Are we at war with Islam? [Archive] - Professional Soldiers ®

Airbornelawyer

03-19-2004, 20:44

No offense, but if your criterion is that a country is not against Islamist terrorism if any of its citizens are Islamist terrorists, then add the United States, Great Britain, France, Canada, China, Russia, Australia, Georgia, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Kenya, Spain and Sweden.

The core of al-Qa'ida recruiting has been among Gulf Arabs, but the point of al-Qa'ida was to build ties to Islamists, usually adherents of the Salafi or Wahhabi schools, throughout the dar al-islam, from the Philippines to Algeria, and into the dar al-harb. It was to be the base of a hydra-headed network of terrorists. So naturally you are going to find recruits among any Muslim population. But that really doesn't answer the question.

As far I am concerned, we are at war with a political ideology (and its adherents) which some have termed Islamofascism. Most Islamofascist movements are themselves offshoots of other fundamentalist or revivalist movements in Islam, such as Wahhabism. Many don't even like each other - a Wahhabi like Osama bin Laden would consider a Shi'ite Hizbullah member to be an apostate. But that doesn't matter anymore than it mattered that Hitler probably secretly thought Mussolini was an Untermensch. And cooperation of Islamists with secularists like the Ba'athists of Syria and Iraq or the Communists of North Korea doesn't change this either. And, as in World War Two, where we gave Spanish fascists a pass, a war against Islamofascism doesn't require fighting every Islamist group everywhere. Tactical considerations can come into play.

That said, while from our perspective our war is against Islamofascism, it is up to Muslims to decide whether it is a war against Islam, by choosing sides. Despite the "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric, most Muslims seem to not want to take sides. The terrorists haven't exactly enjoyed a recruiting boost as a result of OEF, the vaunted "Arab street" has been quieter than Detroit after a Stanley Cup win, and every government of a country with a Muslim population denounced the 9-11 attacks. On the other side of the equation, anti-American and anti-Western sentiment is rampant and governments have done little to quell it (and in many cases have fanned the flames), many Muslims do perceive the West as being at war with Islam, and political and religious leaders have done little to engage in the debate over the future of their religion, letting the Islamofascists define the nature of the conflict.

NousDefionsDoc

03-19-2004, 20:51

I never get offended. I was waiting for you. From United States, Great Britain, France, Canada, China, Russia, Australia, Georgia, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Kenya, Spain and Sweden, are those citizens true Americans, British, French, Canadians, Chinese, Russian, Aussies, Georgian, Belgians, Danes, German, Kenyans, Spanish and Swedes or were they raised in closed enclaves of a Muslim nature? I'm talking about CITIZENS. I don't know exactly how to say it without sounding racist.

Airbornelawyer

03-19-2004, 21:43

Consider this. The police go into a predominantly black neighborhood looking for a gang member. A confrontation or shooting takes place, and a crowd gathers. How often have we seen peo ple the neighborhood protest the police, rather than the criminals, who are after all victimizing other blacks themselves? Does that make the fight against crime a war on blacks?

This is a very imperfect analogy, but I hope the point gets across. It is understandable, but not excusable, that too many Muslims betray that natural human instinct toward tribalism. But Muslims are hardly the only ones to fall into that us vs. them trap. Look at the widely different responses of black and white Americans to OJ Simpson. Did the majority of white Americans rationally consider all of the evidence and conclude Simpson was guilty, while the majority of black Americans rationally analyzed the same evidence and conclude he was not, or did people - white and black - simply not bother with rational analysis?

One problem with the analogy, though, is that there is something in Islam that connects it to Islamofascism, while black criminals are just as much predators on black society as white (if not more). This is the fact that for most Muslims, Islam does sanction violence in the name of the faith. So too many Muslims are forced to argue nuance - this is terrorism (bad) but that is jihad (good); this is suicide (impermissible), that is martyrdom (permissible). Furthermore, while certain commandments and cheek-turning verses notwithstanding, Christianity also has been held to sanction violence in the name of the faith (see, e.g., the Crusades), the Christian world has more effectively dealt with this by separating religion and the state. There is still religiously justified violence in Christian societies - see Northern Ireland, Croatia - but not nearly on the same level. But Islam by its nature cannot so easily separate religion and state. Islam is a law-based religion, and mosque and state are inextricably inclined. The Iraqi constitutional debate attempted to address this, but all they did was put a gloss over it. I mentioned elsewhere the need for an enlightenment or renaissance in Islam, to redefine the relationship, but I honestly don't know whether it will work. Judaism is a law-based religion too, and one which was originally very violent toward non-Jews, but somehow arrived at its own compromise. I don't know if that could work for Islam. Leaving aside the fact that I doubt many Muslims would want to take theology lessons from Jews, there are also many differences between Islam and Judaism that saying the two are law-based, while Christianity is faith-based, ignores.

But leaving aside theological disputations, consider it as a tactical matter. Do we want our war to be with a few thousand terrorists or with a billion people who live all over the globe and have nukes? If we say, "yes this is a war against Islam", we not only concede defeat to the Islamofascists in a theological and political dispute, we immeasurably increase the cost of the war and make enemies out of people for no reason but the accidence of their birth. That's not who we are and not who we want to be.

Sigi

03-19-2004, 21:46

AL said it all.

ktek01

03-19-2004, 22:12

Originally posted by Airbornelawyer

There is still religiously justified violence in Christian societies - see Northern Ireland, Croatia - but not nearly on the same level. But Islam by its nature cannot so easily separate religion and state. Islam is a law-based religion, and mosque and state are inextricably inclined.

I'm agreeing with most of what your saying, but I think Northern Ireland is a very poor comparison.

QRQ 30

03-19-2004, 22:31

I would suppose we could just as well turn around the question to be: "Is Islam at war with us?"

The truth is that Islam and Christianity have been at war since the Crusades. I find it interesting that we called the Crusades "Holy Wars" which is what "Jihad" is to Islamics.

Actually I don't think that we are warring against Islam per se. We went to the Balkans to stop the ethnic clensing of the Islamics.

Solid

03-20-2004, 03:58

It's a bit like being at war with a non-democratic nation. In reality, the war we are fighting is against the army and the government. However, because that government and army supposedly represents the civilian population of that country, it is considered that we are at war with that country.

Is that applicable?

Solid

rudyzbt

03-20-2004, 18:33

I don't see any other wanabees posting in this thread, so if I am out of line for speaking my mind, my apologies, I will erase this and not do it again.

No we are not in a war against Islam. You can search for countries that do not have citizens who are terrorists and be hard pressed to find one. But the issue is not if the country has those people, it is if the country itself supports them. If I can provide a short description of who these people are. Islamists (often referred to as Islamic Fundamentalists a word which is taken out of contest and originally applied to Christianity during reformation to use it in a different context of another religion is difficult, therefore a word such as Islamist is more appropriate and to it may be applied whatever connotations it acquires) are of various types and beliefs. As a whole, all Islamist groups use religious symbols to further a political ideology. There are multiple roots of the development of Political Islam. To start as was spoken of before in another post, there are two major sects of Islam: Sunni Islam and Shi'a. There are others, but they are less of a political force. There is no need to go into their history it would take too long, but the majority of Muslims in the world are Sunni, while the Shi'a are found mostly in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and Central Asia.

Now as to their politically ideological development, it follows a few different strains. Whabbism was mentioned, but that is less of a political movement and more of a religious movement that seeks stricter interpretation of Islam bypassing much of the later legal development of Islamic law previous to the adoption of western laws in the Middle East. It is a sect that follows the teaching of a man named Abd Al Wahab; anyway history is unimportant in this context. It was mainly able to spread because the majority of Muslims in Saudi Arabia are adherents to this practice of Islam. The clerics therefore are able to keep a hold on the Saudi monarchy that is dependent on the Wahabbi clerics to keep the peoples support. This enables a secure source of cash, which the Whabbis use to support the conversion to their vision of a "true Islam". Interestingly enough, most Muslim student organizations throughout North American Universities, receive funding from this source to teach the Wahabbi version of things. Anyway, in the case of Bin Laden, it is interesting to note that while Wahabbi, he seeks to overthrow the Saudi regime, mind you he is also part of their royal family.

Ok I am getting off the topic. The ideological foundations of Sunni Islamists can find their modern origins in a large part in the development of the organization known as the Muslim brotherhood founded by a man named Al Banna in Egypt. He was a reactionist to the secularization of Egypt. He himself did not write the definitive works that would later carry this movement. That fell to one of his successors, Saiyd Qutb. Qutb wrote mainly while he was imprisoned in Egypt and his writings later became the backbone of much of the Islamist movements. He died before he completed his works and later followers had different interpretations of what he meant. Some believed that the problem lay with the non-Muslim world. Redefining the world in Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. Literally the house of Islam and the house of war. Anything not Muslim was therefore the enemy. The other body of thought professed that all Muslims who did not follow a particular set about "correct" Islam (Mawdudi was the main proponent) were in a state of ridda and jahyllia, harking back to how the new Muslims immediately after the death of the Mohammad fell apart and did not follow his laws until Abu Bakr (who followed him) was able to reconsolidate the fledgling empire. So each of these thoughts, hold different groups to blame, but both shared the same goal. The establishment of not just the Islamic state in each Muslim state (there is a difference between a state that has a majority of Muslims and one that is an Islamic state), but of a whole Muslim Nation.

From the Muslim brotherhood a large amount of other groups were formed, holding as their "bible" the writings of Saiyd Qutb. Among the Jammayat al-Islamiya which sought to mobilize students. Now oddly enough the traditional Muslim Ulema (scholars in a religious sense) led by the Muslim religious university Al-Azhar, was dead against the Islamist movement. A bunch of people with very little education in religion, ironically many were actually more western educated, were calling into question the way things had been studied and done for over 1000 years. They rejected the legal teaching of those that came before, with a few exceptions. They read two or three books by Ibn Taymmia and memorized the Qur'an and thought that they understood it better that everyone else had gotten it wrong. Part of the trouble they saw was in the rise of western institutions they saw as not fitting with Muslim society. Earlier in another post it was mentioned that Islam, Islamic Law, and Governance were not separable. That is exactly what the Islamists believe. Unfortunately they have obviously convinced many non-Muslims that this is true as well. Islam and Islamic Law are inseparable that is basically true. It is not true that the Muslim world must have Islamic Governance that is what Islamists would have everyone believe.

There are many who would state in an apologetic fashion that yes Islam as a religion says many bad things, but it is a religion of peace. This is not true. Islam is not a religion of peace, it is a religion that seeks converts and those who are not Muslim are wrong in their belief people of the book, Christians and Jews, are not forced to convert and are supposed to be accepted, but are still deemed wrong. But the same is true about most other religions. Islam is a religion, in such it is not fair to label it as a religion of either peace or war. If you have read your old testament you would find it to be one of the bloodiest most war inclined books written (or received as you like).

Again I find myself digressing. So from the perspective of these Islamists, coming mostly from the disillusioned middle class or poorer country people. They see the loss of the Khalifate with the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of the Turkish secular state as the end of true Muslim rule and see a need to go back not to the Khalifate but all the way back to an imagined Islamic paradise dreamed about in the time of the "four righteously guided Khailifs" who followed Mohammad in rule. Mind you this is only for Sunni Islam. So they would reestablish this pipe dream of an Islamic world. The truth is that it never really existed in the way they view it. There was never, except perhaps under the rule of Mohammad himself, a solely religious ruling of the people.

In the structure of Shar'ia (Islamic law), the laws were debated and regulated by a class called the Ulema mentioned earlier. Their law system was extremely intricate and its proper application no longer exists. Furthermore, while the head of state and nominal religious head could appoint judges, once those judges were appointed he was even subject to their will in decisions. Similarly not all laws were religious laws. The Khalif had control over a variety of laws that were deemed to derive from the state and its rule including the collection of taxes, administration of roads, the police forces, and many other things. Maybe a good example would be the division of laws in Israel today. Religious courts control certain function including marriage (you can not have a civil

rudyzbt

03-20-2004, 18:34

marriage in Israel). Given in the Islamic context many more laws followed from religious laws including laws of business particular including the charge of interest. But there was a separation in different types of laws. It is a complex topic and if anyone really wants to hear more about it just ask.

To continue, it was also never a dead law, but one which changed and grew in different direction with time. For example, there is the punishment of death by stoning for adultery, a punishment which the Islamic courts in Nigeria were eager to dispense a few years ago. Now if you look at actually cases of this, you will find very few people who underwent this punishment. In fact there are haddith (sayings of the prophet later incorporated into law) that tell of a woman coming to Mohammad and stating that she had committed adultery. His answer is to tell her he did not hear her and sent her away. It was only when she returned three times and she insisted the punishment be enforced for fear she would go to hell, that he carried out the sentence. Now why is it that the law is interpreted the way it is today. And why do the Islamists blindly fall into their pattern of fanatically beliefs.

There is a historical reason that is actually pretty simple. As the Ottoman Empire began to fall apart in the early 19th century, smart young individuals were sent off to Oxford and Sorbonne to study law and equip the Ottoman to modernize to deal in trade with the western world. What began here was a period of history called the Tanzimat. Laws were steadily replaced and religious courts slowly marginalized. Schools of study of the law were closed and what was once a living and breathing legal system was quickly replaced by its western counter part and restricted in it nature. There was nowhere anymore for those Muslims to learn the law, it infrastructure was dismantled and still does not exist. There are pockets of scholars, but few really have a good grasp of law as it was practiced. Instead they seek to apply it in the horribly misinterpreted manner as was witnessed in Nigeria.

The only country that still practices full Islamic law is in Saudi Arabia (the Taliban did not practice Islamic law). Even in Saudi Arabia their own understanding of the development of Islamic law is limited and their courts based on a particular school of thought that adheres to the strictest interpretations of the laws. On a personal level I don't like it and often find the Saudis I know to be the ultimate in hypocrites (a personal bias... found through experience). So Islamic law as it once was practiced does not exist. This is the legacy of which the Islamists don't speak, nor do they really know of, and when confronted with it, they scoff and say that one does not know or is obviously a western orientalist (i.e. someone like me who is not Muslim but knows the religion better than they do) or is a bad Muslim (those scholars actually interested in the development of their religion who do not accept everything someone with a long beard dishes out at them).

In many countries throughout the world there exist those Islamists who seek to convert others to their misinterpretations. They seek to establish a new Islamic order (of course they would conveniently be the leaders of this new order). They undergo indoctrination of their cause in madrasas throughout the world. Often pulling their new servants from the poor classes with an offer of education and brotherhood. Or they look to the disaffected urbanites unable to find work or unhappy with their lot in life as it stands. They use Islam to support their political objective. A state ruled by them. Where they dictate the laws as they see and interpret them regardless of what history says. In their domestic struggle they have exported through violence there beliefs. Much as the Arab countries have used hatred of Israel as a rallying point towards unification and cooperative action, the Islamists have attacked the west in order to gain the support of those in their home countries. They make us the devil. They paint us as evil. As Dar al Harb. They contort and use religion as means to political success. They use terrorism as a tool to spread their message and gather support by turning the eyes of their local populations outward and then painting the world in colors they want those in their homes to view. Then they seek to pick up on that support and use it to their cause. This is the war which we fight. Not against Islam. But against the radical Islamists, who threatens our homes, our families and friends, and our country and the countries of our allies. They chose the wrong political scapegoat. They are hollow and lack any true sense of religion. They are indoctrinated political animals at the bottom who fight as their masters lead them, and there masters are those who indoctrinate using religion as a force to control and to maintain control and see through their vision of the world as they believe it should. They are in essence the antithesis of freedom. A scourge on the name of all religions in their use and abuse of their own people. And in their tactics which threaten the lives of those who have nothing to do with them other than having been their scapegoats.

Now there are many such organizations, I began to mention the Muslim brotherhood and its offshoots for a reason.

The name Mohammad Atta may ring a bell. He flew in the pilot seat of one of the planes that hit the world trade center. He was a member of one of these groups trained by Al Qaeda. He was Egyptian.

Al Qaeda's second in command Ayman Al Zawahiri is the son of a prominent Cairo doctor. From an old family, who grandfather was the Sheik of Al Azhar.

During the Russian Afghan war an estimated 526 Egyptians died fighting, 1/5 of the total deaths.

In well known "Londinstan" on the bank of the Thames, two Egyptians come to mind. Mustafa Kamal (Abu Hamza Al Misri) is the former publisher of the GIA weekly Al Ansar (ask me about the GIA sometime). He has a son in jail in Yemen for kidnapping British tourists. He also happens to run the Finsbury Park Mosque a central hub in the Islamist network in progressing the Jihad.
The second is Yaser Al Sirri, who heads an Islamic news agency in London that supplied the letter of accreditation to the two fake journalists who assassinated Massoud in Northern Afghanistan three days before 9/11.

Why am I mentioning all of these individuals? Well they are all part of the Muslim Brotherhood or its affiliates I should say. Followers of Islamists principals. The sum of the earth. They all come from Egypt, but many had to flee their own country which would not tolerate them. Two of them simply settled in comfort in the religiously free environment of England. There home country is for the most part Muslim. We are not at war with Egypt. We are definitely not at war with England which is home to two of these terrorists now. We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with these men. These people who seek to war with us. These people, who have brought violence, hurt, and hate with a message of religious intolerance in promoting themselves.

Sorry to have gone on and on. This topic gets me going. I am ready to be blasted for my views now. So shoot away. If I have offended anyone I am sorry. If I was wrong for posting this bit, I am sorry. I will remove it immediately. I felt these thoughts were important enough to write. It is my opinion (quite abridged actually). But is opinion based on roughly 5 years of research dating previous to 9/11.

Roguish Lawyer

03-20-2004, 18:46

Rudy:

I'm going to try to read your posts, but I would like to make a suggestion that may help old blind people such as myself:

Shorter paragraphs.

:)

rudyzbt

03-20-2004, 18:51

Sorry about the long winded nature of the post. I will reedit it and break it down to smaller paragraphs. :D

Roguish Lawyer

03-20-2004, 18:55

Originally posted by rudyzbt
Sorry about the long winded nature of the post. I will reedit it and break it down to smaller paragraphs. :D

Excellent! I started reading and was going to just pick up the gist from AL's reply to it. LOL

Now I'll read the whole thing.

NousDefionsDoc

03-22-2004, 15:53

Bahrain rioters hit streets, torch cars of Arab playboy boozers

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Monday, March 22, 2004
ABU DHABI â€“ Shi'ite attacks against foreigners are now targeting playboys from neighboring Arab states who come to Bahrain for the more readily available alcohol.

Western diplomatic sources said last week's street violence appears to have shifted its focus from Westerners to Gulf Arab nationals who use Bahrain as the watering hole of the region. The kingdom is the only Gulf state that approves the public sale and consumption of alcohol, banned by Islam.

Most of the patrons in the La Terrasse restaurant, one of the targets of last week's rampage, were Gulf Arabs, particularly Saudi nationals. Two cars owned by Saudi nationals were torched.

The diplomatic sources said the Shi'ite vigilante campaign appears to be supported by members of Bahrain's parliament, dominated by fundamentalists. Many parliamentarians have called for a ban on alcohol and the expulsion of the U.S. military presence in the kingdom.

Guy

03-22-2004, 19:29

These guys are something else! They are like a religious "MOB" gone crazy.

ALLAH...I can't get my freak on!

"Didn't I see every last one of you guys in that titty bar last night, drinking liquor and passing out money to the strippers"?

Airbornelawyer

03-22-2004, 20:51

One point I think I made earlier was that our war was not with Islam, but with the adherents of a political movement - call it fundamentalism, Islamism, political Islam, jihadism or Islamofascism (no term is entriely satisfactory) - which embraces terror as a means and subjugation or destruction of all non-Muslims as a end. I noted that from our perspective our war wasn't against Islam, but it was up to Muslims to decide whether from their perspective it was. Muslims had to choose sides, and it appeared that most were not.

While I think the points I made about the relative quiet of the "Arab street" and the points GH made about Southeast Asian Muslims remain valid, I am not as sanguine about where this stands as on rereading my posts it looks like I might have sounded.

In too many areas, too many influential Muslims have taken sides, and for all intents and purposes they have chosen the Islamofascists' side. At best, they have, by not taking sides, ceded the voice and face of Islam to the Islamofascists. At worst, they have actively given credence to the Islamofascist doctrine.

We have had a number of tactical victories in the GWOT - the liberations of Afghanistan and Iraq, the denegration of the al-Qa'ida infrastructure and Qadhafi's newfound love of the West, to name a few - but we may have suffered our biggest strategic setback all the way back in October 2001. This was Saudi Arabia's refusal to allow bases in the Kingdom to be used for OEF because, the Saudis said, they couldn't allow their bases to be used to bomb Muslims.

Now these very bases had been used for a decade to enforce the no-fly zones over Iraq, and had been used in Desert Storm. And Saudi troops had themselves fought in Desert Storm. So the fact that the people who were killed happened to be Muslim couldn't have been the key obstacle for the Saudis. That leads to the conclusion that by bombing al-Qa'ida and Taliban bases in Afghanistan, the Saudis were concluding (and framing the debate for many other Muslims) that we wouldn't be bombing people who happened to be Muslim, but that we were bombing them for being Muslim. The Saudi government chose sides, and it chose the other side.

The Saudi government wouldn't be the Saudi government if it didn't try to play both sides, so they still quietly supported the coalition war effort, but the public face was one of "the Americans are targeting Muslims" rather than "civilized peoples (Muslim and non-Muslim) are targeting terrorists." But this playing both sides opens Saudis up to charges of being munafiqeen (hypocrites who act Muslim but are really kuffar, unbelievers). The ideal scenario would have been for the Muslim world to denounce bin Laden and the Islamofascists as munafiqeen themselves (some Muslim leaders did this, actually, but not enough). From a tactical standpoint this would have been advatageous, because it would have permitted observant Muslims to join with non-Muslims to fight these apostates. But it would have been more valuable from the strategic standpoint, because it would have been Muslims making the point that Western leaders were trying to make from the beginning, that the war was not against Muslims, but against murderers who had no right to call themselves men of God (even within the context of a religion that does countenance killing in the name of God).

But it didn't happen. Instead, in too many cases, Muslim countries have stayed out of the war because they couldn't join a war on Muslims. The exceptions have been few - Jordanian SOF in Afghanistan now, Afghan and Pakistani troops fighting the Taliban and al-Qa'ida, Yemeni counterterrorist ops, even Saudi Arabia's own counterterrorist ops - and have been characterized as pragmatism. Pakistani President Musharraf is one of the few leaders of a Muslim nation who has publicly and vehemently denounced his enemies as un-Islamic, and he is dismissed even in the West as a stooge for the Americans. Meanwhile, a group of so-called "men of God" in Islamabad proclaimed over the weekend that the Pakistani army jawans killed fighting against the Taliban and al-Qa'ida forces in the recent operations didn't deserve an Islamic burial.

I honestly don't know what it will take to rectify this state of affairs, or if it can be. Musharraf is effectively a lone wolf, and has had two near misses in assassination attempts. A few Iraqis have denounced other Arabs for shedding crocodile tears during the American-led invasion, but never having shown too much concernwhen Saddam was killing Iraqis by the thousands. But it may be too late. The civilizational war may be upon us, though we want it not.

Jimbo

03-23-2004, 04:33

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Bahrain rioters hit streets, torch cars of Arab playboy boozers

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Monday, March 22, 2004
ABU DHABI â€“ Shi'ite attacks against foreigners are now targeting playboys from neighboring Arab states who come to Bahrain for the more readily available alcohol.

Western diplomatic sources said last week's street violence appears to have shifted its focus from Westerners to Gulf Arab nationals who use Bahrain as the watering hole of the region. The kingdom is the only Gulf state that approves the public sale and consumption of alcohol, banned by Islam.

Most of the patrons in the La Terrasse restaurant, one of the targets of last week's rampage, were Gulf Arabs, particularly Saudi nationals. Two cars owned by Saudi nationals were torched.

The diplomatic sources said the Shi'ite vigilante campaign appears to be supported by members of Bahrain's parliament, dominated by fundamentalists. Many parliamentarians have called for a ban on alcohol and the expulsion of the U.S. military presence in the kingdom.

Another reason behind the incident at La Terrasse was that teh owner (a Muslim) did not hang a banner out before Ashura.

I'll tell you one thing, once that island host the Grand Prix next month and the local see how much money is made off the sale of booze, parliment will not stand a chance of banning it.

Team Sergeant

03-23-2004, 09:02

A few things AirborneL.

The successful over throwing of A-Stan and Iraq were strategic, not tactical in the GWOT.

The saudis cowards are in the war for two reasons and two reasons only. After the fall of Kuwait they knew it would not be long before the same fate befell them if they didnâ€™t act and give permission to the US to enter and defend their country they would soon become part of Iraq.
The al-qaida recently targeted (the last year or so) the saudi government and ruling family (one in the same). I knew this would be the end of a friendly between the two and the beginning of the end for al-qaida.

