WWJK: Who would Jesus Kill - Military supplier adds bible references to rifle sights

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Your use of the word implies that you support that notion.

Nope. But I think some of the people prosecuting the war (particularly during the l;ast administration) and indeed some of the people who support it have veered dangerously close to that. A llot of rhetoric about 'clash of civilizations' tends to support that hypothesis; as does the amount of people who currently seem to equate 'moslem' with 'terrorist' and 'Islam' with 'terrorism'.

personally I have a more prosaic view. I think it was fuck all to do with Christianity and fuck all to do with terrorism either. Given that Iraq and saddam had no connection to 9/11; I think 'we' went into there for entirely selfish reasons, more to do with gain and politics than anything else.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Nope. But I think some of the people prosecuting the war (particularly during the l;ast administration) and indeed some of the people who support it have veered dangerously close to that. A llot of rhetoric about 'clash of civilizations' tends to support that hypothesis; as does the amount of people who currently seem to equate 'moslem' with 'terrorist' and 'Islam' with 'terrorism'.

Keep in mind that it was a solid way to get support from large parts of the country. I don't think that our past few administrations would do anything close to a "crusade" but it would be an easier way to justify and gain support for war.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Keep in mind that it was a solid way to get support from large parts of the country. I don't think that our past few administrations would do anything close to a "crusade" but it would be an easier way to justify and gain support for war.

Actually it is a term not used to justify the wars in any manner at all. It is a term used to vilify those who conducted it. Period.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Actually it is a term not used to justify the wars in any manner at all. It is a term used to vilify those who conducted it. Period.

I didn't mean the word crusade in my post, my bad. I meant the language and rhetoric used that made people think the administration were going for a crusade. That was used to gain support for the war.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Nope. But I think some of the people prosecuting the war (particularly during the l;ast administration) and indeed some of the people who support it have veered dangerously close to that. A llot of rhetoric about 'clash of civilizations' tends to support that hypothesis; as does the amount of people who currently seem to equate 'moslem' with 'terrorist' and 'Islam' with 'terrorism'.

personally I have a more prosaic view. I think it was fuck all to do with Christianity and fuck all to do with terrorism either.

Can't agree or disagree entirely.

Given that Iraq and saddam had no connection to 9/11

Agreed.

I think 'we' went into there for entirely selfish reasons, more to do with gain and politics than anything else.

What were those reasons as you understand them?