View Full Version : Why the Negativity?
Warrior-Mentor
09-28-2009, 05:58
Why the Negativity?
By Thomas Paine
September 27, 2009
Exposing the negative aspects of islam are a necessary evil. It’ s impossible to have an educated citizenry if they don’t have all the information available. Once our citizens have all the information – the good, the bad, the ugly – they can accept or reject sharia…because that’s what islam wants for America.
For instance, perhaps most Americans don’t care that Muhammed married a 6 year old and had sex with her when she was only 9. [1] But Americans still have the right to know.
Perhaps Americans don’t care that islam endorses men marrying pre-pubescent girls, impregnating them AND divorcing them. [2][See quran 65:4] But Americans still have the right to know.
Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Who gets to decide what we, the People, should know? On this, there is no middle ground. We, the People, have a right to know. Just because islam (sharia) says you can’t speak negatively doesn’t mean we have to follow that rule – even if you can’t discuss islam at the United Nations (Google “united nations free speech” – see what you find out).
John Stuart Mill said that “Truth…has to be made the rough process of a struggle between combatants fighting under hostile banners.” [3] Paraphrasing: this is not a feel-good exercise, this is a pitched battle for control of We - the People, and ultimately the world. The stakes are high and the competition is fierce. The real issue should be whether or not we are presenting the information that is useful to our citizens. The tone of that information should be a secondary issue at best.
Adapting an argument from Professor John G. Geer [4] Why are the islamists so troubled by negativity? “Any deliberative process usually benefits from having criticism and debate…this is why islam prohibits questioning any aspect of it [5] and even makes the study of philosophy illegal. [6] Politics is rough and tumble…and religion is inseparable from state in islam.
Why isn’t it thought of in those terms?
Because islam attempts to hide it's politics behind a veil of religion, some are afraid to discuss the topic.
Why are we worried about “civility” while discussing such barbaric traditions, laws and customs? If some aspect of islam’s record is alarming, is it not important to raise that concern in an attention grabbing fashion?
Shouldn’t the public understand the seriousness of the problem?
Negativity plays an important and under-appreciated role in democracies. In fact, the practice of democracy requires negativity. The give and take of democratic politics demands that we know the good and bad points of issues and challenges. The opposition is well suited to discuss the weaknesses of the other side.
Therefore, in order to learn about the risks and problems associated with challenges, we need the opposition, in effect to “go negative.” When going negative, advocates can actually advance the debate, not undermine it. This simple point seems forgotten in many discussions about the subject.
There is an asymmetry between negative and positive debate appeals. For a negative appeal to be effective, the advocate of that appeal MUST MARSHALL MORE EVIDENCE, on average, than for positive appeals.
The public, like our legal system, operates on the assumption of “innocent until proven guilty.” An advocate of a position cannot simply assert their opposition is evil or wrong. They must provide some evidence for that claim. Which is why I constantly footnote so many of my posts – especially when referencing Islamic law.
Bottomline: NEGATIVITY PROMOTES DEMOCRACY.
Negativity can advance and improve prospects for democracy. Without negativity, no nation can truly think of itself as democratic.
John Stuart Mill said it best:
If the dissenting opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth;
if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of the truth, produced by its collision with error.”
Criticism can increase the quality of information available to [people] as they make decisions. To make good decisions, people need to know the past record of islam to help understand what islam will propose and attempt to do in the future. A central part of that information involves understanding the shortcomings of the “religion.”
The bottom line is that criticism is important because We, the People, must have the right and ability to raise doubts about islam. Otherwise, the public does not have access to full information “about the relevant alternative civilization and their likely consequences.”
If the public wants to have accountability, someone has to do the accounting and that accounting is not done through positive, feel-good appeals, but through harsh political attack where people are made aware of the problems of islam.
ANY effort to curtail the negativity is far worse than enduring harsh rhetoric, since it means that the ability of the opposition to hold the other side accountable for their actions would be weakened.
If negativity ever happened to disappear from our intellectual debates, we can safely assume that so would our freedoms and any chance we have to lay claim to being a democratic nation.
________________________________
Thanks to John Stuart Mill, Professor John G. Geer and Stephen Marks who were the inspiration for this article and are paraphrased heavily throughout.
________________________________
FOOTNOTES:
1. Bukhari, vol. 5, book 63, no. 3896; cf. Bukhari, vol. 7, book 67, no. 5158.
2. “If you are in doubt concerning those of our wives who have ceased menstruating, know that the waiting period shall be three months. The same shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated.” See Quran 65:4.
3. See a summary of “On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill at: http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Outline_of_Great_Books_Volume_I/onliberty_cbe.html
4. “In Defense of Negativity” by Professor John G. Geer. Geer used political commentators, where I substituted islamists.
5. See “Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.” Book R, “Holding One’s Tongue,” Paragraph r20.0.
6. See “Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.” Book A, “Sacred Knowledge,” Paragraph a7.2(2).
7. John Stuart Mill in “On Liberty,” 79.
As a citizen of this Republic, I’m disappointed very few people are having dialogue about Islam except those of us who oppose it. The rest are just giving them whatever they want.
I feel we deserve to know the implications and the seriousness of this “Stealth Jihad” that’s taking place within our borders.
Last year I spent a fair amount of time with my daughter countering the skewed view of America, presented to her by her Muslim SS teacher - his main emphasis being the beauty of Shariah Law. A whitewashed view of Islam has crept into our children’s curriculum..
http://www.historytextbooks.org/islam.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6bARRmEpH8
But whose negativity is whose? And why is offering criticism a necessary evil? As I have neither the time nor desire to engage in what would assuredly become another overly lengthy e-debate on the theses of this editorial and its many leaps in logic - combined with such overtly negative language - which but lend themselves to challenge and criticism, I posit that histroical context is of great relevance when attempting to present any argument such as this one seeks to address, and will - therefore - only offer the following for those who may be interested in perhaps a better understanding of what Professor Telhami warns us of in his remarks to Congress:
It is primarily al-Qaeda and its allies as organizations that must be defeated. It is not terrorism broadly and it is not Islamism broadly.
<snip>
Given the deficient expertise in our bureaucracies in the languages, religions, and cultures of the Muslim world, we risk the chance of mistakes that could backfire, relying on locals who have their own agendas, and wasting precious resources. The strategy in the first place must remain focused on the operational and the logistical, not on what people say.
For instance, perhaps most Americans don’t care that Muhammed married a 6 year old and had sex with her when she was only 9. [1] But Americans still have the right to know.
Perhaps Americans don’t care that islam endorses men marrying pre-pubescent girls, impregnating them AND divorcing them. [2][See quran 65:4] But Americans still have the right to know.
At the time of Muhammad's birth, women in 7th century Arabia had few if any rights. Even the right of life could be in question, since it was not uncommon for small girls to be buried alive during times of scarcity. In the Qur'an, it is said that on Judgment Day "buried girls" will rise out of their graves and ask for what crime they were killed. Part of Muhammad's legacy was to end infanticide and establish explicit rights for women.
Islam teaches that men and women are equal before God. It grants women divinely sanctioned inheritance, property, social and marriage rights, including the right to reject the terms of a proposal and to initiate divorce. The American middle-class trend to include a prenuptial agreement in the marriage contract is completely acceptable in Islamic law. In Islam's early period, women were professionals and property owners, as many are today. Although in some countries today the right of women to initiate divorce is more difficult than intended, this is a function of patriarchal legislation and not an expression of Islamic values. Muhammad himself frequently counseled Muslim men to treat their wives and daughters well. "You have rights over your women," he is reported to have said, "and your women have rights over you."
Muhammad was orphaned at an early age. He once remarked that, "Heaven lies at the feet of mothers." As the father of four daughters in a society that prized sons, he told other fathers that, if their daughters spoke well of them on the Day of Judgment, they would enter paradise.
Beginning from the time of Muhammad's marriage to his first wife Khadijah, women played an important role in his religious career. According to Muslim sources, Khadijah was the first person Muhammad spoke to about his initial, terrifying experience of revelation. She consoled him and became the first convert to Islam. She remained a confidant and source of support throughout their entire marriage. Though men commonly took more than one wife in 7th Century Arabia, Muhammad remained in a monogamous marriage with Khadijah until her death, when Muhammad was in his fifties.
By then, Muhammad was working to establish a new community. In that context, over the next 10 years, he married several women. In some cases, these marriages occurred in order to cement political ties, according to the custom of the day. In some cases, the marriage provided physical and economic shelter to the widows of Muslims who had died or who had been killed in battle, and to the wife of a fallen foe. Of all his marriages, only one appears to have been controversial, and it was to the divorced wife of his adopted son.
Only one of his wives had not been previously married. Her name was Aisha, the daughter of one of his closest companions. Aisha was betrothed to Muhammad while still a girl, but she remained in her parents' home for several years until she reached puberty. Years later, when absent from Medina, Muhammad often recommended that, if religious questions arose, people should take them to his wife Aisha. After Muhammad's death, Aisha became a main source of information about Muhammad, and on medicine and poetry as well.
Aisha's assertion that Muhammad lived the Qur'an became the basis for Muslims ever since to emulate his example.
Muhammad's daughters also played an important and influential role, both in his life and in the establishment of Islam. Most notable was his daughter Fatima, who is still revered by all Muslims, particularly Shiite Muslims.
Following the Battle of Uhud (625), in which scores of male combatants died leaving unprotected widows and children, Muhammad and the Qur'an decreed that, in order to protect the orphans of such families, men might take up to four wives. The permission itself is surrounded with language that discourages the very thing it permits, saying that unless a man can treat several wives equally, he should never enter into multiple marriages. The usual supposition in the modern monogamous West-that Islam institutionally encourages lustful arrangements-is rejected by Muslims themselves as an ill-informed stereotype. At the same time, Muslim feminists point out that in various cultures at different economic strata the laws of polygamy have frequently operated to the clear detriment of women. Polygamy is an uncommon occurrence in the modern Muslim world.
Today, Islamic legal and social systems around the world approach and fall short of women's rights by varying degrees. Muslims themselves generally view Islam as progressive in these matters. Many Muslim feminists hold the view that the problems presently hindering Muslim women are those that hinder women of all backgrounds worldwide- oppressive cultural practices, poverty, illiteracy, political repression and patriarchy. There is a strong, healthy critique of gender oppression among Muslim feminist authors and activists worldwide.
It would be anachronistic to claim that Muhammad was a feminist in our modern sense. Yet the same present-day barriers to women's equality prevailed in 7th century Arabia, and he opposed them. Because in his own lifetime Muhammad improved women's position in society, many modern Muslims continue to value his example, which they cite when pressing for women's rights.
http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/index.shtml
Richard's $.02
__
BT
Warrior-Mentor
09-28-2009, 15:22
At the time of Muhammad's birth, women in 7th century Arabia had few if any rights. Even the right of life could be in question, since it was not uncommon for small girls to be buried alive during times of scarcity. In the Qur'an, it is said that on Judgment Day "buried girls" will rise out of their graves and ask for what crime they were killed. Part of Muhammad's legacy was to end infanticide and establish explicit rights for women.
Child Marriage. This photo wasn’t taken in the 7th Century.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lmw6-zrPSig/RfsbYW2jytI/AAAAAAAAANA/V9r-i8_MCu4/s400/child-bride-afghanistan.jpg
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c60bf53ef01156f2e5870970c-500wi
According to UNICEF, 57 percent of marriages in Afghanistan involve girls below sixteen years of age. [1][2]
Islam teaches that men and women are equal before God.
Stop. “The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man. The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third of the indemnity paid for a Muslim.” [3]
In fact, by Islamic law:
“The husband may forbid his wife to leave the home.” [4]
“Men are already destroyed when they obey women.” [5]
When a wife commits rebelliousness, he (her husband) “may hit her, but not in a way that injures her, meaning he may not break bones, wound her or cause blood to flow.” [6]
And “A husband possesses full right to enjoy his wife’s person (A: from the top of her head to the bottoms of her feet, though anal intercourse is absolutely unlawful) in what does not physically harm her.” [7]
It would be easy to go on, but you can already see that this is simply not the case – women aren’t equal under Islamic law.
Bottom line: Richard’s quote would only be correct if it was listed as “Islam teaches NON-MUSLIMS that men and women are equal before God.”
It grants women divinely sanctioned inheritance, property, social and marriage rights, including the right to reject the terms of a proposal and to initiate divorce.
Let’s look at just one of the rights listed above, marriage “rights.” For women in Islamic law Per Islamic law, the wife’s marital obligations include: “it is obligatory for a woman to let her husband have sex with her immediately when: a. he asks her, b. at home, c. and she can physically endure it. [8] But the wife does have the right to intercourse: “One should make love to one’s wife every four nights, as is fairest, since the number of wives on may have is four…” [9]
The American middle-class trend to include a prenuptial agreement in the marriage contract is completely acceptable in Islamic law. In Islam's early period, women were professionals and property owners, as many are today. Although in some countries today the right of women to initiate divorce is more difficult than intended, this is a function of patriarchal legislation and not an expression of Islamic values.
A reading of Book N “Divorce” in Reliance of the Traveller will show why this isn’t accurate. Islamic law is strictly derived from the Koran, sira and hadith. To say that Islamic law doesn’t reflect Islamic values simply isn’t correct. In fact, once scholarly consensus exists, the ruling becomes a part of sacred law – obligatory to obey and not lawful to disobey.[10] Further, “to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or add a verse that does not belong to it…” entails apostacy from islam. [11]
Muhammad himself frequently counseled Muslim men to treat their wives and daughters well. "You have rights over your women," he is reported to have said, "and your women have rights over you."
Muhammad was orphaned at an early age. He once remarked that, "Heaven lies at the feet of mothers." As the father of four daughters in a society that prized sons, he told other fathers that, if their daughters spoke well of them on the Day of Judgment, they would enter paradise.
Beginning from the time of Muhammad's marriage to his first wife Khadijah, women played an important role in his religious career. According to Muslim sources, Khadijah was the first person Muhammad spoke to about his initial, terrifying experience of revelation. She consoled him and became the first convert to Islam. She remained a confidant and source of support throughout their entire marriage. Though men commonly took more than one wife in 7th Century Arabia, Muhammad remained in a monogamous marriage with Khadijah until her death, when Muhammad was in his fifties.
Irrelevant. So what? He was a nice guy by only having one wife until he was 50? What has this got to do with our discussion?
By then, Muhammad was working to establish a new community. In that context, over the next 10 years, he married several women. [12] In some cases, these marriages occurred in order to cement political ties, according to the custom of the day. In some cases, the marriage provided physical and economic shelter to the widows of Muslims who had died or who had been killed in battle, and to the wife of a fallen foe. Of all his marriages, only one appears to have been controversial , and it was to the divorced wife of his adopted son.
This is the previously footnoted marriage to a 6 year old girl Aisha. But is suppose if you’re married at 9 years old, it’s not statutory rape. I know, I know – statutory rape didn’t exist back then. My point is, we – humanity – has evolved since then. Islam hasn’t. What was once good for islam will always be good for islam – for all time.
Only one of his wives had not been previously married. Her name was Aisha, the daughter of one of his closest companions. Aisha was betrothed to Muhammad while still a girl, but she remained in her parents' home for several years until she reached puberty. Years later, when absent from Medina, Muhammad often recommended that, if religious questions arose, people should take them to his wife Aisha. After Muhammad's death, Aisha became a main source of information about Muhammad, and on medicine and poetry as well.
Stockholm Syndrome anyone? [13]
“It had been recognized many years before and was found in studies of other hostage, prisoner, or abusive situations such as:
- Abused Children
- Battered/Abused Women
- Prisoners of War
- Cult Members
- Incest Victims
- Criminal Hostage Situations
- Concentration Camp Prisoners
- Controlling/Intimidating Relationships”
Clearly Aisha, a young and impressionable young girl subjected to years of abuse, fits several of these categories.
Aisha's assertion that Muhammad lived the Qur'an became the basis for Muslims ever since to emulate his example.
Now there’s an example to follow:
Pedophile. An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children. [14] Already discussed with Aisha.
Statutory Rape. Sexual intercourse by an adult with a person below a statutorily designated age. [15]
Psychopath. A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse. [16] “The Prophet cut off the hands and feet of the men belonging to the tribe of Uraina and did not cauterise (their bleeding limbs) till they died.” [17]
Highway Robber, Thief. “The Apostle had gone out to meet the caravans of Quraish, but Allah caused them (i.e. Muslims) to meet their enemy unexpectedly.” [18]
Polygamist. One who practices having more than one spouse at one time.
Muhammad's daughters also played an important and influential role, both in his life and in the establishment of Islam. Most notable was his daughter Fatima, who is still revered by all Muslims, particularly Shiite Muslims.
Irrelevant fluff. Thanks for wasting our time.
Following the Battle of Uhud (625), in which scores of male combatants died leaving unprotected widows and children, Muhammad and the Qur'an decreed that, in order to protect the orphans of such families, men might take up to four wives. The permission itself is surrounded with language that discourages the very thing it permits, saying that unless a man can treat several wives equally, he should never enter into multiple marriages. The usual supposition in the modern monogamous West-that Islam institutionally encourages lustful arrangements-is rejected by Muslims themselves as an ill-informed stereotype. At the same time, Muslim feminists point out that in various cultures at different economic strata the laws of polygamy have frequently operated to the clear detriment of women. Polygamy is an uncommon occurrence in the modern Muslim world.
This is part of the inflexibility of islam. You see, it’s in the books. It’s legal and once it is ijthad (a legal ruling), verified by scholarly consensus, it is an absolute legal ruling which cannot be contravened or annulled. [19]
(continued)
Warrior-Mentor
09-28-2009, 15:23
Today, Islamic legal and social systems around the world approach and fall short of women's rights by varying degrees. Muslims themselves generally view Islam as progressive in these matters. Many Muslim feminists hold the view that the problems presently hindering Muslim women are those that hinder women of all backgrounds worldwide- oppressive cultural practices, poverty, illiteracy, political repression and patriarchy. There is a strong, healthy critique of gender oppression among Muslim feminist authors and activists worldwide.
It would be anachronistic to claim that Muhammad was a feminist in our modern sense. Yet the same present-day barriers to women's equality prevailed in 7th century Arabia, and he opposed them. Because in his own lifetime Muhammad improved women's position in society, many modern Muslims continue to value his example, which they cite when pressing for women's rights.
Really? Richard, you believe this?
FOOTNOTES:
___________________________
1. http://www.stolenchildhood.net/entry/afghanistan-new-contract-to-curb-child-marriages/
2. http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1079316.html
3. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Book o “Justice,” see Paragraph o4.9
4. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Book m “Marriage,” see Paragraph m10.4
5. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Book p “Enormities,” see Paragraph p28.1(1)
6. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Book m “Marriage,” see Paragraph m10.12
7. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Book m “Marriage,” see Paragraph m5.4
8. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Book m “Marriage,” see Paragraph m5.1
9. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Book m “Marriage,” see Paragraph m5.2
10. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Book b “The Validity of Following Qualified Scholarship,” see Paragraph b7.2
11. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Book o “Justice,” see Paragraph o8.7(7)
12. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/polygamy
13. http://counsellingresource.com/quizzes/stockholm/index.html
14. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pedophile
15. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Statutory+Rape
16. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/psychopath
17. Hadith, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 795; Narrated Anas.
18. Hadith, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 287; Narrated Kab bin Malik.
19. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Book b “The Validity of Following Qualified Scholarship,” see Paragraph b7.2
Having read the Koran a couple of times I'm with WM on this one.
Astounding.
Richard
__
BT
Yeah know I have been around a while and have a few miles on my ass.
I can tell you that you can never lump every one in a specific group into one category. The shit heads (10-20%) usually make it bad for the rest.
I have known a few Muslims around the world from the US to AStan to Indonesia and all are not bad. I know that their cultural beliefs and religious beliefs clash immensely with our.
Bottom line we will have to deal with the nuts and extreme religious zealots before the moderates will be willing to step out and make their presence known.
If they wish to live in the dark ages so be it and and lets move them into a nice valley so they can do so. If they come in my back yard and knock on the door they will get a quick response from me. If they knock on the front door I will say hello and then kick them off the stoop. If they try to harm my family and friends and country I will track them down where ever they have run off to and cut their throats. If they leave me in peace and play in their valley I will do the same.
Shariah is not for me or our country so they better keep it in their valley.
We need to keep our perspective and not go psycho like they have or we are no better then they are.
Yeah know I have been around a while and have a few miles on my ass.
I can tell you that you can never lump every one in a specific group into one category. The shit heads (10-20%) usually make it bad for the rest.
I have known a few Muslims around the world from the US to AStan to Indonesia and all are not bad. I know that their cultural beliefs and religious beliefs clash immensely with our.
Bottom line we will have to deal with the nuts and extreme religious zealots before the moderates will be willing to step out and make their presence known.
If they wish to live in the dark ages so be it and and lets move them into a nice valley so they can do so. If they come in my back yard and knock on the door they will get a quick response from me. If they knock on the front door I will say hello and then kick them off the stoop. If they try to harm my family and friends and country I will track them down where ever they have run off to and cut their throats. If they leave me in peace and play in their valley I will do the same.
Shariah is not for me or our country so they better keep it in their valley.
We need to keep our perspective and not go psycho like they have or we are no better then they are.
I couldn't agree with you more.
Warrior-Mentor
09-28-2009, 19:03
My point isn't that all Muslims are bad. That's not it.
There are good Muslims.
The point is, there's no such thing as good islam.
Some people aren't picking up the distinction between Muslims and islam.
We figured this out in Germany in 1945.
Why is it so hard now?
Go read Mein Kampf. You keep saying, "but wait, I know a nice German..."
I agree! There are nice Germans.
That doesn't change the fact that Mein Kampf is the "bible" for an evil ideology.
A quote that I heard recently was "Love the Muslim, hate islam."
My point isn't that all Muslims are bad. That's not it.
There are good Muslims.
The point is, there's no such thing as good islam.
Some people aren't picking up the distinction between Muslims and islam.
We figured this out in Germany in 1945.
Why is it so hard now?
Go read Mein Kampf. You keep saying, "but wait, I know a nice German..."
I agree! There are nice Germans.
That doesn't change the fact that Mein Kampf is the "bible" for an evil ideology.
A quote that I heard recently was "Love the Muslim, hate islam."