The many nations you speak of joining the fight is a token effort at best. Why do you think the Pakistanis are now ripping al-qaida a new asshole? Again two reasons, the US has asked them to, and the bigger reason and real reason, the al-qaida has almost killed the president of Pakistan and heâ€™s pissed. He now knows that if heâ€™s going to continue to play with his grandchildren heâ€™d better kill all the al-qaida he can before they kill him.

We are at war with an ideology, that to me anyway is crystal clear. We can preach all the religious tolerance we like, it will become the reason for our demise. Most muslims do in fact think the attacks on the US were justifiable and reasonable. Iâ€™ve yet to see a muslim protest against the attacks on the US. Itâ€™s not going to happen, not even in this country.

One unflappable American trait is the fact that we enforce religious tolerance and we will continue to do so right up until they bury the last American.

Team Sergeant

NousDefionsDoc

03-23-2004, 09:10

Jimbo

03-23-2004, 09:58

Originally posted by Team Sergeant
Why do you think the Pakistanis are now ripping al-qaida a new asshole?

Factions of the Pakistanis. Today's ambush may help things in our direction, but there is still a considerable element within the official Pakistani government that is working against us.

Factionalization is good, in this case, though.

Team Sergeant

03-23-2004, 10:48

Originally posted by Jimbo
but there is still a considerable element within the official Pakistani government that is working against us.

I didn't know they also had democrats.

Maya

03-23-2004, 11:50

The Pakistani's are a confused bunch as a whole. A part of their brain tells them their future lies in aligning with the US and the western world, the other part of their brain is screaming to shut the world out as we represent a major threat to their islamic religion/isolationism. They can not quite reach out far enough to do it on their own, they need our help reaching out to them to pull them into the first world.

Pakistan's demographics shows that they will struggle with this problem until their people are exposed to education, and positive western influences that will loosen the mulah's fist of control that entraps the majority of the under- educated, western-phobic, extremist islamic man on the street.

As an example. I was having a conversation with a young Pakistani the other day, who is a barrister/lawyer for a national corporation, that has recently become a private/non-government company. He is well educated, UK, and travels to the western countries on business. He and I were talking about mis-conceptions on both sides of this issue of mis-trust and fear of each other's religion/culture. I said that it seemed that it will take the human touch in order to break the walls the exist today. I explained that the media has done both countries a great dis-service in that extreme images, what these news organizations use to generate their revenue, separate our cultures by constructing destructive barriers of fear and mis-trust. Bombings, mobs burning our US flag, Christians being targeted by their extremist organizations, our images of immoral lifestyle, crime in the streets, lack of any spiritual control, and the media's portrayal of the US as a power mad country attacking the Islamic world for our greed and need for oil/power. The media displays these images for ratings and profit.

He admitted that I was one of the few Americans that took the time to talk with him, not just look at him like a potential terrorist. I told him I look at everyone as a potential terrorist...just kidding I didn't say that...maybe thought it but... :-)

Maya

NousDefionsDoc

03-23-2004, 12:14

I like the term "extremist Islam". Terrorism is obviously an extreme means, but is the stated purpose extremist or mainstream?

Jimbo

03-23-2004, 12:14

Originally posted by Team Sergeant
I didn't know they also had democrats.

LMAO! I wish they did. Then we could just stand back and watch the country implode.

Guy

03-23-2004, 12:25

Originally posted by Jimbo
I'll tell you one thing, once that island host the Grand Prix next month and the local see how much money is made off the sale of booze, parliment will not stand a chance of banning it.

I got a look at that project months ago...INCREDIBLE!

They put entirely to much money, time and effort...promoting that event for it to fail. :munchin

NousDefionsDoc

03-23-2004, 12:28

Don't be hijacking my thread with that fag car racing crap.

Guy

03-23-2004, 14:56

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Don't be hijacking my thread with that fag car racing crap.

Just watch...evertime a Muslim/Islamic country or its leaders, begins to understand and try to embrace the future for the betterment of its people and followers...

Some radical ass Islamic/Muslim leader goes against the NORM! These so-called "clerics"...don't give a fuck about the majority of its people or diversity. Yet AL will quote, these leaders as if they know what they are doing is right.

AL, believes these "terrorist" are highly educated. I believe they are "indoctrinated" into a religion that still believe...the strict ways of the past, is the best way.

rant off for now...cable is being installed tomorrow...

NousDefionsDoc

03-23-2004, 15:18

BERLIN (Reuters) - German President Johannes Rau has canceled a planned visit to Djibouti Wednesday following urgent warnings from German security services of a planned attack against him, the president's office said in a statement Tuesday.

The statement said German security services had received information that an Islamic group planned an assassination attempt on the president, who was due to visit German troops stationed in Djibouti at the end of an eight day visit to east Africa.

Jimbo

03-23-2004, 16:59

Originally posted by Guy
I got a look at that project months ago...INCREDIBLE!

They put entirely to much money, time and effort...promoting that event for it to fail. :munchin

EVERY single hotel room in the country is booked. People are renting out rooms in their houses. Gulf Air (sponsor of the event) has set up extra flight from Dubai. Schools are shut down for the race, hundreds of palm trees have been planted. Heck, they might even scrub the graffiti off the Tree of Life.

Got to walk the track with one of the engineers a little while ago. Pretty impressive.

I would not be at all shocked to find that incidents like the one mentioned above increase as the race approaches, or that the above incident was in part a reaction to the upcoming events.

Roguish Lawyer

03-23-2004, 22:18

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
The kingdom is the only Gulf state that approves the public sale and consumption of alcohol, banned by Islam.

I think I have now identified my favorite Gulf state.:D

Jimbo

03-29-2004, 06:47

Listen to the Arab Reformers

By Jackson Diehl

Monday, March 29, 2004; Page A23

A much-anticipated summit of the Arab League, scheduled to begin today in Tunis, was abruptly put off Saturday, and for a remarkable reason: The kings, emirs and presidents-for-life of the Arab Middle East are unable to agree on a common response to the Bush administration's new policy of promoting democracy in their region. The younger and brighter rulers, knowing the stagnant status quo is unsustainable, are pushing a strategy of co-option, offering halfway, half-baked "reform" programs they have hastily drawn up. The less enlightened insist on sticking to the excuses that Arab dictators have offered the world for the past half-century: a) the first priority must be Israel, and b) foreign tutelage is wrong, except when applied to Israel.

The summit may now never happen; if it does, it will probably settle on a murky mix of these two responses. Either way, critics of the pro-democracy policy -- in Europe, in Washington and inside the Bush administration itself -- will again proclaim that a neocon attempt to "impose" democracy on the Middle East "from the outside" has foundered. That this resistance to elected government comes from a group of kings, emirs and presidents-for-life doesn't seem to trouble the critics. The assumption seems to be that the autocrats' objections are those of their own people.

Yet, they are not. The most underreported and encouraging story in the Middle East in the past year has been the emergence in public of homegrown civic movements demanding political change. Two years ago they were nonexistent or in jail. Now they are out in the open even in the most politically backward places in the region: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria. They are made up not only of intellectuals but of businessmen, women, students, teachers and journalists. Unlike their governments -- and the old school of U.S. and European Arabists -- they don't believe that change should be gradual, and they reject the dictators' claim that democracy would only empower Islamic extremists. It is the delay of change, they say, that is increasingly dangerous.

These people weren't created by George W. Bush. They are the homegrown answer to a decadent political order, and they ride a powerful historical current. But they will tell you frankly: The new U.S. democratization policy, far from being an unwanted imposition, has given them a voice, an audience and at least a partial shield against repression -- three things they didn't have one year ago.

"In the Middle East today, you talk about food, you talk about football -- and you talk about democracy," says Mohammed Kamal, a young political scientist from Egypt. "Some people condemn the Americans, others say, 'Look at the other side, these are universal values.' The point is that for the first time in many years, there is a serious debate going on in the Arab world about their own societies. The United States has triggered this debate, it keeps the debate going, and this is a very healthy development."

Kamal and another prominent Egyptian political scientist, Osama Ghazali Harb, were in Washington last week; both attended a groundbreaking meeting of civic organizations at Egypt's Alexandria Library earlier this month. The conference, unthinkable a year ago, produced a clarion call for democratic change -- one that was all but ignored by Western media.

So here is what the Alexandria statement said: "Reform is necessary and urgently needed." That means: an "elected legislative body, an independent judiciary, and a government that is subject to popular and constitutional oversight, in addition to political parties with their different ideologies." Also, "the freedom of all forms of expression, especially the freedom of the press . . . and the support of human rights in accordance with international charters, especially the rights of women, children and minorities."

How to get there? The document offers a clear path: reform constitutions so they provide for periodic free elections and term limits on officeholders; free all political prisoners and repeal all laws that provide for punishment of free expression; abolish all the emergency laws and special courts on which Arab rulers depend.

That's not what the Arab League will say -- but it means more. "There is a growing consensus in Egypt that there is a dire need for reform, not because of foreign pressure but because of internal demands," said Harb, who drafted the political section of the declaration. "It is still a minority view within the political elite. But it is growing."

The White House, at least, took note of the Alexandria declaration. There is talk of promoting its formal endorsement by the Western democracies at the upcoming G-8 summit. Arab officials and the diplomatic old school whisper that such support would only taint and undermine the reformers. Better, they say, to respond to the Arab League.

Wrong again, says Harb. "If your governments refer to the Alexandria declaration it will strengthen and promote this trend for reform," he said. The very idea of it made him grin. "I like this," he added. "This would be very good."

Â© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Jimbo

03-29-2004, 06:49

A Glance at Democracy in Arab World

The Associated Press

State of democracy in Arab world:

___

ALGERIA: Multiparty state with elected parliament and president.
National Liberation Front, dominant party since independence from France
40 years ago, won 2002 parliamentary elections marred by violence. In
1991, fearing fundamentalist Islamic Salvation Front would be elected,
army aborted final round of election and sparked bloody insurgency.

___

BAHRAIN: Declared constitutional monarchy in 2002 as part of reforms
that paved way for first legislative elections in 30 years. Women voted
and ran in October election, which secularists narrowly won. Final
authority on all matters still resides with king, Sheik Hamad bin Isa Al
Khalifa.

___

EGYPT: President Hosni Mubarak took over from assassinated President
Anwar Sadat in 1981. His security apparatus and National Democratic
Party have almost absolute control over elected parliament. Mubarak
stands every five years as only presidential candidate in yes-no
referendums that always produce yes vote of more than 90 percent.
Speculation persists Mubarak is grooming his son to replace him.

___

IRAQ: U.S.-led coalition to run country through June 30, when new
Iraqi-run government replaces Saddam Hussein's 35-year dictatorship.
Washington promises Iraq will be democracy, but history of repression
and deep divisions in society will make that difficult.

___

JORDAN: King Abdullah II, who succeeded late father, King Hussein, has
virtually absolute power but has pledged to transform kingdom into the
``model of a democratic Arab Islamic state'' that can serve as an
example to other Middle East nations. He has abolished the Information
Ministry that enforced censorship and put more women into government,
but broader public freedoms are lacking. Political elite, conservative
tribal leaders, would-be reformers and Islamic fundamentalists argue
over direction of reform.

___

KUWAIT: Politics controlled by emir, Sheik Jaber Al Ahmed Al Sabah, and
family. Kuwait pioneer among Arabs in electing parliament, in 1963, but
emir regularly dismisses national assemblies. Women barred from voting
or running for office.

___

LEBANON: Elections regular and lively, but not open because of
power-sharing agreement meant to prevent resurgence of 1975-90 sectarian
civil war. Legislative seats apportioned equally to Christians and
Muslims; prime minister must be Sunni Muslim, president Christian.
Syria, dictatorship, wields great influence over Lebanese politics.

___

LIBYA: Moammar Gadhafi in absolute power since 1969 military coup.

___

MOROCCO: King Mohammed VI appoints prime minister and members of
government following legislative elections; can fire any minister,
dissolve parliament, call for new elections, or rule by decree.
Incumbent socialist party won September 2002 parliamentary elections
praised as clean and fair. Conservative Islamic parties did well.

___

OMAN: Sultan Qaboos became ruler by overthrowing father in 1970. Family
has ruled for about 250 years. In October, 2003, the country held its
first elections open to all citizens for an advisory council. No
political parties or elected legislature.

___

PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY: Yasser Arafat, under growing pressure to share
power, appointed a prime minister in 2003 but Mahmoud Abbas' government
collapsed in a dispute with Arafat over security control. The same
disagreement nearly sank Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia's government,
appointed in September, until Qureia gave in. Arafat essentially retains
indirect control in many areas, including security.

___

QATAR: Promising parliamentary elections after holding first municipal
elections in 1999, with women fully participating. Famous as home of
al-Jazeera satellite TV station, lambasted by Arab and Western
governments for shows critical of governments. Qataris overwhelmingly
voted in April 2003 for a new constitution that guarantees freedom of
expression, religion, assembly and association. It also provides for a
45-member parliament, two-thirds of which will be elected and the rest
appointed by the emir.

___

SAUDI ARABIA: Crown Prince Abdullah rules on behalf of ailing King Fahd;
no elected legislature. In sign royal family feeling pressure to reform,
the Cabinet announced in October that Saudis will be able to vote in
municipal elections. Government also recently set up a national human
rights commission and let international rights monitors visit for first
time.

___

SYRIA: President Bashar Assad wields near-absolute power, disappointing
those who expected the young, Western-educated doctor to open up
politics. Succeeded father, longtime dictator Hafez Assad, who died in
2000.

___

SUDAN: President Omar el-Bashir in power since 1989 coup. Recently moved
to lessen influence of fundamentalist Islamic leaders, but democratic
reform not on agenda.

___

TUNISIA: Republic dominated by single party, Constitutional Democratic
Assembly, since independence from France in 1956. Opposition parties
allowed since 1981.

___

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: Federation of states, each controlled by own emir
and family.

___

YEMEN: President Ali Abdullah Saleh presides over largely feudal
society. Despite constitution, elected parliament and lively press,
power rests with military and tribes.

AP-NY-03-28-04 1107EST

Copyright 2004, The Associated Press. The information contained in the
AP Online news report may not be published, broadcast or redistributed
without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

NousDefionsDoc

04-02-2004, 07:15

Does what happened in Falleujah change anyone's mind about the question here?

QRQ 30

04-02-2004, 07:46

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Does what happened in Falleujah change anyone's mind about the question here?

NO! They have declared war on US! I believe it was in the 13th or 14th century.

brownapple

04-02-2004, 08:36

Originally posted by Jimbo
A Glance at Democracy in Arab World

The Associated Press

State of democracy in Arab world:

They missed Israel.

QRQ 30

04-02-2004, 08:49

Originally posted by Greenhat
They missed Israel.

I don't believe Israel considers itself part of the Arab World nor vice versa. The two are diametrically opposed.

Jimbo

04-02-2004, 10:17

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Does what happened in Falleujah change anyone's mind about the question here?

Hightens the resolve.

I don't know about the 'division' suggestion, but this pretty much sums up my view of how things should proceed:

The mailed fist ... where necessary
Published April 2, 2004

The atrocities in Fallujah are raising a wide range of passions in the hearts of Americans -- from the instinct to retreat, to the urge for us to apply crushing, military collective retribution against the locals. All such passions are understandable; none of them are useful. Our objective in Iraq, including Fallujah, is to bring order out of the chaos.
As agents for that chaos, the enemy mobs' best weapon is emotion: Their Dionysian frenzy and orgiastic violence is intended to induce our fear, anger, fury and -- perhaps -- retreat. As agents of order and justice, our response must be Apollonian: measured, ordered, balanced and harmonious. The mailed fist, judiciously applied in cold blood, will surely be part of that measured response. An additional division of troops might well be needed in the Sunni Triangle to dominate the streets in behalf of law and order. We must forcefully and remorselessly assert our authority. But we would be foolish to try to match their emotional outbursts with our own uncontrolled passions.
In Mogadishu, Somalia, we made the mistake of running from such street horrors. We must not, now, make the opposite mistake of excessive retaliatory violence. The correct response is to remain firmly in place -- unmoved and unmovable by the mob. It is by our undoubted strength, by the perceived inevitability of our mission, that we shall prevail. Throughout history, civilization is sustained by the victory of Apollo over Dionysus. We must break the cycle of emotion and irrationality -- not join it.

brownapple

04-02-2004, 12:08

Originally posted by QRQ 30
I don't believe Israel considers itself part of the Arab World nor vice versa. The two are diametrically opposed.

Nevertheless, a large portion of Israelis are Semites and they share a great deal of culture in common.

hoepoe

04-04-2004, 07:09

Good day all

First of, i think the site's great!

Greenhat, you raise an interesting point of view, it is true, many Israelis are indeed Semites, originating from countries such as Iraq, Iran, Morroco, Egypt, Syria and so on and so forth.

However, being a Jew is not only a religion, but also a nationality, hence the Jews from the Arab countries are Jews, belonging to the Jewish Nation and not Arabs, although born in an Arab country and practising some rituals.traditions. The rituials/traditions practised by these Semites are all Jewish in nature, but with a "local" twist. eg. Ashkenazi versus Sephardi wedding ceremonies etc.

The State of Israel is the Jewish Nation and hence is not part of the Arab world, history, as well as current affairs testify to this rather strongly.

Hoepoe

NousDefionsDoc

04-04-2004, 17:23

Welcome Hoepoe. Good to see you again.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040404/ts_nm/iraq_dc

brownapple

04-04-2004, 18:11

Originally posted by hoepoe
Good day all

First of, i think the site's great!

Greenhat, you raise an interesting point of view, it is true, many Israelis are indeed Semites, originating from countries such as Iraq, Iran, Morroco, Egypt, Syria and so on and so forth.

However, being a Jew is not only a religion, but also a nationality, hence the Jews from the Arab countries are Jews, belonging to the Jewish Nation and not Arabs, although born in an Arab country and practising some rituals.traditions. The rituials/traditions practised by these Semites are all Jewish in nature, but with a "local" twist. eg. Ashkenazi versus Sephardi wedding ceremonies etc.

The State of Israel is the Jewish Nation and hence is not part of the Arab world, history, as well as current affairs testify to this rather strongly.

Hoepoe

Jews are just one of the tribal groups of the Arab world. I disagree that Israel is not part of the Arab world, they are a very obvious part of it, central to its focus in many ways. They are the part of the Arab world that has become most successful at warfare and at adopting democracy, and because of the hostility of the rest of the Arab world, as well as their own religious identity, they prefer to be identified seperately. Nevertheless, they are Semites both linguistically and culturally, and many are Semites ethnically.

hoepoe

04-05-2004, 01:01

Greenhat, Sir

I beg to differ. It is crrect that meny Jews are Semitic in origin, but you need to understand that there are 12 tribes of Jews, and that these tribes are the Tribes of Israel, not Arab tribes.

Israel is definately not part of the Arab worl, sure, Israel has an great bearing on the Arab world and visa-versa, but definately not part of the Arab world per se.

Perhaps if we were, they wouldn't want to "push us into the sea"? food for though eh?

Hoepoe

brownapple

04-05-2004, 03:03

I'd say that the reason they want to push you into the sea has more to do with your similarities than differences. After all, they were never as rabid against the British.

hoepoe

04-05-2004, 03:38

Greenhat, let's not go down that road today....

Hoepoe

Solid

04-05-2004, 04:26

I'd say that the reason they want to push you into the sea has more to do with your similarities than differences.

Greenhat, I'm not attacking this argument because I think I agree, but I'm wondering for my own sake how you would go about substantiating this point?

Thank you,

Solid

brownapple

04-05-2004, 05:43

A few bits are obvious.

Language and culture are intertwined. Similer languages have their roots in similar cultures. Arabic and Hebrew are very similer languages (Semite is actually a technical term for a language group that encompasses both Arabic and Hebrew among others).

They share similer judicial historical systems: "an eye for an eye".

Until 60 years ago, they spent far more time fighting among themselves than with anyone else. As horrible as the Holocaust was, an argument can be made that it (along with the Warsaw uprising and some other events) united the Jewish people and led to the foundation of Israel. The foundation of Israel united the non-Jewish Arabs (mostly) with a single cause (tossing the Jews into the Sea).

Now, when it comes to the fundamentalist terrorists that are most commonly found in the Middle East, there are two major issues that must be looked at. One is their culture, Arab, a version of the Arab culture that has not undergone the forge, the suffering and the evolution that Jewish Arab culture has undergone. Two is their religion, Islam, a religion that is relatively new on Earth and one that, in that part of the world, suffers from the culture that supports its lack of exposure to other religions and not having to cope/adapt to other religions (as Islam has had to do in SE Asia for example). This has created a crucible that is perfect for power-hungry individuals to manipulate both the culture and the religion to create fanatics who will commit suicide to be martyrs.

And the last sentence shows another similarity between Jews and Arabs. Mossada. The Uprising. Jews have also made conscious decisions to become martyrs.

By the way, I am a strong supporter of Israel. I just happen to think that Israel proves that Arabs can live in a democracy, they can evolve to something more than a tribal system/culture.

Team Sergeant

04-05-2004, 09:09

Originally posted by Greenhat
A few bits are obvious.

Language and culture are intertwined. Similer languages have their roots in similar cultures. Arabic and Hebrew are very similer languages (Semite is actually a technical term for a language group that encompasses both Arabic and Hebrew among others).

They share similer judicial historical systems: "an eye for an eye".

Until 60 years ago, they spent far more time fighting among themselves than with anyone else. As horrible as the Holocaust was, an argument can be made that it (along with the Warsaw uprising and some other events) united the Jewish people and led to the foundation of Israel. The foundation of Israel united the non-Jewish Arabs (mostly) with a single cause (tossing the Jews into the Sea).

Now, when it comes to the fundamentalist terrorists that are most commonly found in the Middle East, there are two major issues that must be looked at. One is their culture, Arab, a version of the Arab culture that has not undergone the forge, the suffering and the evolution that Jewish Arab culture has undergone. Two is their religion, Islam, a religion that is relatively new on Earth and one that, in that part of the world, suffers from the culture that supports its lack of exposure to other religions and not having to cope/adapt to other religions (as Islam has had to do in SE Asia for example). This has created a crucible that is perfect for power-hungry individuals to manipulate both the culture and the religion to create fanatics who will commit suicide to be martyrs.

And the last sentence shows another similarity between Jews and Arabs. Mossada. The Uprising. Jews have also made conscious decisions to become martyrs.

By the way, I am a strong supporter of Israel. I just happen to think that Israel proves that Arabs can live in a democracy, they can evolve to something more than a tribal system/culture.

GH,
I donâ€™t think any religion that started 620 CE could be considered a â€œnewâ€ religion.
Mormon, now that is a â€œnewâ€ religion.

BTW, most so called Christians also shared â€œsimiler judicial historical systems: "an eye for an eye".â€

I agree with Hoepoe, just because the Jews live surrounded by arabs I would not lump them in the same class as arabs. Thatâ€™s as bad as calling me a democrat just because I live in a country filled with them.

TS

brownapple

04-05-2004, 09:41

Originally posted by Team Sergeant
GH,
I donâ€™t think any religion that started 620 CE could be considered a â€œnewâ€ religion.
Mormon, now that is a â€œnewâ€ religion.

BTW, most so called Christians also shared â€œsimiler judicial historical systems: "an eye for an eye".â€

I agree with Hoepoe, just because the Jews live surrounded by arabs I would not lump them in the same class as arabs. Thatâ€™s as bad as calling me a democrat just because I live in a country filled with them.

TS

I think you are missing my point. I am not lumping them together because of where they live. I am grouping them together because they share common cultural roots, linguistic roots and judicial system roots. Most Christians may share similer historic judicial systems, but not the other points. As a matter of fact, "Christian" does not apply to any specific cultural group, or linguistic group (although some of each may have a stronger representation). Nor does Islam (and a religion that is less than 2000 years old is a relatively new religion comparitively).

Team Sergeant

04-05-2004, 09:52

Originally posted by Greenhat
I think you are missing my point. I am not lumping them together because of where they live. I am grouping them together because they share common cultural roots, linguistic roots and judicial system roots. Most Christians may share similer historic judicial systems, but not the other points. As a matter of fact, "Christian" does not apply to any specific cultural group, or linguistic group (although some of each may have a stronger representation). Nor does Islam (and a religion that is less than 2000 years old is a relatively new religion comparitively).

I understood your point completely hence the democrat remark. I share the same â€œcommon cultural roots, linguistic roots and judicial system rootsâ€ as many democrats but Iâ€™d turn into an enraged bull if someone weâ€™re to place me in the same category as ted kennedy, bill clinton, and jesse jackson. Counter point, your turn.

TS

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 10:08

GH,
I have to disagree. Your point would be valid if the people living in Israel were all natives of the region. Your theory discounts the thousands that came from Europe over the years and the change that has made in the Jewish people. They only share the common culture/language if they are from there. What you're saying is akin to claiming that Americans are British because some of us have pale skin and we speak English.

Team Sergeant

04-05-2004, 10:19

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Your point would be valid if the people living in Israel were all natives of the region.

