what is wrong with war?
- Thread starter syilla
- Start date
- Replies 54
- Views 7K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
AzizMostafa
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 231
- Reaction score
- 16
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
God, the King, the All-Holy, the All-Peaceable, the All-Faithful,
the All-Preserver, the All-Mighty, the All-Compeller, the All-Sublime says:
> O you who believe, why do you say what you do not?
> Very hateful is it to God, that you say what you do not;
> God loves those who fight in His Way in ranks, as though they were a building well-compacted.
____________________________________________________
Verses 61:2-4 of the Glorious Quran
the All-Preserver, the All-Mighty, the All-Compeller, the All-Sublime says:
> O you who believe, why do you say what you do not?
> Very hateful is it to God, that you say what you do not;
> God loves those who fight in His Way in ranks, as though they were a building well-compacted.
____________________________________________________
Verses 61:2-4 of the Glorious Quran
Last edited:
Woodrow
May Allah have mercy on him رحمة الله عليه
- Messages
- 17,217
- Reaction score
- 4,224
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Woodrow is this a fact?
That number is based on the number of members in the 149 major Christian denominations in the US. Many people would say that many of them while members of a denomination actually are not practicing Christians. The current Population is 280 million and 140 million claim membership in a Christian Church. So roughly half the population claims to be Christian.
I do now, and always will support anyone and everyone who is anti-Iran. Friend of my enemy is my enemy. Br. Saddam Showed more dignity in his last hour than there is in whole of Iran.
Last edited:
AzizMostafa
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 231
- Reaction score
- 16
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Wrong or not? Verses 2:19-193 of the Glorious Quran say it all:
____________________________________
And fight in the Way of God with those who fight with you, but aggress not. God loves not the aggressors
And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you
Persecution is more grievous than slaying
But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there
Then, if they fight you, slay them
Such is the recompense of unbelievers
But if they give over, surely God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate
Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is God’s
Then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers
____________________________________
Regards with Flowers
____________________________________
And fight in the Way of God with those who fight with you, but aggress not. God loves not the aggressors
And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you
Persecution is more grievous than slaying
But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there
Then, if they fight you, slay them
Such is the recompense of unbelievers
But if they give over, surely God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate
Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is God’s
Then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers
____________________________________
Regards with Flowers
khushnood
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 133
- Reaction score
- 7
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
so true
But quite a few mistranlated words there(thus changed the mean of whole at least 1 ayah).
Look, see below is the proof
[FONT="]وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلا تَعْتَدُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ لا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ (١٩٠)وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ ثَقِفْتُمُوهُمْ وَأَخْرِجُوهُمْ مِنْ حَيْثُ أَخْرَجُوكُمْ وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ وَلا تُقَاتِلُوهُمْ عِنْدَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ حَتَّى يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِيهِ فَإِنْ قَاتَلُوكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُمْ كَذَلِكَ جَزَاءُ الْكَافِرِينَ (١٩١)فَإِنِ انْتَهَوْا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ (١٩٢)وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّى لا تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ لِلَّهِ فَإِنِ انْتَهَوْا فَلا عُدْوَانَ إِلا عَلَى الظَّالِمِينَ (١٩٣)الشَّهْرُ الْحَرَامُ بِالشَّهْرِ الْحَرَامِ وَالْحُرُمَاتُ قِصَاصٌ فَمَنِ اعْتَدَى عَلَيْكُمْ فَاعْتَدُوا عَلَيْهِ بِمِثْلِ مَا اعْتَدَى عَلَيْكُمْ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَ الْمُتَّقِينَ (١٩٤)وَأَنْفِقُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَلا تُلْقُوا بِأَيْدِيكُمْ إِلَى التَّهْلُكَةِ وَأَحْسِنُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُحْسِنِينَ (١٩٥)[/FONT]
Philosopher
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 534
- Reaction score
- 36
Some pictures in this thread will summarize what's wrong with war:
http://www.islamicboard.com/general-chat/37620-unforgettable-moments-captured-film.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/general-chat/37620-unforgettable-moments-captured-film.html
Syilla: I think that the question "What is wrong with war?" misleads; I think that a better question would be "What are right and wrong reasons for resorting to organized violence?"
