the start of World War III?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
melon said:
calling this "WWIII" is nothing short of hysteria at this point.

Melon

Point is we're at the beginning stages.
There will be an ebb and flow of fighting terror in the coming years but make no mistake we are on the verge of a preciptious struggle that will last for many many decades.

You may gleefully ignore these observations, wring your hands of them, or bury your collective heads in the sand.

There will come a day when one can no longer deny what is unfolding before our eyes.

Out-

dbs
 
WW3?

no.

a broader Shiite vs. Sunni war across the Muslim Middle East?

quite possibly.

start using alternative energy sources now.
 
diamond said:

You may gleefully ignore these observations, wring your hands of them, or bury your collective heads in the sand.

Or we can live our lives and live in the world that exists and continue to hold out some hope that things can change for the better, and continue to do some small things in our daily lives to try to make it better-and some bigger things such as voting for change. I prefer that to fatalistic visions and dire predictions of doom.

Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.~ Margaret Mead

The only thing we have to fear is, fear itself ~ FDR
 
diamond said:


Point is we're at the beginning stages.
There will be an ebb and flow of fighting terror in the coming years

But diamond, doesn't that sound a lot more like the Cold War than a so-called World War III? I can tell you there was no "ebb and flow" in either of the last two World Wars.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:


Or we can live our lives and live in the world that exists and continue to hold out some hope that things can change for the better, and continue to do some small things in our daily lives to try to make it better-and some bigger things such as voting for change. I prefer that to fatalistic visions and dire predictions of doom.

You don't sit around and hope that the world changes for you, you change it yourself if you EVER want anything to get better. If every country that supposedly hoped for a better world continued to "hold out some hope that things can change for the better" instead of beng proactive they'd most likely be ruled by governmants who have no interest in the greater good by today.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
The only thing we have to fear is, fear itself ~ FDR

If only we could live by that on a broader scale.

Fear (or crisis porn - I like that term as well) is a pervasive industry used increasing numbers of groups and interests.
 
maycocksean said:


But diamond, doesn't that sound a lot more like the Cold War than a so-called World War III? I can tell you there was no "ebb and flow" in either of the last two World Wars.

This World War will be unlike the 2 previous.
It will be a world at war with itself, thus making it a world wide conflict.

I think the *only * reason the world hasn't sunk into a full scale chaotic world war is because of the prayers and faith of a few ppl, and I'm concerned that it may not be enough, as ppl are becoming more coarse, more hard hearted and self absorbed.

I hoping I'm wrong, I truly do.

dbs
 
Last edited:
I think the *only * reason the world hasn't sunk into a full scale chaotic world war is because of the prayers and faith of a few ppl, and I'm concerned that it may not be enough, as ppl are becoming more coarse, more hard hearted and self absorbed.
I find this analysis to be very faulty, the prayers and faith of a few people for peace have absolutely no effect on the outcome whatsoever as prayer simply doesn't work and the prayers and faith of others who believe in apocalyptic prophecy, theological supremacism and their right to kill unbelievers is the source of this situation. WW3 is the enlightened open society against reactionary religious forces.

This strange war is bimodal, it's either peace or limited military action on one side punctuated by relatively small terrorist attacks with the potential for more major strikes and the demanded response. Such a situation will never end as long as the knowledge to create weapons of mass destruction exists or the demented will of the religios fanatic has so much appeal.
 
Last edited:
diamond said:

I think the *only * reason the world hasn't sunk into a full scale chaotic world war is because of the prayers and faith of a few ppl, and I'm concerned that it may not be enough, as ppl are becoming more coarse, more hard hearted and self absorbed.

I hoping I'm wrong, I truly do.

dbs


:sigh:
 
A_Wanderer said:
I find this analysis to be very faulty, the prayers and faith of a few people for peace have absolutely no effect on the outcome whatsoever as prayer simply doesn't work and the prayers and faith of others who believe in apocalyptic prophecy, theological supremacism and their right to kill unbelievers is the source of this situation. WW3 is the enlightened open society against reactionary religious forces.


Well, of course you'd find this analysis faulty. You don't believe in prayer and you believe that praying people are a deteriment to enlightened society. First you have to convince him that prayer doesn't work. And from both ends of the spectrum, telling people that they are idiots doesn't usually change their minds (lest we forget the beleaguered atheism thread).

