Can the West defeat the Islamist threat? 10 reasons why not

[Plane]

"Our enemies and our politicians play that to their advantage. We have exposed to all our enemies, our soft divided underbelly and naively expect that they will but rub it for us. "
.........................
"Well, your soft exposed underbelly must be extraordinarily unappetizing, because in the four years since the WTC attacks, nobody has bothered to take a bite out of it."

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

Havent they tried?


Killing a large number of Al Quieda and chaseing the rest from hole to another every day  has nothing to do with this?

[Plane]

Offer $5M to the first firm to come up with a solar energy system for a home that is 500% better than current, as only one example (I'm not really sure what the current state of this technology is). Let's incentive oursleves into energy independece. Also, in a parallel vein, let's encourgage people to conserve. If you use less than you used this time last year, thne you get a rebate or something similiar. Increase R&D in nuclear energy. Pump serious R&D funding into cold fusion and on and on.

Cold Fusion does not deserve a lot of money , but the rest of these ideas are more or less availible.


President Bush endorsed a tax credit for energy saveing investment, you can claim it by adding insulation to your attic , buying a hybrid car or putting photovoltaic shingles on your milking barn, This certainly is  not enough reward to cause one to do such a thing , but the long term benefit of lower energy cost might be.

[Plane]

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Alternative_Energy/2006-10-01/Easy_Solar_Power

[_JS]

First, I don't think this came from the London Times. There are many reasons why, but the most obvious are:

1. In Britain, "liberals" has a completely different meaning. The author is clearly American and uses the strange American meaning of the word.

2. A British author would refer to attacks other than 9/11, such as the subway bombing.

3. A Brit author wouldn't talk about reinstituting the draft, energy independence (especially considering BP and North Sea Oil), and the Times is unlikely to discuss the moral necessity of war.

No, this is definitely a hard right American piece. If it were in the Times it would be as an example I'd imagine.

If we fight just to protect our culture of death or our radical materialism, be it for hedonist, capitalist, or consumer, we fight for a hollow cause, for mankind chooses to die for great and noble causes. Islamists understand that. We had better learn it or live to regret it.

This is my favourite statement. Basically, the Islamists have it right - but they aren't on the right side. After all, they condemn homosexuality, abortion, alcohol, drugs, womanising, etc. They have a specific role for women, children, and men. They believe in strong families. They believe these views should be strictly adhered to and that secularism, consumerism, socialism, and other such notions are curses upon mankind. They believe strongly in law and order. They have no problem with capital punishment. They also believe religion and faith should overrule man's law and judgement.

Interesting.

[The_Professor]

"This is my favourite statement. Basically, the Islamists have it right - but they aren't on the right side. After all, they condemn homosexuality, abortion, alcohol, drugs, womanising, etc. They have a specific role for women, children, and men. They believe in strong families. They believe these views should be strictly adhered to and that secularism, consumerism, socialism, and other such notions are curses upon mankind. They believe strongly in law and order. They have no problem with capital punishment. They also believe religion and faith should overrule man's law and judgement.

Interesting."

I see no problem with this at all, JS. I believe these things as well. The only difference is that I worship Almighty God and His Son, Jesus Christ whereas they worship a demon.

"For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the
darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places." -- Ephesians.

[hnumpah]

I see no problem with this at all, JS. I believe these things as well. The only difference is that I worship Almighty God and His Son, Jesus Christ whereas they worship a demon.

And they believe they worship Almighty God as well.

Which of you is wrong? And what is your proof?

[The_Professor]

I know. It is not God that is the issue. Believing in Jesus Christ as not just another prophet, but the Son of God. This is THE issue.

Proof? Faith. The real proof, you could argue, will come after physicial death.

You cannot see the air, yet you believe it is there. Believe in Him. Ever see nthe Eiffel Tower? Yet you beleive it is there. Ever seen Alpha Centauri? No. But, you just know it is there because science says it is. Accept Him because He is real.

Heb 11:1 (NEB) Faith... makes us certain of realities we do not see.

"The battle is between faith and reason on one side and emotions and imagination on the other..." -- C.S. Lewis


Sermon over.

[_JS]

The only difference is that I worship Almighty God and His Son, Jesus Christ whereas they worship a demon.

Why is it that so many leave out the Holy Spirit? It is a Trinity. (Apologies, a pet peeve of mine - makes me glad I'm converting to Catholicism).

The point that hnumpah is trying to make is that not everyone sees this as a war between two sides of the same coin. Not all Americans, nor all Christians believe in those ideas that I listed. Nor do all Americans or all Christians believe in the comment:

If we fight just to protect our culture of death or our radical materialism, be it for hedonist, capitalist, or consumer, we fight for a hollow cause, for mankind chooses to die for great and noble causes. Islamists understand that. We had better learn it or live to regret it.

We don't all see this as some holy crusade.

[hnumpah]

I know. It is not God that is the issue. Believing in Jesus Christ as not just another prophet, but the Son of God. This is THE issue.

Yet they believe that just as strongly as you believe what you believe. Who is right? What proof do you offer?

Proof? Faith. The real proof, you could argue, will come after physicial death.

Faith? That doesn't work for me.

You cannot see the air, yet you believe it is there.

I can see the evidence that air is there - I can see fire that won't burn without it, bubbles in the water, a balloon expanding when I blow into it. All are much more evidence than I have of the existance of God, or that your beliefs are the right ones.

