Are we engaged in a war of the West vs. Islam?

[Ed]

And if so, is that a desireable thing.

I think that we are and that, in the long term, it would have had to be fought. Islam is about 1400 years old, the same age as Christianity during the Middle Ages. Like Christianity at that time, it transcends borders and the loyaly it engenders seem to trump everything else. I think it is the West against Islam.

[Tony]

I agree. As to your question of if it is desirable, I think that is irrelevant. It is inevitable. I hope the outcome is desirable. Whether the west has the resolve or not to win such a war remains to be seen. My initial reaction is to say no, Europe’s culture of appeasement will be the death of the free west. The best course of action would be for America (and any country that doesn’t want to submit to the fanaticism of islam) to ally itself with China in such a war.

[Ralph]

What I wonder is.....what does it take for the gloves to come off.......


What happens if 6 years from now a 10kt nuke goes off in an American city & 10's of thousands are killed.....

Will Mecca & Medina be incinerated the following day????????

[reprise]

I think that we're in a war against anyone who doesn't want to adopt our economic and political models and our cultural values - same *****, different decade.

[Tony]

Originally posted by reprise
I think that we're in a war against anyone who doesn't want to adopt our economic and political models and our cultural values - shame *****, different decade.


Thats a nice way of sugar coating it, alas, the situation isnt that simple. But if self delusion is your thing, who am I to argue.

[EvilYeti]

Yeah, probably. Islam and the American way of life are mutually incompatible.

The good news is that, historically, when there is a conflict of cultures the one with the least supernatural worldview always wins. So we are a shoe-in.

[Tony]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

The good news is that, historically, when there is a conflict of cultures the one with the least supernatural worldview always wins. So we are a shoe-in.

Are you sure about this? Can you cite a specific example? I’m not arguing, just curious.

[The Fool]

Oh well, The soviet union is no longer available to play the baddy. The West seems to need an enemy to get motivated.....someone they can brand as evil.

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Fool
Oh well, The soviet union is no longer available to play the baddy. The West seems to need an enemy to get motivated.....someone they can brand as evil.


It's a wonder you can think at all with your head so deep in the sand.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, spare me the accusations of racism. Islam is a religion, NOT a race.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Ralph
What I wonder is.....what does it take for the gloves to come off.......


What happens if 6 years from now a 10kt nuke goes off in an American city & 10's of thousands are killed.....

Will Mecca & Medina be incinerated the following day????????

No, because deliberately slaughtering civilians in revenge for slaughtering civilians is insanity, even by US standards.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tony



It's a wonder you can think at all with your head so deep in the sand.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, spare me the accusations of racism. Islam is a religion, NOT a race.
umm......Racism? Did I mention Racism? Anyway, at least its a break from your obsession with bed-wetting:D

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Tony

Are you sure about this? Can you cite a specific example? I’m not arguing, just curious.

Pretty damn sure, I'm considering writing a book on it in fact. As far as I know I'm the first person who has figured this out. I can't think of single counter-example.

A specific example I often use is the "Ghost Dance" movement of the Native Americans, which ultimately led to the massacre at Wounded Knee. You can read about it here.

Ghost Dance (http://www.hanksville.org/daniel/lakota/Ghost_Dance.html)

I have dozens more. The problem with holding a supernatural world view is the only things you have going for you is zealotry, dumb luck and the odd lapse in judgement of your enemy. This can lead to few spectacular victories in the short term (e.g. Little Big Horn, 9/11), but in the long run natural law will always triumph.

If anyone has any counter examples I would appreciate it.

[athon]

Originally posted by The Fool
Oh well, The soviet union is no longer available to play the baddy. The West seems to need an enemy to get motivated.....someone they can brand as evil.

The problem this time is that the 'bad guy' is not so easily labelled. In the past, an enemy can be reduced to a cartoon...a stereotype...and it is easy to have the 'German with mansur and eye-patch' or 'Russian with funny hat'. Now, the 'enemy' has been labelled as a terrorist, which is typified in a middle-eastern stereotype. The enemy is no longer a race or country, but a loose organisation (or rather a network of organisations) that cannot be invaded or politically bullied. The U.S. is now fighting ghosts and having a hard time dealing with it.

