The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Of course the words violent, religious, and fundamentalism don't have to necessarily go together. You don't see the Baptists and (insert another conservative, fundamental Christian denomination) seizing cities, executing each other, etc., despite what Rover's active imagination dreams up at times.

Absolutely true. My best friend at work is a radical religious fundamentalist, as in the world is only 6000 years old, for reals. He's also completely harmless (despite his increasingly enormous gun collection).

Religious fundamentalism is a risk factor for violence, though, like any kind of self-declared infallibility. Combine the delusion that only a tiny slice of humanity (including oneself, purely by accident) enjoys God's grace with a proud epistemic closure that The Word is unfalsifiable, and it's not a shock that this inspires some nuts to murder others in large numbers.

But it's neither a necessary nor sufficient condition. Stalin wasn't much for Sunday services.

[Rover]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

So, if a former Secretary of State weren't a prospective presidential candidate, the US would have just let him disappear into the desert?

Pretty much, because its always a conspiracy!

[St. Clown]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Of course the words violent, religious, and fundamentalism don't have to necessarily go together. You don't see the Baptists and (insert another conservative, fundamental Christian denomination) seizing cities, executing each other, etc., despite what Rover's active imagination dreams up at times.

Granted, they started about a millenium ago, but do the Holy Crusades ring a bell? The main difference, from what I can tell, between then and now is the technology involved in the warring and reporting of it.

[cF[Authentic]]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

"A Fox News anchor suggested that President Obama captured one of the alleged architects of the September 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi to boost Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects.
Speaking on Fox News’ Outnumbered just moments after news broke that the United States had captured Ahmed Abu Khattala, [Lisa Kennedy Montgomery] mused, “you have a former Secretary of State who is in the middle of a high profile book tour, I think this is convenient for her to shift the talking points to some of the things she has been discussing.”

Going just off what you posted the first part of that doesn't match what she actually said. Is it convenient for Hillary that it happened while she was on a book tour? Absolutely. However, I don't see where she said it was done to boost her ratings. Just that it's convenient for her.

[St. Clown]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

But it's neither a necessary nor sufficient condition. Stalin wasn't much for Sunday services.

Nor are the Chinese. In fact, it's easy to argue that the Hitler only gave lip service to Christianity in order to simply get people in the door so he could convert them to a more Nazi-centric belief system, which would essentially be atheistic in nature.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Nor are the Chinese. In fact, it's easy to argue that the Hitler only gave lip service to Christianity in order to simply get people in the door so he could convert them to a more Nazi-centric belief system, which would essentially be atheistic in nature.

We discussed that one around here awhile back, and someone kept making the argument that Hitler was quite Christian in his beliefs, etc., despite an avalanche of evidence pointing the other way. One could have asked folks like Dietrich Boenhoeffer how Christian Hitler was, except they didn't survive his murderous ways.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Granted, they started about a millenium ago, but do the Holy Crusades ring a bell? The main difference, from what I can tell, between then and now is the technology involved in the warring and reporting of it.

Ah, yes, those Southern Baptists trying to recapture the Holy Land once again. Wasn't it Jerry Falwell the Lionhearted that led the recapture of the port city of Acre?

Obviously I was speaking about nowadays. Who did what back during the Crusades is an interesting and complex subject, but I don't think you can tie modern conservative/fundamental denominations in the U.S. to what went on back then (again apart from possibly in Rover's active imagination). If anything blame the Catholics, as the Protestants really weren't on the scene back then. The Pope was one of the primary folks whipping up a frenzy to go back and capture the Holy Land.

[St. Clown]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Ah, yes, those Southern Baptists trying to recapture the Holy Land once again. Wasn't it Jerry Falwell the Lionhearted that led the recapture of the port city of Acre?

Obviously I was speaking about nowadays. Who did what back during the Crusades is an interesting and complex subject, but I don't think you can tie modern conservative/fundamental denominations in the U.S. to what went on back then (again apart from possibly in Rover's active imagination). If anything blame the Catholics, as the Protestants really weren't on the scene back then. The Pope was one of the primary folks whipping up a frenzy to go back and capture the Holy Land.

I made no mention of the Baptists, you stated, "(insert another conservative, fundamental Christian denomination)." Back when the Crusades took place there was only the one denomination, and it was quite conservative during the High Middle Ages.

I wasn't trying to tie the Crusades to modern day Christianity, only that there's a history of witnessing zealots get out of control and commit great atrocities in the name of God. The Crusades lasted for hundreds of years, so it's not unfathomable that we're only in the beginning of factions of radical Islam attempting much the same -- even against each other -- only with different methods. Things were slower moving back then, so what last around 200 years then might be consolidated to a much shorter timeline now.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The majority of the kurds are Sunni Muslims as well. Good plan by the Bush administration to install a Shia government in Iraq. Probably did it to placate Iran.