To expound upon what NDD stated, Jews living in the United States equal the number of Jews currently living in Israel. (give or take a couple hundred thousand) I read some where that the Jews living in Israel only comprise 37% of all Jews worldwide.

brownapple

04-05-2004, 10:56

Originally posted by Team Sergeant
I understood your point completely hence the democrat remark. I share the same â€œcommon cultural roots, linguistic roots and judicial system rootsâ€ as many democrats but Iâ€™d turn into an enraged bull if someone weâ€™re to place me in the same category as ted kennedy, bill clinton, and jesse jackson. Counter point, your turn.

TS

Would you object to be called an American?

Democrat is a political label, not a cultural one.

On the other hand, Arab (or Semite) is a cultural/linguistic label.

rudyzbt

04-05-2004, 11:05

Jewish Population

United States 5,800,000
Israel 4,847,000
followed by France, Russia, Ukraine, Canada, UK, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, and Australia and many more places with smaller populations.

I have known many Jews who could claim a variety of different ethnicities. At one time there were large numbers of Chinese Jews, mostly killed around 1648 in a rebellion led an old general named Old One Eye. I have known Indian Jews, who were definitely Indian. Ethopian Jews, Falasha, look Ethopian and are so Ethnically.

Israel is I would say is a state in the middle east and therefore is extremely interconnected with everything in the region. As to being Semetic and sharing that heritage with their Arab neighbors, there are plenty of similarities, but plenty of difference. As to similar language backgrounds. The semetic language groups share similar features and theoretically may have developed from the same common root. They share similar roots of words sometimes and some similarity in grammer. But much of the grammer and word morphology is completely different. But, German and Farsi are both Indo-European languages and they share many similar words, daughter is the same in both languages and many more. But how close is their common heritage there? Is there one? Spain is probably the closest country that is ethnically and historically linked by history to the middle east and the Arabs. But despite the common background, we can't group them that way. I would say the same is true of Israel and Jews.

I am not sure I understood what you meant by the following, Sir.

"And the last sentence shows another similarity between Jews and Arabs. Mossada. The Uprising. Jews have also made conscious decisions to become martyrs." GH

brownapple

04-05-2004, 11:06

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
GH,
I have to disagree. Your point would be valid if the people living in Israel were all natives of the region. Your theory discounts the thousands that came from Europe over the years and the change that has made in the Jewish people. They only share the common culture/language if they are from there. What you're saying is akin to claiming that Americans are British because some of us have pale skin and we speak English.

OK, some Israelis (possibly even a large %) may not share a Semite "racial" background (although coming from Europe does not disprove that, a large number of the Jews killed in WWII were Semites). However, they do share the cultural background (it is an integral part of Jewish life, whether from New York or wherever) and if Hebrew speakers (the official language of Israel), language.

Skin color or eye color or racial background is not the key here. Culture is. And what I am saying is not any different than saying that Thai and Lao people are both "Tai" (neither likes hearing it, it doesn't make it false).

Israeli culture is significantly evolved compared to the other Arab nations (I have opinions about the reasons why), but that evolution does not mean it is not an Semite culture (heck, "anti-semite" usually means someone who is prejudiced against Jews).

Regarding calling Americans "British"? No, more akin to calling Americans "Westerners", because we share common cultural roots, concepts, etc. It doesn't make us the same.

Surgicalcric

04-05-2004, 11:15

Originally posted by Greenhat
Democrat is a political label, not a cultural one...

I dont know that I can agree with that Sir.

While the label is political in nature it could be argued there are cultural differences between the two as well. :D

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 11:18

Do you consider the Asian Americans in the US Westerners?

For example - the large Korean population in the US, oh, let's say the Evangelical Christians who speak Korean in the home?

I have no doubt that historically speaking you are correct. But, IMO, the Jewish people are no more Arab than I am English.

Hell, culturally, I am more Latin than anything else. I'm just prettier than Ricky Martin and don't have the Momma's Boy attitude a lot of the males have. I share language, religion (what there is of it in me), diet, geographic location, etc. But my family is Scottish. I have more in common with my next door neighbor than with my brother.

Can't classify people like rocks, people change. What they were 2,000 years ago is not what they are today - except for the Islamic nation states that want to freeze or even go backwards in time.

rudyzbt

04-05-2004, 11:25

Having spent a lot of time in Israel, I would say that it is defined by its cultural diversity. Look at how many different political parties exist in the state, as they often divide along "ethinic" lines. Semetic is just a term, any word can be taken and used in anyway as the meaning attached to it changes with the usage. Jews are Semites. Arabs are Semites. Basically because they share a language in a similar family group. But culturally a falasha Jew and an Ashkanazi Jew are very different. For that matter an Israeli Jew is very different from an American Jew even if they both share a recent historical place of origin. There is a huge divide between the Arab and the European Jew culturally. They are extremely different people. Hebrew and Arabic are the closest conection, but for the majority of people in Israel, Hebrew is a new language, constructed almost 100 years ago from classical Hebrew and a small part of Arabic to be used as the modern language of the future Israel. Each immigrant that moved to Israel took with him or her a piece of the culture from their original home. If anything, Israel is more Mediterean European in its nature today, than anything else. Ahh though, Israeli women in uniform, if she doesn't kill for looking at her the wrong way first, they make for an interesting cultural experience :) Now, I know that the Israel women I have met would have tried to chop my balls off and feed them to me if I tried to put her in a group with the Arabs of the Middle East.

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 11:30

The other thing is "American" is a geographic label, not a cultural label. You don't consider the people of Central and South America "Americans"? What about Canadians?

Jewish is a religious label - Israeli is comparable to "American", not Jew.

There are probably one or two Christian Israelis living over there somewhere.

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 11:36

Each immigrant that moved to Israel took with him or her a piece of the culture from their original home.

That's what I'm saying. They are now Israelis, that is their culture. Its new, 55 years old or so, just like the US culture is only 200 years old. But it is a culture to be reckoned with none the less.

Surgicalcric

04-05-2004, 11:38

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
The other thing is "American" is a geographic label, not a cultural label. You don't consider the people of Central and South America "Americans"? What about Canadians?

Jewish is a religious label - Israeli is comparable to "American", not Jew.

There are probably one or two Christian Israelis living over there somewhere.

Spot on NDD.

Airbornelawyer

04-05-2004, 13:48

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Jewish is a religious label - Israeli is comparable to "American", not Jew.

There are probably one or two Christian Israelis living over there somewhere.
Judaism is a religion, but Jewish is both a religious and ethnic label. If you are an atheist, you don't stop being a Jew, and if you or your wife is an atheist Jewish woman, your children are still Jews.

I suupose there are some Jews for Jesus in Israel, but most Christians in Israel (about 2% of the population) are Arabs (plus the small number of Greeks and others at various holy sites). Almost one-fifth (around 1.1 million) of Israel's population are Israeli Arabs. There are more democratically elected Arab leaders in Israel than there are in the entire Arab League, and Israeli Arabs, while having various grievances against their government, are not prime recruiting sources for Palestinian terrorists. In 2003, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 3,838 terrorist attacks were perpetrated against Israeli targets (down from 5,301 in 2002). Four of these implicated Israeli Arabs, but these were among the bloodiest - 45 of the 213 Israelis killed in 2003 were in these 4 attacks. Israeli forces uncovered 43 Israeli Arabs in 26 terror cells in 2003, compared to 78 Israeli Arabs in 35 terror cells in 2002.

Jews and Arabs don't have that much in common. Their languages may both be Semitic, but they are as different as English and Spanish, both Indo-European cousins. A fair number of Israeli Sephardic Jews came from Arab countries (or are their children) and have more culturally in common with Arabs than other Jews, but they represent a minority. Of Israel's 5 million Jews, about 475,000 speak Arabic dialects (mostly Moroccan, Iraqi, Tunisian, Yemeni and Libyan Jews who emigrated or were expelled from those countries) and that number shrinks daily as they die or assimilate. Judeo-Arabic speakers are no more Arabs than Ladino speakers are Spaniards.

Modern Jewish culture, even among many Sephardim, is much more of a Western culture. Although Judaism and Islam are both "law-based" religion (in contrast to Christianity, a "faith-based" religion), many of their teachings and attitudes toward who can make law are very different. Also, Islam was heavily influenced by certain Christian sects of Arabia.

GH, regarding martyrdom, Islam's approach to martyrdom has little in common with Judaism's approach, or Christianity's for that matter. Martyrdom in Judaism is a last ditch resort, and goes against all religious teaching (pikuach nefesh - saving or preservation of life - is probably the highest Jewish value). Christianity was born in an act of martyrdom and martyrdom figures heavily throughout church history - St. Polycarp, St. Agnes, Perpetua, St. Edmund, Thomas a Becket, the recently canonized Orthodox saint Yevgenii Rodionov, etc. - but most Christian martyrdoms, following Christ's example, were acts of self-sacrifice in the name of one's faith, rather than killing others. That is quite different from Islam's approach.

Still, I would point out that this holy war-style martyrdom was a factor in the Crusades and does have scriptural support (see, e.g., Hebrews 11:32-34: "And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of ... the prophets who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.").

The approaches to martyrdom in various religions is a complex topic and I feel I am giving it short shrift. Suffice to say, it is difficult to compare today's suicide bombers to traditional Islamic views on martyrdom (closer to the Crusader or "Onward Christian Soldiers" mentality). It is far more difficult, and a little insulting, to compare them to Jewish or Christian martyrs.

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 13:56

Judaism is a religion, but Jewish is both a religious and ethnic label. If you are an atheist, you don't stop being a Jew, and if you or your wife is an atheist Jewish woman, your children are still Jews.

I don't think I agree with this, but don't know enough about Jews to be sure.

Solid

04-05-2004, 14:04

As a non-jewish jew, I'd say that that's pretty accurate. I don't practice at all, among other things, and I'm still considered a jew because of my 'blood'.

Solid

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 14:10

Do you practice any other religion?

rudyzbt

04-05-2004, 14:52

NDD I would have to agree with Airbornelawyer. If you are Jewish you share both a religious and a particular cultrural heritage with other Jews. It's part of the reason one can say that one does not believe in the religion and profess to be athiest, but despite ones own beliefs other Jews will still consider you to be Jewish. Maybe a non-practicing Jew, but still Jewish. According to Jewish law (Orthodox and Conservative), if a mother is Jewish her children are then Jewish as well, the same is not true of the father (except for Reform). The modern Jewish community has only existed as intergrated parts of the world states in which they live for under 100 years. Their communities did take from the places in which they lived and make each community different, but as a whole those communities remained seperate from the outside world within which they lived. There were exceptions as in all things, but in general the opposite was true. The isolation was both externally imposed and internally upheld. In the modern context it has caused a dichotimis form of cultural identity. In the United States, most modern Jews tend to have a large amount of confusion over this crisis of identity. They share both a Jewish identity and an American identity. It is realtively speaking a new problem. Jews are an extremely well integrated part of American society. In fact in places like New York the dominant culture has adopted many things Jewish. The way it is dealt with is through an understanding that the Judaism is both a Religious and a Cultural identity. 100 years ago, most Jews would have said they were one and the same, religion and culture. Today, given the decrease in practice and increase intergration, one refers to a Jewish heritage much in the same way an Italian American refers to themselves as Italian.

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 15:01

Well, like I said, I don't know enough about them so I'll defer. point is, they ain't Arabs.

Now, are we at war with Islam or not? I say yes. not necessarily the religion of Mohammed, but rather the representatives of Islam with a will to power. They consistantly either incite to violence or remain silent while it is done in their name. I think it is common enough for it not to be considered an exception any longer. And since they control the religion...

Solid

04-05-2004, 15:18

Not really, I just believe in God.

Solid

Team Sergeant

04-05-2004, 15:20

Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
Judaism is a religion, but Jewish is both a religious and ethnic label. If you are an atheist, you don't stop being a Jew, and if you or your wife is an atheist Jewish woman, your children are still Jews.

I disagree.

Being a Jew is like being a Boyscout, you can call yourself a Jew, Mormon, a muslim,Buddhist, or Boyscout, but in order to be a Boyscout or a Jew or Jewish, is a state of mind, an ideology a lifestyle, not a stamp that is placed upon you after youâ€™re born.

While many in the Jewish community believe that when you are born and your mother is a Jew you will be a Jew by proxy is pure cow manure. Itâ€™s a system of â€œbeliefsâ€ as all religions are based upon and nothing more. You are what you believe you are not what someone tells you.

Belief \Be*lief"\, n. 2: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof [syn: dogma, tenet]

Control your beliefs, or they will control you.

Team Sergeant

pulque

04-05-2004, 15:25

Originally posted by Team Sergeant
[B]I disagree.

Being a Jew is like being a Boyscout, you can call yourself a Jew, Mormon, a muslim,Buddhist, or Boyscout, but in order to be a Boyscout or a Jew or Jewish, is a state of mind, an ideology a lifestyle, not a stamp that is placed upon you after youâ€™re born.

While many in the Jewish community believe that when you are born and your mother is a Jew you will be a Jew by proxy is pure cow manure. Itâ€™s a system of â€œbeliefsâ€ as all religions are based upon and nothing more. You are what you believe you are not what someone tells you.

what of someone who believes they are a jew but does not have a jewish mother, and thus is not considered a jew by other jews?

ethnicity is not 100% belief or state of mind.

Surgicalcric

04-05-2004, 15:29

Originally posted by pulque
what of someone who believes they are a jew but does not have a jewish mother, and thus is not considered a jew by other jews?

ethnicity is not 100% belief or state of mind.

HUH? I cannot seem to follow your question.

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 15:30

Originally posted by Surgicalcric
HUH? I cannot seem to follow your question.

Its like me being a communist - GH thinks I'm one, but my mother isn't one and the other communists won't let me on the Central Committee.

pulque

04-05-2004, 15:33

Originally posted by Surgicalcric
HUH? I cannot seem to follow your question.

sorry for the confusion. I dont agree that being jewish is like being a boyscout or joining a club.

I dont know if this adds anything to the discussion of whether we are at war with islam the religion or islam the ethnic identity. personally, I believe that "the fanatic" is one of the most significant inventions of historical time.

Team Sergeant

04-05-2004, 15:35

Originally posted by pulque
ethnicity is not 100% belief or state of mind.

Where did I mention ethnicity?

Surgicalcric

04-05-2004, 15:36

Okay. I got it now. I was not tracking before.

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 15:38

I dont know if this adds anything to the discussion of whether we are at war with islam the religion or islam the ethnic identity.

I don't think Islam is an ethnic identity.

However, I fail to see the difference, since they identify themselves by their religion and take their marching orders from their clerics.

pulque

04-05-2004, 15:41

Originally posted by Team Sergeant
Where did I mention ethnicity?

it is the ethnic aspect of judaism we are talking about, if we agree that believing you are jewish doesn't make you jewish.

ethnicity
n : an ethnic quality or affiliation resulting from racial or cultural ties;

Solid

04-05-2004, 15:46

IMHO, if others think that you are jewish, to an extent it's irrelevant what you believe.
Solid

Surgicalcric

04-05-2004, 15:56

Originally posted by Solid
IMHO, if others think that you are jewish, to an extent it's irrelevant what you believe.
Solid

WTH kind of reasoning is that?

You do not become Jewish because others think it so. If a person is not either a.) religiously or b.) ethnically/culturally Jewish you are not Jewish. Likewise, a person cant decide they are now Jewish, nod their head and it becomes so. There has to be a tie to one of the above.

Sacamuelas

04-05-2004, 15:58

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Now, are we at war with Islam or not? I say yes. not necessarily the religion of Mohammed, but rather the representatives of Islam with a will to power. They consistantly either incite to violence or remain silent while it is done in their name. I think it is common enough for it not to be considered an exception any longer.

I have to agree with NDD on this one. It sounds incredibly over-simplified and very non-Politically Correct, but I think it is quickly becoming a necessary admission if we are to to win the WOT/OIF.

Should we wage war with the Islamic leadership that incites all this hate in a public/straightforward manner or should it be a SneakySF type endeavor while maintaining a diplomatic smile in public?

These last few posts about definitions seem to be more related to this than the topic... :D (trying to get a few of the new smiley's to stick..haha)

pulque

04-05-2004, 16:05

Should we wage war with the Islamic leadership that incites all this hate in a public/strightforward manner or should it be a SneakySF type endeavor with a diplomatic smile?

These last few posts about definitions seem to be more related to this than the topic... (trying to get a few of the new smiley's to stick..haha) [/B]

ok, just dont accuse me of being diplomatic :D

Team Sergeant

04-05-2004, 16:07

Originally posted by Solid
IMHO, if others think that you are jewish, to an extent it's irrelevant what you believe.
Solid

That's the kind of thinking that gets one burned to the stake as a witch.

Maybe you should rethink your opinion.

Team Sergeant

Team Sergeant

04-05-2004, 16:12

Originally posted by pulque
it is the ethnic aspect of judaism we are talking about, if we agree that believing you are jewish doesn't make you jewish.

ethnicity
n : an ethnic quality or affiliation resulting from racial or cultural ties;

The concept of ethnicity is as diverse as our world religions. I am merely commenting on a religious belief system, and not a diverse concept as ethnic origin or origins.

As seen below race is classified by biological means and not a simple religious based belief system.

While you can mix race and religious beliefs they are not analogous.

â€œEthnicity is the cultural characteristics that connect a particular group or groups of people to each other.

While ethnicity and race are related concepts, the concept of ethnicity is rooted in the idea of societal groups, marked especially by shared nationality, tribal affiliation, religious faith, shared language, or cultural or traditional origins and backgrounds.

Whereas race is rooted in the idea of biological classification of homo sapiens to subspecies according to morphological features such as skin color or facial characteristics. "Ethnicity" is sometimes used as a euphemism for "race".
It is a term also used to justify real or imagined historic ties as well. Ethnicity goes far beyond the modern ties of a person to a particular nation (e.g., citizenship), and focuses more upon the connection to a perceived shared past and culture. See also Romanticism, folklore.â€

http://www.wordiq.com/cgi-bin/knowledge/lookup.cgi?title=Ethnicity

Solid

04-05-2004, 16:23

I didn't mean that if everybody thinks you are jewish, you suddenly ARE jewish, but that in terms of social interaction, what you really are becomes irrelevant. (Hence my saying 'to an extent'... internally you are what you decide you are.)

This is the kind of thinking that has resulted in the past in people getting executed because, for example, everyone thought they were Jewish/Islamic/Christian when they really weren't.

Solid

PS: Judaism is just an example here.

pulque

04-05-2004, 16:44

Originally posted by Team Sergeant The concept of ethnicity is as diverse as our world religions. I am merely commenting on a religious belief system, and not a diverse concept as ethnic origin or origins.

While you can mix race and religious beliefs they are not analogous.

as single concepts, ethnicity and religious belief systems possess common properties, mechanisms which act on bodies of people (in geographical distance or proximity). The word "religion" has its etymological roots in the word "bind". I agree that it is belief which all religions are based upon, but I also recognize that many religions are inextricably twined with other binding factors, such as ethnicity, or economics.

If religion were merely defined by whether or not individual adherent believed in it, then we as a nation would not be able to say we are "at war with islam", as we (I assume) would strongly defend an individuals right to freely believe. The point is that institutionalized religions have emergent properties, and it is not absurd to consider ethnicity and/or economics in analysis.

As seen below race is classified by biological means and not a simple religious based belief system.

Race means skin color. There is no other accepted biological classification, and there are no "subspecies".

Airbornelawyer

04-05-2004, 19:04

Regarding the main question - Are we at war with Islam? - I have already commented on the normative question: our war is with an ideology and its adherents, not Islam. But the open question was whether Muslims would see it that way. At best, most Muslims have not taken sides, but they have essentially acquiesced to letting the fanatics drive the bus. We do not seek a war with Islam, but the only ones who can make that not be the case are Muslims themselves, and so far, it is not looking good.

A test case will be how the Moqtada as-Sadr arrest warrant and the Badr Brigades is handled. If Shi'ite leaders such as Ayatollah Sistani speak out against as-Sadr (who after all is charged with killing one of the most beloved of Shi'ite religious leaders), then there may be some hope. If they decide anti-American solidarity trumps doing the right thing, then there is little hope. I am not sanguine at this point. If nothing else, cowardice may play a role - the Badr Brigades have the guns and have shown they are perfectly willing to kill or terrorize Shi'ites who oppose them, and we haven't shown that we are able to protect them - and I doubt Sistani will take a firm stand and risk glorious martyrdom.

rudyzbt

04-05-2004, 19:06

Epistimologically we cannot say that we are at war with Islam, since Islam is an intangible system of belief and it is not possible to make war upon an intangible concept or idea. If we equate Islam with "all Muslims", it is then possible to ask. Are we at war with all Muslims? Since then the action of war would be directed against the people who uphold a belief in Islam. The answer to that is, I think, is no. I can't really add anything that wouldn't rehash arguements already previously stated.

Jimbo

04-05-2004, 20:36

Originally scribbled by SomeIdiotJourno
The kingdom is the only Gulf state that approves the public sale and consumption of alcohol, banned by Islam.

That is not quite true. Dubai allows the sale and consumption of alcohol. Also, an average Bahraini can't just go buy some booze.
There are packies in Bahrain, but for a Bahraini to walk in and buy some Johnny Walker would be a no-no. So, they send in their Indian, Pakistani, or Sri Lankan drivers.

and no, we are not at war with Islam. In general we are at war with the political system (or lack thereof) enabled this crop of terrorists. In particular, then, we are at war with some leaders of some countries as well as a bunch of assholes running around killing people.

I highly recommend this week's Economist. Good essays on the future of the Arab world.

The Reaper

04-05-2004, 20:38

It occurs to me that Moslems are increasingly at war with us, whether we like it or not, and in spite of our hearts and minds campaign.

As Solid points out, perceptions are everything. These people see BW contractors as CIA, Mossaad, spies, etc., and treat them as such regardless of who they are and what their mission is.

I do not see how we can hope to sway those primitive people whose media, elders, religious leaders, and neighbors proselytize against us every day.

We can continue to ignore it, and let it grow.

Or we can acknowlege the fact and treat this as the cancer that it is. Identify those who wish us ill and take this war into their homes, and remove the tumors they represent while simultaneously trying to save the reminder of the Islamic body which is not trying to kill us.

Just my .02.

TR

Jimbo

04-05-2004, 20:56

Originally posted by The Reaper
As Solid points out, perceptions are everything. These people see BW contractors as CIA, Mossaad, spies, etc., and treat them as such regardless of who they are and what their mission is.

I do not see how we can hope to sway those primitive people whose media, elders, religious leaders, and neighbors proselytize against us every day.

This is a useful article: http://www.terrorismresearch.net/docs/taylor.pdf

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 20:58

our war is with an ideology and its adherents, not Islam.
Mmm, could be, but I don't think so. First of all, what is the difference? What is Islam if not an ideology and its adherents? Secondly, since Islam is the pervasive element in all of their actions, how can we separate the three? I would say we are at war with Islam and not at war with all Muslims before I would say the reverse.

A test case will be how the Moqtada as-Sadr arrest warrant and the Badr Brigades is handled.
Too many variables for me for a test case. if he whacked that other guy, they will probably give him up. Plus he's only 30 years-old, so he's probably considered an upstart by the real deals. Plus, they need our help in there, its an industrial area and even they won't be able to control the unemployed young people for ever. Better test case me for would be Arafat or one of the big Ayatollahs from Iran or Hizbollah. It will be interesting to watch the dance with Sadr though.

Epistimologically
Huh?

it is not possible to make war upon an intangible concept or idea.

I don't agree with this at all. In fact, I think I believe that it is only possible to make war on a belief or idea. Sure, you kill the adherents, but the actually war is on the idea that you oppose. Such as Hitler's conquest of Europe, communism, slavery, Islamic facsism, etc. You can kill thousands of them, but if you don't defeat the ideology, you don't win. That's why Vietnam, El sal, Nicaragua were important, despite what others may think. They were battles in the war against the ideology of communism. And that's why McNamara et al were idiots for judging success or failure by body count.

Jimbo, I didn't write that about the alcohol, its a quote.

Jimbo

04-05-2004, 21:01

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Jimbo, I didn't write that about the alcohol, its a quote.
I knew that. Sorry. I have fixed it.

brownapple

04-05-2004, 21:02

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I don't think Islam is an ethnic identity.

However, I fail to see the difference, since they identify themselves by their religion and take their marching orders from their clerics.

Do they?

I can introduce you to many Thais who practice the Islamic faith. They identify themselves as Thai.

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 21:05

What will they do if their clerics issue a fatwa to kill Americans at the same time Thailand signs a non-aggression pact?

brownapple

04-05-2004, 21:06

Originally posted by Team Sergeant
That's the kind of thinking that gets one burned to the stake as a witch.

Maybe you should rethink your opinion.

Team Sergeant

What difference did it make to someone in the Warsaw Ghetto whether they believed they were Jewish or not? What mattered was what the Germans and Poles thought.

brownapple

04-05-2004, 21:07

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
What will they do if their clerics issue a fatwa to kill Americans at the same time Thailand signs a non-aggression pact?

Thailand is an ally of the US in the war on terrorism, so I doubt that a non-aggression pact is in the works. And they will do what they have been doing. Enlist. Support their country and their King.