May I ask you a question, and I mean this in all sincerity. What is your plan for combatting Islam? On one hand you say that you believe Islam should be demoted in its religious status, that the Koran preaches nothing but hate for Jews/Christians. Islam allows for pedophila, and crimes against women and children. That Islam will NEVER change, can't be reasoned with, and is the antithesis for everything you hold dear.
Yet you just stated that you believe there are good Muslims. How does your rationale for their being good Muslims coincide with everything else you have ever stated about how evil Islam is.
If you were "king for a day" and could solve our problems with Islam, how would you go about doing it?
May I ask you a question, and I mean this in all sincerity. What is your plan for combatting Islam? On one hand you say that you believe Islam should be demoted in its religious status, that the Koran preaches nothing but hate for Jews/Christians. Islam allows for pedophila, and crimes against women and children. That Islam will NEVER change, can't be reasoned with, and is the antithesis for everything you hold dear.
Yet you just stated that you believe there are good Muslims. How does your rationale for their being good Muslims coincide with everything else you have ever stated about how evil Islam is.
If you were "king for a day" and could solve our problems with Islam, how would you go about doing it?
The question was not directed to me, but IMO, combating Islam in the war of ideas is a start. One example is Father Zakaria Botros, who is actively engaging Muslims and encouraging an open and honest discussion of Islam. See previous posts about Father Botros here
"As I love Muslims, I hate Islam"
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20823
and here
"Islam is Most Certainly False"
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23646&highlight=zakaria
Warrior-Mentor
09-28-2009, 20:25
If you were "king for a day" and could solve our problems with Islam, how would you go about doing it?
Great question. If it were easy, we would have figured it out by now.
Your own public profile cites one of my favorite quotes from John Stuart Mill:
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
It may one day come to that. I hope not. But hope is not a method.
For now, I continue to study and learn - about ourselves and the enemy.
It's Sun Tsu ...know yourself and know your enemy.
Wish more people would do the same...spend some time studying the challges we face...especially more of our National Security "professionals."
Just this weekend, I finished Norman Podhoersts WW IV (his metaphor for the War on Terror) and re-read parts of Thomas Paine's Rights of Man. I frequently re-read the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
I'm currently reading "Defeating Political Islam" by Moorthy S. Muthuswamy.
http://www.amazon.com/Defeating-Political-Islam-New-Cold/dp/1591027047
Dr. Sebastian Gorka pointed out that historically, militant islam has only been beaten back militarily.
Why? It is the aggressive, totalitarian doctrine of islam.
What happens when islamists lose militarily? It causes them to question their faith and their actions.
You see allah doesn't lose battles or wars. So they must be doing something against the will of allah.
Or they have to fall back on the much weaker argument that they were doing the will of allah, just the "timing" was wrong.
This is why handing over Afghanistan would be such a disaster. It reinforces their story that they can defeat super powers.
As a short digression, Dr Gorka had an interesting article in Foreign Policy not long ago worth reading:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/10/the_one_surge_that_could_defeat_al_qaeda
Obviously I don't agree with everything in it, but I respect him and his assessment enough to share it with you.
You decide for yourself where you are on the Afghan surge and the war of ideas...
I wish there was an easy solution.
For now I will learn as much as I can to know ourselves and the enemy (which I will define as islamists).
I would encourage as many others as possible to learn about islam as well.
But not just the "Early Revelations" as is frequently used in our classrooms:
http://www.amazon.com/Approaching-Quran-Revelations-MIchael-Sells/dp/1883991692/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254190727&sr=1-1
Because knowing about Progressive Revelation, Abrogation and Scholarly Consensus, for example, you'll understand that there's more to the story...so many of those "early revelations" (Mecca) have been abrogated by the later, aggressive militant ones...the ones "revealed" in Medina.
America created the internet as a form of communication to survive a nuclear holocaust. I hope that we can use this as a way to spread the full story...and ultimately let people decide for themselves. For now, I remain realistic, but hopeful.
I believe GEN Petraeus said it best "Hard is not hopeless."
Warrior-Mentor
09-28-2009, 20:40
Great thread - just fixed the link here:
"As I love Muslims, I hate Islam"
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20823
Great thread - just fixed the link here:
Thanks for fixing the link.
Warrior-Mentor
09-28-2009, 21:41
Yet you just stated that you believe there are good Muslims. How does your rationale for their being good Muslims coincide with everything else you have ever stated about how evil Islam is.
Re-reading your question, I realized I may not have fully addressed it.
I believe that people are inherently good. And we want to believe others are good as well.
Despite islamist claims of racism when someone exposes islams warts, there's no racism there. What race is a Muslim, anyway?
Just as there are Catholics and Protestants who pick and choose, so too do Muslims. It violates the dogma of their religion, but they do it anyway. Just as Catholics are required to attend mass every Sunday and Holy Day of obligation, yet regularly skip this requirement....so too do some Muslims skip parts of the requirements of their faith. This really isn't that complicated, is it?
Many Muslims don't know their own faith in the level of depth that we have already discussed in the numerous threads here. I never studied Catholic Canon or Jewish Law. Why would an average practicing Muslim study islamic law?
Yet, it is that level of understanding required before the full extent of the problem is exposed. Before studying the black and white of the letter of islamic law, I didn't get it. I never put any credibility in comparing the Bible, the Torah and the Koran. I thought they were endless, unwinnable debates. "My God is better than your God."
It wasn't until it was a case of studying our Constitution and islamic law, that it became apparent that there was an actual way to evaluate this situation. That there is a way to compare them.
David Yerushalmi said it better than I could in his letter to Suhail Khan:
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=32710
__________________________________________________ ____________
Before I forget, did you know the Koran is not arranged in chronological order?
Have you ever read it in chronological order? There are at least three different versions of the chronological order of the Koran (Jalalud-din, Rev. J.M. Rodwell, and Sir W. Muir). Yet all of them agree that Surah 9 is either 113 or the last surah chronologically. When you put that together with the idea of progressive revelation and abrogation, it means Surah 9 holds more "weight" than almost if not all of the other surahs.
Here's a quick guide that appears to be in accordance with Jalalud-din:
http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Chronological_Order_of_the_Quran
Now when you read Surah 9:28, you can see that there's a reason that the "extremists" are cherry picking from the back of the book.
"Simple answers are not possible."* Or so concluded Ian Kershaw <<LINK (http://www.shef.ac.uk/history/staff/ian_kershaw.html)>> when he addressed the place of Hitler, and by extension, Mein Kampf, in the history of Nazism. This is to say that professional historians of all stripes working on both sides of the Atlantic for over sixty years still don't know what it was all about.
Three small points.
"Stockholm Syndrome" is not recognized in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR [2000]). It remains to be seen if that syndrome will be recognized when DSM-V is published in a few years.
Even if Stockholm Syndrome were recognized, the application of a modern psychological diagnostic protocol without an actual examination in a professional clinical environment (an examination that would include, among other things, a living person in the same room with the clinician) would be of questionable intellectual value and reflect, at best, questionable professional conduct. (FWIW, such an exercise would be very bad form among polite company.)
The introduction of psychological concepts to a discussion centering around religious faith is problematic. Generally, psychologists frown on concepts of divine beings.** Case in point. I once asked a training analyst (a clinical psychoanalyst who trains aspiring psychoanalysts) if he believed in God. He smiled kindly at me, tilted his head back, laughed, and laughed some more. After a while, his face drained of all humor and said he didn't. Outmoded practices from the sixteenth century, he explained. (The laughter was appropriate--he was mentoring me, not analyzing me.)
A (rhetorical) question. Or three.
The first question academic historians--and others in the Ivory Tower--ask when assessing discussions/interpretations of primary source materials is this.
Are the viewpoints based upon a reading of the documents in their original languages or weretranslated versions used?This is a vitally important question. Translating a document is a form of editing. Editors make editorial decisions. Editorial decisions change the nature of a work. Hence, the second question is:
What decisions did the translator make and why?
And from there comes a third question.
To what extent do those decisions shape a discussant's experience with (and understanding of) a document, text, or tome?
How an individual addresses these questions often plays a vital role in establishing his (or her) credibility on a given topic. For this reason, Americanists often experience the reproachful glares of Europeanists who have more diverse language skills. John Lewis Gaddis abandoned his plans to be a historian of Russia in favor of American foreign relations because he had difficulty mastering Russian.** More recently, a prominent naval historian took a major professional risk by offering a new interpretation of Clausewitz after reading that theorist in English alone.***
This isn't to say that reliance on translated works is automatically frowned upon. The Standard Edition of The Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, ed. James Strachey, remains the foundation of the study of psychoanalysis in America. Most students are going to encounter The Iliad of Homer as translated by Robert Feagles (so far, I'm still not convinced his translation is superior to Richard Lattimore's, but who asked me?) But the viability of these works rests on the fact that the translations have been vetted by professionals who themselves have been vetted.
__________________________________________________ _____
* Ian Kershaw, Hitler, vol. 1, 1889-1936 Hubris (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1999), p. xxi.
** This information comes from an interview I had with R.A. Divine at the University of Texas at Austin on 22 April 1992. Divine was Gaddis's dissertation adviser. Always the paragon of humility, when asked what Divine did to train Gaddis, he would always respond "I got out of his way." (During his time at the Forty Acres, Gaddis was considered hands down the most skilled graduate student in the faculty's collective memory. Lewis L. Gould, introductory remarks, George W. Littlefield Lectures for 1992 given at the University of Texas as Austin, 30 March- 1 April 1992, lecture of 31 March 1992.)
*** John Shy, review of Jon Tetsuro Sumida's Decoding Clausewitz: A New Approach to On War, Journal of Military History, 73:2 (April 2009): 642-644. MOO, Shy's questioning of Sumida's ability to read German makes for a devastating review as devestating as Larry McMurtry's broadsides against Patricia Nelson Limerick (and others) in his, “How the West Was Won or Lost: The Revisionists’ Failure of Imagination,” The New Republic (22 October 1990):32-38. YMMV.
"Are the viewpoints based upon a reading of the documents in their original languages or weretranslated versions used? This is a vitally important question. Translating a document is a form of editing. Editors make editorial decisions. Editorial decisions change the nature of a work."
With respect, this is a cop out to me. It is saying that, you can't comment on Islam because you don't read Arabic. What naturally follow is that you can't understand the Arabic you read unless you understand Arab culture and you can't REALLY understand Arab culture unless you are Arab. Therefor no one but an Arab can comment on Islam. Nice position to be in.
However, regarding translator word choices, I would agree that the original language is important for scholarly understanding, but the English lang version of the Qu'ran that I have was translated with the intention of spreading Islam to the non-Arab, and yet it says the things that WM mentioned. So if it was edited to cast Islam in a favorable light.... it is an epic fail.
With respect, this is a cop out to me. It is saying that, you can't comment on Islam because you don't read Arabic. What naturally follow is that you can't understand the Arabic you read unless you understand Arab culture and you can't REALLY understand Arab culture unless you are Arab. Therefore no one but an Arab can comment on Islam.
With respect, I believe your analysis overlooks a subsequent point in my post. How an individual addresses these questions often plays a vital role in establishing his (or her) credibility on a given topic. IMO, there is at least one other way to address these questions. To use the parlance of the private sector, this approach is doing one’s intellectual due diligence.
To use an off topic example, I am not going to learn Russian. Nor am I going to invest a significant amount of time or effort doing any additional reading in Russian history. However, I am going to leverage the research that I have done on the translation of Russian literature into English if I decide to read any Tolstoy. Then I’ll being able to explain why I eschewed translations by Constance Garnett in favor of one’s by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky or by Louise Maude and Aymer Maude in the unlikely event I end up at some mixer hosted by a department of Slavic Languages and Literature and I want to make extended small talk with an Ashkenazi graduate student who spent her youth perfecting her take off for the Fosbury Flop. (Hey, I know what you’re thinking. You laugh now, but it could happen.:p)
Ultimately, attempts at intellectual due diligence may yield frustration. Any translation of War and Peace may be a ticket to the Land of Nod. Her sport of choice may be the shot put.:eek: Moreover, no one really understands anyone, especially the self. This uncertainty is magnified when one seeks to comprehend something as amorphous as culture or to bridge the gaps between modernity and that that is not. And then there are the gendered differences.
Sometimes, it one’s willingness to embark on this journey that makes the difference. You pound your head against a wall trying to understand something, you feel inadequate. Then you bounce your thoughts off someone who and they say “Yes,” or “Close enough,” or “Needs more thought” or “too much garlic” or “You were the only one who understood my point” or “I'd never thought of it that way...so, what do you think about....”
That is to say, one does the best one can to learn what one needs to know and then goes from there. (As long as the immediate destination is a locale that has some comfort food.)Nice position to be in.
Do we non-QPs not place ourselves in a similar position when we come to this BB?
Do we stay in our lanes by observing threads related to SF in silence simply because we know what will happen if we don’t?
Or do we observe those threads in silence because we realize we have a rare opportunity to learn a small portion of a vast body of knowledge, experience, history, and culture?
Should the fact that we like one domain of knowledge more than another domain shape how we approach either?:confused:
Re-reading your question, I realized I may not have fully addressed it.
I believe that people are inherently good. And we want to believe others are good as well.
Despite islamist claims of racism when someone exposes islams warts, there's no racism there. What race is a Muslim, anyway?
Just as there are Catholics and Protestants who pick and choose, so too do Muslims. It violates the dogma of their religion, but they do it anyway. Just as Catholics are required to attend mass every Sunday and Holy Day of obligation, yet regularly skip this requirement....so too do some Muslims skip parts of the requirements of their faith. This really isn't that complicated, is it?
Many Muslims don't know their own faith in the level of depth that we have already discussed in the numerous threads here. I never studied Catholic Canon or Jewish Law. Why would an average practicing Muslim study islamic law?
Yet, it is that level of understanding required before the full extent of the problem is exposed. Before studying the black and white of the letter of islamic law, I didn't get it. I never put any credibility in comparing the Bible, the Torah and the Koran. I thought they were endless, unwinnable debates. "My God is better than your God."
It wasn't until it was a case of studying our Constitution and islamic law, that it became apparent that there was an actual way to evaluate this situation. That there is a way to compare them.
David Yerushalmi said it better than I could in his letter to Suhail Khan:
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=32710
__________________________________________________ ____________
Before I forget, did you know the Koran is not arranged in chronological order?
Have you ever read it in chronological order? There are at least three different versions of the chronological order of the Koran (Jalalud-din, Rev. J.M. Rodwell, and Sir W. Muir). Yet all of them agree that Surah 9 is either 113 or the last surah chronologically. When you put that together with the idea of progressive revelation and abrogation, it means Surah 9 holds more "weight" than almost if not all of the other surahs.
Here's a quick guide that appears to be in accordance with Jalalud-din:
http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Chronological_Order_of_the_Quran
Now when you read Surah 9:28, you can see that there's a reason that the "extremists" are cherry picking from the back of the book.
I appreciate the time you put into your post, but you really don't answer the question I posed. Do you believe there are such things as moderate Muslims that the US can deal with to reach our goals? Or are all those whose practice Islam inherently against what the US stands for, and thereby there are no means of dealing with them other than getting rid of them or marginalizing them to such a point that the religion becomes irrelevant?
Everything you have stated to this point leads me to believe that you see there may be moderate Muslims, but they may be worse than the fundamentalists in your eyes because they do not practice their religion to the letter of the Koran, and are thereby heretics. On the other hand, there are the fundamentalists who can never be dealt with other than through military might. That leads me to believe that your views would support the concept of eradicating Islam, or marginalizing it. If I am wrong, please feel free to correct me.
......Everything you have stated to this point leads me to believe that you see there may be moderate Muslims, but they may be worse than the fundamentalists in your eyes because they do not practice their religion to the letter of the Koran, and are thereby heretics. ......
I didn't get that from his post.
They are the sea of Islam that the Islamist swims in. It is not us but the Islamist who have their eye on them.
Kind of a "We'll deal with you once we take over."
It is the "moderates" that allow the preaching of Islamist Immams and then are amazed that the young run off to train at Jihad.
WM has tried to point out the importance of how the Koran is written and what a believer of Islam must believe.
To a Muslim you can not pick this and that from the Koran. You take it as a whole.
So to remain Islam Islam can not be reformed.
Warrior-Mentor
09-29-2009, 06:25
Do you believe there are such things as moderate Muslims that the US can deal with to reach our goals?
Yes. The problem is, we aren't collectively smart enough to recognize there is a difference and who's actually helping and who's not.
Or are all those whose practice Islam inherently against what the US stands for, and thereby there are no means of dealing with them other than getting rid of them or marginalizing them to such a point that the religion becomes irrelevant?
Naziism is dead. But it's still not irrelevant. What you are proposing (making the religion irrelevant) is not realistically possible. And oil wealth prevents marginalizing them right now. Saudi Arabia's main export isn't oil. It's the violent wahhabi ideology.
Everything you have stated to this point leads me to believe that you see there may be moderate Muslims, but they may be worse than the fundamentalists in your eyes because they do not practice their religion to the letter of the Koran, and are thereby heretics.
Yes - there are moderate Muslims. No - they are not worse by any Western moral standard - they still have compassion for their fellow human.
On the other hand, there are the fundamentalists who can never be dealt with other than through military might. That leads me to believe that your views would support the concept of eradicating Islam, or marginalizing it. If I am wrong, please feel free to correct me.
You are right, there are fundamentalists who will never reform and must be dealt with militarily. If there were a magic wand or a time machine and we could prevent islam from being invented by Muhammed...that would be great. Just not going to happen.
Here's the challenge. We went through this in Western governments when we dis-established or separated church and state. Islam cannot be disestablished. The doctrine epitomizes antidisestablishmentarianism.
Warrior-Mentor
09-29-2009, 06:34
A (rhetorical) question. Or three.
The first question academic historians--and others in the Ivory Tower--ask when assessing discussions/interpretations of primary source materials is this.
Are the viewpoints based upon a reading of the documents in their original languages or weretranslated versions used?This is a vitally important question. Translating a document is a form of editing. Editors make editorial decisions. Editorial decisions change the nature of a work. Hence, the second question is:
What decisions did the translator make and why?
And from there comes a third question.
To what extent do those decisions shape a discussant's experience with (and understanding of) a document, text, or tome?
How an individual addresses these questions often plays a vital role in establishing his (or her) credibility on a given topic. For this reason, Americanists often experience the reproachful glares of Europeanists who have more diverse language skills. John Lewis Gaddis abandoned his plans to be a historian of Russia in favor of American foreign relations because he had difficulty mastering Russian.** More recently, a prominent naval historian took a major professional risk by offering a new interpretation of Clausewitz after reading that theorist in English alone.***
Sigaba,
Full answer is to get a copy of Ibn Warraq's Leaving Islam:
http://www.amazon.com/Leaving-Islam-Apostates-Speak-Out/dp/1591020689
Read the back of the book - the Appendix A if I remeber correctly (I have it a work).
The short answer is "Reliance of the Traveller" was written BY MUSLIMS for MUSLIMS. and it's a certified true translation as verified by the Syrians, Jordanians, Fiqh Academy at Jedda, President of the IIIT (Islamic Institute of Islamic Thought), Al-Azhar Islamic Research Academy.
This wasn't translated by some lone-wolf and it can't be accused of "orientalism."
Moderate Muslims?
I keep hearing the above words in the press and in this thread. Where are they. I keep hearing excuses for what the Koran is really saying. Where is their voice when a Car Bomb kills 36 civilians in Iraq. When I see thousands of them in the streets protesting the killing of innocent civilians and not chanting death to the West. Then ill take the words Moderate Muslims serious. Until then spare me the political correctness. Until they show some real support in fighting the so called Minority of Radicals. Ill still lump them all in the same Pool.
We have a LOT of members of the Ismaeli sect in our area. In conversations with some of them they truly do seem to be moderates. As one of them told me, "if you think YOU hate the radicals, I hate them more. They are not true followers of the prophet. Plus, we are at the top of their kill list." When their leader (they do have a central authority figure) visited Houston several years ago I swear 80% of the convenience stores were closed so they could go hear him speak. Reading his comments in the paper he does speak out against the Islamists very forcefully. Seemed like a very good and decent person. They are admittedly a small percent when compared to the Sunnis and Shias.
Also, I have a question. The current regime in Iran excepted, have Shias traditionally been less prone to radical violence than the Sunnis? It seems like all the historical radicals have been Sunni but I don't know if I have a misperception. Thank you
[QUOTE=Dad;286027] They are not true followers of the prophet.
But according to the Qu'ran, they (extremists) ARE true followers. they are doing/living according to the book.
That's the rub, and IMO, the point of this thread. I appreciate that there are Muslims against the mayhem and mindset of terror groups, but there are also Catholics that are pro-abortion, jews that are agnostic, and protestants differ greatly amongst themselves on doctrinal issues. All of this "true follower" stuff can be resolved in one's own mind by picking up a copy of the qu'ran and seeing what "the prophet" said. Its not mysterious, but it is troubling.
[QUOTE=Dad;286027] They are not true followers of the prophet.
But according to the Qu'ran, they (extremists) ARE true followers. they are doing/living according to the book.
That's the rub, and IMO, the point of this thread. I appreciate that there are Muslims against the mayhem and mindset of terror groups, but there are also Catholics that are pro-abortion, jews that are agnostic, and protestants differ greatly amongst themselves on doctrinal issues. All of this "true follower" stuff can be resolved in one's own mind by picking up a copy of the qu'ran and seeing what "the prophet" said. Its not mysterious, but it is troubling.
So what do we do? If so called moderates are in fact not true followers of the prophet how do we deal with them? Ignore their existence? Or use them as a wedge against the fundametalists and hope that with our support they will be the lynchpin in calling for a "Islamic Reformation" against the fundamentalists. As has been stated by others, all the Muslims I know and have worked with believe the fundamentalist have hijacked their religion and turned it into something it was never meant to be. They have a voice, regardless of whether we believe a whisper is not as good as a shout in combatting the fundamentalist.
If the fundamentalists are the true followers of the prophet how do we deal with them? Call for their irradication, and appear in the eyes of the world to be no better than them?
The problem as I see it is the true interpretation of the Koran. I understand WM points in that there is only one true interpretation, but that is only true in academic discussions. There are obviously many interpretations of the Koran, in reality, because if there wasn't EVERY Muslim, EVERYWHERE would be a fundamentalist calling for the annihilation of everything not Muslim. And that is not reality.