In your original post, you listed some reasons for resorting to personal violence (e.g., threats to yourself and to your family). Those of us who hold the opinion that your prime goals are your own survival and the survival of your family would undoubtedly agree that you would be justified in using violence, as a last resort, in pursuit of those prime goals, provided that you didn't infringe on other people's equal right to pursue theirs. Extending those ideas, if a group of other people threaten not only your and your family's survival but also similarly threaten your neighbors', then I expect that most people would agree that you'd be justified in joining with others in resorting to organized violence against the aggressors.
Continuing with that type of analysis, I think that the U.S. was justified in going to war against al Qaeda (which initiated violence on the U.S.) and even against Iraq, given Saddam Hussein's refusal to comply with relevant U.N. resolutions and his threats to use WMD (which, however, turned out to be mostly his and his sons' arrogant blustering). I'd similarly argue that if Iran continues to threaten the U.S. (or those people that the U.S. has obligated itself to protect), then the U.S. would be justified in using force to remove the current theocratic leaders of Iran. Similarly, if al Qaeda continues to threaten the U.S. with WMD, then given Osama bin Laden's apparent fixation on symbols, I think that the U.S. Congress should authorize the U.S. president to warn al Qaeda, now, that should they attack, the U.S. will no longer abide by relevant articles in the Geneva Convention (dealing with cultural heritage) and will, exactly 72 hours after such an attack (giving people time to leave), instantaneously transform Mecca into a pile of radioactive rubble in the desert. And I'll add that I consider it bizarre that anyone should consider any religious symbol to be worth more than a single person's life, but for those Muslims who might think otherwise, perhaps such a threat to destroy Mecca would encourage them to try harder to reign-in extremists in their midst.
On the other hand, there are cases when resorting to violence even in pursuit of one's prime goals is unwise. For example, if you or your antagonist initiated violence in pursuit of disputed land or water or other critical resources (resources that each side required for their and their families' survival), then although that would seem to be a justified reason for resorting to violence, in fact it would be wrong to resort to war, because whatever the outcome of the war, the problem almost certainly wouldn't be solved. That is, in such cases, the root problem would be too many people for the carrying capacity of the land; therefore, a wiser solution to the problem would be to reduce the population. And although it's true that wars have been effective in decreasing populations, surely most people would agree that a wiser solution would be to take actions (such as birth control and less consumption) to achieve sustainable development. Further, many wars are not only foolish ways to try to solve problems but also are waged for what most people consider to be the wrong reasons. For example, some psychopaths apparently "enjoy" war (for such people, war may relieve trauma from the abuse they received as children), some people desire war for the possible financial and other economic gains that war might yield them, and many clerical and political leaders use war to gain or retain their power over the people.
In my view, consequently, at the root of many problems that lead to war is that groups of people hold conflicting opinions about goals --- and hold such opinions "religiously", even though there's no reliable and relevant data to support their opinions. As examples and even though it's difficult to fathom such stupidity, some Jews actually "believe" that some giant landlord in the sky gave some land to them, some Americans and Iranians actually "believe" that a "war to end all wars" is desirable (as a forerunner to the return of their respective "messiahs"), and most Muslims apparently "believe" what their clerics tell them: that if they'll do what the clerics tell them, then they'll be rewarded with the oxymoronic idea of eternal life in a fictitious paradise. In each case, no reliable data support such "beliefs". In addition and most unfortunately, as an example of what's known as "the tragedy of the commons", most people apparently "believe" that they have the "right" to have as many children as they desire and to consume as much as they want, without regard to the carrying capacity of this poor old Earth.
In general, "what's wrong with war" is that it's too easy. As David Freidman said: "The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations." Peace, on the other hand, is much more difficult to attain and to maintain. As is commonly stated, "there can be no peace without justice", but the problem with that idea (as I explain in more detail in my free online book at htttp://zenofzero.net/ ) is that social justice is just opinion -- and there'll be no agreement about justice until there's agreement about values and, in turn, no agreement about values, until there's agreement on objectives (since all values have meaning only relative to some objective). Therefore, I think that a way to peace can be found if most people would agree with what I consider to be obvious from an enormous quantity of reliable data: not only that their prime goals are their dual survival goals (of themselves and their families) but also, as Muhammad said in his last sermon, that all humans are members of the same human family (with no one more distantly related than as 50th cousin). If we could agree on those prime goals and if we could hold opinions only as strongly as relevant and reliable evidence warrants, then surely we could agree that our values are to be measured not with respect to some fictitious ideas about eternal life and paradise (as advocated by the foolish clerics of the world) but measured with respect to the continued evolution of the human family.
