" by Americans during the Reagan Era as he assisted other Mujaheddin in expelling the Soviets from Afghanistan. Attempting to expel the US from the Arab world is a similar campaign.

"Attempting to expel the US from the Arab world is a similar campaign."

Yes, if that's what they were really fighting for. I think it's fair to say that it may have been part of what they were fighting for (though I doubt it's the whole reason), so I concede that.

The Losing Game

Re: In the Christian tradition...

Re: In the Christian tradition...

Re: In the Christian tradition...

Re: In the Christian tradition...

Re: In the Christian tradition...

Re: In the Christian tradition...

Re: In the Christian tradition...