Nuclear retaliation...

[Pilgrim]

Lets be real, religions always flourish under oppresion. Take Christianity for example.

[spl_cadet]

flipper:


Yup. I bet that would just about be it for Islam. I bet it would fold up its tents and steal off into the night, never to be heard from again because we all know that Islam is not a warrior culture with a strong emphasis on eye-for-an-eye vengeance and divine empowerment through personal action.

There would certainly not be a terrorist war to end all terrorist wars, and huge tracts of the 3rd world that would be completely no-go territories for non-muslims. That's for sure. Everyone would be too busy welcoming in missionaries with open arms after the Christians incinerated their sacred site - after all, it would prove Christianity is the stronger religion!

Oh, I'm sure that they would keep attacking, and that there would be a temporary surge of attacks. At which point we keep killing the terrorists and start taking out places like the Dome of the Rock (with conventional weapons). Within probably 50 years though they would collapse. After all, one of the most important things to do in Islam is make the hajj. If there is no hajj anymore, Islam will crumble.

Now then, I'm taking a long world view of things. I figure a century at most and we'll have ripe time of evangelization. Short term will rather resemble hell on Earth but oh well.

Pilgrim
Lets be real, religions always flourish under oppresion. Take Christianity for example.

Which is why we don't oppress them, but merely retaliate. After destroying Mecca and the Dome of the Rock if need be (because of further attacks) there wouldn't be anything that would be directed against the religion.

[Pilgrim]

That's real good, destroy the Dome of the Rock. Now you've got the entire Jewish population ticked at us as well because you just destroyed the temple and the Holy of Holies.

[Faramir]

Pilgrim:
That's real good, destroy the Dome of the Rock. Now you've got the entire Jewish population ticked at us as well because you just destroyed the temple and the Holy of Holies.

Not only would the Jewish population be ticked, but all those DF who are waiting for yet another temple to be built there.

[Pilgrim]

It just gets better and better doesn't it!

[Hitch]

Faramir:


Not only would the Jewish population be ticked, but all those DF who are waiting for yet another temple to be built there.

Wrongo frog breath. The DFs would see it as a great oppertunity .

H

[Faramir]

Hitch:
Wrongo frog breath. The DFs would see it as a great oppertunity .

H

Your probably right there.

[Hitch]

Did you see that little number in the upper right?

WOW 20K Great job DeeDee YXBoom and all the rest.

H

[flipper]

spl_Cadet:

Short term will rather resemble hell on Earth but oh well

The ends justify the means, eh?

[Ryokan]

So it is moral to butcher millions and start a third world war so you could have the HOPE of evangelization. That is utterly evil and reprihensible by any reasonable standard. I sincerely hope that you guys are all talk.

[Pilgrim]

You guys? Hey I'm not with him white man!

[Ryokan]

I was talking about hitch and the cadet, Pilgrim. It would be quite a change if you started advocating wholesale nuclear slaughter.

[Hitch]

I was talking about hitch and the cadet, Pilgrim. It would be quite a change if you started advocating wholesale nuclear slaughter.




My motovations are purely politcal and pragmatic. I never mentioned evangelism.

My thoughts reflect rather closely the Kennedy Doctrine stating that a nuclear strike emminating from Cuba directed anywhere in the western hemisphere would be treated as an attack on the US by the Soviet Union. Seems to have had positive effect. Thirty years later the USSR does not exist.

On the other hand a strong and descive action against Cuba may have had the same long term effect. But more likely the Soviets would have ranted and raved but considered Fidel an expenbable pawn.

H

[Ryokan]

it is neither moral or pragmatic hitch.

[Hitch]

Ryokan:
it is neither moral or pragmatic hitch.

That is a purely subjective judgement. I have no doubt the Kennedy Doctrine saved millions of lives. And that is undoubtly moral and pragmatic.

H