Reality is the Muslim family that has children that attend the same high school as my children. They are not calling for death to America. Reality is the exchange officers from Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Jordan, that I spent the last 18 months attending Naval Post Graduate School with, none of which were calling for death to America.
Once we recognize that Muslims practice many different forms of Islam, and not all are fundamentalists (whether that means they are true Muslims or not) we will get a better handle on who we can leverage, and who just needs to be removed from the face of the earth.
The Reaper
09-29-2009, 15:06
They are not calling for death to America. Reality is the exchange officers from Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Jordan, that I spent the last 18 months attending Naval Post Graduate School with, none of which were calling for death to America.
Not sure this is a valid comparison.
I worked with a lot of foreign military personnel over the years. The ones sent to the US were the ones who either believed that we were friends, or could pretend that we were. I doubt that too many radicals were selected for our programs.
Many of them said things in their own languages that they would not want translated. I am sure that many of our people do the same thing.
Every country I have been to, one of the most asked questions was always how I liked their country. No matter how big a cesspool it was, I always found something nice to say.
Appearances can be deceiving.
TR
Not sure this is a valid comparison.
I worked with a lot of foreign military personnel over the years. The ones sent to the US were the ones who either believed that we were friends, or could pretend that we were. I doubt that too many radicals were selected for our programs.
Many of them said things in their own languages that they would not want translated. I am sure that many of our people do the same thing.
Every country I have been to, one of the most asked questions was always how I liked their country. No matter how big a cesspool it was, I always found something nice to say.
Appearances can be deceiving.
TR
Sir,
I agree with you, and I have to say that many of my dealing with them, while at school, were with this in mind. But I also got to know quite a few of them on a personal basis, out of school. I met their wives and their children. I was invited into their home for meals. I still speak with many via email. Call it naivete on my part, but those folks I call my friends, and they call me the same.
Do I believe that some of the students came to get what they could, and learn as much as they could for us, for nefarious purposes in the future? I would be a fool if I didn't.
......Do I believe that some of the students came to get what they could, and learn as much as they could for us, for nefarious purposes in the future? I would be a fool if I didn't.
I don't think it's like that. For the most part the people who you interacted with were exactly like you say. Friends and still are. People just doing what people do.
The rub comes when they have to start making choices. Choices can be big or they can be small. At some point they will be faced with my friends, my country - or Islam.
greenberetTFS
09-29-2009, 16:30
I don't think it's like that. For the most part the people who you interacted with were exactly like you say. Friends and still are. People just doing what people do.
The rub comes when they have to start making choices. Choices can be big or they can be small. At some point they will be faced with my friends, my country - or Islam.
Good point,Pete....... They'll be choices alright,some good and some bad...... :mad: I'm afraid when it'll come down to that we'll see the real Islamists and we won't like what it will be.........:(
Big Teddy :munchin
Scimitar
09-29-2009, 17:15
Good point,Pete....... They'll be choices alright,some good and some bad...... :mad: I'm afraid when it'll come down to that we'll see the real Islamists and we won't like what it will be.........:(
Big Teddy :munchin
My thoughts exactly.
I am concerned that there may be no such thing as a moderate Muslim only a lapsed one...?
Moderate indicates a solid belief system....lapsed indicates the possibility of duplicity for convenience.
Scimitar
Warrior-Mentor
09-29-2009, 18:54
Sir,
I agree with you, and I have to say that many of my dealing with them, while at school, were with this in mind. But I also got to know quite a few of them on a personal basis, out of school. I met their wives and their children. I was invited into their home for meals. I still speak with many via email. Call it naivete on my part, but those folks I call my friends, and they call me the same.
Do I believe that some of the students came to get what they could, and learn as much as they could for us, for nefarious purposes in the future? I would be a fool if I didn't.
If you’re willing, let’s do an informal test with your friends – I’m curious to find out what happens.
Nothing over-the-top. Just greet them with the traditional greeting among Muslims.
“as-Salamu ‘alaykum.”
Then listen closely to their response.
Here’s why, Reliance of the Traveller states:
P75.28 “By him in whose hand is my soul, none of you will enter paradise until you believe, and none of you will believe until you love each other.
Shall I not tell you of something which if you do it will create love among you?
Increase the custom of greeting each other with ‘as-Salmu ‘alaykum.’”
If they give you an “as-Salamu ‘alaykum,” great – you have real friends.
I suspect what you’ll hear is “alaykum as-Salamu.” Or some other variant like “Wa ‘alaykum” or simply “alaykum.”
Why?
Because it’s the law.
O11.5 “Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comly with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation and property. In addition:
(3) “are not greeted with ‘as-Salamu ‘alaykum.”
R33.2 “…Scholars disagree about greeting non-Muslims with ‘as-Salamu ‘alaykum’ or returning their Salams. We hold that it is unlawful to say it to them first, though it is obligatory to return their greetings by saying ‘Wa ‘alaykum’ (and upon you), or simply, “Alaykum.’ Other scholars hold it is permissible to greet them first with ‘as-Salamu ‘alaykum’ "
R 32.6 A male “…should not …greet her with “as-Salamu ‘alaykum” (A: which is unlawful in the Shafi’I school) nor return her Salams if she says them.”
If you’re willing, let’s do an informal test with your friends – I’m curious to find out what happens.
Nothing over-the-top. Just greet them with the traditional greeting among Muslims.
“as-Salamu ‘alaykum.”
Then listen closely to their response.
Here’s why, Reliance of the Traveller states:
P75.28 “By him in whose hand is my soul, none of you will enter paradise until you believe, and none of you will believe until you love each other.
Shall I not tell you of something which if you do it will create love among you?
Increase the custom of greeting each other with ‘as-Salmu ‘alaykum.’”
If they give you an “as-Salamu ‘alaykum,” great – you have real friends.
I suspect what you’ll hear is “alaykum as-Salamu.” Or some other variant like “Wa ‘alaykum” or simply “alaykum.”
Why?
Because it’s the law.
O11.5 “Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comly with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation and property. In addition:
(3) “are not greeted with ‘as-Salamu ‘alaykum.”
R33.2 “…Scholars disagree about greeting non-Muslims with ‘as-Salamu ‘alaykum’ or returning their Salams. We hold that it is unlawful to say it to them first, though it is obligatory to return their greetings by saying ‘Wa ‘alaykum’ (and upon you), or simply, “Alaykum.’ Other scholars hold it is permissible to greet them first with ‘as-Salamu ‘alaykum’ "
R 32.6 A male “…should not …greet her with “as-Salamu ‘alaykum” (A: which is unlawful in the Shafi’I school) nor return her Salams if she says them.”
No offense, but I would never do that do a friend, knowing that in my heart I am testing them. Sorry, no deal.
No offense, but I would never do that do a friend, knowing that in my heart I am testing them. Sorry, no deal.
The problem is you read WM's post.
It will now be in the back of your mind every time you get or exchange greetings in Arabic.
Your mind will be saying "Now what was that he posted?"
No offense, but I would never do that do a friend, knowing that in my heart I am testing them. Sorry, no deal.
Or, perhaps, you are afraid of what you may learn about your friends.
My experience is limited to Arab Muslims as I have not been to Afghanistan yet. Many people here, especially the QPs, know that hospitality is a HUGE part of Arab culture. It was my job to meet with many of the locals around our AO in Iraq and almost everyone was friendly. They would often invite us in for tea and/or lunch. One of the local “reconciled” insurgents also was very helpful; too bad he was still running operations in the neighboring province.
My point is that I often saw behavior that we westerners would categorize as friendly, but many of these same people were involved either directly or indirectly with insurgent groups. The local sheiks would try to play us off against each other while their sons were out lobbing mortars at the base. By all appearances, though, they were moderates and very accepting of others. Most of the vets on this site saw the same thing daily and just as I did played the game, but they also grew eyes in the backs of their heads. I learned a lot about duality and appearances.
I have no doubts that some Islamic extremists in this country appear to be some of the most moderate and wonderful people you could ever meet. I also have no doubt that there are many truly moderate Muslims living here. The problem I see is by the time you figure out whether they are actually your friend or pretending to be it is too late. I can be friendly with them, but I just cannot let my guard down no matter what views they express to me.
Warrior-Mentor
09-30-2009, 08:22
No offense, but I would never do that do a friend, knowing that in my heart I am testing them. Sorry, no deal.
Fair enough. Appreciate your honesty.
Consider it with a Muslim you just met or do not consider a "friend."
I was thinking about your statement driving in this morning...
The Logic Pattern:
___A___ requires ___B___ to do ___C___.
I know someone who is ___B___ and doesn't do what is required.
Therefore, ___A___ doesn't require it.
Let's fill in the blanks with a couple test runs:
Catholicism requires Catholics to attend church every Sunday.
I know someone who is Catholic and doesn't attend church every Sunday.
Therefore, Catholicism doesn't require it.
Clearly this isn't true.
Let's try another one:
Islam requires Muslims to wage jihad against non-Muslims.
I know someone who is Muslim and doesn't wage jihad against non-Muslims.
Therefore, Islam doesn't require waging jihad against non-Muslims.
Nope. That doesn't work either.
Or, perhaps, you are afraid of what you may learn about your friends.
Maybe you and WM feel the need to test your friendships in such a way, I do not. I would never test a Christian friend in this manner, why would I do it to a Muslim friend? In my book, actions speak louder than words.
If you feel it is appropriate in your dealings with your friends, "have a nut" as my husband would say.
Therein lies part of the rub…
If only Islam didn’t contain the Doctrine of Taqiyya & Hudna…
Allah refers to himself as "Khayrul-Makereen", the greatest of all deceivers - Surah 3:54
Warrior-Mentor
09-30-2009, 10:29
Here's a thought for the day:
"dal mouimento annuo della Terra,"
Publishing these five words started a controversy for Galileo.
http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0001dD
Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime, when a large majority of philosophers and astronomers still subscribed (at least outwardly) to the geocentric view that the Earth is at the centre of the universe. After 1610, when he began supporting heliocentrism publicly, he met with bitter opposition from some philosophers and clerics, and two of the latter eventually denounced him to the Roman Inquisition early in 1615. Although he was cleared of any offence at that time, the Catholic Church nevertheless condemned heliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture" in February 1616,[8] and Galileo was warned to abandon his support for it—which he promised to do. When he later defended his views in his most famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy," forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.
"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
~ Arthur Schopenhauer
My point isn't that all Muslims are bad. That's not it.
There are good Muslims.
The point is, there's no such thing as good islam.
Some people aren't picking up the distinction between Muslims and islam.
Muslim - also Mos·lem (mzlm, ms-) A believer in or adherent of Islam.
- American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
After reviewing the definition of Muslim and the postings of the past six months - a consistent point-of-view that if a Muslim invited to the table falls off their chair it's the entire Islamic culture vs when anyone else falls off it's an individual act - the effontry and hypocrisy shown in the illogicalness of this stated position is beyond belief.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
greenberetTFS
09-30-2009, 12:31
Muslim - also Mos·lem (mzlm, ms-) A believer in or adherent of Islam.
- American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
After reviewing the definition of Muslim and the postings of the past six months - a consistent point-of-view that if a Muslim invited to the table falls off their chair it's the entire Islamic culture vs when anyone else falls off it's an individual act - the effontry and hypocrisy shown in the illogicalness of this stated position is beyond belief.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Richard,
I remember when I was just a kid in Chicago during WW2,There were quite a few Germans in Milwaukee that claimed being a Nazi didn't mean they supported everything Hitler said and did was wrong.........:eek: I'm not the smartest guy here in this forum thats for sure,but it seems to me it's like what most Muslims say about Islam.............:(
Big Teddy :munchin
Teddy,
Not the point.
If one says Islam is bad and Muslims, by definition, are believers or adherants of Islam - Muslims must, therefore, be bad and it is then illogical and hypocritical to then state that you do not believe all Muslims are bad. It can't be both.
And so it goes...:munchin
Richard
Warrior-Mentor
09-30-2009, 14:07
Here's what's missing from our vocabulary:
Mino- Muslim in name only. Those "practioners" of islam who only adhere to those practices necessary to maintain the fascade of being Muslim due to personal beliefs that conflict with the doctrines of islam or fear of retribution as a result of leaving the faith.
You also have the false dichotomy of treating belief as if it were a bianary property. Unlike pregnancy, there are levels of belief.
What's required by the doctrine of the faith is another issue all together.
.
Why the negativity? I suspect it's because the implication is conflict of some sort. Whether that conflict consists of civil discussion or activities skewed toward the kinetic does not matter - disturbance of the present calm prosperity would follow. (Note - I say "calm prosperity" with a small hint of sarcasm).
I had the chance to attend a talk by an Imam. I will be the first to concede that a single, brief talk in a public venue to a non-Islamic audience does not provide any expertise - but I got some impressions. If I'm too far in error, perhaps others will offer correction.
First, Islam appears to offer the leadership a remarkable opportunity for control. I gathered that the designated leader (the Imam) controls both the religious and a substantial portion of the non-religious life of the affiliates. For example, an individual who needed employment or financial aid would go to the Imam. If this is true, then the leadership seems unlikely to want to give up such authority.
I noted at the time that the underlying view of Islam (admittedly based on a single and none-too-dependable data point) seems contrary to the fundamental constitutional principles of the U.S., and, perhaps, Western Civilization in general. Specifically, it seemed that Islam combined church and state into a single, unitary leader, whereas the separation of these roles seems emphasized in the West. In addition, I note that a central schism in Islam rests (as far as I understand it) on the destruction of the Caliphate due to conflict between two individuals who claimed they were each the more appropriate inheritor of authority. Since there still seems to be some friction between the Shia and Sunni sects, and I get the impression that there is a certain longing for the reestablishment of the Caliphate - once again combining absolute religious and secular authority in a single individual ruler - then the Western and Islamic views are inherently in conflict. Furthermore, this may suggest that, in the end, at most one such view can survive.
I have to wonder whether an attitude as a MINO is viable in a system where both religion and secular aspects are combined. I think it would take quite an unusual person to be able to navigate appearing to believe 24/7 - 365 for decades, while actually believing something else. That is, perhaps, a strength of the Islamic system. It appears that if an adherent rejects it, then they walk away from the entire support system.
The situation may become more interesting as exponential growth plays out. I notice that a number of Islamic countries have high birth rates but a seeming inability to provide support (or, for that matter, sustenance) for the population. This suggests either immigration (to the U.S., for example) or social instability. But if there is privation, then it seems likely that they will go to their Imam, who will bind them even more closely to Jihad. Thus, a self-reinforcing cycle which will drive escalating conflict.
What of the moderates? I suspect they will do whatever fills their rice-bowl for the short term. Just like most people do. But this has implications if the world faces shortages (as I believe) rather than ever-growing abundance. The moderates may be nearly as deadly as any other combatant, and yet be seen as canon-fodder by their leaders. In a population-surplus scenario, their use in warfare might represent a relief of the excess population, not unlike the situation in Europe centuries ago.
As for testing friends...there are friends, and there are acquaintances. I have heard it said that if, over an entire lifetime, you have as many friends as you have fingers on one hand, you can count yourself as fortunate. I think a distinction between someone who supplies amusing banter over lunch and someone who would help one through dire circumstances is in order. Rhetorical question: What if Nmap's ravings are right, and you really need a friend? Wouldn't it be nice to know who they were?
And finally, a respectful note to Richard. I sometimes remind myself that this or that group is not against me, they are just for themselves. I think this may apply to the collision of values between our system and Islam. They are for themselves. This implies that we must be, unabashedly and without hesitation, for ourselves and what we believe in. I am not at all sure that we are, as a society, willing to follow the path of being for ourselves. If that's true, then those who do believe in themselves just might win - leading to a transition from our existing system of beliefs to a different one. To steal a line from NDD - do we still want to quit?
Full answer is to get a copy of Ibn Warraq's Leaving Islam:
http://www.amazon.com/Leaving-Islam-Apostates-Speak-Out/dp/1591020689The three questions concern the credibility of an interpretation offered by a person using said sources in addition to the reliability of those sources themselves. (Also, respectfully but bluntly, the notion that a single book on any topic gives a "full answer" to any question is at odds with the conventions of intellectual inquiry in the Western world that have been practiced the last seven centuries.)
[G]et a copy...Read the back of the book....Please do not take offense but I decline what appears to be an invitation. It is my observation that you frequently use this rhetorical tactic when you respond to viewpoints that disagree or question yours. The logic appears to be if I've read what you've read, I'll interpret it as you do.
Unfortunately, on those occasions where I've taken a look at some of the sources you cite, not only do I disagree with you but the sources themselves do not support your position or they contradict other sources that you site or positions you've taken elsewhere or the sources just are not reliable. Or all of the above. And these are sources that are in English. The most convenient, if not recent, examples are your discussion of 'Stockholm Syndrome' and the historiography of Nazism, which I addressed above.
Your interpretations of the religious, political, social, intellectual, strategic, economic, diplomatic, military, naval, and cultural history of Europe and America are similarly at odds with what little I know about those topics.
For these reasons and many others--not the least of which is the tone you use when people have the temerity to disagree with you--I do not have as high a level of confidence in your expertise on these topics as I need to accept your guidance on the topic at hand.
FWIW, your posts on the topic at hand have occasioned substantial changes to my reading/research agenda. Indeed, earlier this week I encountered a useful summary of the two prevailing views of the Islamic world offered in the West since 9/11. (Your comments are in line with the first view.) The summary is followed by an interesting piece of analysis.Neither of these interpretations is particularly novel. Both echo the received wisdom in the field of Middle Eastern studies since the early twentieth century, which views the region's history as an offshoot of global power politics rather than a process propelled by internal, autonomous dynamics.*
Two additional comments.
This wasn't translated by some lone-wolf and it can't be accused of "orientalism."I understand that you disagree with Said's critique. I do not understand why you demonstrate your dislike for his analysis by posting comments that exemplify the man's points.
The second comment centers around your apparent disdain for what you label "revisionist" history. Sir, please know that your tone, the structure of your argument, your historiographical sensibilities, your selection of sources, and your use of those sources are strikingly similar to the practices of the so-called revisionist historians of American foreign relations. Please also know that while these scholars have given historians a different way to look at the past, the energy they brought to the discussion proved to be counterproductive not only to their own intellectual interests but also damaging to themselves and to others.
______________________________________________
* Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism: A History (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2006), p. 2.
Team Sergeant
10-01-2009, 21:14
But whose negativity is whose? And why is offering criticism a necessary evil? As I have neither the time nor desire to engage in what would assuredly become another overly lengthy e-debate on the theses of this editorial and its many leaps in logic - combined with such overtly negative language - which but lend themselves to challenge and criticism, I posit that histroical context is of great relevance when attempting to present any argument such as this one seeks to address, and will - therefore - only offer the following for those who may be interested in perhaps a better understanding of what Professor Telhami warns us of in his remarks to Congress:
It is primarily al-Qaeda and its allies as organizations that must be defeated. It is not terrorism broadly and it is not Islamism broadly.
<snip>
Given the deficient expertise in our bureaucracies in the languages, religions, and cultures of the Muslim world, we risk the chance of mistakes that could backfire, relying on locals who have their own agendas, and wasting precious resources. The strategy in the first place must remain focused on the operational and the logistical, not on what people say.
Richard's $.02
__
BT
It is primarily al-Qaeda, sure it is.... forget the other hundred or so islamic terrorists groups that have been wreaking havoc the last 40 years.....
AFGHANISTAN
NAME: al Qaeda
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: Established by Osama bin Laden in the late 1980s.
GOALS: Establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems "non-Islamic," and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: Is suspected of involvement in the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen. Conducted the bombings in August 1998 of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, that killed at least 301 persons and injured more than 5,000 others. Claims to have shot down U.S. helicopters and killed U.S. servicemen in Somalia in 1993, and to have conducted three bombings that targeted U.S. troops in Aden, Yemen, in December 1992.
STRENGTH: May have several hundred to several thousand members.
OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: Al Qaeda has a worldwide reach with cells in a number of countries, and benefits from its ties to Sunni extremist networks. Bin Laden and his top associates reside in Afghanistan, and the group maintains terrorist training camps there.
AFFILIATIONS: Serves as the umbrella organization for a worldwide network that includes many Sunni Islamic extremist groups, such as Egyptian Islamic Jihad, some members of al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, and the Harakat ul-Mujahidin.
COMMENTS: Bin Laden is the son of a wealthy Saudi family, and uses his inheritance to finance the group. Al Qaeda also operates moneymaking front organizations, solicits donations, and illicitly siphons funds from donations to Muslim charitable organizations.
ALGERIA
NAME: Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: 1992.
GOALS: GIA aims to overthrow the secular Algerian regime and replace it with an Islamic state.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: None.
STRENGTH: Unknown, probably several hundred to several thousand.
OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: Algeria.
AFFILIATIONS: Algerian expatriates and members of the Salafi Group for Call and Combat (GSPC) splinter group abroad, many of whom reside in Western Europe, provide financial and logistic support. In addition, the Algerian government has accused Iran and Sudan of supporting Algerian extremists.
COMMENTS: The GSPC splinter faction appears to have eclipsed the GIA since approximately 1998 and is currently assessed to be the most effective remaining armed group inside Algeria. A U.S. Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) listed as "active" during 2000.
NAME: The Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC)
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: 1996.
GOALS: Overthrow the Algerian government and impose fundamentalist Islamic theocracy.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: Unknown.
STRENGTH: Unknown; suspected to be several hundred to several thousand.
OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: Algeria.
AFFILIATIONS: Algerian expatriates and GSPC members living abroad. The Algerian government has accused Iran and Sudan of supporting Algerian extremists. The GSPC may also receive support from the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) network in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Some GSPC members in Europe are suspected of having ties with other North African extremists sympathetic to al Qaeda.
COMMENTS: GSPC is a splinter group of the GIA, and has gained popular support through its pledge not to attack civilians inside Algeria (although it has not kept the pledge). It was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) on March 27, 2002.
EGYPT
NAME: Al-Jihad a.k.a. Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Jihad Group, Islamic Jihad
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: Late 1970s.
GOALS: Overthrow the Egyptian government and replace it with an Islamic state; attack U.S. and Israeli interests in Egypt and abroad.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: Car-bombing against official U.S. facilities.
STRENGTH: Unknown, suspected to be several hundred.
OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: Mainly Cairo, but has a network outside Egypt, including Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Lebanon, and the United Kingdom.
AFFILIATIONS: Close partner of Osama Bin Laden's al Qaeda; Iran. May get some funds via various Islamic non-governmental organizations, cover businesses, and criminal acts.
