![Hundie Jo [Dot] Com](http://www.hundiejo.com/wp-content/plugins/ttftitles/cache2/7d6a910bbe08845c0836a517a70936d5.png){kind=small}
Henry Imler July 18th, 2007
Is it let them win?
Should there be any physical, political resistance at all to Islamist1 (or any other) terrorists?
I am not sure if there should be any, from an communal and individualistic perspective.
Now, I would also say that from a secular political perspective, it
is appropriate to respond with the best interests of the state in mind.
As a matter of fact, a state should always operate in its best
interests and in a relatively selfish manner. However, this is
different from what the Christian response should be.
Ed. Note: Clarified the original post.
1) No one has come up with a good name for the loosely
connected terrorist organizations and political structures that are at
war with that which is different with them. Islamic is too broad,
Islamo-fascist is a misnomer, and individual groups such as Hezbollah,
Al-Qaeda and even movement names such as Wahhabism are too exclusive.
- Politics
- Comments(4)
Care to clarify that at all? Let them win?
I posted it in a hurry, so that is why it is the most ambiguous of statements.
I am not sure how to exactly put this.
Should there be any physical, political resistance at all to the islamic terrorists?
I am not sure if there should be any, from an communal and individualistic perspective.
Now, I would also say that from a secular political perspective, it is
appropriate to respond with the best interests of the state in mind.
This is different from what the christian response should be.
By physical resistance do you mean military/violent resistance?
I don’t have much time to fully respond… just trying to process “out-loud” a bit.
I understand.
I would say both military/violent resistance and even attachment to the
political goals of the state, such as survival of the state against
threats.