[lit-ideas] Re: Terrorism's "limited results"
- From: Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 20:36:28 -0500
Why have radical Islamic cells taken up arms against the West? The first
thing I'd ask is "Have they?" But let's assume that the mission of groups
such as al-Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood and others want the destruction
of Western Civilization. Why? Is it Christianity they hate so? Are they
driven by Muslim evangelicalism? Why not war against Buddhism and Hinduism
and Shintoism, and Jainism and Taoism and Animism as well -- they're even
more alien to Islam than any Western Civilization religion. At least we all
share the same progenitor. What do Muslims care if we all go to hell?
About as much as Pat "show me the money" Robertson does.So, unless I'm wrong
and this is just a family squabble, I think we can rule out religion as a
casus belli. What then? A culture war? That makes more sense to me. Is
there a history of antagonism between Muslim cultures and Western? Even I
know there has been. Most especially during the Middle Ages. There was
much conflict between us then -- Crusade-type conflict. But there has been
just as much conflict with everyone from the days that Homer sang of through
the Middle Ages up until yesterday. I'm going to leave that question to the
historians of war to fight over. My guess is yes, that it's all about penis
size.
Mike Geary
Memphis
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Eric <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 9/2/2010 4:52 AM, Phil Enns wrote:
>
>> The point I was making was that terrorism is too blunt a tool for
>> producing a very precise result. ...Terrorism is a poor tool for bringing
>> about specific outcomes in the
>> world.
>>
>
>
> The point I was making is that terrorism is not only a potential
> existential threat to the US, but also a potential existential threat to the
> entire civilized world. Weapons are too powerful. Mistakes too far-reaching
> in their consequences.
>
> Contrary to Laplace's Demon, scientists now know that long-term prediction
> of dynamic systems is nigh onto impossible, even with simple systems under
> Newtonian constraints. The great buzzing blooming world with all the WMDs,
> interlocked global economies, and error-prone populations so magnifies the
> difficulty of prediction as to render it a parlor game.
>
> We think our worlds are solid, that the small progress we've made as humans
> is a granite floor, but it's a butterfly wing. I love our capacity to become
> civilized, would (paradoxically) fight for the survival of our sciences and
> arts, for the possibility of what Emerson called "advancing on the dark."
>
> Like Phil, also thinking of taking a shower,
> Eric
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
Other related posts:
