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

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

So if Christians were violent, you'd call them terrorists kamikazes, probably crazy, and definitely unworthy of their professed ideals. That Christians are not violent apparently doesn't show non-violence, but cowardice.

So which path should Christians take to not earn your derision? Or do you just look down on them for being Christian?

[sammipunk.livejournal.com]

Not violent? Did you forget Oslo? Wow.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I was going off of the premise stated by sophia_sadek, that fundamentalists are non-violent cowards. The point is that she has determined that Christians are Bad People(tm) and is borrowing 9/11 to prove that they're just weaker-willed than their Muslim counterparts. Since I was attempting to show bad reasoning, not bad facts, I don't see how Oslo is relevant.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

No I think she said cowards because they'd rather take other people's lives than sacrifice their own. I think that pretty much negates any form of 'nonviolent'.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

That's just an incorrect definition of coward then.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Its not my definition.

I did not mean to imply...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... that Christian fundamentalists are not violent. It is the form that their violence takes that differs from their Muslim brethren. Christian fundamentalists have no qualms about dropping a half ton of explosives on the heads of women and children, as long as there is someone to rescue them if they get shot down.