Consistent with my opinions expressed above (and for which supportive data are available), I therefore think that taking the following half-dozen steps would help eliminate wars. 1) Stop child abuse, 2) Make war profiteering illegal, worldwide (which would require a worldwide judiciary and associated policing powers), 3) Promote democracy and basic human rights throughout the world, 4) Teach all children the essence of "critical thinking", (i.e., to hold opinions only as strongly as relevant, reliable evidence warrants), 5) permit married couples to have a child only if they demonstrate to examiners elected by each community that they have potentials to be good parents (e.g., that they're not potential child abusers and that they know how to think critically), and 6) Promote widespread recognition that the most sensible, achievable, and worthwhile goal for humans to pursue is not to attain some fictitious "eternal life" in an equally fictitious "paradise" but to help humanity evolve into what is not yet an appropriate designation, i.e., Homo sapiens (the wise ones).
In your original post, you listed some reasons for resorting to personal violence (e.g., threats to yourself and to your family). Those of us who hold the opinion that your prime goals are your own survival and the survival of your family would undoubtedly agree that you would be justified in using violence, as a last resort, in pursuit of those prime goals, provided that you didn't infringe on other people's equal right to pursue theirs. Extending those ideas, if a group of other people threaten not only your and your family's survival but also similarly threaten your neighbors', then I expect that most people would agree that you'd be justified in joining with others in resorting to organized violence against the aggressors.
Continuing with that type of analysis, I think that the U.S. was justified in going to war against al Qaeda (which initiated violence on the U.S.) and even against Iraq, given Saddam Hussein's refusal to comply with relevant U.N. resolutions and his threats to use WMD (which, however, turned out to be mostly his and his sons' arrogant blustering). I'd similarly argue that if Iran continues to threaten the U.S. (or those people that the U.S. has obligated itself to protect), then the U.S. would be justified in using force to remove the current theocratic leaders of Iran. Similarly, if al Qaeda continues to threaten the U.S. with WMD, then given Osama bin Laden's apparent fixation on symbols, I think that the U.S. Congress should authorize the U.S. president to warn al Qaeda, now, that should they attack, the U.S. will no longer abide by relevant articles in the Geneva Convention (dealing with cultural heritage) and will, exactly 72 hours after such an attack (giving people time to leave), instantaneously transform Mecca into a pile of radioactive rubble in the desert. And I'll add that I consider it bizarre that anyone should consider any religious symbol to be worth more than a single person's life, but for those Muslims who might think otherwise, perhaps such a threat to destroy Mecca would encourage them to try harder to reign-in extremists in their midst.
On the other hand, there are cases when resorting to violence even in pursuit of one's prime goals is unwise. For example, if you or your antagonist initiated violence in pursuit of disputed land or water or other critical resources (resources that each side required for their and their families' survival), then although that would seem to be a justified reason for resorting to violence, in fact it would be wrong to resort to war, because whatever the outcome of the war, the problem almost certainly wouldn't be solved. That is, in such cases, the root problem would be too many people for the carrying capacity of the land; therefore, a wiser solution to the problem would be to reduce the population. And although it's true that wars have been effective in decreasing populations, surely most people would agree that a wiser solution would be to take actions (such as birth control and less consumption) to achieve sustainable development. Further, many wars are not only foolish ways to try to solve problems but also are waged for what most people consider to be the wrong reasons. For example, some psychopaths apparently "enjoy" war (for such people, war may relieve trauma from the abuse they received as children), some people desire war for the possible financial and other economic gains that war might yield them, and many clerical and political leaders use war to gain or retain their power over the people.
In my view, consequently, at the root of many problems that lead to war is that groups of people hold conflicting opinions about goals --- and hold such opinions "religiously", even though there's no reliable and relevant data to support their opinions. As examples and even though it's difficult to fathom such stupidity, some Jews actually "believe" that some giant landlord in the sky gave some land to them, some Americans and Iranians actually "believe" that a "war to end all wars" is desirable (as a forerunner to the return of their respective "messiahs"), and most Muslims apparently "believe" what their clerics tell them: that if they'll do what the clerics tell them, then they'll be rewarded with the oxymoronic idea of eternal life in a fictitious paradise. In each case, no reliable data support such "beliefs". In addition and most unfortunately, as an example of what's known as "the tragedy of the commons", most people apparently "believe" that they have the "right" to have as many children as they desire and to consume as much as they want, without regard to the carrying capacity of this poor old Earth.
