Post War America wrote:You referred to Middle Eastern Muslims as natural enemies of the West. Generally when something is to be considered a natural enemy it is generally considered to be worth destroying. Further, going by your logic, one doesn't need to commit genocide to obliterate a culture, because they're so fragile that a few people from another moving can place a culture in jeopardy of extinction. What benefits are the Middle East getting anyway? A daily delivery of cluster bombs compliments of a Russian airplane? Durka Durkas being allowed to enter countries that they weren't born in, to escape a Civil War?
It is far easier to destroy than it is to create. This applies not only to buildings, works of art, and heavy infrastructure, but also to institutions and the cultures that create and maintain those institutions.
So yes, culture is fragile. Just look at the economic damage caused by a relatively small group of hijackers nabbing a few passenger airliners and destroying a few buildings. First, the immediate damage was quite significant. Then there was the secondary damage to the markets, and that's before we even get to the damage that resulted from the politics, including enabling the start of a multi-trillion-dollar war that would not have been possible without it.
A war that you would likely oppose because of its disastrous intervention in the Middle East. No 9/11 means it doesn't happen.But culture doesn't matter. All religions are the same. There are no risks we need to worry about. Why, the number of deaths annually is quite low once we cut out the single biggest attack! Honor killings are just part of the culture, too, you know.
Ultimately, because of politics, none of this will actually be resolved, including the bombings and truck attacks. Ideally, people would suffer the results of their own ideologies instead of inflicting them on others - Neoconservatives and DAESH types included. But that means Nationalism, not Globalism.