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

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.)

Basically that if the Islamists are the entirety of Islam that the SBC, having triggered a war that caused 40 million people to die and served as the unofficial religion of the Confederacy has more than qualified to be subjected to a Kulturkampf.

Islamists are not the entirety of Islam. You don't really mean that, right?

No. My point is that a lot of people do conflate the two, which if they are Southern Baptists opens a major problem for them in so doing.

The Losing Game

Re: In their eyes...

Re: In their eyes...

Re: In their eyes...

Re: In their eyes...