--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <LEnglish5@...> wrote : Hast thou never heard of Daisy Cutters and other super-conventional weapons?
There's no need to advocate our going nuclear against any small country, ever. C: So substitute daisy cutters for nuclear bombs and his actual point remains the same. He wrote this after 9-11 when he saw the US start two wars and there was talk of bombing Iran in the White House already. His book was a cautionary tale about what factor religious beliefs added to the problem. It was not advocating war, it was trying to prevent one. There may be all sorts of legitimate reasons to disagree with Harris, but at least get his argument right before you start the name calling routine. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> wrote : On 5/2/2014 9:22 PM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... wrote: > Harris advocates a first strike against Iran? > A first nuclear strike against Iran may be the only option considering the goal of Sunni Islam is the annihilation of the Western world. The enemy is the closed society that preaches violence and death against everyone that does not believe in Allah. Harris pulls no punches - he is a pragmatist. > > That's not controversialy, that's insane. > So, in order to avoid the danger that lies ahead - vast human atrocities - maybe we should consider the nuclear option. According to Harris, this may be the only option available to us, "given what Islamists believe in the event of an Islamist regime such as Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability." Work cited: 'The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason' by Sam Harris W. W. Norton, 2004 p. 129 --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com http://www.avast.com