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 21:10

Originally posted by Greenhat
What mattered was what the Germans and Poles thought.

Probably thought they were Arabs.:D

rudyzbt

04-05-2004, 21:17

In fact, I think I believe that it is only possible to make war on a belief or idea. Sure, you kill the adherents, but the actually war is on the idea that you oppose. Such as Hitler's conquest of Europe, communism, slavery, Islamic facsism, etc. You can kill thousands of them, but if you don't defeat the ideology, you don't win. That's why Vietnam, El sal, Nicaragua were important, despite what others may think. They were battles in the war against the ideology of communism. And that's why McNamara et al were idiots for judging success or failure by body count.

This statement contradicts itself slightly. Unless by meaning "make war" you mean countering on the intellecual plane. You said it, killing the adherents does not stop it. You can oppose an idea, as we oppose the ideological beliefs you just mentioned. Hitler was defeated, but Nazism still survives today, i.e. in a weakened state. We didn't win the battle against the idea of communism, but outlived the USSR. I agree that the body count doesn't mean anything, unless you bring about the extinction of the idea in the minds of misled people. Otherwise those people are just replaced by others. If we are at war with Islam, do we then need to eradicat the religion from the face of the Earth? What of those Muslims who live in the US and those who do not agree with the violence perpertrated on innocents? I do not believe that Islam as a religion is what we are fighting but those who bring violence to the world in the name of their religion.

Sorry about the "epistomogically" thing, I wrote that after just finishing a chapter of my thesis and didn't switch gears.

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 21:23

What of those Muslims who live in the US and those who do not agree with the violence perpertrated on innocents? I

They better stand up and take their ideology back from the abusers before we are forced to take more drastic measures.

There are good things about almost every ideology, religion, etc. They become a problem when taken to extremes - all of them.

Take communism for example:munchin , the idea of no strife because everybody works together and shares is a nice one. As is a government where everybody gets to participate directly and self-critics their flaws realistically. Of course it won't work, but its still a nice idea.

I do not believe that Islam as a religion is what we are fighting but those who bring violence to the world in the name of their religion.

I agree with you. I don't have a problem with Mohammed or praying 5 times a day facing East. But when the radical minority rules the roost, is it still the minority? Is it our fault?

rudyzbt

04-05-2004, 21:37

No I agree with you. But I do not think the minority is in total control. They are the ones we hear about and the ones we see, because they are the one who have targeted us. In essence, what they are in control of is not the population but the means of producing violent actions. On the other hand. Places like Saudi Arabia are equally a problem. Through their support of the Wahabi movement they use the money from their oil sales to filter through to the radical madrasas throughout the world and help establish religious dominance that spouts radical islamist ideals and promotes the violence against others.

pulque

04-05-2004, 21:46

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
[B]Mmm, could be, but I don't think so. First of all, what is the difference? What is Islam if not an ideology and its adherents?

I'm not answering for anybody else, but I think the difference between an ideology and its adherents is that ideologies do not change their minds. ideologies dont change at all.

people, adherents, do.

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 21:48

They are the ones we hear about and the ones we see,
Right, they have become the voice of Islam to the rest of the world. I think that is exactly what they want.

Look, I know not all Muslims are terrorists. Just like all Catholic priests are not pedophiles. Not even most of them. GH has given good examples of non-violent Muslims in Asia.

But in any ideology, if the majority allows the minority to become the voice, then the minority dictates the course of events with regards to the external world.

Most people that go to a demonstration do not throw rocks at police, loot or set fires. But what is remembered about Seattle for example - the thousands that marched peacefully and exercised their rights or the few that caused problems? And the longer it goes on, the more you get "Well, if they're going to call me a terrorist and terrorism is the way my leaders want me to go, then I might as well become a terrorist."

Are we at war with Islam? Since the Islam most of us know is radical terrorist Islam and the Islamic world doesn't stand up and denounce the incidents and take their religion back - radical Islam is fast becoming Islam.

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 21:56

Originally posted by pulque
I'm not answering for anybody else, but I think the difference between an ideology and its adherents is that ideologies do not change their minds. ideologies dont change at all.

people, adherents, do.

COME ON! Islam, communism, Christianity, Mormonism, Buddhism, Liberalism - sum total of the ideology plus the adherents and the actions taken by the adherents to give the ideology a physical existence.

Are we at war with Buddhists? NO! Because we all believe in Buddha? Is it becuase Buddhists think we are all ok people? Or is it because the adherents of Buddhism have not allowed the Buddhist ideology to be abused into attacking us?

We have a warrior ideology given a physical presence by the graduates of the Q. Without the ideology, we would be Air Force. Without the adherents, we would be simply an idea. Together, we are what we are because of what we believe and you can see it because we exist.

pulque

04-05-2004, 21:56

maybe this should be a poll. it would be messy though.

Are we at war with Islam?

- no. we are at war with a political ideology and its adherents.

-yes. our nation is or should be at war with a radical religious ideology.

-no. Islam is at war with christianity and judaism. it is a religious war.

-yes. a nation is at war with a religion when the radical religious leaders are the political leaders.

-no. a nation cannot be at war with an intangible idea.

-no. we are at war against arab playboy boozers who oppress the proletariat.

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 21:58

You can't separate the ideology from the action when the action is a result of the ideology.

Why aren't Christian Arabs attacking us? They're Arabs.

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 22:00

pulque - What are you? No laundry list. One or three words.

"I am a ..."

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 22:07

STOP THINKING ABOUT IT!

pulque

04-05-2004, 22:11

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
pulque - What are you? No laundry list. One or three words.

"I am a ..."

:(

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 22:12

Originally posted by pulque
:(

I don't get it.

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 22:13

Crip - define yourself please.

pulque

04-05-2004, 22:19

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I don't get it.

to a woman without a sense of belonging, mere life is all that matters.

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 22:22

It really is very easy.

I am a warrior.

Its the only thing I have ever been besides a student and even that was a means to the end. It permeates everything I do or am. It is the reason I raise my child the way I do, why I am on time, how I drive, the way I think. When I worked in an office, I ran it and did my job like I was in battle against an enemy. it is why I still do PT even though I don't have to. It is what makes me different from my relatives. It is why I have the friends (brothers) that I have. It is why I am in the profession I am in. Everything. Now, whether or not I am a good warrior or not is a different question all together.

Now, this is just my experience, but if you ask a communist what he/she is, they will tell you "I am a communist." When they ask a member of the FARC or SL, they invariably say Farucho or Senderista. I'll bet if you ask an Islamic terrorist, they will say "Muslim" or "Good Muslim". See my point?

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 22:28

Originally posted by pulque
to a woman without a sense of belonging, mere life is all that matters.

You're killing me here. What do you want to belong to? If you're talking about a man, I can't help you, although my brother is a single parent and might be looking, he's a cop, so...:D

If you need an organization to join, you can sign on to my "Free the Oppressed Workers of Thailand", but Green Hat will probably kill us all before we even have the first meeting.

If you're just feeling down, buy yourself a knife from Mr. Harsey or a piece of gear from Eggroll, that would make me feel better.

Or we can start a thread just to make fun of Sacamuelas and if he fights back, I'll ban him. That makes me feel better just thinking about it.

pulque

04-05-2004, 22:31

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I'll bet if you ask an Islamic terrorist, they will say "Muslim" or "Good Muslim". See my point?

Yes, and even though they think of themselves as warriors, they still identify with a fanatic politio-religious ideology.

And that is the fascinating part. There are people taking advantage of their willingness towards united self-sacrifice.

The Reaper

04-05-2004, 22:33

NDD:

That is how you see yourself. I agree with you, in your case, it describes you accurately.

Others do not have your clarity, and see themselves as they wish they were, rather than how others see them or how they actually are.

You allude to that with your Muslim analogy. I would say that Mohammed Atta and OBL see themselves as good Muslims. I dare say that while most Muslims may agree with them, the majority of the world do not.

Does that make them good Muslims because they and others see them as such, or murderers and terrorists because that is how they are and we see them as such.

In short, do we define ourselves, or do our actions or others' opinions define us?

TR

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 22:38

In short, do we define ourselves, or do our actions or others' opinions define us?

Oustanding question and straight to the heart of the matter!

IMO, since the Muslim world refuses to define themselves as peaceful Allah-fearing folk, their actions (or lack there of) and our opinions of Islam as a violent ideology bent on our and the Jews extermination is, by default, the definition they will be stuck with.

If you don't define yourself, others will do it for you.

A lesson politicians learn early if they want to stay in politics. Also a lesson learned early on an A Team.

pulque

04-05-2004, 22:39

LOL, on all of it. Obviously I cannot join your movement, Mr. Liberator, until I learn the weapons. Perhaps a trip to Western Oregon is in order soon. Maybe I can make it a double feature if there is a gun show.

Or we can start a thread just to make fun of Sacamuelas and if he fights back, I'll ban him. That makes me feel better just thinking about it.

it is a sad day indeed when the jawbreaker has to substitute for a triple eeeewww.

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 22:45

I would say that Mohammed Atta and OBL see themselves as good Muslims.

And therein lies the problem. I agree with you, they would probably say "I am a good Muslim." Their actions of terrorism in their minds do not contradict that self image. They equate being a "good Muslim" with terrorism against us. And they have followers.

That is why I say we are at war with Islam, at this time, in this place, as practiced by the visible adherents in the forefront of the ideology. And they are at war with us. Its kind of silly, IMO, for them to be at war with us in the name of Islam and for us to say we are not at war with them and their Islam.

With the exceptions as noted by GH in Asia and others.

DanUCSB

04-05-2004, 22:49

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
IMO, since the Muslim world refuses to define themselves as peaceful Allah-fearing folk,

I have to disagree here, NDD. I think we're making an overly-broad generalization. That being, how would the Muslim world define themselves? The earlier comparison to Catholicism is a bit mistaken, I think, in that Catholicism is strictly hierarchical, with one voice at the top. That being, if the Pope "defines" the Catholic world as such, it is such (or else you aren't a Catholic). But there is no corresponding authority in the Muslim world. Getting a sunni, shi'ite, wahabi, and a sufi all together to agree on exactly how to 'define' themselves is just going to end in disaster.

A more apt comparison would be saying, "The Christian world needs to define itself as...." Put in that light, it's obvious that it's a very difficult, if not impossible request. Some groups are so broad that's it's impossible to get a consensus on anything.

As to the matter of Islam at large, no, I don't think we are at war with all Muslims. It's simply the squeaky-wheel problem. You hear every day about a very violent, very media-savvy minority of a billion-plus population. You never hear about the silent majority, if for no other reason than that they're -not- blowing anything up.

--Dan

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 22:56

That being, how would the Muslim world define themselves?

I'm not asking them to all agree on which side of the plate the salad fork goes or even any particular interpretation of the Quoran. I am simply asking them all to agree that blowing up women and children in a pizza parlor or on a bus or mutilating the bodies of US contractors and laughing about it on tv is a bad thing. I'm not even asking all of them to do that - just their religious leaders who should be setting the example. We can deal with the rest. Like I said, if they won't define themselves as being against terrorism and murder, then we get to define them as being for it. No fence sitting. No fatwas calling for the murder of Americans because they are Americans. Or Jews simply because they are Jews.

As to the matter of Islam at large, no, I don't think we are at war with all Muslims.

I never said we are at war with all Muslims.

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 22:57

They may not have a Pope, but they've sure as hell got their Bishops and Cardinals. And we're looking for most of them.

Surgicalcric

04-05-2004, 22:58

Originally posted by DanUCSB
...As to the matter of Islam at large, no, I don't think we are at war with all Muslims. It's simply the squeaky-wheel problem. You hear every day about a very violent, very media-savvy minority of a billion-plus population. You never hear about the silent majority, if for no other reason than that they're -not- blowing anything up.

--Dan

We dont hear them denouncing the violence either, atleast not as loudly as the minority screaming about killing us.

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 23:03

You don't hear about the silent majority because they are silent.

We expressed more opposition to sending 7 Green Hats to Ft. Benning to be drill instructors than I see from the Muslim world regarding terrorism.

The most you will get, that I have seen is "We regret the loss of life in...today."

That's not denouncing.

Look at the outrage American Catholics expressed over the priest thing. They quit sending money to the church, etc. The lay people were harder on the church than the Pope.

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 23:07

CAIR's Shameful Silence
By Joel Mowbray
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 5, 2004

Witnessing the gruesome attacks on four Americans in Fallujah last week would thoroughly sicken any fellow Americanâ€”except for one very prominent American-Muslim organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

In a statement issued shortly after the gory murders, CAIR said that it â€œcondemned the mutilation of those killed in Iraq on Wednesday.â€ The slaughter of these men was not â€œmurder,â€ though, it was merely a â€œkilling.â€

Nowhere in the statement, in fact, did CAIR condemn the murder of the four Americans.

Nowhere in the statement did CAIR condemn setting on fire the cars the men were driving.

Nowhere in the statement did CAIR condemn the parading of the charred bodies through the street or the hanging of one of the headless corpses hanging from a bridge over the Euphrates River as the locals stoned it.

This is no mere oversight or a simple semantic slip. In the press releaseâ€™s second paragraph, CAIR explains, â€œThe mutilations violated both Islamic and international norms of conduct during times of war.â€

What â€œwarâ€? The war ended long ago, even long before Saddamâ€™s beard was examined for lice and other living creatures. What has been going on since can only be described as â€œterrorism,â€ not â€œwar.â€

But CAIR clearly sees this as a â€œwarâ€ between legitimate foes, going so far as to call â€œon all parties to the conflict to respect the sanctity of the dead and the sensitivities of their families.â€ The only parties, though, are the American-led coalition forces attempting to build a democracy and the terrorists trying to prevent it.

So why is CAIR calling on â€œall partiesâ€ as if there were a war between two legitimate sides? Probably because CAIR doesnâ€™t view terrorists as terrorists.

In other words, an American Muslim organization has taken the same stance as much-publicized Fallujah cleric Sheikh Khalid Ahmed, who condemned only the mutilations as contrary to Islamâ€”CAIRâ€™s reasoning as wellâ€”but not the murders.

And this isnâ€™t the only time CAIR has refused to condemn terrorism.

CAIRâ€™s spokesman was given the opportunity to condemn Hamas and Islamic Jihad by the Washington Post in November 2001. His response was telling: â€œItâ€™s not our job to go around denouncing.â€ Asked a similar question about Hamas and Hezbollah by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in February 2002, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper called such queries a â€œgameâ€ and explained, â€œWeâ€™re not in the business of condemning.â€

But when Israel is to blame, CAIR seems to be very much â€œin the business of condemning.â€

After Israel recently killed the founder of Hamasâ€”a man responsible for the deaths of 52 mostly young Palestinian suicide bombers and 377 mostly civilian Israelisâ€”CAIR saw fit to â€œcondemnâ€ the Jewish state without a momentâ€™s pause. In its press release, CAIR said it â€œcondemned the assassination of a wheelchair-bound Palestinian Muslim religious leader, calling it an act of â€˜state terrorism.â€™â€

CAIR couldnâ€™t bring itself to call the founder of one of the bloodiest terrorist organizations on earth even a â€œmilitant,â€ let alone a â€œterrorist.â€ To them, a man with the blood of over 400 people on his hands was a handicapped â€œreligious leader.â€ Seems awfully instructive about the kind of Islam they must follow if they label terrorist masterminds â€œreligious leaders.â€

All of this could be happily ignored if CAIR was some fringe organization, but it is not. The group represents Muslims in the media and to the government and touts itself in its press releases as â€œAmerica's largest Islamic civil liberties groupâ€ with â€œ25 regional offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada.â€

Read a news story on American Muslims or on Islamic terrorism or flip on a cable news channel, and there is CAIR, being held up as the representative of American Muslims.

But what kind of American Muslim would want to be represented by a group that refuses to condemn the brutal murder of four Americans or any number of different terrorist organizations? Letâ€™s hope not many.

DanUCSB

04-05-2004, 23:08

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
They may not have a Pope, but they've sure as hell got their Bishops and Cardinals. And we're looking for most of them.

Sure they do. But there's a misleading implication, I would submit, in a statement like that. The imam leading prayer in a Connecticut mosque is apples and oranges away from the imam hanging idolaters from lamp posts in Pakistan.

You are correct in your idea of definitions, however. I agree; I wasn't arguing that we're (ever) going to have a pan-world Muslim orthodoxy; but it is not too much to ask that Muslims (or anyone else) not blow up innocent folks.

The point of my post was that it's very important to be careful when lumping groups of people together. Would a Christian stick up for the actions of Eric Rudolph? A soldier for William Calley? I would hope not, but they do demonstrate the problems with judging a large, disparate group by the actions of a small (if vocal) minority.

Oh, and as for the 'war with Islam' bit, I wasn't referring to you specifically, but the title of the thread. :)

--Dan, devil's advocate

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 23:11

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today condemned the mutilation of those killed in Iraq on Wednesday. Four American civilian contractors were ambushed in their SUV's, burned, mutilated, dragged through the streets and then hung from a bridge spanning the Euphrates River, according to news reports.

CAIR said the mutilations violated both Islamic and international norms of conduct during times of war and called on all parties to the conflict to respect the sanctity of the dead and the sensitivities of their families.

The Washington-based Islamic civil rights and advocacy group cited a tradition of the Prophet Muhammad that prohibits mutilating bodies (Hadith 654.3).

In another tradition, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "Do not kill women or children, or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place." (Al-Muwatta, Vol. 21, Hadith 9)

CAIR, America's largest Islamic civil liberties group, is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and has 25 regional offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada.

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 23:15

The voice of Islam in the US condemned the mutilation, not the murder.

I'm right, you're wrong.

I'm going to bed.

DanUCSB

04-05-2004, 23:16

Let me clarify. I was playing devil's advocate earlier.

As to the larger issue, I think there is only one way that Islam will lose its reputation for terrorism, and that's if and only if the majority of Muslims out there in the world break their 'silence', and actively and vociferously denounce those that use violence to achieve their ends. Muslim terrorists need to be ferreted out, denounced, and demonized by that majority of their own faith that has heretofore ignored/downplayed their despicable deeds. No, it won't work immediately, and in the meantime, that's where our boys with the M4s come in. But over time, opinions will change and moderate.

But that's a big 'if'. And it depends on the willingness of the world Muslim community to denounce those that would do violence on their supposed "behalf", which is something that we are definitely not seeing right now.

--Dan

NousDefionsDoc

04-05-2004, 23:18

Your sig line seems applicable in this context.

DanUCSB

04-05-2004, 23:20

I see how it is. Using my own sig line against me. :D

--Dan

rudyzbt

04-05-2004, 23:49

The man who wrote this is both a Prof in Political Science and a Mufti. There are people who speak out. I wouldn't say I agree with everything he has to say here, but its his freedom to express his political opinion (he says that the Muslim world needs more men like Ted Kennedy :( ) I just thought his response was interesting.

MEMO TO MR. BIN LADEN: GO TO HELL!

Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D.

This article has so far been published in Washington Post (02.16.03), TheGlobalist (02.14.03), Outlook India (02.15.03) The Arab News (Saudi Arabia 02.18.03), The Age (Melbourne, Australia 02.22.03), Afghan Times (02.23.02) Times of Central Asia (02.22.03) Iran and World (02.22.03) Tampa Tribune (02.21.03), Euthanesia News (02.22.03) DestinyWalking (02.22.03), St. Petersburgh Times (02.21.03). This Memo was also read by the author on the Roy Green Show (Ontario, Canada 02.20.03).

This is an American Muslimâ€™s response to the Tape recorded message dated February 11th, 2003 by fugitive-terrorist Osama Bin Laden.

Mr. Binladen,

In the name of Allah, The Most Merciful, the Most Benevolent.

I begin by reciting some important principles of Islam to remind you that there is more to Islam than just a call to arms.

1. Islam was sent as mercy to humanity (Quran 4:79).

2. Do not make mischief on the earth (Quran 29:36).

3. People, We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes that you might know one another. The noblest of you before God is the most righteous of you. (49:13)

4. There are among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) upstanding nations that recite the message of God and worship throughout the night, who believe in God, who order honor and forbid dishonor and race in good works. These are the righteous. (3:113-114).

I am writing this to make it clear that there are Muslims in America and in the world who despise and condemn extremists and have nothing to do with Binladen and those like him for whom killing constitutes worship.

Islam was sent as mercy to humanity and not as an ideology of terror or hatred. It advocates plurality and moral equality of all faiths (Quran 2:62, 5:69). To use Islam, as a justification to declare an Armageddon against all non-Muslims is inherently unIslamic â€“ it is a despicable distortion of a faith of peace. One of Allahâ€™s 99 names in the Quran is â€œAl Salamâ€ which means Peace. Thus in a way Muslims are the only people who actually worship peace. Today this claim sounds so empty, thanks to people like you, Mr. Bin Laden. You and those like you are dedicated to killing and bringing misery to people wherever they are. God blessed you with the capacity to lead and also endowed you with enormous resources. You could have used your influence in Afghanistan to develop it, to bring it out of poverty and underdevelopment and show the world what Islam can do for those who believe in it. You chose to provoke and bring war to a people who had already been devastated by wars.

Yes many innocent people lost their lives in Americaâ€™s war on Afghanistan and many more might lose their lives in Iraq. This is indeed regrettable. But we must never forget as to how the West is divided over this and how nations and people within nations are agonizing in Europe and in America over this decision to go to war in Iraq. While many Americans and Europeans oppose the war, Muslim nations have already agreed to cooperate in this war. No Muslim leader has tried to play the role of a statesman on this issue. It is a tragedy that there is not a single Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter or Nelson Mandela in the entire Muslim world who would stand up and speak for justice!

Before we rush to condemn America we must remember that even today millions of poor and miserable people all across the world are lining up outside US embassies eager to come to America, not just to live here but to become an American. No Muslim country today, can claim that people of other nations and other faiths see it as a promise of hope, equality, dignity and prosperity.

Yes, we American Muslims will continue to challenge the Bush administrationsâ€™ proposal to wage war against Iraq. We think a regime change in Washington is as necessary as a regime change in Baghdad, but that is an intramural affair. Once the war is declared, make no mistake Mr. Saddam Hussain and Mr. Bin Laden, We are with America. We will fight with America and we will fight for America. We have a covenant with this nation, we see it as a divine commitment and we will not disobey the Quran (9:4) â€“ we will fulfill our obligations as citizens to the land that opened its doors to us and promised us equality and dignity even though we have a different faith. I am sure Mr. Bin Laden, you can neither understand nor appreciate this willingness to accept and welcome the other.

Sure at this moment out of anger, frustration and fear, some in America have momentarily forgotten their own values. I am confident that, God willing, this moment of shock and insecurity will pass and America will once again become the beacon of freedom, tolerance and acceptance that it was before September 11th. On that day Mr. Binladen, you not only killed 3000 innocent Americans, many of whom were also Muslims, but you signed the death warrants of many innocent people who will die in this war on terror and many more who will live but will suffer the consequences, the pain and the misery of war. Before September 11th, the US was giving aid to Afghanistan and was content to wait for the Iraqi people to free themselves and the rest of the world from their dictator. On that day you changed the rules of the game and Muslims in many places are suffering as a direct consequence.

When the Prophet Muhammad (saw) and his companions fought in the name of Islam, Allah made them victorious and glorified them in this world. They made Islam the currency of human civilization for over a millennium. You and your men on the other hand face nothing but defeat, global ridicule and contempt and run and hide like rats in caves and dungeons. You live in the dark. Your faith neither enlightens you nor enables you to live in the light and you have made Islam the currency of hate and violence.

Let me tell you that I would rather live in America under Ashcroft and Bush at their worst, than in any â€œIslamic stateâ€ established by ignorant, intolerant and murderous punks like you and Mullah Omar at their best. The US, patriot act not withstanding is still a more Islamic (just and tolerant) state than Afghanistan ever was under the Taliban.

Remember this: Muslims from all over the world who wished to live better lives migrated to America and Muslims who only wished to take lives migrated to Afghanistan to join you.

We will not follow the desires of people (like you) who went astray and led many astray from the Straight Path. (Quran 5:77).

I conclude by calling upon you Mr. Bin Laden and your Al Qaeda colleagues and Mr. Saddam Hussain to surrender to International Courts and take responsibility for your actions and protect thousands of other innocent Muslims from becoming the victims of the wars you bring upon them.

brownapple

04-06-2004, 00:35

Originally posted by Surgicalcric
We dont hear them denouncing the violence either, atleast not as loudly as the minority screaming about killing us.

Doesn't make a good story. Be careful of assuming that because the media doesn't report it, it doesn't happen.

What's that line?

"Ma'am, you could fill books with what you don't read in the newspapers."

Solid

04-06-2004, 03:37

Phew. I'm glad I didn't get whupped while I was asleep.
Referring to insurgency, Bard E. O'Neill emphasises that by generalising, a counter-insurgency force limits its own effectiveness. I think that it is therefore very dangerous for US policy, or even just our thoughts, to be aimed against Islam in general. If we percieve our enemy to be Islam as a whole, Islam will effectively become our enemy.

