Jonathan Clarke wrote:
> Perhaps you have missed my point. I am not convinced that a primarily military
> response in this case is justified. Certainly not on the evidence that has been
> publicly presented. If the US administration wishes to lead a coalition of
> democracies in this war then it needs to convince the people of those democracies of
> the justifiable nature of its actions. It has failed to do so, so far.
> In the bigger picture, you may be right. So far it is mainly extremist groups of
> Muslims who advocate holy war against the western war. If this should become the
> policy of most Muslim countries then the world will be in for a torrid time. I grew
> up in a country with a substantial Muslim minority and have known Christians
> threatened and shot, for being missionaries or converts. I have no illusions about
> Islam and regard it as being anti-Christ in a most profound sense.
Only a brief response to this & your other post. The leaders of most of the world's
democracies, as well as many other countries, seem to have been convinced by the
evidence presented to them against bin Laden & the Taliban. In some ways the language
of "war" confuses the issue, though I would insist that the just war criteria should be
followed. A better historical analogy than any war would be the abolition of piracy.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 26 2001 - 08:20:41 EDT