Hopefully other countries will have the foresight and intelligence to be able to fight rats in the walls where the US has simply burned down the house.

Athon

[reprise]

Hopefully other countries will have the foresight and intelligence to be able to fight rats in the walls where the US has simply burned down the house.

Did they even burn down the RIGHT house?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Yeah, probably. Islam and the American way of life are mutually incompatible.


I'd personally say that any theocracy is, but certainly not the beliefs themselves. The very fact that Islamic scientists of old gave so much to the world is evidence of that.


The good news is that, historically, when there is a conflict of cultures the one with the least supernatural worldview always wins.

Counter-example: the USA has one of, if not the, most religious cultures on the planet, so any conflict where the USA won, is one where a culture with very supernatural worldviews won.

[Graham]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Yeah, probably. Islam and the American way of life are mutually incompatible.

The good news is that, historically, when there is a conflict of cultures the one with the least supernatural worldview always wins. So we are a shoe-in.

Wouldn't the Soviet Union have had a less supernatural worldview than the US?

[Ed]

Originally posted by athon


The problem this time is that the 'bad guy' is not so easily labelled. In the past, an enemy can be reduced to a cartoon...a stereotype...and it is easy to have the 'German with mansur and eye-patch' or 'Russian with funny hat'. Now, the 'enemy' has been labelled as a terrorist, which is typified in a middle-eastern stereotype. The enemy is no longer a race or country, but a loose organisation (or rather a network of organisations) that cannot be invaded or politically bullied. The U.S. is now fighting ghosts and having a hard time dealing with it.

Hopefully other countries will have the foresight and intelligence to be able to fight rats in the walls where the US has simply burned down the house.

Athon

I'm suggesting that the enemy is Islam, per se. Not a "terrorist".

[BillyTK]

Are we engaged in a war of the West vs. Islam? No. But I guess some would like to construe it that way to make their agenda more soundbiteworthy.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Ed
I'm suggesting that the enemy is Islam, per se. Not a "terrorist".
What does this mean? Is there a way to be at war with Islam without being at war with all Muslims?

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Nasarius


No, because deliberately slaughtering civilians in revenge for slaughtering civilians is insanity, even by US standards.
I guess you are being sarcastic.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Ed
I'm suggesting that the enemy is Islam, per se. Not a "terrorist". The West is only at war with the politicisation of Islam and then only when it combines with extremism.

It seems clear that Islam has now become forcefully politicised in many pockets of the globe. It has become to some a symbol of defiance against western cultural and political power: and not just to radical extremists, but to less volatile muslims who reject western politics and values as well. That's why, in western campuses you can find well-educated young muslim women wearing heavy purdahs though their mothers and grandmothers wouldn't have touched one. Their devoutness, or the accoutriments thereof, are a statement. Many would say they are rejecting the superficiality and decadence of the west, which is their prerogative, the worry is when you get to the extreme end of this strong Islamic identification and it's used to justify something far more sinister.

Islam has given the voices of disquiet an identity, a source of esteem and purpose and a unifying theme with which to wage war against the west, whether literal or ideological, so in this sense it has become a danger.

BUT, of course the west can't simply label *Islam* as the enemy because there are hoards of peace loving and western-friendly Muslims who are themselves horrified by terrorism and extremism, so it is more the perverted political use of the religion which appears to us as the enemy than the religion itself. We are at war with something which must go deeper than Islam. What that something is, I'm not sure.

[hgc]

It's a war against Islamo-fascists. And it ought to be fought and won by the rest of the Moslems. Not much we can do, in the long run.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Nasarius


No, because deliberately slaughtering civilians in revenge for slaughtering civilians is insanity, even by US standards.

Well,

The MAD doctrine worked well for 50 years because both sides had clearly defined mass-casualty targets. The problem with nuclear terrorism, (if/when it happens) is that there are no defined targets such as in the cold war. (Or the defined targets exist only on one side)

"Even by US standards"??? What is that supposed to mean exactly? The MAD doctrine stipulated just that; Mutually Assured Destruction. The fact that you think it is insanity matters not. Humans have warred on each other since the dawn of time...in other words it's a normal state for us. Sad but true. Normal states are NOT insane...they are merely normal.