COMMENTS: The original Jihad was responsible for the 1981 assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.
NAME: Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group, IG)
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: Late 1970s.
GOALS: The IG's primary goal is to overthrow the Egyptian government and replace it with an Islamic state, but certain group leaders also may be interested in attacking U.S. and Israeli interests.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: The IG has never specifically attacked a U.S. citizen or facility but has threatened U.S. interests.
STRENGTH: Unknown. At its peak, the IG probably commanded several thousand hard-core members and a like number of sympathizers. The 1998 cease-fire and security crackdowns following the attack on tourists in Luxor in 1997 probably have resulted in a substantial decrease in the group's numbers.
OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: Operates mainly in the Al-Minya, Asyu't, Qina, and Sohaj Governorates of southern Egypt. Also appears to have support in Cairo, Alexandria, and other urban locations, particularly among unemployed graduates and students. Has a worldwide presence, including Sudan, the United Kingdom, Afghanistan, Austria, and Yemen.
AFFILIATIONS: Unknown. The Egyptian government believes that Iran, bin Laden, and Afghan militant groups support the organization. Also may obtain some funding through various Islamic non-governmental organizations.
COMMENTS: Al-Gama'a claims responsibility for the attempt in June 1995 to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The group's spiritual leader, Shaykh Umar Abd al-Rahman, is incarcerated in the United States. A Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) listed as "active" during 2000.
frostfire
10-01-2009, 21:20
Please do not take offense but I decline what appears to be an invitation. It is my observation that you frequently use this rhetorical tactic when you respond to viewpoints that disagree or question yours. The logic appears to be if I've read what you've read, I'll interpret it as you do.
Sigaba, if I may know, why decline?
Rhetorical tactic or not, this response may suggest that you fear you'd actually share the LTC's interpretation if you do read his reading-list recommendations?
To compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, wouldn't one first need to "read" much about apples' and oranges' structure, look, taste, etc. in order to properly differentiate?
Unfortunately, on those occasions where I've taken a look at some of the sources you cite, not only do I disagree with you but the sources themselves do not support your position or they contradict other sources that you site or positions you've taken elsewhere or the sources just are not reliable. Or all of the above. And these are sources that are in English. The most convenient, if not recent, examples are your discussion of 'Stockholm Syndrome' and the historiography of Nazism, which I addressed above.
Would you please elaborate more on this. Point out any logical inconsistencies.Lay all the cards out, as I do wish to learn and seek clarity.
Team Sergeant
10-01-2009, 21:20
INDIA
NAME: Al-Ummah
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: 1992.
GOALS: Unknown.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: None.
STRENGTH: Unknown.
OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: Southern India.
AFFILIATIONS: Unknown.
COMMENTS: Radical Indian Muslim group believed responsible for the Coimbatore bombings in Southern India in 1998.
IRAQ
NAME: Abu Nidal organization (ANO) a.k.a. Fatah Revolutionary Council, Arab Revolutionary Brigades, Black September, and Revolutionary Organization of Socialist Muslims.
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: Split from the PLO in 1974.
GOALS: Establishment of a Palestinian State.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: Targets include the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Israel, moderate Palestinians, the PLO, and various Arab countries. Has not attacked Western targets since the late 1980s.
STRENGTH: A few hundred plus limited overseas support structure.
OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: Its leader, Sabri Al-Banna, relocated to Iraq in December 1998, where the group maintains a presence. Has an operational presence in Lebanon, including in several Palestinian refugee camps. Authorities shut down the ANO's operations in Libya and Egypt in 1999. Has demonstrated ability to operate over wide area, including the Middle East, Asia, and Europe. Has carried out terrorist attacks in 20 countries, killing or injuring almost 900 persons.
AFFILIATIONS: Has received considerable support, including safe haven, training, logistic assistance, and financial aid from Iraq, Libya, and Syria (until 1987), in addition to close support for selected operations.
COMMENTS: Financial problems and internal disorganization have reduced the group's activities and capabilities. A Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) listed as "active" during 2000.
NAME: Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO) a.k.a. The National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA, the militant wing of the MEK), the People's Mujahidin of Iran (PMOI), National Council of Resistance (NCR), Muslim Iranian Student's Society (front organization used to garner financial support).
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: 1960s.
GOALS: The MEK continues to conduct a worldwide campaign against the Iranian government, which stresses propaganda and occasionally uses terrorist violence.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: During the 1970s, the MEK staged terrorist attacks inside Iran and killed several U.S. military personnel and civilians working on defense projects in Tehran. Supported the takeover in 1979 of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
STRENGTH: Several thousand fighters based in Iraq with an extensive overseas support structure. Most of the fighters are organized in the MEK's National Liberation Army (NLA).
OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: In the 1980s, the MEK's leaders were forced by Iranian security forces to flee to France. Most resettled in Iraq by 1987. In the mid-1980s, the group did not mount terrorist operations in Iran at a level similar to its activities in the 1970s. In the 1990s, however, the MEK claimed credit for an increasing number of operations in Iran.
AFFILIATIONS: Beyond support from Iraq, the MEK uses front organizations to solicit contributions from expatriate Iranian communities.
COMMENTS: Formed by the college-educated children of Iranian merchants, the MEK sought to counter what it perceived as excessive Western influence in the Shah's regime. Following a philosophy that mixes Marxism and Islam, the MEK has developed into the largest and most active armed Iranian dissident group. Its history is studded with anti-Western activity, and, most recently, attacks on the interests of the clerical regime in Iran and abroad. A Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) listed as "active" during 2000.
Team Sergeant
10-01-2009, 21:21
NAME: Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: Broke away from the PFLP-GC in mid-1970s.
GOALS: Creation of a Palestinian state.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: The Abu Abbas-led faction was responsible for the attack in 1985 on the cruise ship Achille Lauro and the murder of U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer.
STRENGTH: Unknown.
OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: Based in Tunisia until Achille Lauro attack, it is now based in Iraq.
AFFILIATIONS: Receives support mainly from Iraq. Has received support from Libya in the past.
COMMENTS: After its initial break with the PFLP-GC, split again into pro-PLO, pro-Syrian, and pro-Libyan factions. Pro-PLO faction is led by Muhammad Abbas (Abu Abbas), who became member of PLO Executive Committee in 1984 but left it in 1991. A warrant for Abu Abbas's arrest is outstanding in Italy. A Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) listed as "active" during 2000.
LEBANON
NAME: ‘Asbat al-Ansar (The Partisans’ League)
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: Early 1990s.
GOALS: Overthrow the Lebanese government and thwart anti-Islamic influences in Lebanon.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: None.
STRENGTH: About 300 fighters.
OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: Primary base of operations is the ‘Ayn al-Hilwah Palestinian refugee camp in southern Lebanon.
AFFILIATIONS: Overseas Sunni extremist networks and Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda.
COMMENTS: A Lebanon-based group composed mainly of Palestinians, Asbat al-Ansar adheres to an extremist interpretation of Islam and justifies the use of violence against civilian targets. The group raised its profile in 2000 with a rocket-propelled grenade attack on the Russian Embassy in Beirut. It was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) on March 27, 2002.
NAME: Hezbollah (Party of God) a.k.a. Islamic Jihad, Revolutionary Justice Organization, Organization of the Oppressed on Earth, and Islamic Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: Unknown.
GOALS: Increasing its political power in Lebanon, and opposing Israel and the Middle East peace negotiations.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: Known or suspected to have been involved in numerous anti-U.S. terrorist attacks, including the suicide truck bombing of the U.S. embassy and U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983, and the U.S. embassy annex in Beirut in September 1984.
STRENGTH: Several thousand supporters and a few hundred terrorist operatives.
OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: Operates in the Bekaa Valley, the southern suburbs of Beirut, and southern Lebanon. Has established cells in Europe, Africa, South America, North America, and Asia.
AFFILIATIONS: Receives substantial amounts of financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid from Iran and Syria.
COMMENTS: A radical Shia organization founded in Lebanon. A Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) listed as "active" during 2000.
Team Sergeant
10-01-2009, 21:22
OCCUPIED TERRITORIES
NAME: Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: 2000
GOALS: Drive the Israeli military and people from the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem and establish a Palestinian state.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: At least five U.S. citizens have been killed in attacks, but probably not because of their citizenship. The group mainly targets Israeli military personnel and civilians.
STRENGTH: Unknown.
OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: Mainly in the West Bank, but has also claimed responsibility for attacks inside Israel and the Gaza Strip.
AFFILIATIONS: Unknown.
COMMENTS: Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade is composed of cells of Fatah-affiliated activists that emerged with the onset of the intifadah in 2000. In January 2002, an al-Aqsa member became the first female suicide bomber in the intifadah. The group was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) on March 27, 2002.
NAME: Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP)
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: 1969.
GOALS: Achieve Palestinian national goals through revolution of the masses.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: None.
STRENGTH: 500.
OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: Syria, Lebanon, and the Israeli-occupied territories.
AFFILIATIONS: One of the two factions joined with other rejectionist groups to form the Alliances of Palestinian Forces (APF), but broke it off. Has made limited moves toward merging with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) since the mid-1990s. Receives limited financial and military aid from Syria.
COMMENTS: Marxist-Leninist organization founded when it split from the PFLP. Opposed the Israel-PLO peace agreement.
NAME: HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: 1987.
GOALS: Establishing an Islamic Palestinian state in place of Israel.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: Unknown.
STRENGTH: Unknown number of hard-core members; tens of thousands of supporters and sympathizers.
OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: Primarily the occupied territories, Israel. In August 1999, Jordanian authorities closed the group's Political Bureau offices in Amman, arrested its leaders, and prohibited the group from operating on Jordanian territory.
AFFILIATIONS: Receives funding from Palestinian expatriates, Iran, and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other moderate Arab states. Some fundraising and propaganda activities take place in Western Europe and North America.
COMMENTS: Formed as an outgrowth of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Various HAMAS elements have used both political and violent means, including terrorism. Loosely structured, with some elements working clandestinely and others working openly through mosques and social service institutions to recruit members, raise money, organize activities, and distribute propaganda. Also has engaged in peaceful political activity, such as running candidates in West Bank Chamber of Commerce elections. A Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) listed as "active" during 2000.
NAME: The Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: 1970s.
GOALS: The creation of an Islamic Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel through holy war.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: Because of its strong support for Israel, the United States has been identified as an enemy of the PIJ, but the group has not specifically conducted attacks against U.S. interests in the past. In July 2000, however, publicly threatened to attack U.S. interests if the U.S. Embassy is moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
STRENGTH: Unknown.
OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: Primarily Israel and the occupied territories and other parts of the Middle East, including Jordan and Lebanon. Headquartered in Syria.
AFFILIATIONS: Receives financial assistance from Iran and limited logistic assistance from Syria.
COMMENTS: Originated among militant Palestinians in the Gaza Strip during the 1970s. Also opposes moderate Arab governments that it believes have been tainted by Western secularism. A Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) listed as "active" during 2000.
Team Sergeant
10-01-2009, 21:22
PAKISTAN
NAME: Harakat ul-Ansar (HUA)
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: October 1993.
GOALS: Oppose Indian troops in Kashmir.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: U.S. nationals were kidnapped in New Delhi in 1994 in effort to secure the release of imprisoned HUA leader Maulana Masood Azhar.
STRENGTH: Several thousand armed supporters
OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: Based in Pakistan, but operates mainly in Kashmir.
AFFILIATIONS: Collects funds from supporters in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf and Islamic states, and from Pakistanis and Kashmiris. Has been linked to the Kashmiri militant group Al-Faran. See "Army of Muhammad (JEM)."
NAME: Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM)
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: Early 1990s.
GOALS: Unite Kashmir with Pakistan.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: None, although new leader Farooq Kashmiri. Khalil, who took control of HUM in February 2000, has been linked to Bin Ladin and signed his fatwah in February 1998 calling for attacks on U.S. and Western interests.
STRENGTH: Several thousand armed supporters.
OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: Based in Muzaffarabad, Rawalpindi, and several other towns in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but members conduct insurgent and terrorist activities primarily in Kashmir. The HUM trains its militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
AFFILIATIONS: Collects donations from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf and Islamic states, and from Pakistanis and Kashmiris. The sources and amount of HUM's military funding are unknown. Leadership has been linked to Osama Bin Ladin.
COMMENTS: Formerly known as the Harakat al-Ansar, the HUM is an Islamic militant group based in Pakistan that operates primarily in Kashmir. Supporters are mostly Pakistanis and Kashmiris, and also include Afghans and Arab veterans of the Afghan war. Uses light and heavy machineguns, assault rifles, mortars, explosives, and rockets. HUM lost some of its membership in defections to the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM). Continues to operate terrorist training camps in eastern Afghanistan. A Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) listed as "active" during 2000.
NAME: Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) (Army of Mohammed)
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: February, 2000.
GOALS: Unite Kashmir with Pakistan.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: None. JEM's leader, Maulana Masood Azhar, is a former leader of Harakat ul-Ansar (HUA), and was imprisoned until 1999 when he was released in a hostage exchange. U.S. nationals were kidnapped in New Delhi in 1994 in an earlier HUA effort to secure his release.
STRENGTH: Several hundred armed supporters.
OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: Based in Peshawar and Muzaffarabad, but members conduct terrorist activities primarily in Kashmir. The JEM maintains training camps in Afghanistan.
AFFILIATIONS: Most of the JEM's cadre and material resources have been drawn from the militant groups Harakat ul-Jihad al-Islami (HUJI) and the Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM). The JEM has close ties to Afghan Arabs and the Taliban. Osama Bin Laden is suspected of giving funding to the JEM.
COMMENTS: The JEM is an Islamist group based in Pakistan that has rapidly expanded in size and capability. Supporters are mostly Pakistanis and Kashmiris, and also include Afghans and Arab veterans of the Afghan war. Uses light and heavy machineguns, assault rifles, mortars, improvised explosive devices, and rocket grenades. NOT a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), but listed as "active" during 2000.
NAME: Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LT) (Army of the Righteous)
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: 1989.
GOALS: Unite Kashmir with Pakistan.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: None.
STRENGTH: Several hundred members.
OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: Based in Muridke (near Lahore) and Muzaffarabad. The LT trains its militants in mobile training camps across Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Afghanistan.
AFFILIATIONS: Collects donations from the Pakistani community in the Persian Gulf and United Kingdom, Islamic NGOs, and Pakistani and Kashmiri businessmen. The amount of LT funding is unknown. The LT maintains ties to religious/military groups around the world, ranging from the Philippines to the Middle East and Chechnya through the MDI fraternal network.
COMMENTS: The LT is the armed wing of the Pakistan-based religious organization, Markaz-ud-Dawa-wal-Irshad (MDI) — a Sunni anti-U.S. missionary organization. One of the three largest and best-trained groups fighting in Kashmir against India, it is not connected to a political party. The group has conducted a number of operations against Indian troops and civilian targets in Kashmir since 1993. Almost all LT cadres are foreigners — mostly Pakistanis from seminaries across the country and Afghan veterans of the Afghan wars. Uses assault rifles, light and heavy machineguns, mortars, explosives, and rocket propelled grenades. NOT a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) but listed as "active" during 2000.
Team Sergeant
10-01-2009, 21:23
PHILLIPPINES
NAME: Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: 1991.
GOALS: Promote an independent Islamic state in western Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago, areas in the southern Philippines heavily populated by Muslims.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: Kidnapped more than 30 foreigners, including a U.S. citizen, in 2000.
STRENGTH: 200 core fighters and more than 2,000 supporters.
OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: Mainly southern Philippines with members occasionally traveling to Manila. Operated in Malaysia in 2000.
AFFILIATIONS: Probably receives support from Islamic extremists in the Middle East and South Asia. Some have ties to Mujahidin in Afghanistan.
COMMENTS: Smallest and most radical of the Islamic separatist groups operating in the southern Philippines. The group split from the Moro National Liberation Front in 1991. A Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) listed as "active" during 2000.
SOUTH AFRICA
NAME: Qibla and People Against Gangsterism and Drugs (PAGAD)
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: Qibla: 1980s; PAGAD: 1996.
GOALS: Qibla: Establish an Islamic state in South Africa; PAGAD: Fight drug lords in Cape Town. The two groups share anti-Western stance as well as some members and leadership, and promote greater political voice for South African Muslims.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: Qibla protests U.S. policies toward the Muslim world through its radio station 786. PAGAD is suspected of conducting hundreds of bombings and other violent actions.
STRENGTH: Qibla: 250; PAGAD: at least 50 gunmen, and larger than Qibla.
OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: Cape Town, South Africa.
AFFILIATIONS: Probably have ties to Islamic extremists in the Middle East.
COMMENTS: Often uses names such as Muslims Against Global Oppression (MAGO) and Muslims Against Illegitimate Leaders (MAIL) when launching anti-Western campaigns. NOT a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), but listed as "active" during 2000.
Team Sergeant
10-01-2009, 21:25
SYRIA
NAME: Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: 1967.
GOALS: Oppose current negotiations with Israel. Promote national unity and the reinvigoration of the PLO.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: None.
STRENGTH: 800.
OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and the occupied territories.
AFFILIATIONS: Receives safe haven and some logistic assistance from Syria.
COMMENTS: Joined the Alliance of Palestinian Forces (APF) to and suspended participation in the PLO. Broke away from the APF, along with the DFLP, in 1996 over ideological differences. A Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) listed as "active" during 2000.
NAME: Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC)
GOALS: Oppose Arafat's PLO.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: None.
STRENGTH: Several hundred.
OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: Europe, Middle East, southern Lebanon, Israel, West Bank, and Gaza Strip. Headquartered in Damascus with bases in Lebanon.
AFFILIATIONS: Receives logistic and military support from Syria and financial support from Iran.
COMMENTS: Known for cross-border terrorist attacks into Israel using unusual means. A Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) listed as "active" during 2000.
UNITED STATES
NAME: Jamaat ul-Fuqra
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: Early 1980s.
GOALS: Purify Islam through violence.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: Assassinations and fire-bombings across the United States in the 1980s. Members in the United States have been convicted of criminal violations, including murder and fraud.
STRENGTH: Unknown.
OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: North America, Pakistan.
AFFILIATIONS: None.
COMMENTS: Members have purchased isolated rural compounds in North America to live communally, practice their faith, and insulate themselves from Western culture.
Team Sergeant
10-01-2009, 21:25
UZBEKISTAN
NAME: Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: Unknown..
GOALS: Oppose Uzbekistani President Islom Karimov's secular regime and establish an Islamic state in Uzbekistan.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: Took hostages on several occasions in 1999 and 2000, including four U.S. citizens. The group's propaganda includes anti-Western and anti-Israeli rhetoric.
STRENGTH: Militants probably number in the thousands.
OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: Militants based in Afghanistan and Tajikistan. Area of operation includes Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Afghanistan.
AFFILIATIONS: Other Islamic extremist groups in Central and South Asia.
COMMENTS: A U.S. Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) listed as "active" during 2000.
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/terrorist-groups.cfm
Team Sergeant
10-01-2009, 21:29
I'm glad it's just al-Qaeda we're concerned with. It makes me wonder what Professor Telhami is reading when he makes a statement like this one:
It is primarily al-Qaeda and its allies as organizations that must be defeated. It is not terrorism broadly and it is not Islamism broadly. Professor Telhami
Who were the "islamic" terrorists that held 50 Americans 444 days? Oh, right, that was an islamic republic, not a islamic terrorist group.
Funny we forget so quickly.
TS
frostfire
10-01-2009, 21:34
TS, you forgot to mention Jemaah Islamiyah and many others
Team Sergeant
10-01-2009, 21:47
TS, you forgot to mention Jemaah Islamiyah and many others
I know there are dozens of other islamic terrorists groups, I was merely pointing out that islam and it's followers are a global threat and one we as a nation have faced for nearly half a century. There is no "one" islamic terrorist group, islam spawns violence.
C'mon Team Sgt, quit filling this thread with examples and just wax poetic about what Islam could be (but never really has been) and not what it is in practice.
The Ummah divide the world into two geographic entities: Dar iL Harb and Dar iL Salaam. These are the most basic and common of terms to describe the Muslim/NonMuslim world.
The first Dar il Harb means the "place or house of war" these are non Muslim ruled countries wher Islam is not yet supreme. The term war is not lightly used in Islam but is taken literally to mean that Islam , by virtue of it's tenets, must war with secular societies and will eventually triumph.
Dar iL Salaam is the 'place of peace' where Islam already is the law/religion of the land.
Even peaceful Muslims understand this most basic concept.
Even peaceful Muslims must side doctrinally at least with radicals they actually may personally disapprove of.
There in lies the rub.
Sigaba, if I may know, why decline?
Rhetorical tactic or not, this response may suggest that you fear you'd actually share the LTC's interpretation if you do read his reading-list recommendations?To answer your second question first, it is unlikely that he and I would come to the same conclusion for the same reasons. It has been my life-long experience that if everyone in the room agrees on "X" for reasons 1, 2, and 3, my reasons will be √-1, π, and 'purple.' (I get laughed at. A lot. But over time, certain people will back into their parking spaces, change the way they name computer files, shop at Costco, watch comedies more often, use the word 'strategy' less casually, read more carefully, have less confidence in Democrats, and take matters that they consider important more seriously. Yet somehow, most folks won't try Miracle Whip on their sandwiches. What gives?:confused:)
I believe that the rest of post #47, above, answers your first question. If not, I would refer you to the following comment. Just like in real estate, it's location, location, location, in reading and interpretation of the Book, it's context, context, context. Time frame and cultural references come to mind.
To compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, wouldn't one first need to "read" much about apples' and oranges' structure, look, taste, etc. in order to properly differentiate?What (or who) constitutes proper differentiation? What kind of an apple are we talking about? How are the apples being used? Are they being used in a fruit salad, a chicken salad, a pie, a strudel, a curry dish, to make chips, or to make juice? Are all of these dishes being made according to the same recipe or are there variations by region, by clan, or by tribe? Have the recipes changed over time? Or is it just enough to examine the apple and read the recipe? (What about the dates, the figs, the quinces, and the pears?)Would you please elaborate more on this. Point out any logical inconsistencies.Lay all the cards out, as I do wish to learn and seek clarity.At this time, I would rather not, for many reasons. I will disclose two.