Moral of the story is this. Stay the **** out of Holy Wars if at all possible.

Hindsight.

Iraq war? No thanks.
Afghan war? Yeah, but they should have done the parking lot thing and had the US Soldiers base up there until Osama was dead. Then cut and run.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I made no mention of the Baptists, you stated, "(insert another conservative, fundamental Christian denomination)." Back when the Crusades took place there was only the one denomination, and it was quite conservative during the High Middle Ages.

I wasn't trying to tie the Crusades to modern day Christianity, only that there's a history of witnessing zealots get out of control and commit great atrocities in the name of God. The Crusades lasted for hundreds of years, so it's not unfathomable that we're only in the beginning of factions of radical Islam attempting much the same -- even against each other -- only with different methods. Things were slower moving back then, so what last around 200 years then might be consolidated to a much shorter timeline now.

You brought up the Crusades. I pointed out that wasn't what I was talking about, using the Baptists as an example, since I was talking about modern times (my references to seizing cities, executing one another are references to ISIS and the Iraq mess of course).

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The majority of the kurds are Sunni Muslims as well. Good plan by the Bush administration to install a Shia government in Iraq. Probably did it to placate Iran.

Moral of the story is this. Stay the **** out of Holy Wars if at all possible.

Hindsight.

Iraq war? No thanks.
Afghan war? Yeah, but they should have done the parking lot thing and had the US Soldiers base up there until Osama was dead. Then cut and run.

I largely agree. The Kurds may be Sunni, but in their case, they have been beaten up enough by the various occupiers of their territory (Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc.) that they seem to put their Kurdishness above being Sunni. They have to be a bit more pratical, given their historical lack of clout, along with probably some other factors.

[Priceless]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The Middle East is about 500-1000 years behind. It wasn't that long ago our religious fundamentalists invaded the Middle East, tortured people who didn't agree with them and burn witches at the stake. Give them a few more centuries and maybe the religious zealots in the ME will be content with just paying women less and telling them what to do with their bodies.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Ah, yes, those Southern Baptists trying to recapture the Holy Land once again. Wasn't it Jerry Falwell the Lionhearted that led the recapture of the port city of Acre?

Obviously I was speaking about nowadays. Who did what back during the Crusades is an interesting and complex subject, but I don't think you can tie modern conservative/fundamental denominations in the U.S. to what went on back then (again apart from possibly in Rover's active imagination). If anything blame the Catholics, as the Protestants really weren't on the scene back then. The Pope was one of the primary folks whipping up a frenzy to go back and capture the Holy Land.

The Protestants had their shining moment of religious warfare lunacy in the 16th-17th centuries (along with the Catholics). The modern secular state was born as a reaction against that violence. That's why the Puritans had a nice stopover place in the Netherlands before they convinced themselves that not being able to persecute others was persecution (this should ring a modern bell) and decamped for Virginia. (They never made it.)

State-sponsored religious fanaticism only died in the West when the Puritans lost the demographic battle for New England (thank God) when the New England and Atlantic Canadian charters were combined in the 1690's. The Islamic clock is running about 600 years behind the Christians, so we should check back again around 2290 to see if the Islamic Roger Williams has hatched.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I largely agree. The Kurds may be Sunni, but in their case, they have been beaten up enough by the various occupiers of their territory (Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc.) that they seem to put their Kurdishness above being Sunni. They have to be a bit more pratical, given their historical lack of clout, along with probably some other factors.

Turkey really, really doesn't want to see an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq, since the Kurds also claim a chunk of eastern Turkey (and have been fighting a guerrilla war about it for decades). It might be preferable for the security of the region to have Iran annex the Shia parts of Iraq and the Sunnis and Kurds co-rule the remainder. But I don't know whether that splits the oil equitably or whether that would just create a South Sudan-like "Instant Failed State, just add blood."

Does anybody get the feeling that if Iraq broke up there's not a single Iraqi who would shed a tear? They sure seem to be much more invested in their clan, village, and imam than nation-state sovereignty.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The Protestants back then bear little resemblance to the Protestants today, even the more fundamental. The Puritans were fleeing persecution, no question about that one. They were a tiny minority whose religious views were quite different than the prevailing Anglican and Catholic views in England. Back in those days that was a bad spot to be in. Thankfully for them, they had somewhere else to go. In my book they were certainly a mixed bag, but the simplistic ways they are caricatured nowadays is really quite silly. Roger Williams is a fascinating person and a favorite of mine to read about over the years. I remember one author said he was a "seeker" and went beyond the standard religious bounds of the day in his quest to find God (and of course in a non-violent way). Good stuff.