So, should we nuke the big black rock in Mecca if/when Islamic fundie nuts nuke us? Of course we should....but we need to make it known to the world that we'll really do it...otherwise the deterant doesn't work. Islamic fundies, if they are really so nuts over their religion would never risk losing their most sacred shrine. So, now we have a specific mass-casualty target that Al Qaida, et al, must respect.

Could it work? Who knows,...the weird part is that for MAD to work we have to assume that both sides are SANE! Bin Laden seems like he'd be just crazy enough to actually desire a nuclear exchange. But what is the alternative, Nasarius? Threaten nothing in return? Or should we just pull back from the region entirely, stop supporting Israel, and begin a policy of appeasement of anyone who kills or threatens to kill our people?

-z

[Flo]

Originally posted by hgc
It's a war against Islamo-fascists. And it ought to be fought and won by the rest of the Moslems. Not much we can do, in the long run.


Sure, but

1) who do you rate in this category ? Who do you exclude ?

2) how are the "rest of the Moslem" to fight it when some regimes that obviously fun and support islamo-fascism (Saudi-Arabia or Pakistan come to mind) are considered as allies/commerce partners and get material support in order to stay in power despite opposition from (part of) their population ?

[Luke T.]

What Jessica Blue said.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Flo



Sure, but

1) who do you rate in this category ? Who do you exclude ?

2) how are the "rest of the Moslem" to fight it when some regimes that obviously fun and support islamo-fascism (Saudi-Arabia or Pakistan come to mind) are considered as allies/commerce partners and get material support in order to stay in power despite opposition from (part of) their population ? These are not easy questions to answer. I can identify the real outliers. Turkey is an example of a secular Moslem country, and one that was founded on the very principle of keeping the Islamists under control and out of government, and has backed up this commitment internally with its military. Sure Turkey has other problems. On the other hand are the Al Queda/Taliban types. No explanation necessary there.

So who's caught in the middle? Let's look at Saudi Arabia. It's not only the home of Islam, it's the birthplace of Wahabism. The ruling family is very religious, and yet wants very badly to accommodate its western friends (customers & protectors). They are going to have to make a choice of who they'll back, or that may be moot if they are tossed from power (if they push back hard on the Islamists). Egypt, the power (and intellectual center) of the Arab world, is another example of a state in a bind. The power elite want to get along with the west (source of funds) and also have to accommodate their internal Islamist tendencies. Take a look at Algeria, they shut down the democratic process to keep the Islamists from coming to power (free elections, once), and have spent much of the last 15 years fighting an extremely violent insurgency (as in Egypt). The struggle goes on and on, across the Moslem world. Basically, it's very hard to say who's going to fight on what side. I think that the military might of countries like Pakistan, and the others I mentioned, are often focused on keeping the Islamists from coming to power, but then you have Pakistan's military engaging in an quasi-external struggle with India, in a dispute where nationalist and religious causes are in confluence.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Ed
And if so, is that a desireable thing.

I think that we are and that, in the long term, it would have had to be fought. Islam is about 1400 years old, the same age as Christianity during the Middle Ages. Like Christianity at that time, it transcends borders and the loyaly it engenders seem to trump everything else. I think it is the West against Islam.

Yes and no.

I think we are seeing the start of the war between globalism and tribalism -- the point in history where the "us vs. them" mentality is being swept aside by increasing levels of economic interdependence.

Religion is, of course, the ultimate symbol of tribalism. What we're seeing is not a war against Islam in particular, it's just that Islam, as the most radical major religion, naturally moves to the top of the list.

In the U.S., the same thing is happening on a smaller scale. The religious moderates are gradually disappearing, and the number of both secularists and vocal fundamentalists is increasing.

In defense of Islam, both Judaism and Christianity were equally violent and reckless at the same point in their history. When Judaism was 1500 years old, the Hebrews were rampaging across the middle east, slaughtering any other tribes who thought it might be nice to keep their land. And A.D. 1500 was around the height of Catholic dominance in Europe and the colonial expansion it inspired.