In general, "what's wrong with war" is that it's too easy. As David Freidman said: "The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations." Peace, on the other hand, is much more difficult to attain and to maintain. As is commonly stated, "there can be no peace without justice", but the problem with that idea (as I explain in more detail in my free online book at htttp://zenofzero.net/ ) is that social justice is just opinion -- and there'll be no agreement about justice until there's agreement about values and, in turn, no agreement about values, until there's agreement on objectives (since all values have meaning only relative to some objective). Therefore, I think that a way to peace can be found if most people would agree with what I consider to be obvious from an enormous quantity of reliable data: not only that their prime goals are their dual survival goals (of themselves and their families) but also, as Muhammad said in his last sermon, that all humans are members of the same human family (with no one more distantly related than as 50th cousin). If we could agree on those prime goals and if we could hold opinions only as strongly as relevant and reliable evidence warrants, then surely we could agree that our values are to be measured not with respect to some fictitious ideas about eternal life and paradise (as advocated by the foolish clerics of the world) but measured with respect to the continued evolution of the human family.
Consistent with my opinions expressed above (and for which supportive data are available), I therefore think that taking the following half-dozen steps would help eliminate wars. 1) Stop child abuse, 2) Make war profiteering illegal, worldwide (which would require a worldwide judiciary and associated policing powers), 3) Promote democracy and basic human rights throughout the world, 4) Teach all children the essence of "critical thinking", (i.e., to hold opinions only as strongly as relevant, reliable evidence warrants), 5) permit married couples to have a child only if they demonstrate to examiners elected by each community that they have potentials to be good parents (e.g., that they're not potential child abusers and that they know how to think critically), and 6) Promote widespread recognition that the most sensible, achievable, and worthwhile goal for humans to pursue is not to attain some fictitious "eternal life" in an equally fictitious "paradise" but to help humanity evolve into what is not yet an appropriate designation, i.e., Homo sapiens (the wise ones).
AzizMostafa
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 231
- Reaction score
- 16
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Zoro, short + to the point answers - Links will make us happy:
1. In whose hands is the UN?
2. How did al-Qaeda come to power? Who was behind them?
3. Who supplied Saddam with WMD?
4. Why did UN+US cover up Saddam’s crimes when he used them?
5. Why was Saddam endlessly assisted when he suppressed his own people and invaded Iran, but crushed when invaded Kuwait?
6. Did Holocaust justify the occupation of Palestine?
7. Did 9/11 justify the Holocausts in Iraq+Afganistan?
8. Will US+Israel instantaneously transform Tehran into a pile of radioactive rubble as they did in Hiroshima and Nakazaki? Remember:
With the help of US + the Silence of UN, Israel failed to achieve its murderous goals in Lebanon in spite of the murderous actions against a small group that has neither Marine nor Air Force,
9. Why should we follow the half-dozen steps of an Agnostic and leave the instructions of the All-Knowing?
Hope these 2 threads help:
http://typophile.com/node/30209?from=44&comments_per_page=50
http://typophile.com/node/29708?from=106&comments_per_page=41
1. In whose hands is the UN?
2. How did al-Qaeda come to power? Who was behind them?
3. Who supplied Saddam with WMD?
4. Why did UN+US cover up Saddam’s crimes when he used them?
5. Why was Saddam endlessly assisted when he suppressed his own people and invaded Iran, but crushed when invaded Kuwait?
6. Did Holocaust justify the occupation of Palestine?
7. Did 9/11 justify the Holocausts in Iraq+Afganistan?
8. Will US+Israel instantaneously transform Tehran into a pile of radioactive rubble as they did in Hiroshima and Nakazaki? Remember:
With the help of US + the Silence of UN, Israel failed to achieve its murderous goals in Lebanon in spite of the murderous actions against a small group that has neither Marine nor Air Force,
9. Why should we follow the half-dozen steps of an Agnostic and leave the instructions of the All-Knowing?
Hope these 2 threads help:
http://typophile.com/node/30209?from=44&comments_per_page=50
http://typophile.com/node/29708?from=106&comments_per_page=41
Okay -- but I have no links to provide, other than my (free) on-line book at www.zenofzero.net.
