The lesser of two evils - what will the West choose ?

[MRT144]

If they try and kill me so be it. I will defend myself but I will not retaliate, or premptively defend myself by killing them. Theres a difference. Youre smart, and you know this.

[Dis]

nuclear strikes on our cities

we could get rid of the hippies that way.

[Odin]

Originally posted by GePap
Sorry, but I have always had nothing but contempt for Huntington's little book, just as I did for Fukiyama's "End of History."

What does Fukuyama's crap have to do with Clash of Civilizations? Huntington's model rejected Fukuyama's BS about the inevitable triumph of capitalist "liberal democracy."

[Odin]

Originally posted by Admiral You cannot draw a line and say this is "Western" civilization and this is "Islamic" civilization. The Islamic world has been engaging and shaping Europe almost since the inception of Islam, while obviously European (and later "Western") nations have played and continue to play an important role in the Islamic world.

Civilizations borrow ideas and technology from each other but not each other's general worldview. The Western worldview is based essentially on Christianity (though the concepts were secularized they still betray thier Christian origins), while the Islamic worldview is based on Islam, etc.

[Nubclear]

Christianity and Islam, from a religious standpoint, actually have a lot in common when it comes to their ideals

[Barnabas]

No, jesus was something like a hippy without the sex, while mohammed was more of a genghis khan during the unifying mongolian tribes period kind of guy.

Maimonides thought that judaism was much more similar to islam than to christianity, the trinity makes them think that christians are not unambiguously monotheistic, + they kept circumsicion, some dietary laws while christians not.
Some stuff in islam actually resembles a bizarro world judaism, for muslims that is just a prove of jewish beliefs being changed and restored by mohammed.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
No, jesus was something like a hippy without the sex, while mohammed was more of a genghis khan during the unifying mongolian tribes period kind of guy.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Odin


Civilizations borrow ideas and technology from each other but not each other's general worldview. The Western worldview is based essentially on Christianity (though the concepts were secularized they still betray thier Christian origins), while the Islamic worldview is based on Islam, etc.

Huntington's problem is that he believes we can talk about something called an "Islamic Worldview." There simply isn't such a concept, just as there is not a Christian worldview. This notion is, quite simply, a constructive of post-Enlightenment European thinkers, a notion which has now been largely discredited. An interesting (thought somewhat problematic) look at this movement is Edward Said's Orientalism.

[Flip McWho]

There simply isn't such a concept, just as there is not a Christian worldview.

Dude, if you view the world based entirely on the truth of a book and particular religion then your worldview is definitely gonna be Islamic or Christain. Sure there are gonna be regional differences i.e. between Egyptian and Saudi Muslims, but all these countries to some degree still view the world through the truth portrayed in their religion.

Same as you can mention a western worldview though it'll have different regional flavours.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Dis
we could get rid of the hippies that way.

Hey!

[lord of the mark]

Re: The lesser of two evils - what will the West choose ?

Originally posted by aneeshm
An interesting question I was mulling over recently .

It is only a matter of time before Muslim radicals obtain nuclear weapons .

When the Western world is faced with a stark choice - either they deport their Muslims to some Muslim country , or they risk nuclear strikes on their cities - what will it choose ? If these are the ultimate choices offered to you , what would you choose ? What is the lesser of two evils - sending Muslims packing or having your cities nuked ?

1. Its not clear that a mass expulsion of muslims would mean a zero chance of a suitcase nuke. Theyve used converts with western names - they could use all kinds of "nonmuslim" covers, even pretending to be Hindus, ya know. They havent done that much of that so far, but to deliver a nuke, it would be worth using the most sophisticated cover scheme they can manage.

2. On the other hand there are probably steps we could take to weaken the "sea the fish swim in" that do less damage both to our notion of our society, and the larger hearts and minds war. like being more aggressive about deporting radical imams, for ex.

3. If a US city is nuked, nuking Mecca and Medina would be a poor strategy. It would achieve exactly what the Islamist radicals want. I do not think it would be done. On the other hand much would be done that would go beyond where we are now - Cheneys and Gonzales present positions will look positively civil libertarian compared to what we would then see. Thats one more reason why its worth some considerable cost to prevent this eventuality.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I reject the premise.

[Vince278]

Where would expelled Muslims go? Those past the first generation know no other home.

[mrmitchell]

The lesser of two evils - what will India choose?

- The hanging of all software engineers
- Nuclear strikes on all your cities

The lesser of two evils - what will America choose?

- The Republican Party
- Nuclear strikes on all your cities

The lesser of two evils - what will diners choose?

- Patty melt served with fries
- Nuclear strikes on all your cities

[mrmitchell]

The lesser of two evils - what will Civers choose?

- CivFanatics
- Nuclear strikes on your cities

The lesser of two evils - what will gamers choose?

- The Playstation 3
- Nuclear strikes on your cities

Any decision becomes crystal clear when aneeshm asks it.