Jeremy

[Ed]

Originally posted by toddjh



In defense of Islam, both Judaism and Christianity were equally violent and reckless at the same point in their history. When Judaism was 1500 years old, the Hebrews were rampaging across the middle east, slaughtering any other tribes who thought it might be nice to keep their land. And A.D. 1500 was around the height of Catholic dominance in Europe and the colonial expansion it inspired.

Jeremy

My point precisely. But, the tribes that the Jews killed were not armed with nukes.:D

[hgc]

Originally posted by Ed


My point precisely. But, the tribes that the Jews killed were not armed with nukes.:D Not even wall-crumbling bugles!

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Graham

Wouldn't the Soviet Union have had a less supernatural worldview than the US?

I wouldn't say so. This is a society that keeps the mummified corpse of one of their spiritual leaders on permanent display, remember. "Supernatural" doesn't just mean religion, superstition, etc. Having blind faith in a political ideology, even when it contradicts natural law, is just as supernatural a belief as any religion.

I will admit that our current administration has its share of supernatural beliefs, some very dangerous ones in fact, but its important to remember they are not America. Also note that most of our religious folk keep their gods seperated from day-to-day life.

One might also question whether anyone really triumphed over the Soviet Union, considering that they basically self-destructed.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Pretty damn sure, I'm considering writing a book on it in fact. As far as I know I'm the first person who has figured this out. I can't think of single counter-example.

A specific example I often use is the "Ghost Dance" movement of the Native Americans, which ultimately led to the massacre at Wounded Knee. You can read about it here.

Ghost Dance (http://www.hanksville.org/daniel/lakota/Ghost_Dance.html)

I have dozens more. The problem with holding a supernatural world view is the only things you have going for you is zealotry, dumb luck and the odd lapse in judgement of your enemy. This can lead to few spectacular victories in the short term (e.g. Little Big Horn, 9/11), but in the long run natural law will always triumph.

If anyone has any counter examples I would appreciate it.

I can think of one counter example but I admit it is a weak one. I would say that India had a more supernatural view of the world than the British but they sucessfully kicked them out in the wake of WWII. Of course India has become very westernized in the eyars since, which could be looked on as a form of defeat, so I guess it's not the best example.

But overall I think you are right. Not only for the reason you mentioned but because the less supernaturally oriented society tends to have a higher level of technology and because the more supernatural society will sometimes make tactical errors based on their supernatural belief; i.e. both the Ghost Dancers and warriors in the Boxer Rebellion had rituals that they felt would make a person immune to bullets, causing them to try to take on foes that they shouldn't have (from tactical point of view).

I hope you write that book, I would be very interested in reading it.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Counter-example: the USA has one of, if not the, most religious cultures on the planet, so any conflict where the USA won, is one where a culture with very supernatural worldviews won. [/B]

Hah! I've lived in the U.S. my entire life and religion has played exactly zero of a role in any of it. My only encounter with religion is when the Mormons come knocking on my door. I don't even know anyone that goes to church on Sunday!

I do admit that are large portion of our citizens have some very supernatural beliefs, but notice my hypothesis is based on which society is more rational. Its a matter of degree. Look at WWII for another great example, we were up against an occult-obsessed European tyrant whom had supernatural delusions of a "master race". And an asian society that revered its Emperor as a god. We were a nation of skeptics compared to them!

[Ralph]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Well,

The MAD doctrine worked well for 50 years because both sides had clearly defined mass-casualty targets. The problem with nuclear terrorism, (if/when it happens) is that there are no defined targets such as in the cold war. (Or the defined targets exist only on one side)

"Even by US standards"??? What is that supposed to mean exactly? The MAD doctrine stipulated just that; Mutually Assured Destruction. The fact that you think it is insanity matters not. Humans have warred on each other since the dawn of time...in other words it's a normal state for us. Sad but true. Normal states are NOT insane...they are merely normal.

