Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA05689 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:41:52 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3102A6CFF7@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: Dawkins View Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:04:12 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain X-Filter-Info: UoS MailScan 0.1 [D 1] Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> <<I second Dawkins still when he argues that religion is
> mainly to blame for last tuesday's disaster. In fact, religion
> is the source of most of the misery, suffering and
> injustice plagueing this tiny but turbulent planet.>>
<I don't think many scholars of religion would agree. Why not?>
Because they're are in memebotic thrall to their own faiths and deny
and obfuscate the horrors committed in the name of their religions. Scott
made the point in relation to Dawkins' piece that not all muslims are
suicide bombers, not all christians are anti-abortion and so on. He also
put not all atheists are militants. The difference is that even militant
atheists do not go around suggesting bombing, torturing or persecuting true
believers, whereas militant true believers usually do, and moderates become
apologists for those peoples' acts.
> <<I agree, terrorism must seize. But given the never ending
> bully-like suppresion by whatever superpower
> (in the past Russia: Afghanistan, US: Vietman)
> one can ask whether that goal is attainable simply by
> vicious spirals of endless violent retaliation.>>
<I haven't heard anyone coming out in favor of vicious spirals of
> violent retaliation. What do you want to do, leave them alone to take over
> the whole Middle East and build a nuclear arsenal?>
The irony here is that for many in the developing world the biggest
threat to their chances of survival already has the biggest nuclear arsenal
of all, is the only nation to have actually used nculear weapons, and is
busy planning a defence shield to protect it from anyone elses' missiles.
Besides Pakistan, being pushed to possible civil war by US demands, is
already a nuclear nation, and already is in a very heated border dispute
with another nuclear nation, India.
Don't forget the 10s of thousands lost in Afghanistan by the British
in the 1840s (when Britain was equivalent to the US now, in terms of world
status), and the Soviet Union in the 1980s.
Of course something must be done. But it must be measured, it must
be justified, and it must take into consideration the global consequences of
any actions. I know most Americans wouldn't go for it, but I think the way
to take the wind out of the jihad's sails is to capture this guy and try him
in the Hague like Milosevic. It's easy to fight a holy war against people
who'll give you your martyrs, but not those that simply give you justice.
-- The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the University of Stirling shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 19 2001 - 10:50:25 BST