The United Nations: A Legitimate Target? Yes! Allahuackbar!

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-08-29 06:32pm

They also hold little to no political power in any place important enough to matter

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-08-29 09:02pm

Vorlon1701 wrote:
When they stop making oil money.

When the oil money goes away, the Middle East will become indescribably bad. Thinking about this makes me shudder. The Middle East has to solve its problems with fundamentalism before the oil runs out--or worse yet, before we stop purchasing it (which could be the dumbest thing we could ever do)--or else the response could be very, very unpleasant.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-08-29 09:34pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Vorlon1701 wrote:
When they stop making oil money.
When the oil money goes away, the Middle East will become indescribably bad. Thinking about this makes me shudder. The Middle East has to solve its problems with fundamentalism before the oil runs out--or worse yet, before we stop purchasing it (which could be the dumbest thing we could ever do)--or else the response could be very, very unpleasant.

When the oil's all gone we can carpet-nuke the whole place without worrying about damaging anything important.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-08-29 10:07pm

Andrew J. wrote: When the oil's all gone we can carpet-nuke the whole place without worrying about damaging anything important.

And kill off millions of talented people in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Israel, as well as a multibillion dollar IT industry in Israel (where do you think they devised those newfangled Centrino Processors?!?)

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-29 10:08pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Vorlon1701 wrote:
When they stop making oil money.
When the oil money goes away, the Middle East will become indescribably bad. Thinking about this makes me shudder. The Middle East has to solve its problems with fundamentalism before the oil runs out--or worse yet, before we stop purchasing it (which could be the dumbest thing we could ever do)--or else the response could be very, very unpleasant.

Things might be bad for a while, but then they'll run out of money as well and terrorist attacks will become a luxury rather then a staple of their diet of stupidity.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-08-29 11:11pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Things might be bad for a while, but then they'll run out of money as well and terrorist attacks will become a luxury rather then a staple of their diet of stupidity.

My concern would be over the reaction to the non-Arab Islamic world over mass starvation in their holy lands. It's certainly something to be worried about in the second half of the twenty-first century, at any rate.

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2003-08-29 11:12pm

I'd second that and add to it that things are already very, very unpleasant in the middle east. It's just gone on for so very, very long that people are inured to it.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-08-29 11:14pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:
Crayz9000 wrote:I still stand by my, er, conviction that Islam is one religion that has a really good excuse to be wiped off the face of the planet.
I would say that all religions should be wiped out, either because of the reasons you metioned, or the fact that they are stupid beliefs. But the way to do it is through rational conversion, not killing someone over thoughts.

You've got a point, but people still need something to believe in, something that's not quite as temporary as, say, a significant other.

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2003-08-30 12:57am

I direct you to my other thread:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=28279

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-08-30 01:19am

Bob McDob wrote:I direct you to my other thread:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=28279

Just posted there

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-08-30 07:30pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: I agree. However, the same criticisms could potentially be applied to Christianity as well as Hinduism.
The difference is:

Christian Fundies: "God will send you to HELL when you DIE!"

Hindu Fundies: "You will be reincarnated as a Cockroach when you DIE!"

Islamic Fundies: "I send YOU TO HELL! ALLAU ACKBAR!" *booom*

Go back a few hundred years and you will find that the order of your list is reversed. There is nothing in Christianity that intrinsically forces its followers to be more reasonable than Muslims; it is simply an accident of history that they are generally more reasonable right now.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-08-30 07:36pm

You are, I presume, talking about the Spanish Inquisition and Crusades.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-30 07:55pm

Bill Mahar had a really good response to stuff like this. He said people call him prejudiced against middle easterners. His response? "I'm not prejudiced. Prejudice means pre-judging. I'm not prejudging, I'm JUDGING".

Crowd laughed, and I agreed.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-08-30 07:57pm

kojikun wrote:Bill Mahar had a really good response to stuff like this. He said people call him prejudiced against middle easterners. His response? "I'm not prejudiced. Prejudice means pre-judging. I'm not prejudging, I'm JUDGING".

Crowd laughed, and I agreed.

A middle eastern man might have listed the bodycount from American bombing in other countries and turned that right around on him. Beware complacency in your own moral superiority.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-08-30 08:01pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: I agree. However, the same criticisms could potentially be applied to Christianity as well as Hinduism.
The difference is:

Christian Fundies: "God will send you to HELL when you DIE!"

Islamic Fundies: "I send YOU TO HELL! ALLAU ACKBAR!" *booom*

WARNING! THAT IS A VARIATION OF A COPYRIGHTED GAT QUOTE! DEPLOY LAWYERS!

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-08-31 12:45am

Crayz9000 wrote:You are, I presume, talking about the Spanish Inquisition and Crusades.

The Inquisition kicked out my family in 1492. The Ottomans took them in. I doubt Christians were as rational as they are right now...

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-08-31 12:48am

Vorlon1701 wrote:The Inquisition kicked out my family in 1492. The Ottomans took them in. I doubt Christians were as rational as they are right now...

Obviously. The Crusaders sacked Constantinople, which was the capital city of an allied nation, for goodness' sake!

*sighs* Politics and religion just don't mix... it's either all or nothing, and when it's nothing, someone is bound to use religion as an excuse for their stupidity.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-08-31 01:03am

Crayz9000 wrote:
Obviously. The Crusaders sacked Constantinople, which was the capital city of an allied nation, for goodness' sake!

*sighs* Politics and religion just don't mix... it's either all or nothing, and when it's nothing, someone is bound to use religion as an excuse for their stupidity.

Actually the Byzantine Emperors had been mistreating Crusading armies for some time, and they only really effectually cooperated with the First Crusade to any real extent (which curiously/unsurprisingly was also the most successful).

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-08-31 01:59am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Actually the Byzantine Emperors had been mistreating Crusading armies for some time, and they only really effectually cooperated with the First Crusade to any real extent (which curiously/unsurprisingly was also the most successful).

You could probably explain that as the Emperors not really wanting competition from the Western upstarts.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-31 02:17am

Crayz9000 wrote:
Obviously. The Crusaders sacked Constantinople, which was the capital city of an allied nation, for goodness' sake!

Well the plan was to then fully utilize the cities resources to support Crusading. Course in the end the riches all got hauled off to pay off Venice, which had urged for the attack in the first place.