IMO, if and when we invade Saudi, Iran, etc, it would be better to have the ability to co-opt the 'silent majority' than have them formed against us.

Technically, we might be at war with Islam, but I think that THINKING that we are could be dangerous.

Solid

Cherrycat

04-06-2004, 04:50

Up to OEF, Bangladesh was one of the most corrupt nations in the world; however, free of state funded terrorist groups. After OEF, a large number of armed militants came into Chittagong and reportedly slipped off into the Jungle. This was all reported by Indian Intel. The up side is that we still pay more money to the Gov't of Bangladesh and they are on our side overall. The down side is that some government official is getting a new BMW for looking the other way when an RPG goes off.

Surgicalcric

04-06-2004, 06:50

Originally posted by Greenhat
Be careful of assuming that because the media doesn't report it, it doesn't happen... ..."Ma'am, you could fill books with what you don't read in the newspapers."

I believe if there was even a single public outcry from the clerics and other moderate Muslims, over the terrorist attacks that happened on 9.11 and continue to happen on a daily basis around the Globe in the namme of Allah we would hear it.

When the Catholic Priest scandals started there were a large outcrying of the catholic church that was televised.

When the Atlanta abortion clinic bombing happened "in the Name of God" there was a public outcry from both pew sitters and pastors/clergy.

I may very well be skewed in my thinking, but I believe if they were to stand up someone would broadcast/publish it.

Again my .02

Sigi

04-06-2004, 07:45

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
You don't hear about the silent majority because they are silent.

The most you will get, that I have seen is "We regret the loss of life in...today."

That's not denouncing.

I have been kicked off and IP banned from more than a few Muslim and Islamic sites. A great majority of these boards were populated by - surprise - radical Muslims. They see America as gulping up the lands of Muhammad, providing financial and political support for Muslim/Arab leaders who oppress their people, and generally keeping the Muslim religion down.

Yeah, they quote alot from the Koran - "Allah be willing" etc... - but in my opinion they see an opportunity to combine terrorism with religion to foster hate. To me it is this simple.

And because they use religion as a conduit to recruit more radicals and promote more hate they have in effect hijacked that religion.

Why? Because so many moderate Muslims allow it. They may not want to participate, but they are secretly happy that Islam is the flavor of the month, so to speak. People are now centering their attention on the ME and the moderates want this to continue.

Until the moderates realize that change comes from within, and not by trying to intimidate another country's population through terrorism, than I can honestly say that they have allowed the religion to be hijacked. They are co-conspirators and should shoulder almost as much blame as terrorists.

So yes, we are at war with Islam. When they can produce leaders that physically remove terrorists from the population than they have started to get my attention. When they have protests in the streets denouncing terrorists acts, or police their own population by thwarting future terrorism, then they have my attention.

When they stop blaming the world - the Western world - for their lot in life and start creating a means to peace in their religion/culture/geography/whatever, they will become genuine partners in the world community.

The more I see the Muslim world conduct themselves - collectively - the more I believe that Islam needs a Reformation. It can only happen from within.

They are nowhere close to this type of paradigm shift. So in the meantime maybe they should worry about us killing them for a change, instead of the other way around.

Sigi

04-06-2004, 07:56

Originally posted by Surgicalcric

When the Catholic Priest scandals started there were a large outcrying of the catholic church that was televised.

I see your point, but IMO, the outcry over pedophile priests came from the Press and the Catholic population. Many Bishops and Clergy were very slow to open up this festering wound. Especially when they had to know about it years and years before it happened.

Admitting there was a crime after you have been busted is much different than policing yourself. As a lifelong Catholic I was proud of the Catholic population for stepping up and demanding that the church do something.

Same with Islam. The population needs to act collectively and in unison or else they risk a cultural war with the West. Like I said, they need a Reformation - a 98 Thesis on the Mosque door - to gain control of that religion.

I just wonder if the West has the balls and the attention span to force this internal paradigm shift, because they are showing no signs of changing. In fact, the more they get their message out there and gain support among socialists like the Spanish Govt, the farther away we are from realizing a peaceful Islam.

The more we pull out of engagements in Muslim lands the stronger their resolve becomes. The more wicked their attacks (i.e. Fallujah) become, the more the West is left aghast. And when they see that, they design more horrible attacks to get even stronger responses. And thus their resolve grows even more.

Just my .02.

brownapple

04-06-2004, 08:30

Originally posted by Surgicalcric
I believe if there was even a single public outcry from the clerics and other moderate Muslims, over the terrorist attacks that happened on 9.11 and continue to happen on a daily basis around the Globe in the namme of Allah we would hear it.

When the Catholic Priest scandals started there were a large outcrying of the catholic church that was televised.

When the Atlanta abortion clinic bombing happened "in the Name of God" there was a public outcry from both pew sitters and pastors/clergy.

I may very well be skewed in my thinking, but I believe if they were to stand up someone would broadcast/publish it.

Again my .02

Interesting. Where I live, I heard nothing about either one of those. But I have heard Muslim clerics denouncing terrorism.

NousDefionsDoc

04-06-2004, 09:32

BANGKOK, THAILAND: Thailand may withdraw its forces from Iraq earlier than planned due to concerns about violence in the country after the United States transfers power to Iraqis on June 30, a government spokesman has said. The Defense Ministry will conduct a review on whether 443 Thai troops on a humanitarian mission in Iraq should come back in September as planned or sooner, said ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Palangun Klaharn on Saturday."We have to look at future variables, whether there will be other (nations') troops withdrawn from Iraq or not. "But right now we plan to stay there to finish off the full year," Palangun told The Associated Press by telephone.

brownapple

04-06-2004, 10:38

Your point?

NousDefionsDoc

04-06-2004, 11:53

None, other than the top of my head. Seemd slightly relevant to the conversation though.

NousDefionsDoc

04-10-2004, 20:36

I'm starting to think saying we are at war with only Islamic fundalmentalist terrorists and not Islam is akin to saying we are at war with kamikazes but not the Japanese.

â€¢ Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades
â€¢ Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)
â€¢ Ahyaul Turaz al-Islami
â€¢ al Assirat al Moustaquim
â€¢ Al Barq
â€¢ Al Gamaâ€™a al Islamiyya (Islamic Group, IG)
â€¢ Al Ittihad al Islami (AIAI)
â€¢ Al Jamaâ€™a al Islamiyyah al Muqatilah bi Libya
â€¢ Al Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad)
â€¢ Al Qa'nun
â€¢ Al Qaida
â€¢ Al Tawhid
â€¢ Al-Badhr Mujahidin (al-Badr)
â€¢ Allied Democratic Forces (ADF)
â€¢ Ansar al Islam
â€¢ Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
â€¢ Asbat al Ansar
â€¢ Asif Raza Commandoes
â€¢ Brotherhood of al-Maâ€™unah
â€¢ East Turkestan Islamic Movement
â€¢ Free Aceh Movement
â€¢ Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front (IBDA-C)
â€¢ HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)
â€¢ Harakat ul Jihad I Islami (HUJI) (Movement of Islamic Holy War)
â€¢ Harakat ul Jihad I Islami/Bangladesh (HUJI-B) (Movement of Islamic Holy War)
â€¢ Harakat ul Mujahidin (HUM) (Movement of Holy Warriors)
â€¢ Harkat ul Ansar
â€¢ Hezb e Islami
â€¢ Hizb ut Tahrir al Islami
â€¢ Hizb-I Islami Gulbuddin (HIG)
â€¢ Hizballah (Party of God)
â€¢ Islami Inquilabi Mahaz
â€¢ Islami Jamaat e Tulba
â€¢ Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Sites
â€¢ Islamic Army of Aden (IAA)
â€¢ Islamic Front
â€¢ Islamic International Peacekeeping Brigade (IIPB)
â€¢ Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)
â€¢ Islamic Party of Turkestan
â€¢ Islamic Students League
â€¢ Jaish e Mohammed E Tanzeem(JEM)
â€¢ Jamaat I Islami
â€¢ Jamaat ul Mujahideen
â€¢ Jamiat ul Mujahideen (JUM)
â€¢ Jammu and Kashmir Freedom Force
â€¢ Jemaah Islamiya (JI)
â€¢ Kumpulan Mujahidin Malaysia (KMM)
â€¢ Lashkar e Tayyiba (LT)
â€¢ Liberation Party
â€¢ Libyan Islamic Fighting Group
â€¢ Moro Islamic Liberation Front
â€¢ Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM)
â€¢ Movement for the Struggle of the Jordanian Islamic Resistance
â€¢ Mujahedeen Kompak
â€¢ Mujahedin e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO)
â€¢ New Peopleâ€™s Army (NPA)
â€¢ Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
â€¢ People Against Gangsterism and Drugs (PAGAD)
â€¢ Return Party
â€¢ Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC)
â€¢ Salifiya Jihadiya
â€¢ Sipah I Sahaba/Pakistan
â€¢ Special Purpose Islamic Regiment (SPIR)
â€¢ Taliban
â€¢ Tehreek e Jaferia Pakistan (TJP)
â€¢ Tehreek e Nafaz e Shariat e Mohammadi (TNSM)
â€¢ Tehrik e Jehad e Islami
â€¢ Tunisian Combatant Group (TCG)
â€¢ Tunisian Islamic Front
â€¢ Turkish Hizballah
http://www.terrorism.com/index.php

Ambush Master

04-10-2004, 20:58

I'm with you NDD !!!

NousDefionsDoc

04-11-2004, 12:09

I just saw a piece on the rise of religion, specifically Christianity, in the US. Media coverage of religious themes is up 300% in the last 10 years and religious article sales, not including movies, is an $8 billion business now. Cardinal Mahoney was interviewed and said that in his opinion more than anything else 9/11 and the ongoing terrorist attacks are the reason for the rediscovery of Christianity. People are scared.

Polarization?

Jimbo

04-11-2004, 13:06

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I'm starting to think saying we are at war with only Islamic fundalmentalist terrorists and not Islam is akin to saying we are at war with kamikazes but not the Japanese.

â€¢ Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades
â€¢ Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)
â€¢ Ahyaul Turaz al-Islami
â€¢ al Assirat al Moustaquim
â€¢ Al Barq
â€¢ Al Gamaâ€™a al Islamiyya (Islamic Group, IG)
â€¢ Al Ittihad al Islami (AIAI)
â€¢ Al Jamaâ€™a al Islamiyyah al Muqatilah bi Libya
â€¢ Al Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad)
â€¢ Al Qa'nun
â€¢ Al Qaida
â€¢ Al Tawhid
â€¢ Al-Badhr Mujahidin (al-Badr)
â€¢ Allied Democratic Forces (ADF)
â€¢ Ansar al Islam
â€¢ Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
â€¢ Asbat al Ansar
â€¢ Asif Raza Commandoes
â€¢ Brotherhood of al-Maâ€™unah
â€¢ East Turkestan Islamic Movement
â€¢ Free Aceh Movement
â€¢ Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front (IBDA-C)
â€¢ HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)
â€¢ Harakat ul Jihad I Islami (HUJI) (Movement of Islamic Holy War)
â€¢ Harakat ul Jihad I Islami/Bangladesh (HUJI-B) (Movement of Islamic Holy War)
â€¢ Harakat ul Mujahidin (HUM) (Movement of Holy Warriors)
â€¢ Harkat ul Ansar
â€¢ Hezb e Islami
â€¢ Hizb ut Tahrir al Islami
â€¢ Hizb-I Islami Gulbuddin (HIG)
â€¢ Hizballah (Party of God)
â€¢ Islami Inquilabi Mahaz
â€¢ Islami Jamaat e Tulba
â€¢ Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Sites
â€¢ Islamic Army of Aden (IAA)
â€¢ Islamic Front
â€¢ Islamic International Peacekeeping Brigade (IIPB)
â€¢ Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)
â€¢ Islamic Party of Turkestan
â€¢ Islamic Students League
â€¢ Jaish e Mohammed E Tanzeem(JEM)
â€¢ Jamaat I Islami
â€¢ Jamaat ul Mujahideen
â€¢ Jamiat ul Mujahideen (JUM)
â€¢ Jammu and Kashmir Freedom Force
â€¢ Jemaah Islamiya (JI)
â€¢ Kumpulan Mujahidin Malaysia (KMM)
â€¢ Lashkar e Tayyiba (LT)
â€¢ Liberation Party
â€¢ Libyan Islamic Fighting Group
â€¢ Moro Islamic Liberation Front
â€¢ Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM)
â€¢ Movement for the Struggle of the Jordanian Islamic Resistance
â€¢ Mujahedeen Kompak
â€¢ Mujahedin e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO)
â€¢ New Peopleâ€™s Army (NPA)
â€¢ Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
â€¢ People Against Gangsterism and Drugs (PAGAD)
â€¢ Return Party
â€¢ Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC)
â€¢ Salifiya Jihadiya
â€¢ Sipah I Sahaba/Pakistan
â€¢ Special Purpose Islamic Regiment (SPIR)
â€¢ Taliban
â€¢ Tehreek e Jaferia Pakistan (TJP)
â€¢ Tehreek e Nafaz e Shariat e Mohammadi (TNSM)
â€¢ Tehrik e Jehad e Islami
â€¢ Tunisian Combatant Group (TCG)
â€¢ Tunisian Islamic Front
â€¢ Turkish Hizballah
http://www.terrorism.com/index.php

You see, what the good people at terrorism.com fail to point out is that that list of groups is actually onlt 6 guys running around causing trouble. Their names are Phil, Steve, Tom, Fred, Albert, and Akhmed.

NousDefionsDoc

04-11-2004, 13:08

LOL - yeah right. Do I need to deprogram you for Stockholm Syndrome?

Bill Harsey

04-11-2004, 16:42

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Don't be hijacking my thread with that fag car racing crap. NDD, Oh great one. I was going along reading this for me education and had to come back to this comment, You don't mean NASCAR too do you? (trying to hold back tears now) Bill

NousDefionsDoc

04-11-2004, 16:55

Mr. Harsey,
Out of respect to you, I will refrain from further comment regarding the mind-numbing "sport" of going 'round and 'round in circles in a car painted like a clown mobile.

Bill Harsey

04-11-2004, 16:59

LOL! Your right!

Jimbo

04-12-2004, 08:04

Why we must never abandon this historic struggle in Iraq
The Observer ^ | Sunday April 11, 2004 | Tony Blair

We are locked in a historic struggle in Iraq. On its outcome hangs more
than the fate of the Iraqi people. Were we to fail, which we will not,
it is more than 'the power of America' that would be defeated. The hope
of freedom and religious tolerance in Iraq would be snuffed out.
Dictators would rejoice; fanatics and terrorists would be triumphant.
Every nascent strand of moderate Arab opinion, knowing full well that
the future should not belong to fundamentalist religion, would be set
back in bitter disappointment. If we succeed - if Iraq becomes a
sovereign state, governed democratically by the Iraqi people; the
wealth of that potentially rich country, their wealth; the oil, their
oil; the police state replaced by the rule of law and respect for human
rights - imagine the blow dealt to the poisonous propaganda of the
extremists. Imagine the propulsion toward change it would inaugurate
all over the Middle East.

In every country, including our own, the fanatics are preaching their
gospel of hate, basing their doctrine on a wilful perversion of the
true religion of Islam. At their fringe are groups of young men
prepared to conduct terrorist attacks however and whenever they can.
Thousands of victims the world over have now died, but the impact is
worse than the death of innocent people.

The terrorists prey on ethnic or religious discord. From Kashmir to
Chechnya, to Palestine and Israel, they foment hatred, they deter
reconciliation. In Europe, they conducted the massacre in Madrid. They
threaten France. They forced the cancellation of the President of
Germany's visit to Djibouti. They have been foiled in Britain, but only
for now.

Of course they use Iraq. It is vital to them. As each attack brings
about American attempts to restore order, so they then characterise it
as American brutality. As each piece of chaos menaces the very path
toward peace and democracy along which most Iraqis want to travel, they
use it to try to make the coalition lose heart, and bring about the
retreat that is the fanatics' victory.

They know it is a historic struggle. They know their victory would do
far more than defeat America or Britain. It would defeat civilisation
and democracy everywhere. They know it, but do we? The truth is, faced
with this struggle, on which our own fate hangs, a significant part of
Western opinion is sitting back, if not half-hoping we fail, certainly
replete with schadenfreude at the difficulty we find.

So what exactly is the nature of the battle inside Iraq itself? This
is not a 'civil war', though the purpose of the terrorism is
undoubtedly to try to provoke one. The current upsurge in violence has
not spread throughout Iraq. Much of Iraq is unaffected and most Iraqis
reject it. The insurgents are former Saddam sympathisers, angry that
their status as 'boss' has been removed, terrorist groups linked to
al-Qaeda and, most recently, followers of the Shia cleric,
Muqtada-al-Sadr.

The latter is not in any shape or form representative of majority Shia
opinion. He is a fundamentalist, an extremist, an advocate of violence.
He is wanted in connection with the murder of the moderate and much
more senior cleric, Ayatollah al Khoei last year. The prosecutor, an
Iraqi judge, who issued a warrant for his arrest, is the
personification of how appallingly one-sided some of the Western
reporting has become. Dismissed as an American stooge, he has braved
assassination attempts and extraordinary intimidation in order to
follow proper judicial process and has insisted on issuing the warrant
despite direct threats to his life in doing so.

There you have it. On the one side, outside terrorists, an extremist
who has created his own militia, and remnants of a brutal dictatorship
which murdered hundreds of thousands of its own people and enslaved the
rest. On the other side, people of immense courage and humanity who
dare to believe that basic human rights and liberty are not alien to
Arab and Middle Eastern culture, but are their salvation.

Over the past few weeks, I have met several people from the Iraqi
government, the first genuine cross-community government Iraq had seen.
People like Mrs Barwari, the Minister of Public Works, who has just
survived a second assassination attempt that killed her bodyguard;
people like Mr Zebari, the Foreign Minister. They are intelligent,
forward-looking, tolerant, dedicated to their country. They know that
'the occupation' can be used to stir up anti-coalition feeling; they,
too, want their country governed by its people and no one else. But
they also know that if we cut and run, their country would be at the
mercy of warring groups which are united only in their distaste for
democracy.

The tragedy is that outside of the violence which dominated the
coverage of Iraq, there are incredible possibilities of progress. There
is a huge amount of reconstruction going on; the legacy of decades of
neglect is slowly being repaired.

By 1 June, electricity will be 6,000MW, 50 per cent more than prewar,
but short of the 7,500MW they now need because of the massive opening
up of the economy, set to grow by 60 per cent this year and 25 per cent
the next.

The first private banks are being opened. A new currency is in
circulation. Those in work have seen their salaries trebled or
quadrupled and unemployment is falling. One million cars have been
imported. Thirty per cent now have satellite TV, once banned, where
they can watch al-Jazeera, the radical Arab TV station, telling them
how awful the Americans are.

The internet is no longer forbidden. Shrines are no longer shut.
Groups of women and lawyers meet to discuss how they can make sure the
new constitution genuinely promotes equality. The universities eagerly
visit Western counterparts to see how a modern, higher-education
system, free to study as it pleases, would help the new Iraq.

People in the West ask: why don't they speak up, these
standard-bearers of the new Iraq? Why don't the Shia clerics denounce
al-Sadr more strongly? I understand why the question is asked. But the
answer is simple: they are worried. They remember 1991, when the West
left them to their fate. They know their own street, unused to
democratic debate, rife with every rumour, and know its volatility.
They read the Western papers and hear its media. And they ask, as the
terrorists do: have we the stomach to see it through?

I believe we do. And the rest of the world must hope that we do. None
of this is to say we do not have to learn and listen. There is an
agenda that could unite the majority of the world. It would be about
pursuing terrorism and rogue states on the one hand and actively
remedying the causes around which they flourish on the other: the
Palestinian issue; poverty and development; democracy in the Middle
East; dialogue between main religions.

I have come firmly to believe the only ultimate security lies in our
values. The more people are free, the more tolerant they are of others;
the more prosperous, the less inclined they are to squander that
prosperity on pointless feuding and war.

But our greatest threat, apart from the immediate one of terrorism, is
our complacency. When some ascribe, as they do, the upsurge in Islamic
extremism to Iraq, do they really forget who killed whom on 11
September 2001? When they call on us to bring the troops home, do they
seriously think that this would slake the thirst of these extremists,
to say nothing of what it would do to the Iraqis?

Or if we scorned our American allies and told them to go and fight on
their own, that somehow we would be spared? If we withdraw from Iraq,
they will tell us to withdraw from Afghanistan and, after that, to
withdraw from the Middle East completely and, after that, who knows?
But one thing is for sure: they have faith in our weakness just as they
have faith in their own religious fanaticism. And the weaker we are,
the more they will come after us.

It is not easy to persuade people of all this; to say that terrorism
and unstable states with WMD are just two sides of the same coin; to
tell people what they don't want to hear; that, in a world in which we
in the West enjoy all the pleasures, profound and trivial, of modern
existence, we are in grave danger.

There is a battle we have to fight, a struggle we have to win and it
is happening now in Iraq.

Solid

04-12-2004, 10:01

That was a great article, thanks Jimbo.

In comparison to other modern wars, how much do you think the media will figure in the end result in Iraq?

Thank you,

Solid

Gypsy

04-12-2004, 12:31

Great article Jimbo.

Solid, IMHO the media always has and always will try to affect the outcome of many things including the GWOT with their own personal bias or spin (most not all..) The constant comparison to Vietnam for example...it makes me ill. I watched a special last night after Band of Brothers on THC, about the Screaming Eagles, and one COL (I apologize I missed his name) said...We did not lose, we left. (referring to the pull out from the region) This is NOT Vietnam...

The spin on words, tone of reporting etc feeds too many people that cannot or will not chose to employ critical thinking skills or educate themselves on any number of issues. The media intentionally (I believe) chooses sound bites to back up their spin, give coverage to all the negativity instead of reporting many positive things going on esp. as it relates to the WOT and I believe they give aid to the BG in their zeal to "report the truth" and malign the current Administration. (Yes I realize good news "doesn't sell" but that doesn't make it right)

That said, I believe We the People can and should hold them to responsible reporting. Think about the hollyweird types that denounce our Country as the Great Satan and reap the backlash from those that vehemently disagree with their politics...boohoo for them...citizens spoke out. Refusing to buy their music, read their books, go pay top dollar for their movies. The same can be done to the Dan Rathers and Peter Jennings of the world. I know I'm not the only one to have contacted some of the cable news stations regarding their obvious bias. Maybe one person cannot make a difference...but I know I am not alone in thinking this way and if enough people write/call etc and demand integrity and personal accountability in reporting...we might just get it.

Just my .02

Edited to add: Most important....I believe we in America MUST continue to support our Military in their actions. Our will needs to remain strong in support of the brave Men and Women fighting to defeat the terrorists and not back down ever, despite the reporting that takes place.

Roycroft201

04-12-2004, 19:08

From a book that I am currently reading.....

"Of greater concern to the governments of the region (ASEAN)is growing popular antipathy for the United States. Already the Muslims in Southeast Asia believe the war on terror is really a war on Islam. Second, they are infuriated with the hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy, as the United States embarked on a diplomatic course of action against North Korea. As Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohammed remarked:"The fact that North Korea's open admission that it has weapons of mass destruction has met with only mild admonishment by the West seems to prove that indeed it is a war against Muslims and not against the fear of possession of weapons of mass destruction by the so-called rogue countries." He warned that the "attack against Iraq will simply anger more Muslims who see this as being anti-Muslim rather than anti-terror." As prone to rhetoric at Mahathir is, he was accurately reflecting the sentiments of the majority of Southeast Asians. "

from Militant Islam in Southeast Asia: Crucible of Terror by Zachary Abuza

Comments ?

brownapple

04-12-2004, 22:59

Originally posted by Roycroft201
He warned that the "attack against Iraq will simply anger more Muslims who see this as being anti-Muslim rather than anti-terror." As prone to rhetoric at Mahathir is, he was accurately reflecting the sentiments of the majority of Southeast Asians. "

from Militant Islam in Southeast Asia: Crucible of Terror by Zachary Abuza

Comments ?

I can't say much for Muslims. I can say something for Southeast Asians. Just plain bullshit. To claim those were the sentiments of the majority of Southeast Asians is just purely rhetoric. Few Southeast Asians see North Korea as a threat, but a rather large percentage have reasons (with Bali, events in Southern Thailand, and events in the Phillipines as illustration) to believe that terrorism is a threat.

Cherrycat

04-13-2004, 03:27

Originally posted by Gypsy
Great article Jimbo.

Solid, IMHO the media always has and always will try to affect the outcome of many things including the GWOT with their own personal bias or spin (most not all..) The constant comparison to Vietnam for example...it makes me ill. I watched a special last night after Band of Brothers on THC, about the Screaming Eagles, and one COL (I apologize I missed his name) said...We did not lose, we left. (referring to the pull out from the region) This is NOT Vietnam...

