Lunar Threads

What's the deal man? I'm shipping out for the Marines in June and I been thinking for the first time about this so called "Rebuilding Process" in Iraq. Is this a war of hidden religious agenda? Are "the West" systematically decade by decade trying to obliterate 'Islam' or something?

I suppose that makes sense, we all know insurgents don't attack the moscs (forgive the spelling) rather we just make the public think they do, when in fact we do!

/sarcasm off

I fail to see any hidden religious agenda. Sure, there may be plenty of hidden agendas some where, but I've yet to see any proof of a religious kind.

This has nothing to do with religous agendas.

FYI to anyone who posts in this thread. Keep it civil or I'll lock it. This topic could easily spiral into a flamewar, and I'd like it to stay in the bounds of quality discussion than petty arguments.

GhaleonOne wrote:FYI to anyone who posts in this thread. Keep it civil or I'll lock it. This topic could easily spiral into a flamewar, and I'd like it to stay in the bounds of quality discussion than petty arguments.

Congrats G1, you have the 32,768th post! I've been waiting for someone to reach 32,768 since we first hit 16,384!

Anyway...

I'm shipping out for the Marines in June and I been thinking for the first time about this so called "Rebuilding Process" in Iraq. Is this a war of hidden religious agenda? Are "the West" systematically decade by decade trying to obliterate 'Islam' or something?

No, even I don't believe that... KF

phyco126 wrote:I suppose that makes sense, we all know insurgents don't attack the moscs (forgive the spelling) rather we just make the public think they do, when in fact we do!

/sarcasm off

I fail to see any hidden religious agenda. Sure, there may be plenty of hidden agendas some where, but I've yet to see any proof of a religious kind.

I'm saying naturally no Government wants to see another Islamic Superpower like the Ottomans or the Persians to ever happen again. I don't mean they want to wipe clean the Islams off face of the Earth.

Congrats G1, you have the 32,768th post! I've been waiting for someone to reach 32,768 since we first hit 16,384!

Um... okay? Any particular reason? I'm sure there's some reason behind it, but I can't think of... wait, okay. I knew that number looked familiar. It's the max value of an integer. Did you think the board would blow up or something?

Persians

The height of the Persian Empire was way before Islam though. Even before Christianity.

GhaleonOne wrote:

Congrats G1, you have the 32,768th post! I've been waiting for someone to reach 32,768 since we first hit 16,384!

Um... okay? Any particular reason? I'm sure there's some reason behind it, but I can't think of... wait, okay. I knew that number looked familiar. It's the max value of an integer. Did you think the board would blow up or something?

can you explain the whole integer thing to me i think i was sleeping that day in math and thats where i got confused with the lemina bug

GhaleonOne wrote:

Congrats G1, you have the 32,768th post! I've been waiting for someone to reach 32,768 since we first hit 16,384!

Um... okay? Any particular reason? I'm sure there's some reason behind it, but I can't think of... wait, okay. I knew that number looked familiar. It's the max value of an integer. Did you think the board would blow up or something?

Oh no, that would be silly!

The boards will blow up once we hit 65,536.

I've been using binary a lot lately; 32,768 is a major milestone because it's 2 to the 15th power--or, written in binary, that would be 1,000,000,000,000,000. The maximum value for a double-byte character (16 bits) is 65,535, which is why the boards will blow once we hit 65,536.

See, it all makes sense. It's the same reason why you couldn't get more than 255 rupees in the original Legend of Zelda: one more and your money-pouch would explode. KF

No, if we wanted Islam gone, we'd have to do much more than simply take out the middle east. Islam has spread very wide, we'd have a very widespread target to hit. Plus, with enough radical Islamic followers, a strike to the religion would cause even more damage than we can afford. I don't think we're that stupid.

Mog Dragonheart wrote:

phyco126 wrote:I suppose that makes sense, we all know insurgents don't attack the moscs (forgive the spelling) rather we just make the public think they do, when in fact we do!

/sarcasm off

I fail to see any hidden religious agenda. Sure, there may be plenty of hidden agendas some where, but I've yet to see any proof of a religious kind.

I'm saying naturally no Government wants to see another Islamic Superpower like the Ottomans or the Persians to ever happen again. I don't mean they want to wipe clean the Islams off face of the Earth.

... but Iraq was nowhere near the power of the Ottomans in the first place. If we invaded in order to stop something like that, I don't think we even chose the right target. Not that there is a right target.

And what does this have to do with the rebuilding process? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding.

Mog Dragonheart wrote:What's the deal man? I'm shipping out for the Marines in June and I been thinking for the first time about this so called "Rebuilding Process" in Iraq. Is this a war of hidden religious agenda? Are "the West" systematically decade by decade trying to obliterate 'Islam' or something?