1. "In whose hands is the UN?" I don't know if it's in anyone's "hands"; instead, it looks to me as if it's essentially out of control: a next to useless debating society. Would that it would become in the hands of all the people.
2. "How did al-Qaeda come to power? Who was behind them?" Well, I'd need to dig into the data to be more confident of my response, but my impression is that they were first supported by the CIA as a part of the Cold War.
3. "Who supplied Saddam with WMD?" Again, I'd like confirmatory data, but my impression is that it was again a U.S. administration (under Reagan or Bush-1)
4. "Why did UN+US cover up Saddam’s crimes when he used them?" Well, I don't know if they did, but I imagine that if they did, people in the Reagan or Bush-1 administrations were trying to cover up their own mistakes.
5. "Why was Saddam endlessly assisted when he suppressed his own people and invaded Iran, but crushed when invaded Kuwait?" Well, I don't know about "endlessly assisted", but I expect that people in the Reagan administration were pleased to see someone else take on Iran (after the Iranians had violated international law by occupying the U.S. Embassy and taking hostages), and I expect that people in the Bush-1 administration (and in the rest of the "coalition") were worried that Saddam was "getting too big for his britches".
6. "Did Holocaust justify the occupation of Palestine?" No, I don't think so -- but perhaps the terrible refusal of the U.S. administrations under Roosevelt and Truman to not only not welcome but to refuse to accept all the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust (and even earlier, not to welcome all the Jewish people who tried to leave Germany and France before the Holocaust, plus similar terrible behaviors of other countries) forced Jewish people to take drastic actions for themselves. And although you didn't ask for my suggestions, I'd like to add that I wish the current U.S. Congress would either 1) offer all Israelites U.S. citizenship, now, if they'd abandon their silly "holy" land, or 2) invite Israel and Palestine (and Jordan and Lebanon) to become full-fledged states of the United States (each complete with two senators and the number of representatives appropriate for their populations), subject to all current laws. In the case of the second option, I think that, then, the abominable situation in the MidEast would quickly disappear (because restricting the free flow of people, goods, and ideas among U.S. states is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution).
7. "Did 9/11 justify the Holocausts in Iraq+Afganistan?" Well, first, I don't think you meant to capitalize the word "holocaust", but second and more importantly, be careful of the word "justify"; as Emerson said, "one man's justice is another's injustice" -- in other words, (social) justice is just opinion. If you would ask if I hoped that not a single person were killed as a result of 9/11, my answer would be, yes. If you asked if I wished that 9/11 never happen, then again I'd respond, yes. If you asked if I wished that the Bush-2 administration would have tried harder to find other ways to fight their poorly named "war on terror", again I'd say, yes -- and even suggest that such a way could have been found (and could still be found) if they had committed only 10% of the money that they've spent on the war to try to educate Muslims to emerge from their clerically imposed Dark Ages. But whereas you asked "Did 9/11 justify the [h]olocausts in Iraq+Afg[h]anistan", my answer is, no. Nonetheless, I think that the reaction to 9/11 to try to eliminate al-Qaeda was "justified" -- but the actions of the Bush-2 administration have been terribly, horribly, and atrociously bungled.
8. "Will US+Israel instantaneously transform Tehran into a pile of radioactive rubble as they did in Hiroshima and Nakazaki? Remember: With the help of US + the Silence of UN, Israel failed to achieve its murderous goals in Lebanon in spite of the murderous actions against a small group that has neither Marine nor Air Force," Well, I don't know what you're referring to that you asked me to "remember... murderous goals in Lebanon" but with respect to your direct question, my answer is, I certainly hope not. I hope that, instead, some wisdom prevails. It would be a nice change.
9. "Why should we follow the half-dozen steps of an Agnostic and leave the instructions of the All-Knowing?" Well, I'd recommend that you always use your brain as best as you can, e.g., to determine if you think that the proposed half-dozen steps have merit and to determine if your assumption that you have "the instructions of the All-Knowing" is correct (and not just a con game that the clerics have foisted on you, so that they can avoid working for a living). In particular, I consider it wise always to be skeptical of someone who claims that they "know" -- and to be triply skeptical of any claim that they "know" the "knowledge" of the "all knowing". That's equivalent to the clerics telling you not to think for yourself, that they'll do your thinking for you, which is advice that I hope that you (and everyone) will always reject.
