Tweet
[QUOTE]
We all know this to be true, but you cannot escape it by refusing to be religious. If there were no religion, war would be justified somehow.
Years ago I read somewhere that all wars are based on economics, and refused to believe it. At that time, I believed in all the glorious rationales. But the more I read history the more it made sense.
For example, anyway you cut it the Iraq war today is about oil. It's about security too, but only to counter terrorists attacks by organizations wanting to control Middle East oil.
Many believe that Bin Laden's reason for attacking the US is religiously motivated. But he says something else in his manifesto, which is laced with references to control of natural resources, righting territorial disputes, and forming new political structures.
We've all heard it said that he uses religion as a way of gaining supporters. It seems such a foregone conclusion that we don't think to ask why.
The simple reason is that the Muslim masses in the Middle East are politically retarded relative to the Western masses. Except for in a few Muslim countries, they haven't been free to protest openly, to develop political parties or form loyal oppositions. Their one unifying commonality is Islam. This makes them the ideal target for political appeals based on Islam, as well Bin Laden and his ilk know.
Modern Western political parties would be laughed at today if they called for war on religious grounds. We passed that stage long ago, notwithstanding the influence of the religious right.
Thus, one would think that a good weapon to counter Bin Laden would be education of the masses. It would, but what western country would do it?
It would mean exposing the political inequities practiced by the Saudis, the Egyptians and other of our Mid-east friends, with perhaps the exception of Turkey where dissent is tolerated.
In short, don't blame religion for wars. Blame politicians.
Originally posted by Bob Jones
View Post
Years ago I read somewhere that all wars are based on economics, and refused to believe it. At that time, I believed in all the glorious rationales. But the more I read history the more it made sense.
For example, anyway you cut it the Iraq war today is about oil. It's about security too, but only to counter terrorists attacks by organizations wanting to control Middle East oil.
Many believe that Bin Laden's reason for attacking the US is religiously motivated. But he says something else in his manifesto, which is laced with references to control of natural resources, righting territorial disputes, and forming new political structures.
We've all heard it said that he uses religion as a way of gaining supporters. It seems such a foregone conclusion that we don't think to ask why.
The simple reason is that the Muslim masses in the Middle East are politically retarded relative to the Western masses. Except for in a few Muslim countries, they haven't been free to protest openly, to develop political parties or form loyal oppositions. Their one unifying commonality is Islam. This makes them the ideal target for political appeals based on Islam, as well Bin Laden and his ilk know.
Modern Western political parties would be laughed at today if they called for war on religious grounds. We passed that stage long ago, notwithstanding the influence of the religious right.
Thus, one would think that a good weapon to counter Bin Laden would be education of the masses. It would, but what western country would do it?
It would mean exposing the political inequities practiced by the Saudis, the Egyptians and other of our Mid-east friends, with perhaps the exception of Turkey where dissent is tolerated.
In short, don't blame religion for wars. Blame politicians.
Comment