Considering that "the West" is breaking its back trying to get the Iraqi Sunnis and Shia to cooperate and set up a democratic government with minority rights, no, I would have to say that their goal is not to obliterate Islam.

I would rather not see any more empires which go around killing everyone who is different, regardless of the name of the religion/ideology it's done in. This has little to do with what religion people are and more to do with the interpretation of that religion and/or its abuse for ill purposes.

Consider Christianity for example. The roots of the religion are love, charity, mercy, and brotherhood. Yet historically there have been Christians who seem to have had the exact opposite philosophy. That some Christians have lost their way does not mean that Christianity itself should be obliterated.

From firsthand, this insurgency is routed in intolerance, revenge, selfishness, greed, all wrapped in the shroud of religion to gain support. Religion is a powerful motivator.

More men are slain in the name of Gods that are peaceful and full of love then of those who were gods of war.

Think about that for a while...

Angelalex242 wrote:More men are slain in the name of Gods that are peaceful and full of love then of those who were gods of war.
Think about that for a while...

I thought about it...

And that statement makes no sense.

Think about it: while there were gods of war, we're talking polytheistic societies--specifically, ancient Greek, Roman, Viking, Mesopotamian, etc. In other words, wars prior to c400AD. Wars in the ancient era were done for military conquest, imperial expansion, etc.; praying to the gods was just a part of that.

The only thing that statement does is say that wars currently are more bloody than wars in the ancient era.

Which is obvious. We have more people, better weapons, and direct hand-to-hand combat isn't a major part of warfare.

Hence, why that statement is meaningless.

By the way, if you want to get into the whole "well more people were killed in religion's name than -blah blah blah-" then have something to back it up. KF

Angelalex242 wrote:More men are slain in the name of Gods that are peaceful and full of love then of those who were gods of war.
Think about that for a while...

Actually most people slain in the name of God are slain in violation of God's laws for the sake of personal gain. It is not religion which causes death. Rather the causes of death are selfishness, greed and apathy - all things which religion usually stands up against.

Think about that for a while.

... It's sad to hear that the stuff my associate told me is true.
That the military is telling soldiers and recruits that the "towlhead" "sand n***ers" are unchristian heathens.

:/ My displeasure grows,
Way to spread hate and intolerance.

While I have no doubt there probably are a few people like that (issues like the case where some soldiers killed a family and raped the little girl in the night - which is sickening), I'd be willing to wager that it's nowhere near as widespread as some people make it out to be. I've known probably 10 people who have been sent to Iraq in the past 2 years or so and none of them fit that image at all. All of them were far more interested in just trying to do their part in fixing the situation, rather than causing more problems.

The military does not think like that as a whole and it sure as hell doesnt teach its soldiers that. In fact soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors on the ground must go through a cultural education training prior to setting foot outside a base in iraq. They are trained to speak very basic arabic, learn what cultural rights and wrongs are. (Sunglasses as an example are offensive to wear when talking with someone). I very much doubt and i can vouch that the military does not advocate calling iraqis heathens. Many soldiers, marines, etc see stressful things and as a result may have biased views of people. If your associate told you those things, then that may have been the opinion of his fire team leader, squad leader, or maybe another soldier in his platoon, but to think that it would get to a level above that is not likely. If an officer, or higher NCO advocated that kind of behavior he would be reassigned or punished by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Opinions by soldiers are one thing, but the military does not teach that, trust me.

Kizyr wrote:

Angelalex242 wrote:More men are slain in the name of Gods that are peaceful and full of love then of those who were gods of war.
Think about that for a while...

I thought about it...

And that statement makes no sense.

Think about it: while there were gods of war, we're talking polytheistic societies--specifically, ancient Greek, Roman, Viking, Mesopotamian, etc. In other words, wars prior to c400AD. Wars in the ancient era were done for military conquest, imperial expansion, etc.; praying to the gods was just a part of that.

The only thing that statement does is say that wars currently are more bloody than wars in the ancient era.

Which is obvious. We have more people, better weapons, and direct hand-to-hand combat isn't a major part of warfare.

Hence, why that statement is meaningless.

By the way, if you want to get into the whole "well more people were killed in religion's name than -blah blah blah-" then have something to back it up. KF

I agree the statement did in fact not make sense. I don't think it has ever really been JUST a religious thing but more of a destruction or forced conversion based on the cultural beliefs as a whole. Religion more or less is just used as a justification. Religions' an easy tool to use for manipulation. Everybody in one way or another can identify.