h a l f b a k e r y
Please listen carefully, as our opinions have changed.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
Seems to me that the biggest problem with removing dictators like
Hussein, Gaddafi, and Assad from power in Islamic nations is that they
are the sort of leaders under whom sectarian violence is virtually
unheard of. Without the iron fist of dictatorship keeping them in line,
the various sects
the Islamic faith just keep blowing each other up.
If you put one sect in charge, they're going to discriminate against the
others, who will retaliate with bombs and guns, spurred on by visions
of 32 dark haired dark-haired virgins dancing in their minds.
So, what seems apparent to me is that there is no shortage in these
nations of people eager to kill people of other faiths, no shortage of
bomb-makers, and no shortage of folks who fall into both categories.
So... we revive the ancient practice of arena-style Gladiator combat
pitting willing volunteers against each other so society can watch and
get their fix (so to speak), with a unique twist: no melee weapons are
available. Instead, they get a chemistry set (the sort 8th of 7 would hug
a kitten to get his hands on), some jars of assorted shrapnel, some
electronic components (watches, clocks, copper wires, maybe a
cellphone or two, and some batteries) and have at it.
Sectarian Thunder Dome: two men enter, one or fewer leave.
The perfect centerpiece to my prior art
After all, why not get the leaders involved? [Alterother, Sep 15 2013]
||I'm guessing... the darker the hair the better?
||You do realize that the whole 72 virgins thing is a complete
fallacy, propegated almost exclusively in the West?
|| Anyway, shamelessly self-promotional <link> to my similar
idea. I think they'd go well together.
||Agreed. They'd go together like bleach and ammonia.
||Sectarian violence is not a solely Islamic
phenomenon, which makes the garb that this idea is
dressed up in seem a little, eh, narrowly focused.
Similarly, sectarian division is often only part of the context to a "sectarian"
conflict and usually part masks social and historical factors (Alawite social and financial primacy in Syria,
f'rexample, the historic flooding of Norn Irn with
Scots as part of a policy of colonial pacification,
||Right, but the Christian brand of sectarian violence has largely
stopped. Kosovo, Czechoslovakia, Northern Ireland, etc are
significantly less 'splodey than, say, Iraq or Syria or Afghanistan.
I'm not defending Christianity, mind you, far from it (although,
to their credit, I believe there were significantly fewer Christian
suicide bombings). If the Halfbakery had been around during
those times of turmoil, I'd probably have posted the same idea
then. Those countries got where they are today through bloody
civil wars and (excepting Ireland) American military intervention.
Libya and Tunisia went though the civil war thing (again,
American military intervention helped things along in Libya).
Syria is in the throes of a full-blown civil war and once again,
American military intervention is woefully likely to happen.
|| My idea is proposed as an alternative to the civil war/American
military intervention cycle.