A_Wanderer said:
This strange war is bimodal, it's either peace or limited military action on one side punctuated by relatively small terrorist attacks with the potential for more major strikes and the demanded response.

Again, this sounds like Cold War II to me.

A_Wanderer said:

Such a situation will never end as long as the knowledge to create weapons of mass destruction exists or the demented will of the religios fanatic has so much appeal.

So just so we're clear. You believe that if there was no more religion then there would be no more war?
 
Irvine511 said:




only if they mean something to you.


I actually know people that are grateful that people are praying for them....and I would be grateful if I knew that people are praying for me.
 
Westport said:



I actually know people that are grateful that people are praying for them....and I would be grateful if I knew that people are praying for me.



likewise, it matters if you want it to matter. if someone praying for you makes you feel better, then it's working. if you don't care, then it isn't working.

but this is a side topic -- i believe there was a thread about a study that was done that showed that people with grevious illnesses who were prayed for actually did slightly worse than people who weren't prayed for.
 
maycocksean said:
Well, of course you'd find this analysis faulty. You don't believe in prayer and you believe that praying people are a deteriment to enlightened society. First you have to convince him that prayer doesn't work. And from both ends of the spectrum, telling people that they are idiots doesn't usually change their minds (lest we forget the beleaguered atheism thread).
Well, remember you're talking to the man whose creed is
I want a world where everybodies ideas are scrutinised, criticised and mocked savagely.
Speaking of which, A_W--could I interest you in running my curriculum steering committee meeting tomorrow morning? :wink:
 
Last edited:
So just so we're clear. You believe that if there was no more religion then there would be no more war?
No, war has been a staple of human nature since the first homonids, the danger of nihilistic believers wanting to kill the unbelievers however is a product of belief and it is that belief that is driving this war.

As for prayer the scientific studies on patient recovery rates of those who get prayed for and those who don't show no effect.
 
Last edited:
ou don't believe in prayer and you believe that praying people are a deteriment to enlightened society.
I think that people praying don't have any major effect on society, thats not to say that people who pray are inherently better or worse than anyone else.
 
When I pay for people the main idea isn't for them to feel better (unless I'm praying for them to feel better, heh heh). Let's say I were to pray for someone to be healed of an illness or get through a hard breakup. In reality my prayers wouldn't be affective unless they were affected in some way more than just letting them know I care. I rarely tell people I'm praying for them anyways, as at times it seems a little self-righteous to me.

That said, my prayers for peace in the Middle East (as much peace as there can be, anyways) would have absolutely no effect.
 
A_Wanderer said:
No, war has been a staple of human nature since the first homonids.

Just making sure we're clear. Sometimes you seem to implying something different. I wouldn't deny the religious motivations of this current war though.
 
A_Wanderer said:
I think that people praying don't have any major effect on society, thats not to say that people who pray are inherently better or worse than anyone else.

Really? Because I was always under the impression that you felt that religion was a blight upon humanity and that should be mocked and ridiculed into obsolescence. Your above quote sounds almost like. . .respect?

Perhaps I misunderstood.
 
I didn't say that religious people are by definition bad individuals, I happen to believe that good or evil can manifest in any person by their actions and not their faith.

I do think that bronze age religious beliefs are an impediment for humanity, but that is not to say that I don't have respect for freedom of concience; people have a right to believe, but they don't have a right to not be offended and it is at that margin free speech can be protected.

Free speech, democracy and the marketplace of ideas is what I believe in, the right to mock and belittle falls right in there and minimises the dangers in belief; it's no coincidence that it's Islam and not modern Christianity (who's faith has had to adapt to the secular west) that is producing a good deal of extremism today.
 
A_Wanderer said:
I didn't say that religious people are by definition bad individuals, I happen to believe that good or evil can manifest in any person by their actions and not their faith.

I do think that bronze age religious beliefs are an impediment for humanity, but that is not to say that I don't have respect for freedom of concience; people have a right to believe, but they don't have a right to not be offended and it is at that margin free speech can be protected.

Free speech, democracy and the marketplace of ideas is what I believe in, the right to mock and belittle falls right in there and minimises the dangers in belief; it's no coincidence that it's Islam and not modern Christianity (who's faith has had to adapt to the secular west) that is producing a good deal of extremism today.

I understand where you're coming from A_Wanderer. Thanks.
 
Back
Top Bottom