The spin on words, tone of reporting etc feeds too many people that cannot or will not chose to employ critical thinking skills or educate themselves on any number of issues. The media intentionally (I believe) chooses sound bites to back up their spin, give coverage to all the negativity instead of reporting many positive things going on esp. as it relates to the WOT and I believe they give aid to the BG in their zeal to "report the truth" and malign the current Administration. (Yes I realize good news "doesn't sell" but that doesn't make it right)

That said, I believe We the People can and should hold them to responsible reporting. Think about the hollyweird types that denounce our Country as the Great Satan and reap the backlash from those that vehemently disagree with their politics...boohoo for them...citizens spoke out. Refusing to buy their music, read their books, go pay top dollar for their movies. The same can be done to the Dan Rathers and Peter Jennings of the world. I know I'm not the only one to have contacted some of the cable news stations regarding their obvious bias. Maybe one person cannot make a difference...but I know I am not alone in thinking this way and if enough people write/call etc and demand integrity and personal accountability in reporting...we might just get it.

Just my .02

Edited to add: Most important....I believe we in America MUST continue to support our Military in their actions. Our will needs to remain strong in support of the brave Men and Women fighting to defeat the terrorists and not back down ever, despite the reporting that takes place.

There is no war that can match another. Every day is another advancment. From the mounted horseman to Kevlar.

As a medic, I look at some of the crap we can do to keep people alive and it almost worries me. I think that just fading out in the sand might be a bit easier than some of that crap that people have to fight for just to stay alive.

We cannot measure any war against another, our understanding of what war is is different: Body counts, Land controlled, Women won?

Even Afganistan and Iraq are different, Warlords vs Oppressed groups. Buildup was different because of Kuwait. Iraq had a higher military budget.

When we go into Iran or Syria, it will be another list of differences.

QRQ 30

04-14-2004, 10:41

It seems to me that that Islam has declared war on the world. WWIII may be just over the horizon. They have kidnapped people from 12 different nations. I think they mis-calculated. Spain crumpled but Italy, Japan and some East Europaen Countries haven't and won't. They lived under Stalin and did not lose their national pride.

Terrorists are now attacking civilians to include the press corps billeted in the Sheraton Hotel. Keep it up ragheads, sooner or later the press will re-evaluate their stand and realize who the real Bad Guys are.

My theory is that the WTC was a mistake on the terrorist's part and they now realize it. They can nip and pick at the bear but a vast attack like the WTC only angers the public into demands for action.

It may not be too long before we start to see mosques, world wide, go up in smoke. Just an opinion.

NousDefionsDoc

04-23-2004, 07:14

Michigan City Approves Muslim Call to Prayer Broadcast

By Sarah Pollak
CBN News Reporter

April 22, 2004

Muslims say the public call to prayer is like the sound of church bells.

CBN.com â€“ (CBN News) - The Muslim call to prayer can now be blared over loudspeakers in a Detroit suburb. The city council of Hamtramck, Michigan, has given preliminary approval to allow the prayers at a local mosque.
From now on, five times a day, the Muslim call to prayer will sound in the quiet Polish-Catholic town. The issue to allow the prayers has been divisive, to be sure.

Some see it as a religious issue. They say, "Watch Muslim people... They're ignorant," or "I think it is simple... Don't bring it up as a religious issue."

Others say the broadcast is just too plain noisy. One resident complained, "I got to sleep sometimes." Another, "I am going to be forced to listen to this."

Muslims say the public call to prayer is like the sound of church bells. But the city council has spoken. The prayers can be broadcast, but they will be monitored.

Rob Cedar, a resident who voted for the ordinance, said, "We are allowing it to happen because it is religious freedom. But we are also regulating it because it is a sound issue, or a noise issue."

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/040422d.asp

lrd

04-23-2004, 08:32

"Terror on the dole"
By David Cohen, Evening Standard
20 April 2004

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/londonnews/articles/10329634?version=1

NousDefionsDoc

06-22-2004, 18:14

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina40622.htm

Quote:
The following message was emailed by Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad the director of London School of Islamics.

London School of Islamics
Email: info@londonschoolofislamics.org.uk
www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

Islamophobia

Islamophobia and Arabophobia has been part of western culture since the Crusades, with Saddam and Osama only the latest in a long line of Arab bogeymen. The real reason for the current spate of Islamophobia is the fact that Islam has been the fastest growing religion in the world and as such poses a threat to the West. This is happening inspite of widespread misconceptions and negative media portrayed of Islam.

Prejudice against Islam in the West developed due to historic rivalry of Christianity against Islam. The defeat of Christians by the Muslims in Crusades was a big shock for the Christian world. These deep wounds are still so fresh in the Christian world today that the parents, media, politicians and teachers feel it a duty to nurture the feelings of prejudice against Islam in the hearts and minds of their young generations. According to Runnymede Trust, Britain has become “an institutionally Islamophobic” society in which Muslims are demonised. Hostility towards Muslims is still a major problem and is not being taken seriously enough by race relations bodies. According to Dr. Richard Stone, there is now renewed talk of a clash of civilizations, a new global cold war, and mounting concern that the already fragile foothold gained by Muslim communities in Britain is threatened by ignorance and intolerance. According to John Gieve of the Home office, Islamic extremism might be a “symptom of disaffection”. The same disaffection previously surfaced during the riots that shook Oldham and Bradford in 2001.

Jews and Christian scholars, the so called Western Orientals have always tried to mispresent Islam in their writings. They have always tried to spread baseless lies against Islam in a very authentic and scholarly style, hiding their deep rooted hatred against Islam. They have called all efforts to restore pure Islam in Muslim countries as “fundamentalist movements” against modern-day material progress and economic development. Lacy O’Leary in the book “Islam at the cross road”: “history makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated.” Even Gandhi refuted the false propaganda, otherwise, one could not find even a single Hindu or non-Muslim in the Indian sub-continent and on top of that Sikhism could not dare to emerge as a religion. India would be the largest Muslim country in the world. In the 20th century new images emerged, the fanatical terrorist, the stone-thrower and the suicide bomber. According to Lord Carey, there was a deep-rooted Islamophobia in Britain . There is a worrying ignorance of Muslim people and suspicion of their presence in the United Kingdom. It is assumed by many that Muslims wish to take over ‘our country and if we allow them to enter Britain in significant numbers they will in time make the country Islamic’.

Mr. Denis MacShane, the Minister for Europe urged British Muslims to adopt the “British norms” and not the way of the “terrorists”, in other words “Islamic way”. He provoked Muslims to choose between the “British way” and the way of terrorism.” Monica Ali’s, who was mis-educated and de-educated by the British education system, portrays Bangladeshi Muslims in Brick Lane as backward, uneducated and unsophisticated. This is the main reason why her book was selected for Guardian First Book Award. The content of the book is a despicable insult to Bengali Muslims at home and abroad. The book can be compared to Salman Rushdie’s Stanic Verses. The combined forces of racial discrimination and Islamophobia have been awesome in the marginalisation and alienation of the Muslim community. Muslims made to feel like an enemy within by Islamophobic attitudes. Hardening prejudice against Islam is creating a dis-affected underclass of young Muslims “time-bombs” likely to explode into violence, according to a recent report. Life for Britain 1.6 million Muslims has never been easy. For decades they have struggled in the face of discrimination in all walks of life. West is not based on Judio-Christian civilisation. This term should be abandoned to be replaced by Judio-Christian-Islamic civilisation. The new language should be used in all venues starting with media, academic statements by politicians, church leaders and Imams of Masajid. These are the words that define how we are related to each other’s.

Through out the modern history, Muslims have contributed for the Renaissance of Western culture and society. Islamic values are not only compatible with the western values they are almost identical.Islamic ideas helped shape the European West that produced the values cherished by the constitution’s framers. Western culture is infact based on Muslim culture. The aim of education is to give the highest possible standard in order to advance spiritually, emotionally, technologically and economically. The early Muslim knew this and they were instrumental in giving the west much of the scientific knowledge that has once helped it to thrive.

Bernard Shah once said that the future religion of the West would be Islam and only Islam. Islamophobia is guiding Westerners towards that end. They study with open mind the Holy Quran and Islamic literature and poetry. Islam is a force fighting Imperialism. Read the greatest book of revolution: The Holy Quran. Meet the greatest revolutionary of all times: Muhammad (peace be upon him). In America a great number of universities, colleges and schools are offering Islamic Studies courses. There is a possibility that in the near future half of native population would revert to Islam. In fact Islamophobia is a blessing in disguise.

Iftikhar Ahmad

Roguish Lawyer

06-22-2004, 18:16

MartyrMakinaphilia

Airbornelawyer

06-22-2004, 18:48

Let us stipulate that everything Mr. Ahmad says is true. He is still addressing the wrong audience. While some do, most Westerners do not need to be reminded that Islam has a glorious tradition that is intertwined with the Western experience and has indelibly influenced our philosophy, science and culture. Everytime we imbibe alcohol while studying algebra, we are reminded.

It is Muslims, frankly, that need to be reminded that there is an open and tolerant tradition in the Islamic world that must be allowed to flourish if civilization there is to be saved. We have seen how the more open and tolerant tradition, respectful of the individual, triumphed over narrower strands within Christianity and Judaism. Let them find this tradition and strengthen it in the face of the narrower, backward-looking strains of Islam.

Instead of making excuses for Muslims to Western audiences, they should be demanding action against the radicals in the Islamic world. We are not the ones who need to be told Islam can be a peaceful religion - the "Arab street" is.

And even if it is not true - if Islam is fundamentally different in its approach to the power of reason and individual liberty than Christianity - they can still say it. Let them create a new dogma.

Jimbo

06-22-2004, 19:28

Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
It is Muslims, frankly, that need to be reminded that there is an open and tolerant tradition in the Islamic world that must be allowed to flourish if civilization there is to be saved. We have seen how the more open and tolerant tradition, respectful of the individual, triumphed over narrower strands within Christianity and Judaism. Let them find this tradition and strengthen it in the face of the narrower, backward-looking strains of Islam.

...And even if it is not true - if Islam is fundamentally different in its approach to the power of reason and individual liberty than Christianity - they can still say it. Let them create a new dogma.

Amen to that.

ghuinness

06-22-2004, 19:33

meanwhile....systematic genocide by a radical Islamic regime in the Sudan.

NousDefionsDoc

06-22-2004, 19:51

Let us stipulate that everything Mr. Ahmad says is true.

The defeat of Christians by the Muslims in Crusades was a big shock for the Christian world.

Airbornelawyer

06-22-2004, 20:09

OK, so somebody doesn't like stipulatin'

Then please elaborate on which statement or statements you disagree with:

1. The Christians were defeated in the Crusades.

2. The Christians were defeated by the Muslims.

3a. Defeat in the Crusades was a big shock for the Christian world.

3b. Defeat by the Muslims was a big shock for the Christian world.

Team Sergeant

06-22-2004, 22:19

Trust me AL, I cannot stand the arabs and it has nothing to do with the fact hundreds of years ago there was a battle.

It might stem from the fact they are cowards that murder innocent people to gain media attention.
And their masses do nothing.

It might be the fact they recruit and use children as bombs.
And their masses say nothing.

It might be that their religious leaders place “death orders” on writers heads because they wrote a book. And their masses find this acceptable.

It might be because I watch as young muslim children laugh and help mutilate the burnt bodies of people they do not even know.
And their masses find this suitable behavior.

It might be the fact they enslave people by the thousands and rule through fear and intimidation in almost all predominately muslin countries.

It might be that the trillion dollars of oil they are sitting on has corrupted their religion beyond belief.

It might be that most women do not wish to be treated as a piece of furniture by some arab male.

Trust me, my disgust for the arabs and the islamic religion has nothing to do with a battle fought hundreds of years ago.

Iftikhar Ahmad can go and fuck himself.

Roguish Lawyer

06-23-2004, 09:30

Well put, Team Sergeant.

NousDefionsDoc

06-23-2004, 11:01

Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
OK, so somebody doesn't like stipulatin'

Then please elaborate on which statement or statements you disagree with:

1. The Christians were defeated in the Crusades.

2. The Christians were defeated by the Muslims.

3a. Defeat in the Crusades was a big shock for the Christian world.

3b. Defeat by the Muslims was a big shock for the Christian world.

I don't really know anything about the Crusades, but if the Muslims won, why is Spain a Catholic country and not Muslim?

Solid

06-23-2004, 11:34

NDD,
the crusades were primarily fought in the Holy Land (and on the route to it... although that was less Holy War and more Rape and Pillage). The Moors managed to settle in Spain, and were only kicked out a lot later on. I don't think the Spanish eviction of the Moors is considered part of the original Crusades.

Solid

Roguish Lawyer

06-23-2004, 11:52

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I don't really know anything about the Crusades, but if the Muslims won, why is Spain a Catholic country and not Muslim?

Here comes the history lesson from AL . . . :munchin

CommoGeek

06-23-2004, 11:55

Originally posted by Solid
NDD,
the crusades were primarily fought in the Holy Land (and on the route to it... although that was less Holy War and more Rape and Pillage). The Moors managed to settle in Spain, and were only kicked out a lot later on. I don't think the Spanish eviction of the Moors is considered part of the original Crusades.

Solid

Correct.

Here is a thumbnail about the Moors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors

The Moors were a seperate issue from the Crusades.

Airbornelawyer

06-23-2004, 12:14

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I don't really know anything about the Crusades, but if the Muslims won, why is Spain a Catholic country and not Muslim? The mission of the Crusades was not to defend Europe from Islamic armies. It was to recapture the Holy Lands from the infidels and to save the Eastern Church. That mission failed. In fact, the Crusaders own depredations weakened the Eastern Church and Empire. Though Constantinople itself held off until falling to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, the Empire was a shadow of itself and there was no sufficiently powerful central authority to prevent the schisms of the Eastern churches. And while a few small Crusader kingdoms and castles held out, the Holy Lands were in Muslim control until the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

One could argue that the ultimate benefits still inured to the West (though one could make a similar argument that Germany and Japan "won" by losing World War II): The Arab armies were ultimately victorious, but were so weakened that their emirates were easy prey for the Turkic and Mongol invasions. This also facilitated the Reconquista.
The church in Rome was strengthened as the main religious authority in the West (even after the Reformation, Protestant churches tend to define themselves by their differences with the Holy See, and could care less about the Patriarchate of Constantinople).
While strengthened as a religious authority, the secular authority of the Church was pretty much destroyed by the Crusades. Local kings and princes were strengthened, advancing the rise of the European state system which gave Europe much of its strength and came to dominate the political landscape of the world.
During the Dark Ages, the West had been almost completely cut off from the East. After the Crusades, trading ties remained open, and everything from spices to Aristotelian philosophic treatises flowed West.
The Muslim world's dominance of the Eastern trade routes led the Western kingdoms to search for alternatives, which flowered into the Age of Discovery. Henry the Navigator, Vasco da Gama, Columbus, Magellan and others would open new routes to Asia's treasures, and find new lands to conquer.There are counterarguments to some of these - notably whether some of these, such as the rise of the secular nation-state, would have developed notwithstanding the Crusades. And of course, the later Crusades in Europe proper, divorced from the original goals set forth at the Council of Clermont, weakened southeastern Europe and opened the door for the Ottoman conquest.

Solid

06-23-2004, 12:14

El Alhambra is really spectacular, both architecturally and in terms of... plumbing. Compare it to Christian works of the same period and the difference in quality and clarity of method is astonishing.

/hijack

Solid

Airbornelawyer

06-23-2004, 12:23

The Crusades did have an effect on the Reconquista. In the early days, the wars in Iberia were local conflicts between various Muslim emirs and Christian lords, with Christians such as El Cid even serving in Muslim armies, and with Muslim emirates often fighting other Muslims. To the extent there was an overriding ideology on the Christian side, it was more secular - reestablishing the Visigothic kingdom. After the Crusades bagan, though, the Reconquista assumed a more explicitly religious character (unfortunately for the Jews most of all), and the various alliances consolidated into more straightforward Muslim vs. Christian lines. Also, knightly orders were formed for the fight, non-Spanish kingdoms sent aid, and veterans of the fights in the Holy Land arrived, bringing their fervor with them.

The Reconquista eventually succeeded in 1492, but it took almost eight hundred years.

Solid

06-23-2004, 12:28

Compared to eight of campaigning. :D

CommoGeek

06-23-2004, 13:26

Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
After the Crusades bagan, though,

I found an error! I found an error! AL made a mistake! Hooray for me! He IS human.....

:D

Solid

06-23-2004, 13:33

What are you talking about? That's how you spell bagan!
You must be mistaken...

Solid

Adam White

06-23-2004, 19:43

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... with Saddam and Osama only the latest in a long line of Arab bogeymen.
...

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=bogeyman&x=11&y=17
Main Entry: bo·gey·man
Variant(s): also bo·gy·man /'bu-gE-"man, 'bO-, 'bü-, 'bu-g&r-/
Function: noun
1 : a monstrous imaginary figure used in threatening children

???

He isn't suggesting that we are IMAGINING that these people are anything but stellar world leaders, is he?

rwt_bkk

07-10-2004, 12:30

This is a long post because it is the entire translated message of the lastest from their mouth. HOWEVER read the whole thing through. A bit laborous but gives you what they are thinking and it ain't good....

The Mujahidin's Roadmap
The Abu-Hafs al-Masri Brigades (Al-Qa'ida) [Translated by (redacted)],

01 Jul 04

Our aims in the coming stage:

1. To enlarge the circle of the struggle by distributing the
operations all over the world. To drag the United States into a third
quagmire, that is after Iraq and Afghanistan, and let it be Yemen, Allah
willing. We said this in our statement of 20 Muharram 1425 Hegira,
corresponding to 11 March 2004. We tell the Abu-Ali al-Harithi Brigade:
The leadership has decided that Yemen should be the third quagmire for the
idol of the age, the United States, and to punish the renegade agent
government that comes second after Musharraf.

2. Undermine the investor's confidence in the US economy.

3. Expose the Crusader-Zionist scheme.

4. Scatter and exhaust the enemy.

After these steps comes the role of the anticipated strike that will
make the United States yield or break its will and leave its agents so that
we can settle accounts with them. The convoy will then move to Jerusalem,
Allah willing. Some might think this unlikely or doubt it, but we are
confident of Allah's victory and that Allah defends those who believe. For
those who put their trust should put their trust in Allah [Koranic verse]
after considering the causes that we have. God has not ordered us to do
more than that.

To our martyrs:

Among the believers are men who have been true to their covenant with
Allah; of them some have completed their vow (to the extreme), and some
(still) wait: But they have never changed (their determination) in the
least. [Koranic verse]

[Words indistinct] paradise to you, Allah willing. Your chaste bodies
pave for us the road of jihad and from your noble blood will come the
fragrance of pride and success. With your words we remember the Hereafter
and they soften our [word indistinct] catastrophes.

May Allah have mercy on you and accept you with the martyrs and the
righteous ones.

Our dead are in paradise and their dead are in hell.

To our prisoners:

We have not and will not forget you and we will not rest until we get
you out of imprisonment, Allah willing, leaders and soldiers without
exception. The enemy will pay a heavy price until you return to us proud
and noble.

Every Muslim has to work for your release and the best way for doing
so is to kidnap the largest number of the enemy everywhere. This is the
only way that the enemy understands.

Al-Izz Bin-Abd-al-Salam, may Allah have mercy on his soul, said:

"Saving Muslim prisoners from the infidels' hands is one of the best
virtues." Some ulema said: "If one Muslim is captured, it is our duty to
fight them until we rescue him from their hands." So think of the many
Muslims, including women and children, they have captured, as the infidels
themselves admit.

We do not accuse Muslims or Muslim societies of unbelief. It is for
their sake that we came out to defend them and want them to have security
and peace, but not at the expense of disobeying Allah. We were ordered to
fight jihad and make Allah's word above all so as to get the infidel out of
our land, release our prisoners, and rule with what He has revealed. We
follow the Sunna and nation course, the course of the Companions whom the
Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, died pleased
with, the course of the first three centuries. No one can say no to jihad
today, for as the Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him,
said: Jihad continues until the Day of Judgment. Let the people know that
there are two kinds of jihad. One is the quest jihad [jihad talab] -- there
are conditions for it and it is the one about whom the sultans' ulema and
the sons of the submissive Islamic movements talk. The other jihad is the
thrust jihad [jihad al-daf], which has no condition apart from faith.

One who becomes a Muslim now and fights an enemy before performing one
prayer enters paradise, by the Grace of Allah, as reported in the Hadith.

O Muslims, beware the enemy's lies as he tries to depict the mujahidin
as criminals who understand nothing of Allah's religion.

What do we want from the Crusaders:

These operations will not cease until Bush, his gangs, his Arab,
non-Arab, and Jewish lackeys review their policies toward Islam and Muslims,
which are summed up as follows:

To release our prisoners in US prisons, especially the Guantanamo
prisoners, the mujahid Shaykh Umar Abd-al-Rahman, and those in the prisons
of America's Arab, non-Arab, and Jewish lackeys.

To cease their war on Islam and Muslims all over the world in the name
of fighting terrorism.

To cleanse all Muslim lands from the desecration by the Jews,
American, and Hindus, including Jerusalem and Kashmir.

That the United States and its allies do not interfere in the Muslims'

affairs politically, economically, socially, and culturally and do not
prevent the establishment of the state of Islam.

That the Crusader West does not intervene between the Muslims and
their apostate rulers.

Our strategy with the enemy is:

Allah the Exalted and Sublime says: "O ye who believe! Persevere in
patience and constancy; vie in such perseverance; strengthen each other; and
fear Allah; that ye may prosper.

The enemy can be patient but cannot persevere. We, with our faith,
creed, and love for meeting Allah, can persevere until the enemy collapses,
even if this takes decades or centuries. We are tasked to fight them until
victory of martyrdom.

An excuse and a warning:

To the European people. You have only few days left to accept the
peace [sulh], otherwise you have only yourselves to blame.

To the Muslims living in the West, anyone among you who can immigrate
to the lands of Muslims let him do so. Anyone who cannot do so, let him be
on his guard by living in the Muslims' areas, have enough food for himself
and his family for one month, have the means to defend himself and his
family, leave in the house enough money for one month or more, and pray more
and seek the help of Allah.

Do not blame us for what is going to happen. We apologize to you
beforehand if you are to be among the dead.

Short messages:

To the Arab and non-Arab agents of Bush: Who will stop the coming
waves of death. Let it be between us, America, and you and the Jews and
will be saved.

To Kerry: You threaten us with war and this is our answer:

By Allah, we fight them a war that will make the child's hair turn
gray before the old.

To Sharon: We are going to cut off America's rope that is giving you
the strength and then destroy the Arabs protecting you. Then we will not
find it difficult to slaughter you like sheep.

To Tenet: You will need more than five years to confront us, that is,
if you had remained for five years.

To the US Senate: Sorry for disturbing you on 4-2-2004, but we needed
to test the (Ricin) on some persons. We will need to return to you, but
this time not for testing.

To Bush: You who entered Iraq on a dark night like a rat out of fear
of the mujahidin; your black days have not yet come. Remember when you shed
tears in September. What is coming will make you shed blood, by the Grace
of Allah.

Summary:

The Americans, Jews, and the Crusader West are our enemies and they
are combatants. They must be killed wherever they are caught. Arabs and
Muslims who support them are considered to be like them and must be killed
because they are apostates.

Palestine should not be partitioned no matter how things are. It is a
Muslim waqf and no one has the right to dispose of it.

Combat is today the individual duty of every Muslim man and woman, as
the ancestor ulema agreed. If the enemy enters a single inch of the
Muslims' land, then it becomes the Muslims' duty to fight until they get the
enemy out. Let a million or more die in the battlefield and let those
remaining live in dignity and freedom as this is better than having [words
indistinct] die in the dialogue and humiliation field and the remaining ones
live in humiliation and be the slaves of the Christians and Jews.

The United Nations is a crusader's establishment that legislates for
the humiliation of Muslims, the strikes on them, and their fragmentation.
Its funds and the blood of everyone who works in it are sanctioned to every
Muslim.

The Muslim's blood, possessions, and honor are proscribed, except for
those who betray Allah and His Messenger, as the shari'ah explains.

The conclusion:

The defense [al-ismah] is in the sword!

The defense is in the sword!

Amen, amen, amen.

Allah Is Great, Allah Is Great. Islam is coming,

The Abu-Hafs al-Masri Brigades (Al-Qa'ida)

Thursday, [word indistinct] Jumada al-Awwal 1425 hegira, corresponding
to 1 July 2004.

NousDefionsDoc

07-11-2004, 14:13

Six people attacked a young mother on a surburban Paris train, chopping off her hair and scribbling swastikas on her stomach in what leaders denounced Sunday as growing anti-Semitism.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/07/11/international1520EDT0509.DTL

QRQ 30

07-11-2004, 14:22

Back to the original question. IMO we are at war with UBL and other extremists who are using Islam as a rallying point along with their Middle Eastern culture.

We are not at war with Islam per se.

NousDefionsDoc

07-26-2004, 15:30

The War that Dare Not Speak Its Name
The battle is against militant Islam, not “Terror”

By Andrew C. McCarthy EDITOR'S NOTE: The following is adapted from a speech given last month at the annual conference of the University of Virginia School of Medicine's Critical Incident Analysis Group (CIAG). The theme of this year's CIAG conference was "Countering Suicide Terrorism: Risks, Responsibilities and Realities."