So, should we nuke the big black rock in Mecca if/when Islamic fundie nuts nuke us? Of course we should....but we need to make it known to the world that we'll really do it...otherwise the deterant doesn't work. Islamic fundies, if they are really so nuts over their religion would never risk losing their most sacred shrine. So, now we have a specific mass-casualty target that Al Qaida, et al, must respect.

Could it work? Who knows,...the weird part is that for MAD to work we have to assume that both sides are SANE! Bin Laden seems like he'd be just crazy enough to actually desire a nuclear exchange. But what is the alternative, Nasarius? Threaten nothing in return? Or should we just pull back from the region entirely, stop supporting Israel, and begin a policy of appeasement of anyone who kills or threatens to kill our people?

-z While we've maintained the position that the war is against terrorism, not Islam....the Islamic fundies seem to
have made it crystal clear that it's a Jihad aimed at the infidel, with the US playing the role of Chief Infidel. We may not be at warm with Islam but they sure seem to be at war with with us, as they are with Jews & Hindus and Buddhists.

When Bush used the word "crusade" he was condemned. When Islamo-fascists use the word "jihad".....nobody bats an eyelash.

It seems that a lot of the resistance in Iraq is coming from non-Iraquis who are being urged to go there to fight a Jihad against the infidels.

Funny that none of their fellow Muslims seemed to give a s**t when Saddam & sons were torturing & slaughtering "believers" on a far greater scale than what the US is doing. I didn't hear any calls for a Jihad against a man who fed Muslims feet first into shredding machines.

What scares me is the whole religious aspect of the thing. "God less" commies knew that if something started--that was it. No more vodka.....no more winter sports, and no more Russian poosies.......

Islam seems to have convinced a lot of it's followers that while it doesn't have any of this good stuff now------it can have it later if they're willing to die in the name of Allah.....

They have to know though.....if it came to a "no rules--just kill them all" situtaion like WW2 became......it would be over quickly.

They may obtain the abilty to destroy a few cities and kill 10's of thousands of Americans........but consider what just ONE sub could do to a middle-eastern country.........

[Elind]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Yeah, probably. Islam and the American way of life are mutually incompatible.

The good news is that, historically, when there is a conflict of cultures the one with the least supernatural worldview always wins. So we are a shoe-in.

Have you read ANY of the survey about "supernatural" beliefs of Americans? Seems to me Islam has one fairly consistent superstition; whereas Americans can include Pat Robertson, W Bush, Sylvia Browne, John Edward, (not to forget the Pet Psychic) and many many more.....

[Ed]

Originally posted by JamesM

What does this mean? Is there a way to be at war with Islam without being at war with all Muslims?

No.

[Ed]

An interesting perspective from Islamweb.

The above is the sense and meaning behind the question: Can we be friends with non-Muslims?

Allah's guidance is clear.

"O you who believe, do not take My enemy and your enemy as friends, offering them affection, even though they have disbelieved in what has come to you of the truth, driving out the Messenger and yourselves because you believe in Allah, your Lord…" [Surah Mumtahana 60:1]

Everywhere that Allah says, "O you who believe," He is addressing you and me, each one of us, personally.

"O you who believe, do not take the Jews and Christians as friends; they are the friends only of each other. And whoever among you turns to them for friendship is certainly one of them; indeed, Allah does not guide the people who do wrong." [Surah Maida 5: 54-55]

The gist is that if you are not a muslim you are an enemy.

[Tony]

Alternative Views of Islam (http://listislam.cjb.net/)

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Elind


Have you read ANY of the survey about "supernatural" beliefs of Americans? Seems to me Islam has one fairly consistent superstition; whereas Americans can include Pat Robertson, W Bush, Sylvia Browne, John Edward, (not to forget the Pet Psychic) and many many more.....

I could be wrong but I didn't take Evil Yetis use of the word 'least' to mean 'fewest' I took it to mean 'the least deeply ingrained'

[Nikk]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


I wouldn't say so. This is a society that keeps the mummified corpse of one of their spiritual leaders on permanent display, remember. "Supernatural" doesn't just mean religion, superstition, etc. Having blind faith in a political ideology, even when it contradicts natural law, is just as supernatural a belief as any religion.

