Xeric
RETIRED THINK TANK
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 8,297
- Reaction score
- 42
- Country
- Location
Wait Santro, let's not go there.Yes.. but then we are effectively implying that the emotions in place are those that reflect those of the Crusades..
which is what a lot of quasi-philosophers have been saying for a while.
How many times have the Pakistanis soldiers attacked an indian soldier just because he was a Hindu? Or did OBL and party slammed the planes because they were attacking Christens? We fought on our east because we saw an enemy who was eyeing us as an Indian, not because he reads Mahabharat (notwithstanding the fact that dissection and unification of Mother India was religious enough), similarly 9/11 happened because someone thought that what America does is wrong, not because they wanted to built a mosque where once the twin towers stood.
Jesus Rifles (the ideology that follows through it) and having the slogan of Imaan, Taqwa, Jehad Fi Sabillalah are not the same thing, if you get what i am trying to say here.
But as you very rightly pointed out that "Without hate.. there can be no motivation for a war for resources", they have to 'create' some foggy enemy (in this case, the religion of Islam ---> the country that holds its biggest banner), which they have succeeded to quite an extent, as visible from the status of the ex-marine.
So when you reply "Yes" to V's post, it implies as if Pakistan Armed Forces have been initiating wars (as many believe) with india (or Kashmir or covert acts) not because they were defending (even if it was a Preemptive action - if you know, like 'Riposte' and 'Counter-Offensive', 'Preemption' is a DEFENSIVE action, not an offensive one) itself, but because their religion/ideology (which in turn translate into hate) said so.
So as you rightly said, Hate is necessary for war for resources (western case), it is not necessary for war for survival (our case now and in the past).
P.S. Ok, now i am myself confused.