Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
U-Know! Forum »
I'm so confused.....
Log In to post a reply

121 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
637 posts

Edited Nov 16, 2015, 11:53
Re: I'm so confused.....
Nov 16, 2015, 11:41
sanshee wrote:
Captain Starlet wrote:

I agree with Corbyn on many aspects. Firstly by killing terrorists outright it's more likely to make them martyrs, thus meaning more violence. With arrest and trial comes humiliation of their cause and a far less escalation of violence. Did the death of Bin Laden stop anything? Of course it didn't, at the end of the day his death solved no problems.

Furthermore, we in the west like to pretend we're civilised, they're supposed to be the uncivilised murderous ones, not us, so we really shouldn't be sinking to their level!

A bit of a diversion here but I thought of this.
Hearing the argument between Corbyn and the general, defending us having nuclear weapons as deterrents, Iraq was 'based' on there being WMDs.
We all know what a pile of lies that was, but let's say Iraq did have them.
The general kept reiterating 'they are a deterrent, they deter, in that respect they are working for us every minute of every day'.
So if indeed there were WMDs in Iraq why would we be worried?
They are a deterrent, they deter, in that respect they are working for us every minute of every day'.
Really, general?
I take it the general has no faith in them whatsoever then.
But Iraq is a rogue state, they don't care.
So they would shoot them regardless, and we still aren't protected.
All we would be doing is attacking back.
And dealing with the sweep up after wards. As would they.
We have these weapons and we have no idea how to deal with either having them or others having them.
Then we hear of the modern day threats we face if indeed that ramps up the justification for having them.
France has nuclear weapons, as did we on July 7th.
As does America.

Indeed. Unfortunately the concept of a deterrent only works when the subject of that 'deterrent' views the consequences of such a terrible act in the same way that we do. Ie, that the irreparable and devastating loss of millions of lives and destruction of whole swathes of civilisation, infrastructure and the environment is a horrifying and unfathomable outcome.
Even at the most critical phase of the Cold War, it can be argued that there was (at the very least) a strand of humanity within even the most hard line leaders that prevented the use of nuclear weapons or other WMDs.
But let us assume a worst case scenario based on our current perceived major worldwide 'threat'.
'They' have a nuclear weapon (or the capabilities to detonate a WMD of similar capabilities of devastation).
How does the deterrent work then?
'If you attack us, we will attack you back with the same if not more force.'

Unfortunately we are not pitting the same mindsets against each other.

We would mourn our dead (the innocents and victims of all sides) live with the consequences of destruction within life (as much as could go on).

'They' would revere their dead and look not to the consequences within life but to the rewards beyond the physical life.

Within the nature of this particular 'end game', they win - in eternity.

It's not even as simple as 'civilised' versus the 'savage'. 'They' are not savages, they are fundamentalist or extreme pockets of a 'civilisation' with a different worldview, a wholly formed (if not irrational) ideology. It's the difference between two minds and how those two minds view the outcome of destruction and to the greater 'plan' that ultimate destruction represents.
Topic Outline:

U-Know! Forum Index