Here's the first. In 1973, Robert James Maddox undertook the exercise you are requesting in an article on Gar Alperovitz's Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam: The Use of the Atomic Bomb and the American Confrontation with Soviet Power (1965). This article and Alperovitz's reply, IMO, marked the acceleration of a downward spiral in the historiography of American foreign relations.* The exchange embittered further already caustic debates and undermined the growth of the field. The shockwaves of this brawl and others like it were so long lasting that Charles S. Maier attempted an intervention in 1980 in the form of a scathing critique that took to task Americanists for losing step with broader concerns of their Europeanist counterparts and the profession at large.:o** Maier's comments, offered as a wake up call, went largely unremarked. The field did not begin to make up the ground it had lost until the late 1980s. (Indeed, it remains debatable if the field has caught up all the way.***)
Because of this long spiral to nowhere, the historiography of American foreign relations was for decades of limited utility to those seeking to place their understanding of contemporaneous international relations in a useful historical context. Consequently, while the discourse in American strategic culture during the Cold War had ample representation of the fields of political science, international relations, and strategic studies, Klio's voice was muted because too many historians were too busy rolling around in the mud rather than getting up out of the muck, going back to their offices and asking and figuring out on their own "Why are those who respect me, value my contributions, and want me to succeed losing confidence in what I'm doing? What am I missing?" <<LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-L_bJAJA-E&feature=related)>>
The second reason is that numerous examples have been provided already. Five by me, the rest by other members of this BB (including at least five by you). In combination, these examples lay out several approaches of inquiry to discern other examples.
__________________________________________________
* Robert J. Maddox, "Atomic Diplomacy: A Study in Creative Writing," The Journal of American History, 59:4 (Mar., 1973): 925-934; Gar Alperovitz, Communications, The Journal of American History, 59:4 (Mar., 1973): 1062-1067.
** Charles S. Maier, “Marking Time: The Historiography of International Relations,” in Michael Kammen, ed., The Past Before Us: Contemporary Historical Writing in the United States (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1980). In 1993, as a new arrival in a graduate program, the chairman of the department went out of his way to teasingly ask if I had read this essay. Interestingly, after many years of studying diplomatic history under the guidance of top flight guys, I had never heard of it, because, I surmised, they had not heard of it. (How out of touch must a field of study be for its practitioners to know not that they were being laughed at? Zoiks!)
*** Earlier this year, Thomas W. Zeiler attempted to make the case that the field was back on track in his "The Diplomatic History Bandwagon: A State of the Field," The Journal of American History 95:4 (March 2009): 1053-1073. While Fredrik Logevall offered his enthusiastic but qualified agreement, Mario Del Pero, Jessica C. E. Gienow-Hect, and Kristin Hoganson seem less sanguine. Logevall, "Politics and Foreign Relations," ibid., 1074-1078; Del Pero, "On the Limits of Thomas Zeiler's Historiographical Triumphalism," ibid., 1079-1082; Gienow-Hect, "What Bandwagon? Diplomatic History Today," ibid., 1083-1086; Hoganson, "Hop off the Bandwagon! It's a Mass Movement, Not a Parade," ibid., 1087-1091.
Warrior-Mentor
10-02-2009, 12:12
The three questions concern the credibility of an interpretation offered by a person using said sources in addition to the reliability of those sources themselves.
And what are those three questions?
You call into question the credibility of the sources but fail to cite which source you question and why.
(Also, respectfully but bluntly, the notion that a single book on any topic gives a "full answer" to any question is at odds with the conventions of intellectual inquiry in the Western world that have been practiced the last seven centuries.).
What conventions are those? There are plenty of simple questions that can be answered with a word, a paragraph or a page.
Not EVERY question requires a book, let alone many.
(Please do not take offense but I decline what appears to be an invitation. It is my observation that you frequently use this rhetorical tactic when you respond to viewpoints that disagree or question yours. The logic appears to be if I've read what you've read, I'll interpret it as you do.
Why not? I frequently use this to footnote the sources of my information. It is for EXACTLY that reason - so people can read the information and decide for themselves. If they read it and have a different interpretation, then we can discuss it intelligently.
Your argument seems to be ANTI-INTELLECTUAL in nature.
What is the alternative you are proposing?
That we shouldn't encourage people to read more? That they should take us at our word? That's something that might expect from a Mullah - "How dare you question what I say?"
I thought we pride ourselves on the intellectual tension between the various debates....(as epitomized and summarized in the book 13 American Arguments).
http://www.amazon.com/Thirteen-American-Arguments-Enduring-Debates/dp/1400065445
Unfortunately, on those occasions where I've taken a look at some of the sources you cite, not only do I disagree with you but the sources themselves do not support your position or they contradict other sources that you site or positions you've taken elsewhere or the sources just are not reliable. Or all of the above.
And so because you disagreed with what I cited in the past, you don't feel the need to read what I cite - yet you are willing to criticize my argument?
Seems more like intellectual laziness to me.
It seems more like all you're offering is an ad hominem of "I disagree with everything you ever said. :p"
And these are sources that are in English.
I'll save you the trouble of getting the book. Attached below are 5 pages of easy reading.
The most convenient, if not recent, examples are your discussion of 'Stockholm Syndrome' and the historiography of Nazism, which I addressed above.
You are correct. I am not qualified to make a psychological diagnosis. Let's agree and drop that charge.
Is it acceptable for a middle-aged man to marry a 6 year old girl?
Is it acceptable, moral, ethical, for a middle-aged man to have sex with a 9 year old girl?
No one (except Hollyweird) seems willing to rush forward to defend Roman Polanski. And she was 13!
Your interpretations of the religious, political, social, intellectual, strategic, economic, diplomatic, military, naval, and cultural history of Europe and America are similarly at odds with what little I know about those topics.
More ad hominem attacks. Let's throw in the kitchen sink - you forgot that.
Refresh my memory, aside from religion and politics, when have I discussed the military, naval and cultural history of Europe and America?
For these reasons and many others--not the least of which is the tone you use when people have the temerity to disagree with you--I do not have as high a level of confidence in your expertise on these topics as I need to accept your guidance on the topic at hand.
Tone, as explained in the opening post of this thread, is irrelevant.
I'm glad you don't accept what I've said. Challenge me intelligently. Don't just throw out charges without being specific.
Let's discuss the specific areas where you find weakness in my arguments.
FWIW, your posts on the topic at hand have occasioned substantial changes to my reading/research agenda. Indeed, earlier this week I encountered a useful summary of the two prevailing views of the Islamic world offered in the West since 9/11. (Your comments are in line with the first view.) The summary is followed by an interesting piece of analysis.
And what are those two prevailing views? Do you have a footnote or a link so I can read them?
Two additional comments.
I understand that you disagree with Said's critique. I do not understand why you demonstrate your dislike for his analysis by posting comments that exemplify the man's points.
Is your point that anyone who doesn't like islam or wants to expose it's warts is a racist? Because that's what Said effectively said. And that's not the case. i just happen to abhor a totalitarian, supremacist politician ideology masquerading as a religion.
Thomas Mann inspired me. "Tolerance when applied to evil is a crime."
The second comment centers around your apparent disdain for what you label "revisionist" history. Sir, please know that your tone,
I continue to argue that tone is irrelevant.
the structure of your argument,
What specifically don't you like about the structure? This is a red herring to distract from the actual debate.
your historiographical sensibilities,
We had a an academic come into our office yesterday. He started out by stating "I'm a serious academic." Then proceeded to give the working title of the book he was composing ...and it already had the conclusion in the title. How serious an academic is this Professor?
If I were writing a thesis, perhaps my methodology would be different.
Given the deconstruction of your previous post, it seems your historiographical sensibilities are even weaker.
your selection of sources,
Because citing the actual Islamic Law from their definitive manual is a bad idea?
Or is it bad form to quote the Koran itself when discussing Islam?
Which sources don't you like? Ibn Warraq - one of the most respected intellectuals brave enough to expose the truth about the ugliness of islam?
and your use of those sources are strikingly similar to the practices of the so-called revisionist historians of American foreign relations.
It’s CAIR and other Islamic activist groups that are actively engaging in revisionist history as previously discussed here:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=507056
Please also know that while these scholars have given historians a different way to look at the past, the energy they brought to the discussion proved to be counterproductive not only to their own intellectual interests but also damaging to themselves and to others.
I disagree. Are you proposing that it’s better not to fully invest in an intellectual debate? That it’s better to be slovenly and lazy about the issues of this importance? Although you may not have agreed with a differing opinion, a full and robust discussion – a spirited debate if you will – is essential to the healthy life of a democracy. We deserve nothing less.
READ IBN WARRAQ's REMARKS ON "OUT OF CONTEXT" HERE:
.
Warrior Mentor--
I respectfully disagree that tone is irrelevant. From the training I've received, I've learned that one gives respect to get respect. The fact that you continue to act disrespectfully towards those who do not agree with you suggests that you have different sensibilities. I reckon that we'll have to agree to disagree.
I urge you strongly to reconsider your apparent decision to try to belittle me. Although some have suggested otherwise, I have remained polite--if not friendly--in my responses to members of this BB with whom I disagree.
I am a guest in an august house. It is a privilege to be here. I do my best to be worthy of that privilege by behaving respectfully, staying in my lane, contributing intelligently to the discussions, staying in my lane, and adhering to the rules. And staying in my lane.
It is a mistake to confuse my restraint for weakness. There are things in the wild other than accipiters, wolves, wolfhounds, and "sheep." There are strengths in the world other than fang, claw, sinew, and steel.
In regards to your characterization of me as "intellectually lazy" and your questioning of my historiographic sensibilities, I will leave it to readers to decide for themselves. I would ask that interested parties ask themselves a rhetorical question as they deliberate.* Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism: A History (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2006), p. 2.
And what are those two prevailing views? Do you have a footnote or a link so I can read them?http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/allfwks.aspThanks Richard. What did you find on Christianity or Judaism?What is laziness?
The Reaper
10-02-2009, 17:34
I'm feelin' a lot of love here tonight, folks.
You guys continue as long as you want, just keep it polite and turn out the lights in the Library when you are done. First Aid kit is over in the TMC 13 forum if you need it.
I know both of you, and I am confident that you can make your points without undue rancor, argue the merits of your positions thoughtfully, cite your claims and references, and leave without anyone getting too far out of line, or it becoming personal.
Y'all have fun.
TR
frostfire
10-02-2009, 17:38
I reckon that we'll have to agree to disagree.
Age, knowledge, and experience-wise, I am probably the most junior around here, but over the years I've learned and observed that clarity --> actionable items.
WM stance in the issue has been succinctly expressed as
"Love the Muslim, hate islam."
What is yours, Sigaba?
Per your signature, yes, simple answers are not (always) possible. However, more often than not more details = more muddling and the further one gets from clarity and basic tenets of truth. Another thread also mentioned that one truly understands a concept when one can present it in several sentences/words on a 3x5 card.
Please note that I've long given up the idea of discussion/debate as competition. "The heart is deceitful above all things..." Now I do my best to evaluate my own thought process before passing any judgement on others thought process. When I invest time/effort in a discussion, I must get something out of it that is not personal gratification or stroke of ego.
Hence, this is not rhetorical, but personal/practical. I simply desire one thing out of this discussion: clarity. When I squeeze that trigger before another human being who has made his/her choice, I have to have clarity so that I can successfully complete the task at that moment, and the next moment, and so on.
Warrior-Mentor
10-02-2009, 18:05
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
* Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism: A History (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2006), p. 2.
Picked one up at Amazon for $0.18. Guess will talk in a week or so when it arrives and I have a chance to look it over.
Judging by Yale's short summary on their website, I can agree with this much:
"September 11 can be seen as simply the latest expression of this dream, and such attacks have little to do with U.S. international behavior or policy in the Middle East, says Karsh. The House of Islam’s war for world mastery is traditional, indeed venerable, and it is a quest that is far from over."
I respectfully disagree that tone is irrelevant. From the training I've received, I've learned that one gives respect to get respect. The fact that you continue to act disrespectfully towards those who do not agree with you suggests that you have different sensibilities. I reckon that we'll have to agree to disagree.
We'll agree to disagree on tone.
It is a mistake to confuse my restraint for weakness. There are things in the wild other than accipiters, wolves, wolfhounds, and "sheep." There are strengths in the world other than fang, claw, sinew, and steel.
Since intonation is lost on the web, I'm not sure how to take that?
In regards to your characterization of me as "intellectually lazy" and your questioning of my historiographic sensibilities, I will leave it to readers to decide for themselves. I would ask that interested parties ask themselves a rhetorical question as they deliberate.
What is laziness?
That's fair enough.
What is yours, Sigaba?
Frostfire--
Do not engage in the rhetoric of a war of civilizations. An "us" versus "them" approach privileges Ares over Athena. The rhetoric pushes us towards a war of all against all, a general war involving nuclear weapons; if there is no prospect of political compromise tomorrow, one may as well get to it and vaporize Mecca today. To clarify a position I staked out months ago, I am a Mahanian navalist, so if it comes to unleashing the Blue Sword and putting "ordinance on target" in an exercise of "bang, boom, mushroom," that's fine by me. But I'd be much more pleased if the sensibilities of the quiet professionals carried the day.
When it comes to matters of national security, do not make an intellectual argument when a strategic argument will do the job better.
Neither love the Muslim nor hate the Muslim. Seek to understand the Muslim in her/his own terms. Empathy entails understanding not necessarily agreement.
Neither love Islam nor hate Islam. While the tenants of Islam are clear cut, it is only an OS. OS's that suck lead to bad end user experiences. Dissatisfied end users will be interested in hacks, patches, fixes, new builds, upgrades, or even a different OS. (I swear my next computer is going to be an Apple. This time I mean it.)
Engage in respectful dialog with those who are willing to talk. Talk, talk, and then talk some more. Those who are unwilling to talk, watch what they do and go from there.
Listen to one's peers. Remember one's training. If members of your own profession are saying in many different ways "Well...not exactly," it may be time to ask "Is it time for me to go back to square one?" It is a sucky question to ask oneself, but sometimes it is the only way to go.
I'm glad it's just al-Qaeda we're concerned with. It makes me wonder what Professor Telhami is reading when he makes a statement like this one:
It is primarily al-Qaeda and its allies as organizations that must be defeated. It is not terrorism broadly and it is not Islamism broadly. Professor Telhami
Who were the "islamic" terrorists that held 50 Americans 444 days? Oh, right, that was an islamic republic, not a islamic terrorist group.
Funny we forget so quickly.
I may seem to have forgotten much in my life, but strategically I agree with the Professor's thesis that al-Qaeda and its allies as organizations (e.g., Taliban) should remain - at present - the schwerpunkt for US efforts - and that a diffusing of our national efforts to include broadly and equally the many sub-state groups - which historically have and continue to exist in nearly every nation with varying degrees of legitimacy and effectiveness - is both unnecessary and dangerously hinders the success of our primary national security goals.
Richard
But isn't al-Qaeda largely a creature of the Wahabist subgroup?
And doesn't KSA support madrasas that spread the Wahabi views?
So is a focus on al-Qaeda attacking the leaves while ignoring the root of the problem?
Scimitar
10-03-2009, 14:26
Frostfire--
Do not engage in the rhetoric of a war of civilizations. An "us" versus "them" approach privileges Ares over Athena. The rhetoric pushes us towards a war of all against all, a general war involving nuclear weapons; if there is no prospect of political compromise tomorrow, one may as well get to it and vaporize Mecca today. To clarify a position I staked out months ago, I am a Mahanian navalist, so if it comes to unleashing the Blue Sword and putting "ordinance on target" in an exercise of "bang, boom, mushroom," that's fine by me. But I'd be much more pleased if the sensibilities of the quiet professionals carried the day.
At risk of speaking for WM, I don't think he is suggesting an all against all war.
I believe Churchill once said that diplomacy is saying "Nice Doggy until you can reach that large rock over there" (butchered).
Yes, let's talk with our enemy; lets 'melt away' the 80% of any disagreement which is misunderstanding; let's do this process. But while we do this process how about we stop inviting our enemy into our house to baby-sit our children while we go out for the night.
Our enemy WILL say nice doggy until it is too late for us...hudna...and he won’t necessarily realize he’s doing it. My limited understanding says that our enemy believes at least subconsciously that this is a battle of cultures; a battle that can have but one victor...
We most certainly want to kill his culture…legalized porn…woman’s rights…individual rights over the groups…legalized prostitution.
I wonder if our overly liberalized persona has left us thinking that deception is evil, that if we just take the high road and stand weapon-less with our arm wide to embrace our enemy he too will drop his guard.
We are at war folks! That I believe I can say with no doubt..and guess what…we fired the first shot…or wait did they?
We most certainly want them to think like us…..and because of this they feel we attacked them…they don’t believe pluralism can really exist so it is kill or be killed culturally…but hey what the hell do I know…I’m probably wrong…Luckily for me all this doesn’t matter right now.
What does mater right now is that we think if we ignore it, it will go away. There IS a war on…can we PLEASE keep our enemy at arms length until we work out what the hell IS going on!? And can we stop thinking he embraces pluralism when most obviously (at this point in time any way) his default setting does not.
Recently I had a business situation where trust broke down due to some misunderstandings. I distanced myself from this situation to mitigate risk until the truth became clear. We on the other hand try to pretend there is no mistrust or even worse are oblivious to the signs. And all along take no real steps to mitigate the risk.
Scimitar
Strategically, his point is that al-Qaeda and its identifiable allies are the 25 meter target and - for now - remain the greatest potential danger amongst the existant terrorist groups to our national security; it does not mean we ignore everything else but keep that point in mind as we continually assess/reasses the threat(s) and allocate/reallocate resources to neutralize their capability in support of our strategic goal(s).
Chapter 1. Strategic Assessment
Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism
Country Reports on Terrorism 2008
April 30, 2009
TRENDS IN 2008
AL-QA’IDA AND ASSOCIATED TRENDS: Al-Qa’ida (AQ) and associated networks continued to lose ground, both structurally and in the court of world public opinion, but remained the greatest terrorist threat to the United States and its partners in 2008.
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2008/122411.htm
Richard
At risk of speaking for WM, I don't think he is suggesting an all against all war.
I believe Churchill once said that diplomacy is saying "Nice Doggy until you can reach that large rock over there" (butchered).
Yes, let's talk with our enemy; lets 'melt away' the 80% of any disagreement which is misunderstanding; let's do this process. But while we do this process how about we stop inviting our enemy into our house to baby-sit our children while we go out for the night.
Our enemy WILL say nice doggy until it is too late for us...hudna...and he won’t necessarily realize he’s doing it. My limited understanding says that our enemy believes at least subconsciously that this is a battle of cultures; a battle that can have but one victor...
We most certainly want to kill his culture…legalized porn…woman’s rights…individual rights over the groups…legalized prostitution.
I wonder if our overly liberalized persona has left us thinking that deception is evil, that if we just take the high road and stand weapon-less with our arm wide to embrace our enemy he too will drop his guard.
We are at war folks! That I believe I can say with no doubt..and guess what…we fired the first shot…or wait did they?
We most certainly want them to think like us…..and because of this they feel we attacked them…they don’t believe pluralism can really exist so it is kill or be killed culturally…but hey what the hell do I know…I’m probably wrong…Luckily for me all this doesn’t matter right now.
What does mater right now is that we think if we ignore it, it will go away. There IS a war on…can we PLEASE keep our enemy at arms length until we work out what the hell IS going on!? And can we stop thinking he embraces pluralism when most obviously (at this point in time any way) his default setting does not.
Recently I had a business situation where trust broke down due to some misunderstandings. I distanced myself from this situation to mitigate risk until the truth became clear. We on the other hand try to pretend there is no mistrust or even worse are oblivious to the signs. And all along take no real steps to mitigate the risk.
Scimitar
I don't see given what you have stated, or what WM has stated how we cannot have an all out war with Islam, in which there can only be one victor.
Either than can be negotiated with, or they cannot.
Either they can be forced to see our way of thinking, or they cannot.
If everything WM has quoted to this point is in fact the way Islam TRULY is, the only viable answer is All Out War, there can be no negotiating, there can be no way to get them to see things our way. They will always be trying to bring us down, no matter what, because that is what their faith calls for.
What does that mean for us as a) military members b)Americans c)members of the human race?
Because the way I see it, it makes us hypocrits. We fault Muslims for calling for the annihilation of nonbelievers, yet is essence, even though no one on this board is willing to put it into words, we are advocating the very same thing!
Afchic, may I offer a different perspective on the problem? I hasten to add that it is not particularly hopeful or pleasant. However, perhaps it will at least offer some possibilities for discussion.
When resources are abundant, different groups with substantial ideological differences can cooperate to mutual advantage. Some friction may exist at the edges, but the benefits to each society by cooperating with the other outweigh the benefits available from general conflict. For example, fundamentalist Saudi Arabia can sell crude oil to the US. While they may view the US as a group of infidels, they benefit from the transaction. Likewise, the Saudis invest in US securities, with the beneficiaries of such transactions not worrying overly much about the rights of women in Saudi Arabia. More pointedly, I can fill my gas tank without worrying about how the Saudis are using the money they get from the transaction, and they can take my money without being disturbed by my fondness for bacon.
However, this brings us to an argument which has raged for 200 years. On one side, Thomas Malthus suggested that there are limits to resources, and hence to human population. Thus, as the population increases, the availability of resources to individuals and groups declines. As groups compete for resources, cooperation may be subordinated to the benefits gained through conflict. Those engaged by the Malthusian ideas might also be called doomers. In contrast, there are those who believe in unending perpetual growth. Perhaps we can call them cornucopians, or even (derisively) cornys.
In examining the problem, we can see that Islamic countries tend to have high populations, rapidly growing populations, and limited economic opportunity. This suggests a population that is either experiencing resource shortages, or soon will. When the Rivers Run Dry, by Pearce, examines the problem of water - including the effect of water shortages in Pakistan, and its contribution to conflict in that and other regions. In addition, the Western nations use large amounts of resources to maintain their economies and their lifestyle. Furthermore, developing nations such as China clearly aspire to the resource rich environment of the Western nations. Thus, the demand for resources leads the various populations toward conflict.
We can see an example of how this develops in an examination of Easter Island, which was written about by Jared Diamond in his book Collapse. There, the population went from about 20,000 down to 1000 - a decline of 95%. In addition, Dieoff by Catton suggests that the global population has gone substantially above the level supported by the available resources, and will revert to the mean. This in turn supports the premise of conflict and global population decline. Of course, if the proponents of perpetual growth are correct, then this scenario can never occur.