I will admit that our current administration has its share of supernatural beliefs, some very dangerous ones in fact, but its important to remember they are not America. Also note that most of our religious folk keep their gods seperated from day-to-day life.

One might also question whether anyone really triumphed over the Soviet Union, considering that they basically self-destructed.

As most conflicts throughout history were between opponents with religious world views you have hardly any data to go on.

Furthermore Vietnamese communists kicked the US out of Vietnam which seems to undermine either your view of communism or your rather silly "theory". Equally Somalis kicked you out of Somalia and they are surely religious folks.

Face it. God is on the side of..... a) The big battalions.
b) Those who really, really, want to win.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Nikk


As most conflicts throughout history were between opponents with religious world views you have hardly any data to go on.

Furthermore Vietnamese communists kicked the US out of Vietnam which seems to undermine either your view of communism or your rather silly "theory". Equally Somalis kicked you out of Somalia and they are surely religious folks.

Face it. God is on the side of..... a) The big battalions.
b) Those who really, really, want to win.

What was the quote from Napolean?

God being on the side with the biggest guns?

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by The Fool
Oh well, The soviet union is no longer available to play the baddy. The West seems to need an enemy to get motivated.....someone they can brand as evil.

Was that all the USSR was in your view?

I dare say if you ask someone in Poland, they might have a different view of the matter.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
The good news is that, historically, when there is a conflict of cultures the one with the least supernatural worldview always wins. So we are a shoe-in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I could be wrong but I didn't take Evil Yetis use of the word 'least' to mean 'fewest' I took it to mean 'the least deeply ingrained'

Fair enough, but perhaps it would be more accurate to say "whoever is in control".

In many Muslim societies control is held by the most religious and least educated (synonymous?). Or at least those who pander to the most religious and least educated. In the West, even in the USA, the educated class controls, and that group is far less superstitious than the remaining 90+% in spite of what we sometimes see in knee jerk reactions to the word God by Congress and Bush(s).

That however is not to say that it is inconceivable that a majority of fundamentalists could ever gain control in the US, given the right economic and crisis situations. The polls suggest they have a silent majority in the wings.

[TillEulenspiegel]

are we engaged in a war of the West vs. Islam?

Yes

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel

are we engaged in a war of the West vs. Islam?

Yes
I think you forgot something. Yes, you definitely left out an important word which could change the whole meaning of what you are trying to say. Wouldn't want anyone to misunderstand you, I'm sure. But I'm wondering...

Isn't West Virginia kinda young to take on a religion almost 1400 years old? I know that it's Wild and Wonderful and that you must be proud of the turnpike and all, but c'mon. Also, don't you think it would be a good idea to ask West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd how he feels about it?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Nikk

As most conflicts throughout history were between opponents with religious world views you have hardly any data to go on.

Religion has little to do with having a supernatural world-view. There is a difference between praying to God to grant you victory on the battlefield and expecting

Furthermore Vietnamese communists kicked the US out of Vietnam which seems to undermine either your view of communism or your rather silly "theory". Equally Somalis kicked you out of Somalia and they are surely religious folks.


I wouldn't consider those "conflicts of culture", the scale was simply too small.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Having blind faith in a political ideology, even when it contradicts natural law, is just as supernatural a belief as any religion.

Is natural law any less a supernatural belief?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by The Fool
Oh well, The soviet union is no longer available to play the baddy. The West seems to need an enemy to get motivated.....someone they can brand as evil.

It seems to be a basic human failing, along with the inability to ever reach posession satisfaction, to need someone to identify as the enemy. This is not a particularly Western or Islam failing. The only solution I can see, in the long run, is education about our failings as homo sapiens and how to be aware of and compensate for them.

[Giz]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Is natural law any less a supernatural belief?

After we sort out Islam we should start on the Post-Modernists.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Giz


After we sort out Islam we should start on the Post-Modernists.
Are you unable to answer the question?

[Giz]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Pretty damn sure, I'm considering writing a book on it in fact. As far as I know I'm the first person who has figured this out. I can't think of single counter-example.

A specific example I often use is the "Ghost Dance" movement of the Native Americans, which ultimately led to the massacre at Wounded Knee. You can read about it here.