At any gathering of analysts, academics, and law-enforcement officers who specialize in counter-terrorism, it certainly is appropriate that we should focus on risks, responsibilities, and realities. My question, though, is whether we have the order backwards. Our most urgent imperative today is the need to confront reality. Only by doing that can we get a true understanding of the risks we face and our responsibilities in dealing with them.What reality am I talking about?

Well, we are now well into the third year of what is called the "War on Terror." That is the language we all use, and it is ubiquitous. The tabloids and the more prestigious journals of news and opinion fill their pages with it. The 24-hour cable television stations are not content merely to repeat "War on Terror" as if it were a mantra; they actually use it as a floating logo in their dizzying set designs.

Most significant of all, the "War on Terror" is our government's top rhetorical catch-phrase. It is the way we define for the American people and the world — especially the Islamic world — what we are doing, and what we are about. It is the way we explain the nature of the menace that we are striving to defeat.

But is it accurate? Does it make sense? More importantly, does it serve our purposes? Does it make victory more identifiable, and hence more attainable? I humbly suggest that it fails on all these scores. This, furthermore, is no mere matter of rhetoric or semantics. It is all about substance, and it goes to the very core of our struggle.

Terrorism is not an enemy. It is a method. It is the most sinister, brutal, inhumane method of our age. But it is nonetheless just that: a method. You cannot, and you do not, make war on a method. War is made on an identified — and identifiable — enemy.

In the here and now, that enemy is militant Islam — a very particular practice and interpretation of a very particular set of religious, political and social principles.

Now that is a very disturbing, very discomfiting thing to say in 21st-century America. It is very judgmental. It sounds very insensitive. It is the very definition of politically incorrect. Saying it aloud will not get you invited to chat with Oprah. But it is a fact. And it is important both to say it and to understand it.

We have a rich and worthy tradition of religious tolerance in America. Indeed, in many ways our reverence for religious practice and tolerance is why there is an America. America was a deeply religious place long before it was ever a constitutional democracy. That tradition of tolerance causes us, admirably, to bend over backwards before we pass judgment on the religious beliefs and religious practices of others. It is an enormous part of what makes America great.

It led our government, within hours of the 9/11 attacks, to announce to the world that Islam was not and is not our enemy. Repeatedly, the president himself has said it: "The 19 suicide terrorists hijacked a great religion." The message from all our top officials has been abundantly clear: "That's that; Islam off the table; no need to go deeper."

But we have the ostrich routine way too far. A commitment in favor of toleration is not the same as a commitment against examination. We have been so paralyzed by the fear of being portrayed as an enemy of Islam — as an enemy of a creed practiced by perhaps a billion people worldwide — that we've lost our voice on a very salient question: What will be the Islam of the 21st century? Will it be the Islam of the militants, or the Islam of the moderates? That's the reality we need to grapple with.

Let's make no mistake about this: We have a crucial national-security interest in the outcome of that struggle. We need the moderates to win. And here, when I speak of moderates, I am not talking about those who merely pay lip service to moderation. I am not talking about those who take advantage of America's benign traditions and our reluctance to examine the religious practices of others. I am not talking about those who use that blind eye we turn as an opportunity to be apologists, enablers, and supporters of terrorists.

I am talking about authentic moderates: millions of Muslims who want an enlightened, tolerant, and engaged Islam for today's world. Those people need our help in the worst way. They are losing the battles for their communities. The militants may not be a majority, but they are a vocal, aggressive minority — and they are not nearly as much of a small fringe as we'd like to believe.

As an assistant U.S. attorney, time and time again I heard it over the last decade, from ordinary Muslims we reached out to for help — people we wanted to hire as Arabic translators, or who were potential witnesses, or who were simply in a position to provide helpful information. People who were as far from being terrorists as you could possibly be. "I'd like to help the government," they would say, "but I can't." And it was not so much about their safety — although there was, no doubt, some of that going on. It was about ostracism.

Repeatedly they'd tell us that the militant factions dominated their communities. These elements were usually not the most numerous, but they were the most vocal, the best networked, the best funded, and the most intimidating. Consequently, people whose patriotic instinct was to be helpful could not overcome the fear that they and their families could be blackballed if it became known that they had helped the United States prosecute Muslim terrorists. The militants had the kind of suasion that could turn whole communities into captive audiences.

This is no small matter. Events of the last decade, throughout the world, are a powerful lesson that the more insular and dominated communities become, the more they are likely to breed the attitudes and pathologies that lead to terrorist plots and suicide bombings. It's true that suicide bombers seem to defy precise psychological profiling; they come from diverse economic and educational backgrounds — the only common thread seems to be devotion to militant Islam. But while we have not had success predicting who is likely to become a suicide bomber, it is far easier to get a read on where suicide bombers and other terrorists will come from. They come from communities where the militants dominate and those who don't accept their beliefs are cowed into submission.

SAVING OURSELVES, SAVING ISLAM
That militant Islam is our enemy is a fact. That it is the object of our war is a fact. That we need to empower real moderates is a fact. And we need to talk about these facts.

We are not helping the authentic moderates if we avoid having the conversation that so needs to be had if the militants hiding in the weeds we've created are going to be exposed and marginalized. If we fail to be critical, if we fail to provoke that discussion, it will continue to be militants who hold positions of influence and who control indoctrination in communities, madrassas, prisons, and other settings where the young, the vulnerable, and the alienated are searching for direction.

For ourselves too, and for the success of our struggle, we need to be clear that the enemy here is militant Islam. If we are to appreciate the risks to our way of life, and our responsibilities in dealing with them, we need to understand that we are fighting a religious, political and social belief system — not a method of attack, but a comprehensive ideology that calls for a comprehensive response.

In the 1990s, our response, far from being comprehensive, was one-dimensional. We used the criminal justice system. As an individual, I am very proud to have been associated with the good work done in that effort. Yet, if we are going to be honest with ourselves — if we are truly going to confront reality — as a nation, we'd have to call it largely a failure.

We have learned over the years that the militant population is large — maybe tens of thousands, maybe more. Certainly enough to staff an extensive international network and field numerous cells and small battalions that, in the aggregate, form a challenging military force. Nevertheless, in about a half dozen major prosecutions between 1993 and 2001, we managed to neutralize less than three-dozen terrorists — the 1993 World Trade Center bombers; those who plotted an even more ghastly "Day of Terror" that would have destroyed several New York City landmarks; the Manila Air conspirators who tried to blow U.S. airliners out of the sky over the Pacific; those who succeeded in obliterating our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; and the would-be bombers of Los Angeles International Airport who were thwarted just before the Millennium celebration.

In these cases, we saw the criminal-justice response at its most aggressive, operating at a very high rate of success. Every single defendant who was charged and tried was convicted. As a practical matter, however, even with that rate of efficiency, we were able to neutralize only a tiny portion of the terrorist population.

Now, however, combining law enforcement with the more muscular use of military force — the way we have fought the battle since September 11 — we are far more effective. Terrorists are being rolled up in much greater numbers. They are being captured and killed. Instead of dozens being neutralized, the numbers are now in the hundreds and thousands.

But I respectfully suggest that this is still not enough, because it doesn't necessarily mean we are winning.

NousDefionsDoc

07-26-2004, 15:30

WAR OF IDEAS
When I was a prosecutor in the 1980s, it was the "War on Drugs" that was all the rage. We would do mega-cases, make mega-arrests, and seize mega-loads of cocaine and heroin. It made for terrific headlines. It looked great on television. But we weren't winning. Neighborhoods were still rife with narcotics traffickers and all their attendant depravity. And there was the tell-tale sign: The price of drugs kept going down instead of up. We said we were at war, but with all we were doing we were still failing to choke off the supply chain.

Now I see another version of the same syndrome, and if we don't talk about Islam we will remain blind to it — to our great detriment. To understand why, all we need to do is think for a moment about the cradle-to-grave philosophy of Hamas. Yes, what blares on the news are suicide bombings that slaughter scores of innocents. But look underneath them, at what Hamas is doing day-to-day. They don't just run paramilitary training for adult jihadists. They start from the moment of birth. From infancy, hatred is taught to children. They learn to hate before they ever have a clue about what all the hatred is over. At home, in mosques, in madrassas, in summer camps — dressed in battle fatigues and hoods, and armed with mock weapons — it is fed to them.

And Hamas is not nearly alone. A funding spigot has been wide open for years. We are better about trying to shut it down than we used to be, but we're not even close to efficient yet. And even if we were to shut it down tomorrow, there are hundreds of millions — maybe more — already in the pipeline. Dollars that are contributed and controlled by the worst Wahhabist and Salafist elements. Those dollars are funding hatred. Hatred and the demonization of human beings simply because of who they are.

Some suggest that our situation might benefit from making accommodations — policy concessions that might mollify the militants and miraculously change their attitude toward us. But let's think about a five-year-old Muslim boy who has already gotten a sizable dose of the venom that is found in the madrassas and the Arabic media.

I can assure you that that five-year-old kid does not hate American foreign policy in the Persian Gulf. He does not hate the intractable nature of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. What he hates is Jews. What he hates is Americans. It is in the water he drinks and the air he breathes. Sure, as he grows, he'll eventually be taught to hate American foreign policy and what he'll forever be told is the "Israeli occupation." But those abstractions are not the source of the child's hatred, and changing them won't make the hatred go away — the hatred that fuels the killing.

When I say I worry that we could lose this struggle against militant Islam that we keep calling the "War on Terror," it is that fuel and that hatred I am talking about. We have the world's most powerful, competent military — it can capture and kill large numbers of terrorists. With the help of our law-enforcement and intelligence agencies — especially cutting off funding and cracking down on other kinds of material support — our unified government can make a sizable dent in the problem. It can give us periods like the last two years when there have been no successful attacks on our homeland — although it is hard to take too much comfort in that once you look at Bali, or Casablanca, or Istanbul, or Baghdad, or Madrid.

Yes, we can have temporary, uneasy respites from the struggle. We cannot win, however, until we can honestly say we are turning the tide of the numbers. The madrassas are like conveyor belts. If they are churning out more militants in waiting than we are capturing, killing, prosecuting, or otherwise neutralizing, then we are losing this war.

It's not enough to deplete the militants' assets. We need to defeat their ideas, and that means marginalizing their leaders. That means talking about how Islam assimilates to American ideals and traditions. It means making people take clear positions: making them stand up and be counted — and be accountable — not letting them hide under murky labels like "moderate".

As far as recognizing what we're really up against here, the terrorism prosecutions of the 1990s were a powerful eye-opener. We saw up close who the enemy was and why it was so crucial to be clear about it. Those cases are generally thought to have begun with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing — a horror that oddly seems mild compared to the carnage we've witnessed in over a decade since. Yet, while that attack — the militants' declaration of war — began the string of terrorism cases, it was not really the start of the story.

That actually began years earlier. The men who carried out the World Trade Center bombing spent years training for it, mostly in rural outposts remote from Manhattan — like Calverton, Long Island, western Pennsylvania, and northern Connecticut. There, they drilled in shooting, hand-to-hand combat, and improvised explosive devices. From about 1988 on, they were operating here, and saw themselves as a committed jihad army in the making.

They were fully convinced that their religion compelled them to brutality. And unlike us, they had no queasiness: They were absolutely clear about who their enemy was. They did not talk in jingos about the "War on Freedom," or the "War on Liberty." They talked about the War on America, the War on Israel, and the War on West. They were plainspoken about whom they sought to defeat and why.

Their leader was a blind Egyptian cleric named Omar Abdel Rahman, the emir of an international terrorist organization called the "Islamic Group." This was a precursor of al Qaeda, responsible for the infamous 1981murder of Anwar Sadat for the great crime of making peace with Israel. Abdel Rahman continues to this day to have a profound influence on Osama bin Laden; his sons have been linked to al Qaeda, and one of bin Laden's demands continues to be that America free the "Blind Sheikh," who is now serving a life sentence.

Abdel Rahman laid out the principles of his terror group — including its American division — with alarming clarity: Authority to rule did not come from the people who are governed; it came only from Allah — a God who, in Abdel Rahman's depiction, was not a God of mercy and forgiveness, but a God of wrath and vengeance, and a God single-mindedly consumed with the events of this world. For the Blind Sheikh and his cohorts, there would be no toleration for other religions or other views. There was militant Islam, and there was everybody else.

All the world was divided into two spheres — and it is very interesting how those spheres were referred to: the first was Dar al Islam, or the domain of the Muslims; the second was Dar al Harb. You might assume that Dar al Harb would be the domain of the non-Muslims. It is not. It is instead the domain of war. The militants perceive themselves as in a constant state of war with those who do not accept their worldview.

Sometimes that war is hot and active. Sometimes it is in recess while the militants take what they can get in negotiations and catch their breath for the next rounds of violence. But don't be fooled: the war never ends — unless and until all the world accepts their construction of Islam.

As Abdel Rahman taught his adherents — and as the bin Ladens, the Zawahiris, and the Zarqawis echo today — the manner of prosecuting the never-ending war is jihad. This word is often translated as holy war; it more closely means struggle.

We hear a lot today from the mainstream media about jihad. Usually, it's a happy-face jihad, congenially rendered as "the internal struggle to become a better person," or "the struggle of communities to drive out drug peddlers," or "the struggle against disease, poverty and ignorance." In many ways, these reflect admirable efforts to reconstruct a very troubling concept, with an eye toward an Islam that blends into the modern world.

But let's be clear: these are reconstructions. Jihad, in its seventh-century origins, is a forcible, military concept. I realize politesse frowns on saying such things out loud, but one of the main reasons it is so difficult to discredit the militants — to say convincingly that they have hijacked a peaceable religion — is this: when they talk about this central tenet, jihad, as a duty to take up arms, they have history and tradition on their side. As Abdel-Rahman, the influential scholar with a doctorate from the famed al-Azhar University in Egypt, instructed his followers: "There is no such thing as commerce, industry, and science in jihad.... If Allah says: 'Do jihad,' it means jihad with the sword, with the cannon, with the grenades, and with the missile. This is jihad. Jihad against God's enemies for God's cause and his word."

So rich is the military pedigree of this term, jihad, that many of the apologists concede it but try a different tack to explain it away: "Sure, jihad means using force," they say, "but only in defense — only when Muslims are under attack." Of course, who is to say what is defensive? Who is to say when Muslims are under attack? For the militants, Islam is under attack whenever anyone has the temerity to say: "Islam — especially their brand of Islam — is not for me." For the militants who will be satisfied with nothing less than the destruction of Israel, Islam is under attack simply because Israelis are living and breathing and going about their lives.

Simply stated, for Abdel Rahman, bin Laden, and those who follow them, jihad means killing the enemies of the militants — which is pretty much anyone who is not a militant. When your forces are outnumbered, and your resources are scarce, it means practicing terrorism.

NousDefionsDoc

07-26-2004, 15:31

Abdel Rahman was brazen about it. As he said many times:
Why do we fear the word terrorist? If the terrorist is the person who defends his right, so we are terrorists. And if the terrorist is the one who struggles for the sake of God, then we are terrorists. We have been ordered to terrorism because we must prepare what power we can to terrorize the enemy of God. The Quran says the word "to strike terror." Therefore, we don't fear to be called terrorists. They may say, "He is a terrorist. He uses violence. He uses force." Let them say that. We are ordered to prepare whatever we can of power to terrorize the enemies of Islam.

It is frightening. But, as this makes clear, it is not simply the militants' method that we are at war with. We are at war with their ideology. Militant Islam has universalist designs. That sounds crazy to us — we're from a diverse, tolerant, live-and-let-live culture. It's hard for us to wrap our brains around a hegemonic worldview in the 21st Century. But if we are going to appreciate the risk — the threat — we face, the reality is: it matters much less what we think about the militants than what they think about themselves.

The militants see terrorism as a perfectly acceptable way to go about achieving their aims. When they succeed in destroying great, towering symbols of economic and military might; when with a few cheap bombs detonated on trains they can change the course of a national election; it reinforces their convictions that their designs are neither grandiose nor unattainable. It tells them that their method of choice works, no matter what we may think of it.

Making our task even more difficult is the structure of Islam. As Bernard Lewis and other notable scholars have observed, there are no synods, and there is no rigorous hierarchy. There is no central power structure to say with authority that this or that practice is heresy. There is no pope available to say, "Sheik Omar, blowing up civilians is out of bounds. It is condemned."

So how does the conduct become condemned? How do we turn the tide? Naturally, only Muslims themselves can cure Islam. Only they can ultimately chart their course; only they can clarify and reform where reform is so badly needed.

There is much, however, that we can do to help. It starts with ending the free ride for the apologists and enablers of terrorists. We need to be more precise in our language. We are not at war with terror. We are at war with militant Islam. Militant Islam is our enemy. It seeks to destroy us; we cannot co-exist with it. We need to defeat it utterly.

We seek to embrace moderate Muslims; to promote them, and to help them win the struggle for what kind of religious, cultural and social force Islam will be in the modern world. "Moderate," however, cannot just be a fudge. It needs to be a real concept with a defined meaning.

What should that meaning be? Who are we trying to weed out? Well, last year, the distinguished Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes proposed a few questions — a litmus test of sorts. Useful questions, he said, might include: Do you condone or condemn those who give up their lives to kill enemy civilians? Will you condemn the likes of al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah by name as terrorist groups? Is jihad, meaning a form of warfare, acceptable in today's world? Do you accept the validity of other religions? Should non-Muslims enjoy completely equal civil rights with Muslims? Do you accept the legitimacy of scholarly inquiry into the origins of Islam? Who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks? Do you accept that institutions that fund terrorism should be shut down?

To be sure, we should have no illusions about all this. We are never going to win every heart and mind. Asking these questions and questions like them, though, would provoke a very necessary conversation. It could begin to reveal who are the real moderates, and who are the pretenders. It could begin to identify who are the friends of enlightenment and tolerance, and who are the allies of brutality and inhumanity. It could begin the long road toward empowering our friends and marginalizing our enemies. Finally, it could make the War on Militant Islam a war we can win — for ourselves and for the millions of Muslims who need our help.

Andrew C. McCarthy, a former chief assistant U.S. attorney who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, is an NRO contributor.

Roguish Lawyer

07-26-2004, 15:43

Good stuff, NDD. Thank you.

NousDefionsDoc

07-27-2004, 08:43

Originally posted by ghuinness in General Discussions:

THE WORLD SITUATION - A LETTER TO MY SONS was written by a retired attorney, to his sons, May 19, 2004.

Dear Tom, Kevin, Kirby and Ted,

As your father, I believe I owe it to you to share some thoughts on the present world situation. We have over the years discussed a lot of important things, like going to college, jobs and so forth. But this really takes precedence over any of those discussions. I hope this might give you a longer term perspective that fewer and fewer of my generation are left to speak to. To be sure you understand that this is not politically flavored, I will tell you that since Franklin D. Roosevelt, who led us through pre and WWII (1933 - 1945) up to and including our present President, I have without exception, supported our presidents on all matters of international conflict. This would include just naming a few in addition to President Roosevelt - WWII: President Truman - Korean War 1950; President Kennedy - Bay of Pigs (1961); President Kennedy - Vietnam (1961); [1] eight presidents (5 Republican & 4 Democrat) during the cold war (1945 - 1991); President Clinton's strikes on Bosnia (1995) and on Iraq (1998). [2] So be sure you read this as completely non-political or otherwise you will miss the point.

Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means. First, let's examine a few basics:
1. When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11th, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us: Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983; Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988; First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998; Dar es Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998; Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000; New York World Trade Center 2001; Pentagon 2001. (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide). [3]

2. Why were we attacked? Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

4. Who were the attackers? In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

5. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%

6. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful? Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm). Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the 6 million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way - their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else.. [5] The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing - by their own pronouncements - killing all of us infidels. I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with? There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting. So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions. We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is: We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly to terrorist attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them. We would of course have no future support from other nations for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent and cannot help them.

NousDefionsDoc

07-27-2004, 08:43

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do, will be done. Spain is finished. The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast. See the attached article on the French condition by Tom Segel. [6]

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war and therefore are completely committed to winning at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win. So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by imploding. That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war. For the duration we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently. And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then. Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening, it concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.

And still more recently the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of an American prisoner they held. Compare this with some of our press and politicians who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners - not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them. Can this be for real? The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned - totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into all non-Muslims - not just in the United States, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant'. That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We can't. If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the World will survive if we are defeated. And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the Press, equal rights for anyone - let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the World.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I believe that after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it.

Love,
Dad

Source for statistics in Par. 1 is http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

The Institute of Islamic Information and Education. http://www.iiie.net/Intl/PopStats.html

There are 64 Muslim countries. This does not count countries like Spain that are controlled by the Muslim terrorists.

The Reaper

07-27-2004, 09:58

Concur completely.

As has already been stated, the best response to terrorist demands is to do the opposite thing.

If they want you out, double your force. If they want to be publicized, refuse to cover them or their stories. If they kidnap people, redouble your efforts to capture their leadership.

These are hard times coming, and they are going to call for drastic measures.

Frankly, I agree that we do not currently have the stomach for it. After they hit us a few more times, I think that we will. We are afraid to show the 9/11 videos on TV, but we let Michael Moore spew his filth and lies. I have a better idea. Maybe we should make a feature film about the terrorists, their supporters, their apologists in the US, and their actions, showing the consequences. I think your average American should see the other side for a change. 3,000 dead Americans, kids buried alive, people crusjhed and burned to death, leaping smouldering, hundreds of feet from burning buildings, having their throats slashed in the cabins, billions in damage, and we are still afraid to face the reality because it might offend people? Please America, wake up!

TR

Solid

07-27-2004, 10:02

TR-
I think we have a slight problem in that whereas the muslim world is more or less ethnically homogenous (well, one big split but still), whereas the US has many non-terrorist/sympathetic muslim communities that may be jeapordized if a film is made about terrorism.

Just a consideration, otherwise I agree completely.

Solid

rwt_bkk

07-27-2004, 10:53

WELL SAID NousDefionsDoc!
As I said earlier the proper question is: Is Islam at war with us? The answer is yes. Islam can probably be divided into four camps.
1. What we would call Radical Islam.
2. Those who quietly support their goals and give of their time and money to the cause.
3. Those who say or do nothing
4. Those who are opposed to Radical Islam.

Unfortunately I think about 70% are in groups 1,2 and 3. There is not only a war against us but against Islam as well. Make no mistake as the radicals attack us they gain in strength and sway over mainstream Islam. There was a time when a lot of Muslim governments used them as weapons of convenience just to tweak us. But now these same instruments are seeking to topple the governments that secretly supported them. And in doing that they are gaining more recruits not only against those who ruled in injustice but the supporters of those govenments (us). The Islamic governments of the world are only supporting us in the war on terror because the realization has finally come home that these people want there heads and will not be content until they accomplish a complete destruction of these regimes.

They have correctly read and played to our weaknesses. Can we close them in time? I pray that we will.

Keep it oiled and ready - it ain't over yet

NousDefionsDoc

07-27-2004, 11:22

I didn't say it, a lawyer did. ghuinness had already posted it in Gen Dis and I didn't see it.

Sigi

07-27-2004, 19:56

The McCarthy speech and the Letter from Dad were very informative, as was the post by rwt_bkk.

We need to change our thinking - fast. I don't see it happening in time. Very scary.

ghuinness

07-28-2004, 10:59

This is a fairly long article and over a year old. I first heard it last year. Asked NDD if it was okay to post.

Here is the link rather than adding the entire text: link (http://www.shea-king.com/RadioShows/CaseForWar.html)

Excerpt:
After the consolidation phase of this war is complete, with the destruction of the Taliban and occupation and reform of Iraq, then we will go onto the offensive and begin to strike at the deeper core of the problem. Part of that will be to force reform on Saudi Arabia, through a combination of diplomacy, persuasion, subversion, propaganda and possibly even military force.

What this shows is just how deeply I disagree with many who oppose this war. I am forthrightly proposing what some might call cultural genocide. The existing Arab culture which is the source of this war is a total loss. It must be shattered, annihilated, leaving behind no more traces in the Arab lands than the Samurai left in Japan or the mounted knights left in Europe.

I am forthrightly stating that it will be necessary to destabilize the entire middle east, which puts me exactly counter to European foreign policy. No Band-Aid will do. It isn't possible to patch things up with diplomacy because the rot runs too deep. Diplomacy now would be treating the symptoms and not the true disease.

NousDefionsDoc

08-03-2004, 11:09

I was reading over this, its a really good thread. Very good points made all around.