Believe in Him. Ever see nthe Eiffel Tower? Yet you beleive it is there.

As a matter of fact, I have seen it.

Ever seen Alpha Centauri?

Again, yes, through a telescope.

But, you just know it is there because science says it is.

I know a lot of things because science says they are true. Science at least offers proof.

Accept Him because He is real.

Prove it.

Heb 11:1 (NEB) Faith... makes us certain of realities we do not see.

"The battle is between faith and reason on one side and emotions and imagination on the other..." -- C.S. Lewis


Sermon over.

Good thing - it didn't bring up any valid points.

[The_Professor]

"Why is it that so many leave out the Holy Spirit? It is a Trinity. (Apologies, a pet peeve of mine - makes me glad I'm converting to Catholicism).

The point that hnumpah is trying to make is that not everyone sees this as a war between two sides of the same coin. Not all Americans, nor all Christians believe in those ideas that I listed. Nor do all Americans or all Christians believe in the comment:"

I stand corrected. You are correct. I should have included the Holy Spirit.

I concur that not all agree. The wonder of denominations and varying views! :-)

[Plane]

     The subject of the Popes contriversial speech was not the error or correctness of Christian and Muslim Dogma , but the unrightiousness of winning a dogmatic argument with violence.

      Our war and theirs are diffrent , we are not forbidding the building of Mosques in our territory or giveing severe punishments to beleivers who backslide or convert.

         It just isn't true that the US goal is the eradication of Islam , but one might say so if one was working up a good mad crowd.

        The religious dimention of the war is religion put to the service of political ambition.


          It might be really interesting to have a discussion of Abraham and his progeny with Jews and Arabs , but I would want to be clear at the first that no arm twisting would be allowed.

[domer]

Some of the ideas and sentiments expressed by the Professor are alarming if widely accepted. The emphasis on a God-ordained truth, often at odds with other God-ordained truths, raises the specter of eternal conflict if not final cataclysm. There must be a better, "more Godly" way.

The start of finding an answer may lie in a redefinition of "the public" and "the private." Now, I am not one to water down words, but by the same token -- injecting my own belief system into this mess -- I believe that we should love one another in a transcendant (Christological?) sense. This very conception of the problem makes for diversity ... and respect. It would seem, to this end, that "the public" should encompass "the common" (and there are fabulous aspects of life we all share in common), and "the private" should encompass the bedrock personal. That way we thrive in a culture of cooperation while not sacrificing intensity or primacy of closely-held beliefs.

This is all a matter of emphasis, but neglecting the grand arts of making the controversial palatable in civil society may be our undoing.

[Plane]

"Some of the ideas and sentiments expressed by the Professor are alarming if widely accepted."

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

A lot of the Professors sentiments are indeed very widely accepted , but so is the American custom of allowing each of us to choose his own beleif.

A strong majority of Americans are Christian but a tiny minority wants to use force to produce a unanimous Christian nation.

It is very American to "live and let live " or in other terms to let everyone go to hell in his own way.

 American Evangilism has to be a good example and ,or , persuaseive because we cannot make it law that anyone be Christian.

   Contrasting this with the more old fashioned attitudes prevelent in the Muslim world is fair , where they are we have been , but religious freedom was an important part of the founding of this nation , can tolerance summon the strength that intolerance can?

[Universe Prince]

It is not only imperative but essential that we as a nation become energy independent. Why? We need to for national security reasons. And, because it is the right thing to do, namely, God let us as guardians of the Earth. Let's stop raping it, shall we? Do you agree? If so, then let's do what we need to achieve this. We must! For a start, let's bring back the energy initatives in the Carter Administration. Tax credtis for solar and alternative energy systems/products/installations. Increased R&D on geothermal, more efficient hydroelectric...well, the list goes on. I postulate that if the will is strong enough, it is amazing what can happen. An example: over a decade ago, the Government forced the automobile ondistry to dramatrically increase their MPG. The automobile industry swore they couldn't. They went back and forth but the Government was firm. Guess what? It worked. MPG increased. Now perhaps we do not to force this R&D, but offer incentives. Real ones. Offer $5M to the first firm to come up with a solar energy system for a home that is 500% better than current, as only one example (I'm not really sure what the current state of this technology is). Let's incentive oursleves into energy independece. Also, in a parallel vein, let's encourgage people to conserve. If you use less than you used this time last year, thne you get a rebate or something similiar. Increase R&D in nuclear energy. Pump serious R&D funding into cold fusion and on and on.

Do you agree?

I thought I'd already posted a reply to this, but it doesn't appear to be here. So I'll just give a summary of what I said before:

Cold fusion is this era's perpetual motion machine. Not gonna happen. What we need are better batteries that store more energy in smaller and lighter containers. If you want to start an X-Prize type deal for encouraging research and development of alternative fuels and/or methods of energy production, I'll contribute if I can, but please let's keep the gorram government out of this as much as possible. And even if we could find some amazing way to become energy independent, that won't do much at all to halt our need for oil. Gasoline and jet fuel are not the only things we use crude oil to produce. Crude oil is also used in the creation of plastics, synthetic fibers, tires and probably some other things I'm not remembering off the top of my head. I just don't see us being free of oil anytime soon, alternate energy source or not.

[Amianthus]

Cold fusion is this era's perpetual motion machine. Not gonna happen.

Cold fusion, unlike perpetual motion, is at least theoretically possible. I wouldn't count it out yet.