1. "In whose hands is the UN?" I don't know if it's in anyone's "hands"; instead, it looks to me as if it's essentially out of control: a next to useless debating society. Would that it would become in the hands of all the people.
2. "How did al-Qaeda come to power? Who was behind them?" Well, I'd need to dig into the data to be more confident of my response, but my impression is that they were first supported by the CIA as a part of the Cold War.
3. "Who supplied Saddam with WMD?" Again, I'd like confirmatory data, but my impression is that it was again a U.S. administration (under Reagan or Bush-1)
4. "Why did UN+US cover up Saddam’s crimes when he used them?" Well, I don't know if they did, but I imagine that if they did, people in the Reagan or Bush-1 administrations were trying to cover up their own mistakes.
5. "Why was Saddam endlessly assisted when he suppressed his own people and invaded Iran, but crushed when invaded Kuwait?" Well, I don't know about "endlessly assisted", but I expect that people in the Reagan administration were pleased to see someone else take on Iran (after the Iranians had violated international law by occupying the U.S. Embassy and taking hostages), and I expect that people in the Bush-1 administration (and in the rest of the "coalition") were worried that Saddam was "getting too big for his britches".
6. "Did Holocaust justify the occupation of Palestine?" No, I don't think so -- but perhaps the terrible refusal of the U.S. administrations under Roosevelt and Truman to not only not welcome but to refuse to accept all the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust (and even earlier, not to welcome all the Jewish people who tried to leave Germany and France before the Holocaust, plus similar terrible behaviors of other countries) forced Jewish people to take drastic actions for themselves. And although you didn't ask for my suggestions, I'd like to add that I wish the current U.S. Congress would either 1) offer all Israelites U.S. citizenship, now, if they'd abandon their silly "holy" land, or 2) invite Israel and Palestine (and Jordan and Lebanon) to become full-fledged states of the United States (each complete with two senators and the number of representatives appropriate for their populations), subject to all current laws. In the case of the second option, I think that, then, the abominable situation in the MidEast would quickly disappear (because restricting the free flow of people, goods, and ideas among U.S. states is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution).
7. "Did 9/11 justify the Holocausts in Iraq+Afganistan?" Well, first, I don't think you meant to capitalize the word "holocaust", but second and more importantly, be careful of the word "justify"; as Emerson said, "one man's justice is another's injustice" -- in other words, (social) justice is just opinion. If you would ask if I hoped that not a single person were killed as a result of 9/11, my answer would be, yes. If you asked if I wished that 9/11 never happen, then again I'd respond, yes. If you asked if I wished that the Bush-2 administration would have tried harder to find other ways to fight their poorly named "war on terror", again I'd say, yes -- and even suggest that such a way could have been found (and could still be found) if they had committed only 10% of the money that they've spent on the war to try to educate Muslims to emerge from their clerically imposed Dark Ages. But whereas you asked "Did 9/11 justify the [h]olocausts in Iraq+Afg[h]anistan", my answer is, no. Nonetheless, I think that the reaction to 9/11 to try to eliminate al-Qaeda was "justified" -- but the actions of the Bush-2 administration have been terribly, horribly, and atrociously bungled.
8. "Will US+Israel instantaneously transform Tehran into a pile of radioactive rubble as they did in Hiroshima and Nakazaki? Remember: With the help of US + the Silence of UN, Israel failed to achieve its murderous goals in Lebanon in spite of the murderous actions against a small group that has neither Marine nor Air Force," Well, I don't know what you're referring to that you asked me to "remember... murderous goals in Lebanon" but with respect to your direct question, my answer is, I certainly hope not. I hope that, instead, some wisdom prevails. It would be a nice change.
9. "Why should we follow the half-dozen steps of an Agnostic and leave the instructions of the All-Knowing?" Well, I'd recommend that you always use your brain as best as you can, e.g., to determine if you think that the proposed half-dozen steps have merit and to determine if your assumption that you have "the instructions of the All-Knowing" is correct (and not just a con game that the clerics have foisted on you, so that they can avoid working for a living). In particular, I consider it wise always to be skeptical of someone who claims that they "know" -- and to be triply skeptical of any claim that they "know" the "knowledge" of the "all knowing". That's equivalent to the clerics telling you not to think for yourself, that they'll do your thinking for you, which is advice that I hope that you (and everyone) will always reject.
AzizMostafa
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 231
- Reaction score
- 16
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Islam-Politics= Made in USA?!