Ghost Dance (http://www.hanksville.org/daniel/lakota/Ghost_Dance.html)

I have dozens more. The problem with holding a supernatural world view is the only things you have going for you is zealotry, dumb luck and the odd lapse in judgement of your enemy. This can lead to few spectacular victories in the short term (e.g. Little Big Horn, 9/11), but in the long run natural law will always triumph.

If anyone has any counter examples I would appreciate it.

It's already been written "Why the West has won" by Victor Davis Hanson.
Traces rationalism and (comparative) freedom of expression through Salamis, Cannae, etc to Midway and Tet. (Yes, thats Cannae and Tet, but he's interested in the societs response as much as the battle itself).

Nice idea though!

[a_unique_person]

So the simple answer is, Ed, we are engaged in a war against ourselves, as we always have been. Hopefully, one day, we will see things as they are. Until then, it will be war. Just hope you are on the side of the strongest.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Is natural law any less a supernatural belief?

Show one (1) example of a bullet-proof person in human history and I'll grant you that. Until then, natural law wins by default.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Show one (1) example of a bullet-proof person in human history and I'll grant you that. Until then, natural law wins by default.
Everyone in human history prior to the invention of the gun? I dunno, what exactly has this to do with my claim that natural law is a supernatural belief?

[Frank Newgent]

To be done to the tune of Take Me Home Country Roads (http://www.lyricsdepot.com/john-denver/take-me-home-country-roads.html)


Almost got me, Iraqi sniper
Blew his head off
Or was that the guy who served me coffee?
He looked a lot like
Moammar Gaddafi
Plus he wore a diaper
Hey, I'm from New Jer-sey

Take me home Steve Cambone
My tour of duty why must you prolong?
Damascus, Syria, Arab Republic
From there thus spoke Fred Flintstone

Wish the Shiites would gather 'round him
Ahmed Chalabi, stranger to Noam Chomsky
That people can be governed only through the myths
While the troops drink Coca-Cola
Is that all there really is?

Take me home, got broken bones
Get Donald Rumsfeld on the phone
Damascus, Syria, Arab Republic
From there thus spoke Fred Flintstone

Mob intoning that it's West versus Islam
Got a hunch they just wish for war anyway
A lung un leber oyf der noz in Yiddish
And Gai tren zich Ariel Sharon

Take me home Sly Stallone
On the map Bush has been shown
Damascus, Syria, Arab Republic
From there thus spoke Fred Flintstone

Take me home, they've called in the loan
Civilian clones now own the zone
Damascus, Syria, Arab Republic
From there thus spoke Fred Flintstone

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent
To be done to the tune of Take Me Home Country Roads (http://www.lyricsdepot.com/john-denver/take-me-home-country-roads.html)


Almost got me, Iraqi sniper
Blew his head off
Or was that the guy who served me coffee?
He looked a lot like
Moammar Gaddafi
Plus he wore a diaper
Hey, I'm from New Jer-sey

Take me home Steve Cambone
My tour of duty why must you prolong?
Damascus, Syria, Arab Republic
From there thus spoke Fred Flintstone

Wish the Shiites would gather 'round him
Ahmed Chalabi, stranger to Noam Chomsky
That people can be governed only through the myths
While the troops drink Coca-Cola
Is that all there really is?

Take me home, got broken bones
Get Donald Rumsfeld on the phone
Damascus, Syria, Arab Republic
From there thus spoke Fred Flintstone

Mob intoning that it's West versus Islam
Got a hunch they just wish for war anyway
A lung un leber oyf der noz in Yiddish
And Gai tren zich Ariel Sharon

Take me home Sly Stallone
On the map Bush has been shown
Damascus, Syria, Arab Republic
From there thus spoke Fred Flintstone

Take me home, they've called in the loan
Civilian clones now own the zone
Damascus, Syria, Arab Republic
From there thus spoke Fred Flintstone
Frank Newgent: Heir of the doggeral.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tricky

Frank Newgent: Heir of the doggeral.

Attention: seeking your Language Prize nomination? :p ;)