5 ms·
How has he denounced religion as a tool against other racial groups?
by k2xl 10y ago
How has he denounced religion as a tool against other racial groups?
- dang 10y agoThis is off-topic and bound to lead to a flamewar. Please stop taking the thread that way.
- kmonsen 10y agoThis is fair, but should it not be addressed at the parent instead?
- dang 10y agoI replied to the user who introduced the flamewar topic (at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12367869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12367869), but meant the point to apply to the entire subthread.
- Synaesthesia 10y agoHe has said that a nuclear strike on an Islamic country aught to be seriously considered.
- nikcheerla 10y agoSource (with context)?
- Synaesthesia 10y ago>What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_End_of_Faith https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_End_of_Faith https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7T7barZEeU&app=desktop https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7T7barZEeU&app=desktop
- nikcheerla 10y agoI don't really find this objectionable. Maybe we have differing definitions of "Islamist regime"? If I imagine, say, the Taliban or ISIS in control of a country with nuclear weapons capability, I wouldn't blame our leaders for ordering a nuclear first strike.
- Synaesthesia 10y agoWell they could be getting nuclear weapons to deter an American attack. I don't agree with any first strike with nuclear war. Every scenario that's been tried has, predictably escalated to a global nuclear war.
- maxharris 10y agoWell they could be getting nuclear weapons to deter an American attack. The Soviets are very different from the Islamic State. The former at least claimed to be concerned with this world, while the latter explicitly does not (this is what their religion tells them). Although there were instances where we came perilously close to nuclear war due to chance events, the fact is that no nuclear war took place. Thanks to mutually-assured destruction and good luck, there has been a lasting nuclear peace for seven decades. This all goes right out the window when the other side believes that heaven is fundamentally real, and that blasting infidels with the biggest weapon they can get will get them to heaven fastest. It is true that America has its own religious fundamentalists, and they are a growing long-term threat. But they are not yet anywhere near the point where the Islamic State is right now. Furthermore, America's religious fundamentalist have serious opposition (you and I, for example) and we can therefore expect that they will continue to be restrained in the future. In the Islamic State, there is no opposition to religious fundamentalism of any kind, and there is no prospect of it emerging from within.
- Synaesthesia 10y agoI don't think Islamic fundamentalists would launch a nuclear attack for a very simple reason, they know that they would be instantly vaporized. They're fanatical but they want to spread their empire, not obliterate it.
- maxharris 10y agoWhat should we do if the Islamic State gets nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them to their targets? That's the context he's speaking of, and I think it's dishonest for you to make it appear as if he's talking about attacking a peaceful Islamic country such as Jordan.