In examining the impact of such conflict on the US military, Americans in general, and the human race, we face the possibility of a new type of conflict and the new type of war. If those nations with resources choose to reserve those resources for themselves and their population, and other nations seek to obtain those resources by force, then there is a possibility of widespread and extensive resource wars. These could exceed the scope and intensity of previous wars, since the battles would all be for survival in the most literal sense. It is also worth considering that mass migrations, under the impetus of famine or other shortages, might create further challenges.
For the US military, nation building, winning hearts and minds, and avoidance of collateral damage might be supplanted by the need to take and hold critical areas, the prevention of mass migrations, and the deterrence of attacks by other nations on resource rich areas. For Americans, previous tendencies toward generosity might be stretched to the breaking point and beyond. The realities of global population reduction, extending over decades, and involving a population reduction of as much as 90% might be transformative of our national character. If we suppose that the most likely scenario for such a development would involve large populations weakened by famine succumbing to disease, along with multiple conflicts such as experienced in Rwanda, then we might pause to consider the reaction of Americans. In addition, Americans might find themselves giving up a great deal of butter in order to afford more guns and bullets in a national fight for survival. And finally, should the human race face such an event it is likely to create critical turns in future development. It is illustrative to consider an insult that developed on Easter Island: "The meat of your grandmother sticks in my teeth." Such a global event would surely cast a long shadow.
If such effects underlie the conflicts we observe, even partially, then they are likely to escalate without regard to efforts by political leaders. Ideology will define an "us" and "them" - and the conflict may prevent negotiation or even reason.
Afchic, may I offer a different perspective on the problem? I hasten to add that it is not particularly hopeful or pleasant. However, perhaps it will at least offer some possibilities for discussion.
When resources are abundant, different groups with substantial ideological differences can cooperate to mutual advantage. Some friction may exist at the edges, but the benefits to each society by cooperating with the other outweigh the benefits available from general conflict. For example, fundamentalist Saudi Arabia can sell crude oil to the US. While they may view the US as a group of infidels, they benefit from the transaction. Likewise, the Saudis invest in US securities, with the beneficiaries of such transactions not worrying overly much about the rights of women in Saudi Arabia. More pointedly, I can fill my gas tank without worrying about how the Saudis are using the money they get from the transaction, and they can take my money without being disturbed by my fondness for bacon.
However, this brings us to an argument which has raged for 200 years. On one side, Thomas Malthus suggested that there are limits to resources, and hence to human population. Thus, as the population increases, the availability of resources to individuals and groups declines. As groups compete for resources, cooperation may be subordinated to the benefits gained through conflict. Those engaged by the Malthusian ideas might also be called doomers. In contrast, there are those who believe in unending perpetual growth. Perhaps we can call them cornucopians, or even (derisively) cornys.
In examining the problem, we can see that Islamic countries tend to have high populations, rapidly growing populations, and limited economic opportunity. This suggests a population that is either experiencing resource shortages, or soon will. When the Rivers Run Dry, by Pearce, examines the problem of water - including the effect of water shortages in Pakistan, and its contribution to conflict in that and other regions. In addition, the Western nations use large amounts of resources to maintain their economies and their lifestyle. Furthermore, developing nations such as China clearly aspire to the resource rich environment of the Western nations. Thus, the demand for resources leads the various populations toward conflict.
We can see an example of how this develops in an examination of Easter Island, which was written about by Jared Diamond in his book Collapse. There, the population went from about 20,000 down to 1000 - a decline of 95%. In addition, Dieoff by Catton suggests that the global population has gone substantially above the level supported by the available resources, and will revert to the mean. This in turn supports the premise of conflict and global population decline. Of course, if the proponents of perpetual growth are correct, then this scenario can never occur.
In examining the impact of such conflict on the US military, Americans in general, and the human race, we face the possibility of a new type of conflict and the new type of war. If those nations with resources choose to reserve those resources for themselves and their population, and other nations seek to obtain those resources by force, then there is a possibility of widespread and extensive resource wars. These could exceed the scope and intensity of previous wars, since the battles would all be for survival in the most literal sense. It is also worth considering that mass migrations, under the impetus of famine or other shortages, might create further challenges.
For the US military, nation building, winning hearts and minds, and avoidance of collateral damage might be supplanted by the need to take and hold critical areas, the prevention of mass migrations, and the deterrence of attacks by other nations on resource rich areas. For Americans, previous tendencies toward generosity might be stretched to the breaking point and beyond. The realities of global population reduction, extending over decades, and involving a population reduction of as much as 90% might be transformative of our national character. If we suppose that the most likely scenario for such a development would involve large populations weakened by famine succumbing to disease, along with multiple conflicts such as experienced in Rwanda, then we might pause to consider the reaction of Americans. In addition, Americans might find themselves giving up a great deal of butter in order to afford more guns and bullets in a national fight for survival. And finally, should the human race face such an event it is likely to create critical turns in future development. It is illustrative to consider an insult that developed on Easter Island: "The meat of your grandmother sticks in my teeth." Such a global event would surely cast a long shadow.
If such effects underlie the conflicts we observe, even partially, then they are likely to escalate without regard to efforts by political leaders. Ideology will define an "us" and "them" - and the conflict may prevent negotiation or even reason.
You provide some great points to ponder. I wrote a paper in school not too long ago, that basically talked about what you have described above. What becomes "important" to a nation, and if it is "important" are we willing to go to war over it. A great deal of the paper revolved around how we treat our allies and friends. If push came to shove, and their was a global food shortage, would we be willing to go to war with our neighbors/allies/friends, if it meant the survival of our nation? My answer is yes we would, and our neighbors/allies/friends would probably do the same.
But my point was more to the many posts in this thread that state Islam can not be a friend of the West, and anyone who is a true believer of Islam must want the annihilation of all non-believers. That those that practice Islam can never be trusted, because they are obliged to lie to the infidel, if it in the end meets their needs.
We have discussed the concept that Islam can never change because Mohammed was perfect, and therefore there is no way things can ever change. That would mean Mohammed was wrong, and thus the entire religion a farce. Many here have stated that will NEVER happen.
My point is that if that is true, then we have no choice but to call for all out war against Islam, in order for our way of life to survive. If that is true, we have now become what we claim to loathe.
Scimitar
10-05-2009, 15:38
Our enemy WILL say nice doggy until it is too late for us...hudna...and he won’t necessarily realize he’s doing it. My limited understanding says that our enemy believes at least subconsciously that this is a battle of cultures; a battle that can have but one victor...
We most certainly want to kill his culture…legalized porn…woman’s rights…individual rights over the groups…legalized prostitution.
Sorry....I'm not saying that there's no chance for the majority of Islam, But I am saying there is damning evidence that they are our enemy so lets distance ourselves and mitiagte the risk until the truth becomes clear. When one suspect that a business deal is perhaps not 'kosha' when possible and practical one distances himself to mitigate risk until the truth can be sorted.
Yet when we as a culture have very strong evidance that all is not what it seems, to me it seems that we don't distance ourselves but instead hug the individual even tighter.
Because the way I see it, it makes us hypocrits. We fault Muslims for calling for the annihilation of nonbelievers, yet is essence, even though no one on this board is willing to put it into words, we are advocating the very same thing!
We are not hypocrites if we are right and they are wrong. :D
.....Arrogant....yes.....but pluralism doesn't ask us to say their right it just asks us to put up with them if they'll put up with us. Unless Islam in general is willing to wash its hands of anti-pluralism then this could work, if it chooses not to then it won't.
I don't think we're advocating their annilation physically...but lets be honest as a nation politically we are advocating their annilation culturally.
Scimitar
My point is that if that is true, then we have no choice but to call for all out war against Islam, in order for our way of life to survive. If that is true, we have now become what we claim to loathe.
My premise is that we will all end up banding together as the situation develops. In general, we'll probably go with what we're used to, have grown up with, or associate with. In addition, perilous times seem to advance religious activity. So adherence to particular religions will probably increase.
However, I would say that whatever the reasons, ultimately one side or the other must win - so one must lose and be destroyed. It could be that both will be destroyed in the process.
Will we have become what we loathe? Respectfully, I don't think so. History has lots of examples of fights to annihilation - Rome destroyed the Iceans, and there was the church campaign against the Cathars, from which came the phrase "Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" – "Kill them [all]! Surely the Lord discerns which [ones] are his". In more modern times, the U.S forcibly reformed both Germany and Japan after the a war. In a religious sense, the Emperor of Japan was required to renounce his supposed divinity. And, of course, the native American population faced substantial modifications to their culture as well.
It's just that we've had the luxury of being more forbearant. We could afford to be generous. My view is that the situation will change - although it won't be comfortable. That means doing all the nasty things that people have done through the ages, and which we prefer not to do - but will when we must.
Warrior-Mentor
10-05-2009, 19:16
But my point was more to the many posts in this thread that state Islam can not be a friend of the West, and anyone who is a true believer of Islam must want the annihilation of all non-believers. That those that practice Islam can never be trusted, because they are obliged to lie to the infidel, if it in the end meets their needs.
We have discussed the concept that Islam can never change because Mohammed was "perfect", and therefore there is no way things can ever change. That would mean Mohammed was wrong, and thus the entire religion a farce. Many here have stated that will NEVER happen.
My point is that if that is true, then we have no choice but to call for all out war against Islam, in order for our way of life to survive. If that is true, we have now become what we claim to loathe.
Not only was Mohammed "perfect," but the Koran is the word of Allah.
It's a shame that Dr. Zuhdi Jasser doesn't have islamic jurisprudence on his side.
We haven't become anything. The mantras of "CO-EXIST" and "TOLERANCE" are utopian ideals to strive for - if only EVERYONE were willing to follow those values.
We didn't start this fight. How many times do we turn the other cheek?
How many 9/11s are you willing to endure?
Which freedoms are you willing to sacrifice?
Let's start with Freedom of speech...it's already under fire...what does it matter if you can say what you want?
"Just keep it to yourself, OK?"
Freedom to worship (or not) as you like?
The list goes on...at what point do we say ENOUGH?
There's a speech making the rounds by the Australian Prime Minister...
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/costello.htm
If you'd like to live by Sharia - go to Saudi Arabia...or any other country that follows sharia.
As ugly as our Democracy can be, despite all it's foibles, it's the best we've got and I love it and have sworn an oath to defend it.
My point is that if that is true, then we have no choice but to call for all out war against Islam, in order for our way of life to survive. If that is true, we have now become what we claim to loathe.
I don't think your assumption or conclusion is correct. One aspect is that Islam is a idea. How does one go to war with a idea? The people are a different issue. Look at Germany in the 1930's/1940's. One might say a lot of Germans where infected with the idea of nazism.
We would not become what we loathe. I am still wondering about what that actually mean. If this is a just a attack on someone who is just different, maybe that is what you mean. We have a right to act preemptively from a biblical perspective. We also have a biblical right to self defense.
The Qur'an is not consistent and one can interpret it in many different ways. The Qur'an, while being the first book in Arabic, was not originally written in Arabic (Linguistic issues, if you need the research site, I may be able to find it). Among the other 'sins' of Muhammad, one can accuse him of plagiarism.
The Qur'an is not written for everyone, it is written for men only, see the sura Al Nesa. There is much more but, the point is the Qur'an is not well thought out or consistent in what it wants the believer to do. The re-interpretation of the Qur'an by Islamic cleric may be a answer. They are currently reviewing Bakari and the Hadeths. Making Islam a more tolerant of others religion.
The next view of Islam is something you may want to take head too. While religious Jews are somewhat tolerated, Christians are cast in the light of polytheist. That is a major curse in Islam. They have a cure in mind that religiously they are to carry out. You can choose to ignore that, but they will not.
Also the copy of the Qur'an, that I have, has a sub-title, "The Final Testament". I am not sure if you if you know what that means. In their teaching and according to the Qur'an everything in the Christianity and Judaism has been superseded and replaced by Islam. This is also a religious reason by Israel is such a hot subject. In 1948 Jews and Christian celebrated a fulfillment in prophecy. For the Muslim is created a conflict, "How can this be, if we are the final testament of Allah?" Israel was a contradiction to what they believe.
While we can say we are not at all out war with Islam or even a little tiny war with Islam, we can conclude that Islam is in a all out war with the non-believer, pagans, polytheists, heretics, etc. You are one of those people. It is not our hypocrisy, it is how shall we defend ourselves?
This is a complex issue for us to find a way to deal with Islam. There is possible change within Islam as I mentioned. I would suggest that you read and study the Qur'an, the Hadeths, understand Shariah law and then ask yourself, 1) How do I fit in, or what does Islam have in store for me?" 2) How can we help Islam change or deal with Islam and defend who and what we are?"
I see a combination of cures. One is the metamorphosis of Islam to a more tolerant 21st century religion, if possible. Like fighting any idea, it is not going to go away.
Not only was Mohammed "perfect," but the Koran is the word of Allah.
It's a shame that Dr. Zuhdi Jasser doesn't have islamic jurisprudence on his side.
We haven't become anything. The mantras of "CO-EXIST" and "TOLERANCE" are utopian ideals to strive for - if only EVERYONE were willing to follow those values.
So in other words we should not strive for that, even though SOME we deal with are not willing to?
We didn't start this fight. How many times do we turn the other cheek?
I am not asking anyone to turn the other cheek in dealing with those that have proven to be out to destroy our way of life. But in my estimation, that is not EVERY Muslim in the world.
How many 9/11s are you willing to endure?
Not another single one!!!!
Which freedoms are you willing to sacrifice?
Which ones are you? Do you agree with the precepts of the Patriot Act?
Let's start with Freedom of speech...it's already under fire...what does it matter if you can say what you want?
"Just keep it to yourself, OK?"
Freedom to worship (or not) as you like?
The list goes on...at what point do we say ENOUGH?
I think many of us have already stated enough is enough. But that does not mean that we are at war with an entire population, because of their religious preference. What that means is we need to do a better job of integrating those that come to this nation from elsewhere. We need to ensure that our rule of law is the law that is followed, no matter what enclave you live in. We need to ensure that means that everyone learns to speak English, as this is an English speaking nations. That if you want a drivers license, you must show your face in your picture.
But we still have freedom of religion in this country whether you are Christina, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, etc etc... Maybe somehow, if we do it right here in the US, we are able to show that Islam can be seperated between religious and political aspects. If not, then we make it intolerable for them to come here, and they stay where they are at.
There's a speech making the rounds by the Australian Prime Minister...
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/costello.htm
If you'd like to live by Sharia - go to Saudi Arabia...or any other country that follows sharia.
Please point out where I have ever stated anything even remotely supporting Sharia in this nation
As ugly as our Democracy can be, despite all it's foibles, it's the best we've got and I love it and have sworn an oath to defend it.
As have alot of others on this website. Just because I don't agree with all of your points on the subject does not mean we are not fighting for the same things. Due to ur different experieinces in life, we just see different ways to go about trying to achieve the same goal.
Interesting article on change in Islam in Egypt.
Egypt's top Islamic cleric is planning to bar students wearing the face veil from entering the schools of al-Azhar, Sunni Islam's premier institute of learning, according to an independent daily.
A security official also told The Associated Press on Monday that police have standing verbal orders to prohibit girls covered from head to toe from entering al-Azhar's institutions, including middle and high schools, as well as the dormitories of several universities in Cairo.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he's not authorized to speak to the press, said the ban was for security reasons.
The moves appear to be part of a government crackdown on increasingly overt manifestations of ultraconservative Islam in Egypt.
While a vast majority of Egyptian women wear the head scarf, only a few wear the niqab, which covers the face and is common in neighboring Saudi Arabia, which practices the more conservative form of Wahhabi Islam. The trend seems to be gaining ground in the Arab world's most populous country.
There is no uniform religious opinion across the Muslim world about whether a head scarf - much less a face veil - is required.
Most Islamic scholars say the face veil is not required but is merely a custom that dates back to tribal, nomadic societies living in the Arabian desert before Islam began.
Sheik of al-Azhar Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi's plans came to light when he told a middle school student in a class he was visiting earlier this week to take off her niqab.
Tantawi was inspecting al-Azhar's schools at the start of the academic year to check on measures in place to stem the spread of swine flu, according to details of the visit published Monday by the independent daily Al-Masry Al-Youm.
Tantawi angrily told the girl that the niqab has nothing to do with Islam and is only a custom and made her take it off.
He then announced he would soon issue an order prohibiting girls wearing the niqab from entering al-Azhar schools.
"Niqab has nothing to do with Islam. ... I know about religion better than you and your parents," the cleric was quoted as telling the student.
Tantawi left Cairo late Sunday on a visit to Tajikistan and was not available for comment. Calls to his deputies went unanswered.
However, Abdel Moati Bayoumi, a scholar in an al-Azhar affiliated research center, said al-Azhar's scholars would back Tantawi if he issues the order.
"We all agree that niqab is not a religious requirement." Bayoumi said. "Taliban forces women to wear the niqab. ... The phenomena is spreading and it has to be confronted," he added. "The time has come."
Critics of the move, however, say the ban has little chance of being implemented. A previous directive by the minister of religious endowment to ban women preachers wearing the niqab from mosques was hotly contested. A ban on nurses wearing full veil was announced last year, but not enforced.
A researcher wearing the niqab who was prevented from using the library at the American University in Cairo in 2001 took her case to Egypt's supreme court and eventually won. The court ruled a total ban on the niqab to be unconstitutional.
The court did recommend that women wearing the niqab be made to uncover their faces before female security guards to verify their identity.
On Saturday, scores of female university students protested outside al-Azhar university dormitory calling for the repeal of the decision barring fully veiled women from entering. There were similar demonstrations at Cairo University.
Sheik Safwat Hijazi, a scholar and preacher, said he would sue anyone who prevented his daughter or wife wearing full niqab from going about her daily life, including entering government offices.
"Preventing a woman from wearing what she wants is a crime," Hijazi said. "Whoever says the niqab is a custom is not respectable".
Hossam Bahgat, of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, said the series of government decisions against the niqab are arbitrary and, while designed to combat extremism, only end up being discriminatory against women.
"The [veiled female students] are barred from government subsidized housing and nutrition because they are considered extremists," he said
greenberetTFS
10-06-2009, 11:44
Not only was Mohammed "perfect," but the Koran is the word of Allah.
It's a shame that Dr. Zuhdi Jasser doesn't have islamic jurisprudence on his side.
We haven't become anything. The mantras of "CO-EXIST" and "TOLERANCE" are utopian ideals to strive for - if only EVERYONE were willing to follow those values.
We didn't start this fight. How many times do we turn the other cheek?
How many 9/11s are you willing to endure?
Which freedoms are you willing to sacrifice?
Let's start with Freedom of speech...it's already under fire...what does it matter if you can say what you want?
"Just keep it to yourself, OK?"
Freedom to worship (or not) as you like?
The list goes on...at what point do we say ENOUGH?
There's a speech making the rounds by the Australian Prime Minister...
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/costello.htm
If you'd like to live by Sharia - go to Saudi Arabia...or any other country that follows sharia.
As ugly as our Democracy can be, despite all it's foibles, it's the best we've got and I love it and have sworn an oath to defend it.
W-M,
Well said,I can't help but agree 110%...........:lifter:lifter:lifter
Big Teddy :munchin
Warrior-Mentor
10-06-2009, 12:03
So in other words we should not strive for that, even though SOME we deal with are not willing to?
You’ve mis-taken my words. I say again - they are ideals to strive for.
My point was that Islamists are NOT playing by the same rules, or striving for the same goal of play nice, co-exist and tolerate others as they are.
I am not asking anyone to turn the other cheek in dealing with those that have proven to be out to destroy our way of life. But in my estimation, that is not EVERY Muslim in the world.
I agree. Just as it wasn't every German in Nazi Germany.
Which ones are you? Do you agree with the precepts of the Patriot Act?
I do. You say you are not willing to accept another 9/11. But your next sentence seems to challenge that by questioning the Patriot Act.
Am I misunderstanding your remarks?
Ben Franklin is credited with saying "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
The postulate becomes “Never sacrifice liberty.”
That can be taken to one of two extremes. Delete the Patriot Act. Pretend like there’s no threat. Let them set off bombs in our street and kill our children at will. At least we have our “freedom.”
Or – take every necessary precaution to protect liberty by waging all out war against the threat to ensure our freedoms are protected.
Neither is an ideal answer to a national security challenge.
I believe that Freedom and Security are a balancing act.
Given our current environment, the Patriot Act is an acceptable compromise. I’m not worried about the FBI, CIA, DIA or any other agency listening to my phone calls. They’d be bored and wasting their time.
The Zazi case shows the effectiveness of allowing our national security apparatus to using telephonic surveillance.
I think many of us have already stated enough is enough. But that does not mean that we are at war with an entire population, because of their religious preference. What that means is we need to do a better job of integrating those that come to this nation from elsewhere. We need to ensure that our rule of law is the law that is followed, no matter what enclave you live in. We need to ensure that means that everyone learns to speak English, as this is an English speaking nations. That if you want a drivers license, you must show your face in your picture.
I agree. There are a number of problems we need to overcome. First, what about those who do not wish to integrate? There’s no established duties and responsibilities of a citizen. Where is the legal requirement to integrate? And who enforces it?
It would be great if everyone would learn English. Are you willing to make that a law? Again, who enforces it? Do we eliminate public-school programs that have Spanish speaking teaches to help those communities where English is predominantly a second language?
Agree with the photo ID. You want to drive? You need a photo ID. You want to fly? You need a photo ID.
But we still have freedom of religion in this country whether you are Christina, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, etc etc... Maybe somehow, if we do it right here in the US, we are able to show that Islam can be seperated between religious and political aspects. If not, then we make it intolerable for them to come here, and they stay where they are at.
That’s one of the many recommendations of Moorthy Muthuswamy in his book “Defeating Political Islam.”
If you'd like to live by Sharia - go to Saudi Arabia...or any other country that follows sharia.
Please point out where I have ever stated anything even remotely supporting Sharia in this nation
Sorry. That was a rhetorical “you,” not a personal one.
Let me rephrase as “If someone wants to live under sharia…”
As have alot of others on this website [taken an oath to support and defend]. Just because I don't agree with all of your points on the subject does not mean we are not fighting for the same things. Due to our different experiences in life, we just see different ways to go about trying to achieve the same goal.
Didn't mean to insinute that - just passionate about the issue.
Sorry if you took it that way.