2VP

08-03-2004, 22:03

From a northern perspective it doesn't appear that anyone anywhere is posing the result of losing. The general populace are generally a bunch of automatons and if the majority of the news agencies started doing stories on how their way of existing will be altered for the worse then I think the people would get on board for the long haul. The education of the masses about their enemy should be orchestrated without haste to the extent that draconian measures can be exacted on the enemy without little disapproval from the people. In the Untouchables Sean Connery said to the effect "they put 2 of your men in the hospital you put 2 of theirs in the morgue." I think serious consideration should be asked as to whether winning hearts and minds is even possible.

brownapple

08-03-2004, 23:38

Originally posted by rwt_bkk
Islam can probably be divided into four camps.
1. What we would call Radical Islam.
2. Those who quietly support their goals and give of their time and money to the cause.
3. Those who say or do nothing
4. Those who are opposed to Radical Islam.

I think this is a pretty good breakdown, however, I'm not sure I agree with your numbers.

Groups 1 & 2 I think comprise about 20-30% of Islamic believers, with a high percentage of them located in the Middle-East.
Group 4 I think also comprises 20-30% of Islamic believers, with the high percentages located in non-Islamic countries.
Group 3 is the swing group, and makes up 50-70% of all Islamic believers, and I think a very large % of those in countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and Morocco.

Solid

08-04-2004, 02:54

Would you agree that groups 3 and 4 make declaring a war on Islam or any rhetoric which may be interpreted that way, as counter productive?

Solid

NousDefionsDoc

08-04-2004, 07:38

Originally posted by 2VP
From a northern perspective it doesn't appear that anyone anywhere is posing the result of losing. The general populace are generally a bunch of automatons and if the majority of the news agencies started doing stories on how their way of existing will be altered for the worse then I think the people would get on board for the long haul. The education of the masses about their enemy should be orchestrated without haste to the extent that draconian measures can be exacted on the enemy without little disapproval from the people. In the Untouchables Sean Connery said to the effect "they put 2 of your men in the hospital you put 2 of theirs in the morgue." I think serious consideration should be asked as to whether winning hearts and minds is even possible.

Good idea for a spin off I think. Good points.

2VP

08-04-2004, 07:59

I am humbled sir.

Team Sergeant

08-04-2004, 08:34

Originally posted by Sigi
We need to change our thinking - fast. I don't see it happening in time. Very scary.

Weâ€™re not going to change our thinking, the terrorists will do that for us, but only after another catastrophic and horrific attack perpetrated against the people of the United States.

The attack is coming and I believe the terrorists will kill thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of Americans. Itâ€™s only a matter of time until one of these cowards figures out a way to accomplish this task on our soil, again.

Until then you can bet we will continue to tolerate islamic intolerance directed at the people of the United States from within our very borders.

As Iâ€™ve said before, this is a battle of ideologies and it will continue until one side is vanquished.

Team Sergeant
(Infidel)

2VP

08-04-2004, 09:58

I find it hard to believe that with over 3000 lost in one act in such a grand spectacle that it will take more death. I could understand that if it happened to Canada but you would think that 9/11 wouldn't need to be upscaled for further action. Also with the massive centralization of finances, food, and fuel you would think there would be greater diligence.

Jimbo

08-04-2004, 12:18

Originally posted by Team Sergeant
Weâ€™re not going to change our thinking, the terrorists will do that for us, but only after another catastrophic and horrific attack perpetrated against the people of the United States.

The attack is coming and I believe the terrorists will kill thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of Americans. Itâ€™s only a matter of time until one of these cowards figures out a way to accomplish this task on our soil, again.

Until then you can bet we will continue to tolerate islamic intolerance directed at the people of the United States from within our very borders.

As Iâ€™ve said before, this is a battle of ideologies and it will continue until one side is vanquished.

Team Sergeant
(Infidel)

Time for the obligitory Jimbo 'All we have to do is leverage the close populations against them' post. The trick is creating the leverage.

I will now use three more buzzwords:
synergy
paradigm
zelocity

NousDefionsDoc

08-04-2004, 12:22

"close" populations?

Jimbo

08-04-2004, 12:28

Fancy way of me saying 'Lets make the Arabs/Maghrebs/Indonesians/Pashtuns beat them down instead of us.'

Team Sergeant

08-04-2004, 12:56

Originally posted by Jimbo
Fancy way of me saying 'Lets make the Arabs/Maghrebs/Indonesians/Pashtuns beat them down instead of us.'

Exactly but those â€œclose populationsâ€ have a whole different reason to â€œbeat them downâ€ (al-quada) as they share the same basic ideology.

Somewhere I wrote the biggest mistake OBL has made, to date, was to take on the saudi ruling family. They now will destroy him if possible only because he directly threatens their rule. The saudi ruling family could give a shit less if OBL screws with anyone else, even their own people.

Same with Pakistan, they have capitulated and help the American cause only for two reasons, money and because OBL directly threatens president Mâ€™s rule (and life).

The other countries will not help stamp out terrorism because OBL has not threatened their dictatorships, yet. If and only if that happens do I foresee any assistance from these other rouge nations.

Jimbo

08-04-2004, 13:15

Originally posted by Team Sergeant
Exactly but those â€œclose populationsâ€ have a whole different reason to â€œbeat them downâ€ (al-quada) as they share the same basic ideology.

I'm going to tread dangerously close to D9's lane in the road on this, but AQ's ideology is not shared by many. Their ideology is largely influenced by and slightly derivitive of Marxism. In fact, the Concept of 'the base' is the same as the Marxist 'Vanguard' concept that was the result of the COMINTERN.

The Arab governments that flirted with the ideas of Nationalism were largely Marxist-Socialist in orientation. The failure of Arab nationalism, coupled with the Israeli victory and...one more thing I'm forgetting at the moment, contributed to this nebulous concept of 'Arab shame' which some (not me) has driven so many intot he ranks of AQ. This association with a fairly low point in Arab history has led many in the region to reject, out of hand, Marxist associated ideologies.

pulque

08-06-2004, 13:45

Last night I read The Trouble with Islam : A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith by Irshad Manji. It is searingly critical of the Muslim faith worldwide, for allowing themselves to be dominated by tribal desert arabia Islam. She goes very deep into history, and the Koran, and critisizes Islam for having a poor sense of "the other" and for lacking an intellectual self-criticizing mechanism.

She praises President Bush for helping free political prisoner Saadeddin Ibrahim in Egypt (2002), a gesture the likes of which helps to show US committment to democracy in other parts of the world. To paraphrase her, arab populations are quite willing to fight each other, and they dont really need that much leverage to do it.

:munchin

Solid

08-10-2004, 11:18

Jimbo, just finished Understanding Terror Networks. The resemblance between AQ (specifically) and the Bolsheviks is startling.
One question I didn't feel was adequately answered in the book, and I suppose might be answered by reading the transcripts of the conversations in Hamburg and Montreal, is- how did the religious views of the members of the 'Bunch of Guys' cliques evolve to Salafism without external input? Or did their 'weak' links with Salafists (community members, the girl with connections to the Roubaix gang etcetera) gradually inject Salafism into their pool of conversation and thereby lead them to Salafism?

Thank you, and thanks for recommending the book,

Solid

Jimbo

08-10-2004, 12:06

Originally posted by Solid
how did the religious views of the members of the 'Bunch of Guys' cliques evolve to Salafism without external input?

I think their views did get external support. Specifically in the mosque and the adjacent bookstore.

Solid

08-10-2004, 12:10

I wasn't sure because he didn't describe the Mosque as being particularly Salafist, and the books and tapes are uni-directional, not interactional. Makes sense, though.
Thank you,

Solid

Jack Moroney (RIP)

08-10-2004, 12:20

Originally posted by Team Sergeant
Exactly but those â€œclose populationsâ€ have a whole different reason to â€œbeat them downâ€ (al-quada) as they share the same basic ideology.

Somewhere I wrote the biggest mistake OBL has made, to date, was to take on the saudi ruling family. They now will destroy him if possible only because he directly threatens their rule. The saudi ruling family could give a shit less if OBL screws with anyone else, even their own people.

Same with Pakistan, they have capitulated and help the American cause only for two reasons, money and because OBL directly threatens president Mâ€™s rule (and life).

The other countries will not help stamp out terrorism because OBL has not threatened their dictatorships, yet. If and only if that happens do I foresee any assistance from these other rouge nations.

Sounds like, IMHO, that what we are really seeing is an insurgency within Islam where those that want to establish rule according to their beliefs are doing whatever is necessary to overthrow those currently in power. Their organization is not unlike a classic uw operation where the terrorist organizations (overt guerrilla arm) are taking the fight directly to target sets, the underground folks are doing the financing/intell/other ops normally associated with covert underground ops not suitable for discussion here; and the auxillary (both witting and unwitting) are providing support and are operating supporting systems.
Operations against the non-islamic targets are providing them with status and gaining support for their cause when they are overtly attacked while simultaneously demonstrating that the current Islamic governments cannot defend the faith and are flawed. They are in no rush and will move in and eventually take over the corrupted governments of those Islamic states that fail to see the error of their ways. This is all being orchestrated by a government (albeit a loosely confederated one from several nations) in exile so that no one nation state provides a suitable target for retaliation. An oversimplification, but something to think about.

Jack Moroney

Jimbo

08-10-2004, 12:49

Sir,
There is an interesting book titled "Terrorâ€™s Mask: Insurgency Within Islam" written by Michael Vlahos of the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab. He has a couple of other interesting papers that I will post if I can relocate them in the morass that is my office.

Some of his other readings I recommend:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/101603A.html
http://www.scienceroundtable.com/110603A.html
http://homepage.mac.com/kia/politics/enemy.html

I guess this link is more useful: http://www2.techcentralstation.com/1051/searchauthor.jsp?Bioid=BIOVLAHOSMICHAEL

Guy

08-10-2004, 13:32

Are any of these individuals writing these books/articles even been on the ground in Iraq...much less in a combat AO?

Jack Moroney (RIP)

08-10-2004, 14:40

Originally posted by Jimbo
[B]Sir,
There is an interesting book titled "Terrorâ€™s Mask: Insurgency Within Islam" written by Michael Vlahos of the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab.

Thanks. A friend of mine just sent me a 7 page paper written by Vlahos that summarizies his work. Talk about timing.

Jack Moroney:D

Jimbo

08-10-2004, 15:07

Originally posted by Jack Moroney
Thanks. A friend of mine just sent me a 7 page paper written by Vlahos that summarizies his work. Talk about timing.

Jack Moroney:D

That's his new paper. Hard to get one's hands on. He has an older one, from about 2002, that is really excellent. He was one of the first gringo authors to put forth the idea of the GWOT being the result of a internal Muslim struggle.

Maya

08-10-2004, 15:54

Jack,

Would you make the paper available for review please? Is it a digital file?

Thanks,

Maya

Team Sergeant

08-18-2004, 08:57

Just as with the islamic children dancing around and poking mutated American bodies and there was NO muslin/islamic outcry condemning these actions there are no counter editorials condemning the cry for jihad against the Americans.

There is no islamophobia coursing through my veins, just the opposite, bring it on.

Team Sergeant

The Washington Times:

Commentary: Oozing venom and jihad

By Arnaud de Borchgrave
UPI Editor at Large

Washington, DC, Aug. 16 (UPI) -- Expose the subversive activities of Islamist extremists around the world or in the United States, and speedy CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) pops up with accusations of Islamophobia.

Before Abdurahman Alamoudi, a U.S. citizen and prominent leader of Washington's Muslim community, confessed to a Libyan-funded assassination plot, CAIR denounced his detractors as Muslim-bashers. CAIR suddenly fell silent when Alamoudi plea-bargained with the United States for a lighter sentence, in the range of a quarter of a century, instead of life for his part in a plot by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi to assassinate Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah.

It would behoove CAIR to care more about an institutional memory called MEMRI -- The Middle East Media Research Institute -- and read or listen to what it plucks daily from Islam's airwaves.

Recent samples:

-- "I say to you the American people, according to the Koran ... your lives are lost, you will collapse, and America will collapse." (Friday Sermon at Tehran U. titled "America will collapse).

-- "The liberated Western woman works more with her breasts than with her hands, dancing in brothels. ... Where are the lies about her liberation and the honor accorded her?" (Friday Sermon in Medina, Saudi Arabia).

-- "From the day civil strife began in Islam, the Jews were behind it. There is no evil in the world that the Jews were not behind. (Saudi Sheikh Abd Al-Qader Hammad's sermon titled "A Muslim is not allowed to open his Heart to the enemy of Allah").

-- "The Jews are behind all moral corruption and perverse thinking. This is a putrid history whose stench is sickening (Friday sermon in Bahrain titled "Treachery Runs in the Jews' Blood").

-- "Why do your brethren want to perform martyrdom operations? Why are there so many martyrs among us? Because we are a nation graved with Allah's mercy. Because with every Shahid (martyr), Allah saves 70 of his family members who had been destined for the fires of Hell (Sheikh Abu Hamza Al-Masri in Jordan).

-- "The Jews in France go back to the history of the Holocaust and Auschwitz and use these events to gain sympathy. But the magic of these events is gone." (Day of Solidarity with Al-Manar TV titled, "Yes, Our Discourse Is Anti-Semitic.).

-- "Bush's crimes are a direct continuation of Hitler's genocide. By controlling and censoring the news about the war in Iraq, the U.S. prevented the publication of information regarding its chemical and biological bombardment of Iraq" (Iranian TV news commentary).

Pakistan, promoted major non-NATO ally (MNA) by the Bush Administration, has an Urdu-language press that also oozes venom daily:

-- "Allah has told us to make atom bombs. America is telling us not to. Who should we listen to O Muslims, Allah or America? Jihad, jihad, jihad is the answer" (Mohammed Ishaq, one of leaders of MMA, six-party politico-religious coalition).

-- "I have come here because my duty is to tell you that Muslims should not rest in peace until we have destroyed America and India" (Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, chief of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, at Jamia Ghousia mosque, Rawalpindi).

-- "We pray Iraqis will continue to resist American tyranny and terror, and we believe victory will come to them. ... The invasion was motivated by U.S. designs to grab the oil of the Iraqi people and enslave them" (Masood Azhar, chief of Jaish-e-Mohammad).

-- "We have the nuclear capability that can destroy ... Tel Aviv. Washington cannot stop suicidal attacks. Taliban are still alive, and with their friends they will continue the holy war against the U.S." (Qazi Hussain Ahmed, president MMA, Islamabad)

-- "There are thousands ready to go to for Jihad, but they are waiting for a request from Taliban. ... (Pakistani President Pervez) Musharraf is playing the role of an informer of the U.S., and Islam declares the death penalty on such people" (Senator Sami ul-Haq, MMA vice-President).

-- "The real war has just started. After Palestine and Afghanistan, Iraq will now give birth to more holy warriors. Who will free me from the clutches of Jews?" (Joint statement by Jaish-e-Mohammad, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Jamiat-ul-Mujahideen).

In most parts of the Muslim world, the war against global terrorism is viewed as a U.S.-Israel crusade, engineered by an alliance of neo-conservatives and the Christian Right, against Islam and the Muslims. Pictures and video of dead women and children during the siege of Fallujah; the Abu Ghraib prison pictures of U.S. Army guards humiliating Iraqi inmates; U.S. troops firing at Iraqi insurgents from behind headstones in the huge Shiite cemetery in Najaf, or forcing Iraqi civilians to lie face down in the street, hands behind their necks -- all have combined to a steady stream of hate-filled commentaries in Muslim newspapers and on Arab satellite TV channels.

With anti-U.S. feelings running high on Arab streets, Middle Eastern governments are reluctant to open the valves of reform lest newfound freedoms backfire against the regimes that initiate them. Reforms at this juncture could well promote the kind of radical elements they are intended to neutralize. Democracy, U.S.-style, has given reforms a bad name.

It is hard to escape the conclusion Iraq, during the past 18 months, has been a force multiplier for the kind of Islamist extremism that breeds more, not fewer, recruits for transnational terrorism.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040816-013605-6857r.htm

NousDefionsDoc

08-18-2004, 09:05

Anybody read Foreign Intelligence:Research and Analysis in the Office of Strategic Services 1942-1945 by Barry M. Katz?

There is some good stuff on re-vamping the German education system post-WWII in there and the problems the MG faced with getting rid of Nazism in German society. The German emigrees had some interesting thoughts, especially about the universities.

Solid

08-18-2004, 10:08

Do you think they managed to get rid of Nazism in German society?
The current culture there as personally experienced seems to hint at denial more than acceptance and moving on and preventing a reccurance. The same culture, again in my personal experience, exists in Japan. I think the question of whether the attempts to remove Nazism and Jingoism from German and Japanese socieities were respectively successful will only be answered by history.

Solid

The Reaper

08-18-2004, 10:30

Originally posted by Solid
Do you think they managed to get rid of Nazism in German society?
The current culture there as personally experienced seems to hint at denial more than acceptance and moving on and preventing a reccurance. The same culture, again in my personal experience, exists in Japan. I think the question of whether the attempts to remove Nazism and Jingoism from German and Japanese socieities were respectively successful will only be answered by history.

Solid

I see a lot more acknoweledgement and acceptance from the Germans, who have Death Camps as reminders, to the Japanese, who are still in denial and have tried to portray themselves as victims.

The German history books cover Nazism and WWII as a bad period in their history, the Japanese would like to pretend that era of Imperialism and expansion never occurred, and seek to blame others.

FWIW, the atrocities they committed on civilians were just as bad, and with respect to US POWs, infinitely worse than the Nazis.

TR

NousDefionsDoc

08-18-2004, 11:53

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm

mumbleypeg

08-18-2004, 13:35

What a long and great piece that is.

mumbleypeg

08-18-2004, 13:52

I have been coming back to the following article since it was written. I don't think it adresses the "Are we at war with Islam" question directly. It does however say that we are not alone in a war with extremists.

http://www.mafhoum.com/press2/63P58.htm

NousDefionsDoc

09-14-2004, 10:50

PARIS -- The accelerating number of ever-bloodier outrages committed in the name of Islam has produced a curious transatlantic split over how this religion is to be seen.

A plurality of Americans (46 percent) believes that Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence among its believers, according to a new survey released by the Washington-based Pew Forum on Religion and Pubic Life.

Yet more Americans take a positive than a negative view of Islam (39 vs. 37 percent). Meanwhile, European scholars interpret this result as a sign of "American naivitÈ" when it comes to judging the radical Muslim threat.

"This is in line with the tenor of 90 percent of the books on Islam currently oozing out of the United States," said Christine Schirrmacher, president of the Islamic Studies institute in Bonn, Germany.

"Every theologian over there seems to feel compelled these days to pen an apologetic tome on this religion, and almost all of these books are of questionably scholarship, except for those written by bona fide experts, who are often remarkably profound."

These sharp words are part of an astonishing phenomenon: In formerly "liberal" Europe, a radical turnaround in the public, scholarly and theological perception of Islam is underway, according to Schirrmacher and other specialists.

"People over here have come to believe that Islam is not comparable with Christianity," said the Rev. Hans Voecking, key Islamic affairs adviser to the Brussels-based Commission of European Catholic Bishops' Conferences.

Schirrmacher -- who is frequently traveling around the continent addressing a vast array of civic, military, police, foreign service and religious organizations -- observed amazing changes in her audiences' responses.

"It used to be that at every one of these events, some people would get up claiming that Muslims are much nicer and much more faithful than Christians with their history of crusades and inquisition.

"This is over," Schirrmacher went on. "Now I keep hearing: 'We must return to our Christian heritage.' You no longer hear the phrase, 'After all, aren't we all alike? Don't we all want the same?"

There will no doubt be mainstream media tut-tutting over this, but it is a necessary development, which even self-proclaimed moderate Muslims should welcome: how can they successfully reform Islam if no one will admit that anything about it needs reform?
Posted at September 14, 2004 10:09 AM
Comments

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003196.php

NousDefionsDoc

10-04-2004, 23:09

Anybody happen to see O'Reilly tonight? I don't watch it much, but he had a segment on with this very thread question. Sam Harris was the guest I believe.

casey

10-09-2004, 14:56

Lets see... small group of "zelots" hijack an established religion, follow a controversial leader, utilize the cornerstone book of said religion to base all "their" interpretations on how life should be lived, and finally, glorify the act of self sacrifice to reach paradise. Of course, I'm speaking about the Heavens Gate Cult that committed mass suicide some years ago.... what else would it be?
Yet we had no problem labeling them "misfits" and "crackpots" outright.

In my humble opinion, the question of "Are we at war with Islam" has already been answered. If a conservative estimate of the global muslim population is 1.27 Billion and "only" between 2 to 5% are considerd fundamentalist - thats a heck of a lot of people tellin' me - its on! We are not the one identifying this as a religious war, they are. Start by looking at how THEY identify themselves - supporters of the sharia, supporters of the sunna, islamic jihad, party of god, holy warriors, etc... "Allah Akbar" has now become synonymous with roadside IED's cranking off and beheadings - which is still taught in Saudi high school text books as a correct way to smite the non-believers. (Beheadings that is - although I haven't seen the 2004 text yet - this may contain an appendix for the IED part) Since OBL's fatwa to ABC newsman John Miller in Afghanistan we have not believed one simple fact - strict Sharia Law leaves only two options to the true hardcore jihadist CONQUER of KILL the kaffurs (non-believers).

NousDefionsDoc

10-12-2004, 09:12

Does what is happening in the Sudan change anybody's mind about "Are we at war with Islam"?

QRQ 30

10-12-2004, 09:22

Does what is happening in the Sudan change anybody's mind about "Are we at war with Islam"?

Nope!! We are at war with Islamic Terrorists who purport to be conducting a holy war. The operative word is "terrorist". I imagine they comprise about 1% of the Moslem faithful. IMO if you focus on religion you lose focus on the true enemy.

Roguish Lawyer

10-12-2004, 10:34

I think it's time for a poll.

The Reaper

10-12-2004, 10:37

I think it's time for a poll.

If you are at war with someone, and no one admits it, is it really a war?

TR

Roguish Lawyer

10-12-2004, 10:40

If you are at war with someone, and no one admits it, is it really a war?

TR

Excellent point!

casey

10-12-2004, 20:39

Nope!! We are at war with Islamic Terrorists who purport to be conducting a holy war. The operative word is "terrorist". I imagine they comprise about 1% of the Moslem faithful. IMO if you focus on religion you lose focus on the true enemy.

IMHO their (jihadist) ideology is crystal clear - Islam is the one true religion, and must be dominant over all. Terrorism is their methodology/modality of choice that pushes forth this religious ideology. It has worked well for them thus far. The common man/woman loses faith that his government can protect him/her and the appeasement begins (Spain comes to mind here). There is no jihadist secular or nationalistic cries for freedom or equality, only those sacred cries of Allah Akbar.

While I suspect that both our percentage numbers of true jihadists is low, is there any other religion, in present day, wherein 70%, 80%, 90% of their believers would remain mute and unwilling to condem killings, maimings, beheadings, and forced conversions, all in the name of Yahweh, Buddha, Christ, etc? I think even the Krishna's would step up to the plate (or Terminal B) on this one.

QRQ 30

10-13-2004, 06:57

Casey: It is not uncommon to see what you speak of right here in the US. Again, not religious but just plain apathy. People are beaten up, assulted and even killed while crowds of people stand-by as spectators. In most cases the percentage is close to 100%.

Martin

10-13-2004, 08:16

If you are at war with someone, and no one admits it, is it really a war?

TR

You will still die if you catch a bullet with your forehead, whether you admit your current state or not.

I fail to see the importance of your question.

The situation is analyzed and a response is thought out. If the threat, intensity of conflict or the adversary's political objective puts us into a position where war is a part of the solution, then that's just how it is.

Does that sound right to you?

Sacamuelas

10-13-2004, 08:51

Casey: It is not uncommon to see what you speak of right here in the US. Again, not religious but just plain apathy. People are beaten up, assaulted and even killed while crowds of people stand-by as spectators. In most cases the percentage is close to 100%.

I have to disagree Sir. Your example of two random people in the street fighting for unknown reasons verses a religiously condoned, religiously indoctrinated, and publicly encouraged act of blatant terrorism are completely different situations and don’t merit a comparison. Since you are using the USA in your example, let's look at one of the latest incidents involving a dominant religious ideology and subsequent dominant political power within the USA. The Catholic Church is a good one. Let’s look at the latest pedophile scandal.

Catholics from all over the country were outraged with the church's support/shelter/leniency that it provided to the scumbag priests who were perpetrating these acts. They didn't care one bit whether the "religious leaders" decided the acts were forgivable and were repented for by the scumbags according to religious principles and guidelines.

They (the everyday worshippers/citizens) withheld their money (donations), support, attendance, and demanded immediate action or else. Even though it was against the Vatican’s wishes and Catholicism, etc not to forgive and forget after the church confessional and punishment was given to the offenders, this outrage was expressed very publicly by the citizens.

Now, this was not a beheading, a suicidal explosive laden pig killing innocents, etc AND the people accused of doing this were not given aid, money, or considered martyrs for their action by the Church officials. They were punished and reprimanded (a little) by the church itself, and the act itself was considered and publicly admitted to be against church values and laws. Yet average everyday Catholic’s still felt that their religion was being tainted and demanded a more equitable punishment and controls be created and put in place to prevent another such tragedy. This was above and beyond what the "religious leaders" told them was right or needed according to the church law.

Where exactly is that type of reaction in the Muslim world especially in the middle east?