Warrior-Mentor
10-06-2009, 13:28
I don't think your assumption or conclusion is correct. One aspect is that Islam is a idea. How does one go to war with a idea? The people are a different issue. Look at Germany in the 1930's/1940's. One might say a lot of Germans where infected with the idea of nazism.
We would not become what we loathe. I am still wondering about what that actually mean. If this is a just a attack on someone who is just different, maybe that is what you mean. We have a right to act preemptively from a biblical perspective. We also have a biblical right to self defense.
Agree. Did we become what we loath when we beat the Nazis? The Japanese?
Or did we show our true strength, determination and willingness to fight and die for what we love and know is right?
There is much more but, the point is the Qur'an is not well thought out or consistent in what it wants the believer to do. The re-interpretation of the Qur'an by Islamic cleric may be a answer. They? are currently reviewing Bakari and the Hadeths. Making Islam a more tolerant of others religion.
This is a complex issue for us to find a way to deal with Islam. There is possible change within Islam as I mentioned. I would suggest that you read and study the Qur'an, the Hadeths, understand Shariah law and then ask yourself,
1) How do I fit in, or what does Islam have in store for me?"
2) How can we help Islam change or deal with Islam and defend who and what we are?"
I see a combination of cures. One is the metamorphosis of Islam to a more tolerant 21st century religion, if possible. Like fighting any idea, it is not going to go away.
Sunni Islamic law prevents the change you suggest. I don’t have much hope for the Shias either.
Enclosed is the section on Scholarly Consensus and a couple highlighted areas for your consideration.
You’ll find that once a ruling becomes consensus, it cannot be changed later on by a succeeding era.
See Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law - B7.2; and B7.4(1); and B7.5
READ IT HERE:
You’ve mis-taken my words. I say again - they are ideals to strive for.
My point was that Islamists are NOT playing by the same rules, or striving for the same goal of play nice, co-exist and tolerate others as they are.
I agree. Just as it wasn't every German in Nazi Germany.
I do. You say you are not willing to accept another 9/11. But your next sentence seems to challenge that by questioning the Patriot Act.
Am I misunderstanding your remarks?
Ben Franklin is credited with saying "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
The postulate becomes “Never sacrifice liberty.”
That can be taken to one of two extremes. Delete the Patriot Act. Pretend like there’s no threat. Let them set off bombs in our street and kill our children at will. At least we have our “freedom.”
Or – take every necessary precaution to protect liberty by waging all out war against the threat to ensure our freedoms are protected.
Neither is an ideal answer to a national security challenge.
I believe that Freedom and Security are a balancing act.
Given our current environment, the Patriot Act is an acceptable compromise. I’m not worried about the FBI, CIA, DIA or any other agency listening to my phone calls. They’d be bored and wasting their time.
The Zazi case shows the effectiveness of allowing our national security apparatus to using telephonic surveillance.
I agree. There are a number of problems we need to overcome. First, what about those who do not wish to integrate? There’s no established duties and responsibilities of a citizen. Where is the legal requirement to integrate? And who enforces it?
It would be great if everyone would learn English. Are you willing to make that a law? Again, who enforces it? Do we eliminate public-school programs that have Spanish speaking teaches to help those communities where English is predominantly a second language?
Agree with the photo ID. You want to drive? You need a photo ID. You want to fly? You need a photo ID.
That’s one of the many recommendations of Moorthy Muthuswamy in his book “Defeating Political Islam.”
Sorry. That was a rhetorical “you,” not a personal one.
Let me rephrase as “If someone wants to live under sharia…”
Didn't mean to insinute that - just passionate about the issue.
Sorry if you took it that way.
I am passionate about the issue as well, and I understand that sometimes sentiment gets misunderstood over the internet. I will grow some thicker skin:)
In question to the Patriot Act. Do I believe that it is important in this fight against terrorism, yes I do, but not all of it. I go back to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and our Personal Freedoms guaranteed therewithin and do not agree with some of the precepts of the Patriot Act because of the infingment on personal liberties guaranteed within the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
For example, I do not agree with warrentless wiretaps. There was a process in place to get the necessary warrants signed by an on-call Federal Judge. There has never been a case, from what I understand, in which a warrant was ever denied, or not issued in a timley enough fashion to meet the needs of the requestor. Until that happens I don't believe in warrentless wiretaps.
Some say that if I haven't done anything wrong, I have nothing to worry about and shouldn't worry about someone eavesdropping on my conversation. To that I say I am guaranteed the right against unlawful search and siezure, and it doesn't matter that I am not doing anything wrong, I don't think the federal government should be listening to my conversations just because a predetermined word is uttered.
I agree there is a fine line that needs to be forged between safety and security. I also believe in a world of grey, and there is never one right answer for every problem. I believe in the "Lesser Evil" that sometimes good men/women must do evil things in order to prevent an even greater evil from taking place. But we all must acknowledge that the act is a Lesser Evil, and open ourselves up to the scrutiny that will ensue because of it. That scrutiny does not mean it is done in public in front of the MSM. But it needs to be done notheless. If a decision is made to do the Lesser Evil, those making the decision need to acknowledge it as such, and realize there may be future consequences that result; ie you may not get re-elected President, or as SecDef you may be called to task over a memo you published. But if you are going to make the command decsion, you don't throw others under the bus to save yourself and your career.
If we don't do these things, how do we ensure the Lesser Evil does not become the new status quo?
Agree. Did we become what we loath when we beat the Nazis? The Japanese?
Or did we show our true strength, determination and willingness to fight and die for what we love and know is right?
Sunni Islamic law prevents the change you suggest. I don’t have much hope for the Shias either.
Enclosed is the section on Scholarly Consensus and a couple highlighted areas for your consideration.
You’ll find that once a ruling becomes consensus, it cannot be changed later on by a succeeding era.
See Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law - B7.2; and B7.4(1); and B7.5
READ IT HERE:
I am not being flip, I really am not, but isn't this what the enemy is seeking as well? Surely we feel justified in our means of fighting this war, but so do they. We say our way is right, and theirs is wrong, and they say the exact opposite.
How do we go about getting the rest of the world to see that and not look like hypocrits doing it.
I guess why I keep harping in this "hypocrit" thing is I feel we would be better off if we just go about our business of seeking to win this fight, and preserve our way of life, without trying to be PC about it.
We are continually trying to get others to think we are "above" it all, and will always take the high road. But our actions speak louder than words, and we will all probably say that we need to stop fighting this enemy with one hand tied behind our back. We need to stop trying to "pretty it up" because our words do not match our actions. And if our actions are right and justified, then we need to change our words, IMHO.
.......For example, I do not agree with warrentless wiretaps..................
So - Military intelligence is listening in on a terrorist phone number in Parkistan. So the terrorist dials a number in the states, Omar picks up and the terrorist says "Omar, is the bomb ready to go?" "Yes, Mahmoud, I have it placed.." Click.
Intelligence agent to the other "Man, that was close. We didn't have a warrant for the US dude. Good thing we hung up quick."
I find myself wondering about the provisions of the Patriot act, including the issue of warrantless wiretaps and other, similar capabilities. I guess I'm in the camp that really doesn't know which way is best.
On the one hand, Pete brings up a good point. In a fast-developing situation, don't impede the good guys. But on the downside, it's easy to imagine an innocent person falling into a great deal of trouble.
One example I used in class was the so-called CIA letter opener - a plastic knife. I would point out that such knives could be abused and would not show up on metal detectors. Then I would do a Google search and project the picture and ordering information to a couple hundred bored undergraduates. That generally got them (well, most of them) awake. ;)
I would pose the question - should people who brought such things up on a classroom screen and told others about it be put on a watch list? Were they dangerous? Should they be monitored? That was generally good for 45 minutes of discussion. :cool:
I still don't know the answer.
Agree. Did we become what we loath when we beat the Nazis? The Japanese?
Or did we show our true strength, determination and willingness to fight and die for what we love and know is right?I don't know if the answers to the questions are mutually exclusive. While thinking each through, additional questions came to mind. Here are some of those questions. Did we not use concentration camps and other methods to cleanse ethnically Japanese Americans?
Did we not target with increasing abandon population centers in Japan and Germany? (When assessing the firebombing and the eventual use of atomic weapons, the late Stephen Ambrose summed it up succinctly, "Life was cheap.")
While the Allied forces most certainly saved the world from utter darkness, after casting down enemies who subscribed to political ideologies that centered around notions of racial superiority, did not some of those Allies return home to countries with similar views of racial difference?
Did the war not reconfigure permanently the relationship between the American state and its citizens? (Is today's statist government an outgrowth of the New Deal alone?)
(Did we beat the Nazis or was it the Soviets?)
Did we not use concentration camps and other methods to cleanse ethnically Japanese Americans?
While the relocation of Japanese Americans is a dark spot in American History, those camps where nothing like the concentration camps in Europe. Not even in the same category. That is almost like a complete naive assertion.
BTW the weapons of the time were nothing like to day. Your whole list of questions baffles me. I am not sure what you are driving at. Maybe because I knew many people who served in WWII as a kid. I spent the early parts of my life as military brat living on military bases. I remember many conversations from men who fought that war.
Like today, there are claims that life, especially the citizens in combat zones are meaningless to us. Yet we spend billions to build more surgical weapons to save those civilians lives our enemies do not. Our ROE are set up to help non combatants to survive war in their A/O our enemies ROE is the opposite.
So - Military intelligence is listening in on a terrorist phone number in Parkistan. So the terrorist dials a number in the states, Omar picks up and the terrorist says "Omar, is the bomb ready to go?" "Yes, Mahmoud, I have it placed.." Click.
Intelligence agent to the other "Man, that was close. We didn't have a warrant for the US dude. Good thing we hung up quick."
Sir,
This is the worst fear Pete, right here, what you typed, for myself and my family.
For if "they" cannot fight these barbarians, what the F**k are we civilians supposed to do to fight it? I mean these people have jobs with titles for a reason, right? It is their job, let's let them do it, and stop whining and crying about what kind of harm it might do to the perception of Islamic followers, IMVHO!:mad: (ANd will appologize to anyone who takes offense on here...but YOU try moving a totally disabled person from one location to another for safety reasons...)
Holly
I find myself wondering about the provisions of the Patriot act, including the issue of warrantless wiretaps and other, similar capabilities. I guess I'm in the camp that really doesn't know which way is best.
On the one hand, Pete brings up a good point. In a fast-developing situation, don't impede the good guys. But on the downside, it's easy to imagine an innocent person falling into a great deal of trouble.
One example I used in class was the so-called CIA letter opener - a plastic knife. I would point out that such knives could be abused and would not show up on metal detectors. Then I would do a Google search and project the picture and ordering information to a couple hundred bored undergraduates. That generally got them (well, most of them) awake. ;)
I would pose the question - should people who brought such things up on a classroom screen and told others about it be put on a watch list? Were they dangerous? Should they be monitored? That was generally good for 45 minutes of discussion. :cool:
I still don't know the answer.
My thoughts exactly. I guess my biggest fear is that most of us don't trust the government 100%, nor should we. So if a government we don't trust implicitly is recording information about us that they don't have a warrant to obtain, and someone who is unscrupulous uses that information for nefarious reasons.....
Pete, I accept your pointed example of how my disagreement of warrant less wiretaps leaves us in a precarious position. The question I have is, where do we draw the line? Who is to say that the information gathered can't be used to hurt innocent people who have done nothing wrong? Where is that line, and who gets to determine where it is drawn?
Do I think the past administration had our best intentions in mind when this was developed? Absolutely!! But do I trust the current administration, ie Attorney General Holder, to not use information obtained in a manner to hurt political adversaries of the current POTUS, if he thought it was justified? He has already proven he can't be trusted as far as I am concerned. Why would I give someone such as him that kind of power?
I find myself wondering about the provisions of the Patriot act, including the issue of warrantless wiretaps and other, similar capabilities. I guess I'm in the camp that really doesn't know which way is best.
Actually they weren't completely Warrentless. It was just a system set up to speed the permission to Wire Tap up. Instead of going thru the process of getting a Warrant. The request was presented to a panel of Judges on call 24/7. It was used for emergency situations. It was monitored by these Judges. It wasn't just LEO'S deciding on their own to Tap a phone. The Media made us believe it was like that. There was or is actually a process in place.
While the relocation of Japanese Americans is a dark spot in American History, those camps where nothing like the concentration camps in Europe. Not even in the same category. That is almost like a complete naive assertion.
BTW the weapons of the time were nothing like to day. Your whole list of questions baffles me. I am not sure what you are driving at. Maybe because I knew many people who served in WWII as a kid. I spent the early parts of my life as military brat living on military bases. I remember many conversations from men who fought that war.
Like today, there are claims that life, especially the citizens in combat zones are meaningless to us. Yet we spend billions to build more surgical weapons to save those civilians lives our enemies do not. Our ROE are set up to help non combatants to survive war in their A/O our enemies ROE is the opposite.My point is that if we're going to review the history of American civilization and compare it to the history of other civilizations, we shouldn't just look at the highlights. How many 'dark spots' need to be documented before we admit to ourselves that our past has not always been as exceptional as we would like? The writing of the story of American freedom has seen the inkwell spilled on many occasions.
In regards to the "naive" assertion that the concentration camps in America were not in the same category as those in Europe, I ask "Who determines the categories? What is the standard of measurement?" Yes, there's a difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing. However, the fact that we have to make that distinction when we're discussing our own recent past speaks for itself.
Peregrino
10-06-2009, 19:40
My point is that if we're going to review the history of American civilization and compare it to the history of other civilizations, we shouldn't just look at the highlights. How many 'dark spots' need to be documented before we admit to ourselves that our past has not always been as exceptional as we would like? The writing of the story of American freedom has seen the inkwell spilled on many occasions.
In regards to the "naive" assertion that the concentration camps in America were not in the same category as those in Europe, I ask "Who determines the categories? What is the standard of measurement?" Yes, there's a difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing. However, the fact that we have to make that distinction when we're discussing our own recent past speaks for itself.
I will hold our "Evils" up to comparison with the "Evils" of any other Country and not think twice about weighing them in light of "Greater" vs. "Lesser" - and that includes our treatment of the American Indians and the entire institution of slavery. The difference is - I'm not about to apply modern sensibilities to the discussion. I do believe in American Exceptionalism - unashamedly. Sometimes growth is a messy business. The ancient adages about omelets and sausage come to mind. To our credit the stumbles along the way have generally occasioned the type of soul searching afchic is presently engaged in - to the betterment of all.
The Reaper
10-06-2009, 20:54
I don't know if the answers to the questions are mutually exclusive. While thinking each through, additional questions came to mind. Here are some of those questions. Did we not use concentration camps and other methods to cleanse ethnically Japanese Americans?
Did we not target with increasing abandon population centers in Japan and Germany? (When assessing the firebombing and the eventual use of atomic weapons, the late Stephen Ambrose summed it up succinctly, "Life was cheap.")
While the Allied forces most certainly saved the world from utter darkness, after casting down enemies who subscribed to political ideologies that centered around notions of racial superiority, did not some of those Allies returned home to countries with similar views of racial difference?
Did the war not reconfigure permanently the relationship between the American state and its citizens? (Is today's statist government an outgrowth of the New Deal alone?)
(Did we beat the Nazis or was it the Soviets?)
Compare the death rates for the Japanese-Americans detained against the camp residents of the Nazis (or the Soviets), or for that matter, the U.S. guests of the Emperor of Japan.
Targeting of German population centers began as a reprisal for Nazi targeting of British cities. Both Germany and Japan dispersed their industries in population centers to protect them, and as I am sure you are aware, weapon CEP was measured in miles rather than feet. It took 1,000 planes to hit a target that a pair of B-2s could eliminate today with conventional weapons.
I seriously doubt that American soldiers in WW II returned as Nazis or worse, unless they left as racists, or fought the Japanese, who fought a different type of war with no quarter asked, or given. On behalf of my family and friends who served in that war, I resent that implication.
My impression is that the New Deal social programs are the underlying cause of the big government problems we face today.
I think that if we are going to engage in a what if, the Soviets would have been hard pressed to defeat the Nazis, had they not been engaged with the Brits and ourselves elsewhere. We also would have been able to play a bigger role in the ETO had the Japanese not redirected our attention temporarily by a savage sneak attack against not just Hawaii, but the Phillipines and across the Pacific. I would maintain that we were significantly more helpful against the Nazis than the USSR was against the Japanese, until the final weeks of the war. North Africa and the Italian campaigns were not diversions. Many American vehicles and aircraft served in the Red Army, care of the U.S. taxpayers. The question is not a simple, "who really defeated the Nazis?" A good discussion can be had over it though.
TR
My point is that if we're going to review the history of American civilization and compare it to the history of other civilizations, we shouldn't just look at the highlights. How many 'dark spots' need to be documented before we admit to ourselves that our past has not always been as exceptional as we would like? The writing of the story of American freedom has seen the inkwell spilled on many occasions.
In regards to the "naive" assertion that the concentration camps in America were not in the same category as those in Europe, I ask "Who determines the categories? What is the standard of measurement?" Yes, there's a difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing. However, the fact that we have to make that distinction when we're discussing our own recent past speaks for itself.
I don't suffer from collective guilt, especially when there is none. I am very well aware of the dark sides of the US history, so your point is?
Again, to compare the US Internment camps with Auschwitz is beyond the pale.
From my perspective you sound like someone who is very comfortable calling the shots from your armchair. For me, I have seen my generation slandered for doing their duty, serving honorable, dieing in a foreign country so some could call them names, insult them and consider their sacrifices as something meaningless. It is easy to set at a nice clean table, eating fine foods, enjoy civil conversation while bloviating about the person who is living in the mud, on very limited food and water in a very hostile environment fighting a enemy who knows no humanity, and yet those at home calls that soldier/Marine the evil doer.
BTW, I am one of those Viet-Nam Evil doers, accused of things we never did.
I will take the actions of any US service person over that of our enemy any day. Those serving are paying a high price and so are their families so we can all enjoy a fine dinner with friends and a civil conversation while those at home only see their actions as evil.
BTW over 99% of the Chinese POWs did not survive the Japanese Prisoner of War camps. I personally find it offensive that you try to paint the actions of the US with the nazis who butchered millions in death camps and the Japanese who where no better and some say worse.
Peregrino
10-06-2009, 21:50
BTW over 99% of the Chinese POWs did not survive the Japanese Prisoner of War camps. I personally find it offensive that you try to paint the actions of the US with the nazis who butchered millions in death camps and the Japanese who where no better and some say worse.
Excellent point. Would anyone care to point out an American atrocity equivalent to "The Rape of Nanking"?
Again, to compare the US Internment camps with Auschwitz is beyond the pale.
:eek: - I don't think this is what anyone was trying to do here - certainly not someone with the historiographic background of Sigaba - and I took his original point to be in reference to the early KZs - as well as our internment camps for US Citizens of Japanese ancestry - both of which were originally designed for a collecting and removal of government labeled undesirables from society.
What the KZs eventually went on to become vs how we eventually returned our citizens to society - although many Nisei families suffered great personal, social, and economic losses - is where the path to what might have been diverges.
I grew up with many Japanese farm families who had been interred and they never fully trusted the US Government after that time - even when their elected representatives were honorable people like Matsui.
If anyone woulld like to review the history of the American internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry during WW2 vs perpetuating the myths associated with it all, a couple of good books I would recommend are Jewel of the Desert by Sandra Taylor and The Great Betrayal by Audrie Girdner and Anne Loftis.
Targeting of German population centers began as a reprisal for Nazi targeting of British cities. Both Germany and Japan dispersed their industries in population centers to protect them,...
This is a part of the myth left over from WW2 - and many prominent historians have reviewed the documentation and shown it to be otherwise. And as far as dispersing their industrial base into population centers - the facts are that the population centers had grown up around the German industrial base and transportation hubs during the first and second industrial revolutions, and Germany actually sought to disperse its important industries away from their population centers during WW2 in an attempt to hide and protect them from the unrelenting allied bombing campaign.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Richard you could also add the Japanese Americans who fought in Europe was one of the most highly decorated units. Very Honorable and patriotic Americans. As I mentioned internment was a dark spot in our history, but no way comparable to the death camps in Europe.
War does not bring out the best in people, but it is strange that you can also see the greatest of humanity too. Discussion like this, shows that American do wrestle with the negative aspects of waging war. Considering the barbarity of the Japanese and nazis, I really can not feel for them. Any acts committed by our soldiers that were less than noble, I just can not get excited about. It is not a American bias, or a bias for Americans, it is from understanding human nature. Considering how the Japanese and nazis treated civilians, our allies and our own POW, one might say our soldiers handled themselves in great resolve.
My Dad was in the China Fleet (USS ALDEN) during the invasion of China and was off of the Philippines when war broke out. In the ports of China he also witness the act of Japanese barbarity against the Chinese people. My mother had family in Europe. Two of my uncles survived the nazi's camps. Over time and with friendship developing between Japanese and Germans with American people, may be there is a need to water down history. Maybe especially for the Japanese and Germans. I don't think we need to water down our dark spots either, all in all, our fellow Americans had conducted themselves with honor in waging all out war against a barbaric enemy. Just like today, there are those who equate our Soldiers/Marines as worse than the tangos for political reasons. That equation is just wrong and leads to the culture of defeat and self loathing for our Military just like in the Viet-Nam war.
As for the Soldiers and Marines who fought the Japanese, I know why some developed a sour taste for the Japanese. Personally I am glad, that over time, we have moved on as a people.
Back to topic at hand, Our system is based on checks and balances, I do have a good respect for SCOTUS. I took a year of Constitutional law and gained a large respect for how the court works. Also a good friend taught Constitutional Law at a local law school. Our system is not perfect but, it is not the government that tin foil hat types drone about.
A good site on the myths of the Viet-Nam. A good read to see how many myths a person accepts as fact. Many of the myths are assumed to be general knowledge and true.
http://www.25thaviation.org/johnkerry/id27.htm
Comparisons are important and need to be close or they paint one side much worse and the other side much better.
Scimitar
10-07-2009, 17:41
BTW, I am one of those Viet-Nam Evil doers, accused of things we never did.
A small high-jack here.
Not that I can compare any experience to what you and my father experienced as VN Vets upon returning home, but recently I had the displeasure of experiencing similar action in a person whom I considered to be a reasonable human being.
I guess what I'm saying is the freaky ultra-left, with their out-there "thinking" is still alive and well. No kidding.
I have a friend who runs a school that trains young people in cross cultural situations and then provides a off the beaten track "service abroad" experience, a gap year service. Needless to say she has a lot of influence over the minds of these young people.
Recently I "caught" her posting on a board about the atrocities of the US SOLDEIRS in Iraq and how many babies they had killed (sounds familiar). Needless to say I was shocked having known and worked on and off with this individual for 8 years.
Now having a good relationship with her, I approached her and tried to uncover this misunderstanding. She denied it and after a couple more attempts at reasonable conversation she cut off all comms.
Not only is the Ultra-Left BS still alive it's still gutless.
High Jack over.
Hollis--
With all due respect, I don't think it is appropriate for you to take me to task for your own inferences. Yes, the questions I posed are open ended but it is you who decided to make the exercise of comparing America to other combatants instead of comparing America to her own standards of that era.
In essence, what you're doing is taking the question "Am I ____?" and answering "I'm not as ____ as the other guy."
Your broad swipes at my legitimacy are at best curious when one looks at how you establish yours.
Maybe because I knew many people who served in WWII as a kid. I spent the early parts of my life as military brat living on military bases. I remember many conversations from men who fought that war.In essence, you are suggesting that what you learned as a young person from people you knew is of greater intellectual value than the many pathways traveled by historians on several continents working with archival sources, private papers, oral history interviews, memoirs, and other forms of evidence.
Historians ask themselves and each other tough even unpleasant questions, not because they don't respect the past and the people who made it, but because they do.
Team Sergeant
10-10-2009, 15:56
Hollis--
With all due respect, I don't think it is appropriate for you to take me to task for your own inferences. Yes, the questions I posed are open ended but it is you who decided to make the exercise of comparing America to other combatants instead of comparing America to her own standards of that era.
In essence, what you're doing is taking the question "Am I ____?" and answering "I'm not as ____ as the other guy."
Your broad swipes at my legitimacy are at best curious when one looks at how you establish yours.
In essence, you are suggesting that what you learned as a young person from people you knew is of greater intellectual value than the many pathways traveled by historians on several continents working with archival sources, private papers, oral history interviews, memoirs, and other forms of evidence.
Historians ask themselves and each other tough even unpleasant questions, not because they don't respect the past and the people who made it, but because they do.
No that's not what he said, he said he spoke to the men that made history, not those that wrote it or taught it. He said he spoke to men with a high moral code and learned from warriors what he might expect from war.
These men would not have used a term of "greater intellectual value" as they know we're all created equal. As "Honorable and patriotic Americans" have almost always maintained the moral high-ground.
It's one thing to read about war and another to be there. Sort of like some of the "reality" shows on TV, some actually believe that how life is, others know better, they have lived it.
HOLLIS: Japanese Americans who fought in Europe was one of the most highly decorated units
The 442d RCT was THE most decorated unit in WWII. Its ironic that their patch was Lady Liberty's arm holding the "Torch of Freedom".
And, like TS says. I'd rather listen to the ones that actually made the history vs those that would interpret it.
No that's not what he said, he said he spoke to the men that made history, not those that wrote it or taught it. He said he spoke to men with a high moral code and learned from warriors what he might expect from war.
These men would not have used a term of "greater intellectual value" as they know we're all created equal. As "Honorable and patriotic Americans" have almost always maintained the moral high-ground.
It's one thing to read about war and another to be there. Sort of like some of the "reality" shows on TV, some actually believe that how life is, others know better, they have lived it.TS--
With respect, I agree that the military history of the Second World War must center around the battlefields and the people who fought. I disagree that the history of the Second World War was made by warriors alone.
In regards to the former, in 1942, S.L.A. Marshall was on Kwajalein as part of the general staff's efforts to find ways to chronicle the army's combat operations. Marshall was interviewing one soldier about an engagement when another chimed in with a drastically different account. It was not until after Marshall had interviewed the rest of the two men's platoon that he felt confident in his reconstruction of the previous night's actions. From this experience, the army began its practice of conducting multiple oral interviews.*
Acknowledging the differences among such accounts did not (and does not) imply a lack of character or integrity of the soldiers involved. Instead, recognizing the differences and seeking to reconcile them into a single narrative reflect the fact that human beings remember shared experiences differently and that memories may change over time.
I understand that many warriors question the propriety, value, and utility of interpretations of the history of war, contemporaneous military affairs, and the armed services offered by civilians. I accept this skepticism.
However, what happens when the logic is applied to other types of professions and experiences? Are only African Americans allowed to offer views on the experiences of blacks in the United States? Are only lawyers and judges to comment upon the law?
____________________________________________
* S. L. A. Marshall, Bringing Up the Rear: A Memoir, ed. by Cate Marshall (San Rafael: Presidio Press, 1979), 71-72. To clarify, I am aware of some of the controversies surrounding Marshall's life and career. In this specific instance, I am unaware of any evidence that should cast into doubt Marshall's experiences with post-combat oral interviews.
I think it was SLA Marshall who intoned that if a million men went into battle and all of them returned - there would be a million different narratives of what actually happened.
Richard
Blitzzz (RIP)
10-10-2009, 20:32
Credit lies squarely on those who "actually" do the work. While truley not only the Warriors much can be offered to those working to build and supply the effort.
That doesn't give much credit to journalists, who regardless of how much stupidity shown in life threatening exposure they incur. They don't add to the combat effort but are mere observers of the real effort.
In combat as well as other greatly hazardous events the individual view of the participants will be from a very predator's myopic (hunters) view of the particular threat and not so clear of the whole, hence so many varied views of the same whole. Just my zwei centavos. Blitzzz
I enjoy reading the narratives of Ernie Pyle and the cartoons of Bill Mauldin - so did my Dad who served in the PTO and my uncle who served in the ETO - both felt they told the true GIs story.
On April 18, 1945, Pyle died on Ie Shima, an island off Okinawa Honto, after being hit by Japanese machine-gun fire.
The captions for the cartoons read:
"Able Fox Five to Able Fox. I got a target but ya gotta be patient."
No caption necessary for the old Cav NCO putting his 'mount' out of its misery - one of Mauldin's most famous and popular cartoons.
"Radio th' ol' man we'll be late on account of a thousand-mile detour." This 'dig' at Patton caused quite a stir - Patton and Mauldin didn't like each other and Patton sought to censor Mauldin at one point - but the GIs loved Mauldin whose humor reflected theirs, and Patton couldn't do anything about his cartoons being published in Yank magazine.
Richard
Surgicalcric
10-11-2009, 07:10
...Patton couldn't do anything about his cartoons being published in Yank magazine...
I found the last cartoon especially funny given the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan...
Credit lies squarely on those who "actually" do the work. While truley not only the Warriors much can be offered to those working to build and supply the effort. That doesn't give much credit to journalists, who regardless of how much stupidity shown in life threatening exposure they incur. They don't add to the combat effort but are mere observers of the real effort.
In combat as well as other greatly hazardous events the individual view of the participants will be from a very predator's myopic (hunters) view of the particular threat and not so clear of the whole, hence so many varied views of the smae whole. Just my zwei centavos. Blitzzz
I agree with the gist of what you are saying here, the soldiers who do the actual work should absolutely get the credit. But how are they going to get the credit they deserve without somebody telling the world about it? Particularly in a Republic and Democracy where our military answers to civilian leadership, who in turn are voted into office.
Maybe we just need better journalists as opposed to clueless liabilities like Geraldo who actually endanger our troops, ( no tears here if he had an accident in theater). Ernie Pyle in contrast was adored by our combat troops, he wrote stories which improved morale both overseas and back home. He took risks and was eventually killed by an enemy sniper in the Pacific. Perhaps I'm naive but politicians are essentially re-election whores, if enough noise was made about look at the incredible job our boys are doing in Afghanistan, and the message the nation heard was we can win if we give them what they need, Obama's gutless not stupid, okay maybe he is both, but if politicians feel the votes wanted this, ie more troops helps them win "Midterms-istan" General McChrystal would have had his 40,000 troops weeks ago.
Team Sergeant
10-11-2009, 10:44
TS--
With respect, I agree that the military history of the Second World War must center around the battlefields and the people who fought. I disagree that the history of the Second World War was made by warriors alone.
In regards to the former, in 1942, S.L.A. Marshall was on Kwajalein as part of the general staff's efforts to find ways to chronicle the army's combat operations. Marshall was interviewing one soldier about an engagement when another chimed in with a drastically different account. It was not until after Marshall had interviewed the rest of the two men's platoon that he felt confident in his reconstruction of the previous night's actions. From this experience, the army began its practice of conducting multiple oral interviews.*
Acknowledging the differences among such accounts did not (and does not) imply a lack of character or integrity of the soldiers involved. Instead, recognizing the differences and seeking to reconcile them into a single narrative reflect the fact that human beings remember shared experiences differently and that memories may change over time.
I understand that many warriors question the propriety, value, and utility of interpretations of the history of war, contemporaneous military affairs, and the armed services offered by civilians. I accept this skepticism.
However, what happens when the logic is applied to other types of professions and experiences? Are only African Americans allowed to offer views on the experiences of blacks in the United States? Are only lawyers and judges to comment upon the law?
____________________________________________
* S. L. A. Marshall, Bringing Up the Rear: A Memoir, ed. by Cate Marshall (San Rafael: Presidio Press, 1979), 71-72. To clarify, I am aware of some of the controversies surrounding Marshall's life and career. In this specific instance, I am unaware of any evidence that should cast into doubt Marshall's experiences with post-combat oral interviews.
IMO WWII was decided once the United States entered the war.
I never said warriors alone made all the history, I am not that ignorant. Politian's start wars, warriors fight and finish them.
I will tell you that even "history" can be distorted quite a bit by those that write it and those that report it. I also understand the theory of "oral reports", funny how many of us were never asked for an oral report yet our history has been written.
Not all of us require such in-depth history, some just want to hear one man's perspective on the battle he fought, share his thoughts, see his emotions, all things one cannot glean from a history book.
I am that sort of person, I have listened to old warriors, their stories from their perspective. You said: "what happens when the logic is applied to other types of professions and experiences" I can tell you this; that unless you have been in that specific profession, a warrior, it sure would be difficult to distinguish between the truth and the bullshit.;)
I'm sure they're quite a few warriors on here that have been involved in historic events or missions that have made "history" but will never be written about..... ;)
BTW there's quite a long list of "individuals" I'd rather talk to than read any number history books about what they did or the battles they fought. Some I have spoken with at length, some I have worked with and some I have only read about.
"Of every One-Hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are nothing but targets, nine are real fighters...we are lucky to have them...they make the battle. Ah, but the One, one of them is a Warrior...and He will bring the others back." Heraclitus (circa 500 BC)
Some here have had the honor to have spoken to, worked with and even fought along the side of that "One". History books, movies, news articles all pale in comparison.
greenberetTFS
10-11-2009, 11:03
I enjoy reading the narratives of Ernie Pyle and the cartoons of Bill Mauldin - so did my Dad who served in the PTO and my uncle who served in the ETO - both felt they told the true GIs story.
On April 18, 1945, Pyle died on Ie Shima, an island off Okinawa Honto, after being hit by Japanese machine-gun fire.
The captions for the cartoons read:
"Able Fox Five to Able Fox. I got a target but ya gotta be patient."
No caption necessary for the old Cav NCO putting his 'mount' out of its misery - one of Mauldin's most famous and popular cartoons.
"Radio th' ol' man we'll be late on account of a thousand-mile detour." This 'dig' at Patton caused quite a stir - Patton and Mauldin didn't like each other and Patton sought to censor Mauldin at one point - but the GIs loved Mauldin whose humor reflected theirs, and Patton couldn't do anything about his cartoons being published in Yank magazine.
Richard
My Dad told me he really enjoyed Mauldin because they lightened up the war for the guys overseas.............:D
Big Teddy :munchin
Did we not use concentration camps and other methods to cleanse ethnically Japanese Americans?
Read In Defense of Internment, the Case for "Racial Profiling" in WWII and the War on Terror by Michelle Maklin for a look at why the "internment camps" were created in the first place. Ever hear of MAGIC?
There was no "ethnic cleansing" when it came to the evacuation and relocation of Japanese, Italians and Germans and other undesirables from the West Coast and proximity to Military installations/Naval bases.
Unfortunately history has already been rewritten when it comes to "American concentration camps" and Japanese racial discrimination. :rolleyes:
Did we not use concentration camps and other methods to cleanse ethnically Japanese Americans?
There was no "ethnic cleansing" when it came to the evacuation and relocation of Japanese...
I think there was some confusion here over the terms 'cleanse ethnically Japanese Americans' as in to merely move or relocate (cleanse) Americans of Japanese ethnicity from among American communities for whatever reasons and forever how long versus the euphamistic terminology employed by the Nazis to enigmatically obfuscate their so-called 'Final Solution' programs of 'ethnic cleansing' (cleansing as in literally destroying or erasing entire ethnic cultures).
Richard
I think there was some confusion here over the terms 'cleanse ethnically Japanese Americans' as in to merely move or relocate (cleanse) Americans of Japanese ethnicity from among American communities for whatever reasons and forever how long versus the euphamistic terminology employed by the Nazis to enigmatically obfuscate their so-called 'Final Solution' programs of 'ethnic cleansing' (cleansing as in literally destroying or erasing entire ethnic cultures).
Richard
Ah, ok...I originally took Sigaba's comment to mean the "Final Solution" kind of ethnic cleansing.
Historians ask themselves and each other tough even unpleasant questions, not because they don't respect the past and the people who made it, but because they do.
Historians are not some great keeper of all things past. The war that I enjoy reading about is the US Civil War. I no longer read historians accounts of that war, mostly personal accounts. There are a few people like Bruce Catton who I do like to read. He has a good feel for the life of a soldier. Like reading [I]All Quite on the Western front[I] by E. M. Remarque. I read it when I was in High School and later when I came home from RVN. On the second reading I felt a brotherhood, so to speak. I knew he was there.
I am sorry for academics who feel they are different and because of their studies they can see in to things us mortal can not. IMHO, they are out to lunch. They are full of their own greatness and can not realize there is more to the story. Something that can not be read about, something that must be experienced.
I am not saying all historians are like this, I mentioned B. Catton. I am not interested in playing the game "armchair quarterback". I am interested in History, but form the actual players themselves rather than those who only watch.
To quote " T. Roosevelt;
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”
Blitzzz (RIP)
10-11-2009, 20:54
definintly a shared belief, great post, Thanks.
I no longer read historians accounts of that war, mostly personal accounts.
<snip>
I am interested in History, but form the actual players themselves rather than those who only watch.
Not all historians are correct - nor are all incorrect - and not all participants in a historical event tell the truth about what happened to them, either. History is complicated - and not nearly as 'cut and dry' as many - including historians - would probably prefer.
As for reading History, Stephen Ambrose's style of using the greater view of historical perspective - combined with personal narratives of those involved and a 'tell the story' literary style - is IMO what continues to make his works so readable and popular - and why more historians have adopted such a style.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
The Reaper
10-12-2009, 09:44
To me, individual participants in combat have perspectives like the blind men examining the elephant. They each have differing viewpoints, based on where they were and what they were doing. The shooter may not even know if the battle was won or lost, merely that he survived. An infantry PFC is going to have a far different view of the conflict that the Major in his S-3 shop. The individual combatants have a raw visceral impression of the war that the historian has to capture and put in its proper place with the overall context of the tactical, operational, and strategic perspectives.
A good historian (in the sense that it reads well) takes the individual accounts of actions, and melds them into the dryer aspects of what was happening from the higher levels. Think of "The Killer Angels" or "Gates of Fire". Both have a liberal amount of fiction, mixed with vignettes and historical accounts. Both are also excellent novels based on military history and read very well.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
Warrior-Mentor
01-23-2010, 18:42
Since it's been several months since our last post here, I'm resurrecting this thread in it's original spirit ....
Ex-Muslim on Why Islam Should Be Criticized
Jan 23, 2010
Arslan Shaukat
Hello Miss Geller,
You are a superwoman. Bravo . I am Arslan, ex-Muslim atheist, and an anti-islamist. You have spoken truth about islam on many forums which is very brave and praise worthy.
I have also strived to make the truth about islam known to people by any means available. I believe its the duty of those people who know the truth!!
I am member of CEMB ( British council of ex-muslims), Leeds Atheist society and an author on Islam-watch.
What the West Needs To Understand about Islam
January 2010
Arslan Shaukat
How unfortunate it is that whenever someone attempts to show the facts of true Muhammadan Islam in unflattering manner in a public forum, he risks being tortured or killed by pious Muslims, even in the West. Alas!
The Muslim Ummah is utterly intolerant to criticisms of the Quran, Prophet Muhammad and Islam. Nonetheless, there are individuals who are brave enough to face the challenge of exercising their freedom of speech, their freedom of expression. Ibn-Waraq, Ayan Hisri Ali, Wafa Sultan and Maryam Namazie are some of the courageous individuals, who have chosen not to indulge in appeasing Muslims and political correctness. They have chosen to speak the historical, factual truth about Muhammadan Islam. And, unsurprisingly, they have been living under constant danger to their lives.
Another brave individual is the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard. He drew the cartoons of Muhammad that appeared in a Danish newspaper in 2006 that hurled the entire Muslim world into violent frenzy. They started demonstrations and demanded death of the cartoonists and their publishers. On January 2, 2010, a Somali man, armed with axe and knife, entered Westergaar’s house and tried to kill him. This incident prompted me to write this article.
The reason for the attempted murder of Westergaard is his comical depiction of Muhammad, produced here:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c60bf53ef0120a802240f970b-popup
He has drawn other depictions of Muhammad as well. It’s interesting to note that although the illustration may appear somewhat derogatory toward Muhammad, but it does make an accurate point in artistic form, i.e. the blood-soaked and war-filled life of Muhammad. That is exactly what the bomb depicts. I personally believe that it’s not inflammatory at all; it just makes a true representation of Muhammad in pictorial form.
This incident entails a number of issues within the context of western nations and within the context of a truly democratic set-up, which I will address in this article.
First: Why criticize Islam? And why should non-Muslims/atheists etc. indulge in such criticisms and ‘inflammatory actions’ when it’s already given that Muslim world will react violently.
Second: What is the use of such ‘transgressions,’ i.e. what good will come out of it?
WHY ISLAM SHOULD BE CRITICIZED:
Here, I am quoting a few points from one of my presentations.
1. Firstly, Islam is an unproven and unsubstantiated religious dogma. Islam is a truth claim. It’s a claim; nothing more. There is no logical reason whatsoever as to why a claim about the basis of existence and morality should not be questioned and analyzed. In fact, reason tells us that such a monumental claim that affects humanity in a big way should be critically analyzed vigorously.
2. Secondly, a great many aspects of Islamic teachings, namely from the Quran and Muhammad’s life, are very disturbing and worrying. It’s not an opinion but a fact. Although somewhat unnecessary, I will back up the above mentioned statements with a few examples:
1. Al-Quran: This supposedly ‘holy’ book incites violence, aggression, hatred and bloodshed:
- O Prophet! Urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand (Quran 8:065).
- Fight those who do not believe in Allah...nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection (Quran 9:29).
-Warfare is enjoined on you, and it is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know (2:216).
The list goes on and on. I believe I have made the point as to why Quran should be criticized and questioned.
1. B. Muhammad: The person responsible for inventing Islam had less than stellar prophetic career:
- He was involved in many wars and looting of caravans. He ordered the killing of those who showed dissent. He was a polygamist and a rapist. It is also a fact that he married Ayesha when she was very young (Life of Mahomet, William Muir (1861); Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_marriages).
I believe I have made the point as to why the character of Muhammad should be criticized and questioned.
3. Thirdly: The western civilization and nations believe in democratic values. In democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of expression is of paramount importance. Without freedom of speech and expression, a democratic society will become stagnant. It also includes criticism of religious dogma. So, it’s nonsensical to say that Islam should be or is somehow immune to criticism. Such a stance goes against the very core of liberal humanism and democratic values.
4. I believe these three reasons are more than enough justification as to why Islam should not be considered protected against criticism by the west.
Why criticize when Islamists will react violently
Now, why critics in the West, or everywhere for that matter, should criticize Islam despite however violent way the Muslim Ummah would react.
Firstly: Let me give the answer by asking a question:
1. Why should we criticize anything at all then? Isn’t it possible that Buddhists, Jains, Christians, Marxists etc., living in the West will react violently if I criticize their ideology? Why not just ban criticism all together? Why not just ‘respect’ everything than?
Secondly, it is the responsibility of every conscientious citizen to uphold the ideals of democracy and civil liberty by exercising their sovereign right of freedom of speech and expression. To not criticize an ideology that is manifestly anti-democratic and against human freedom is tantamount to giving into imaginary fears and cowering to political correctness.
Thirdly, One may argue that it is counterproductive to indulge in unnecessary attacks and ad-hominem statements with regards to Islamic ideology. Most western countries have Muslim populations and it will decidedly be counterproductive and unintelligible to drum up misdirected rhetoric against Islam. But, Islamic dogma warrants criticism on many levels as I have striven to show. So, on one hand, we have Muslim populations in the West, and, on the other, we have Islamic dogma.
The correct approach should be a justified and well-articulated criticism of Islam without indulging in too much anti-Islamic rhetoric. A balance so to speak (although it is extremely hard to imagine how such a feat is possible!!!)
Of course, disenfranchising Muslim populations in the west is not a good idea, but that does not mean that Islam is off limits. Muslims should be made to realize that they are living in a democratic system, and, in a true democracy, criticism of a truth claim is a very essential and healthy activity.
Therefore, I do not believe that a possibility of backlash is any justification to keep away from criticism of Islam.
Warrior-Mentor
01-23-2010, 18:43
What good will come out of criticizing Islam?
Now, what good will ever come out of such criticism of Islam? Let me Explain.
I will take England as an example. England is witnessing a subtle surge in fuming Islamic rhetoric, being propagated by different UK-based Islamists.
Although the majority of Muslims in England are well adjusted within its socio-cultural and economic milieu, there is a strong and vocal minority that is trying to win over these ‘westernized and liberal’ Muslims and convert them into true Muslims.
One such example is that of Anjem Chaudary, currently the head of Islam for UK (Islam4UK), established by pious Muslims as a platform to “propagate the supreme Islamic ideology in the United Kingdom as a divine alternative to man-made law."
In November 2008, Chaudary convened a meeting for Islam4UK to "convince the British public about the superiority of Islam, thereby changing public opinion in favour of Islam in order to transfer the authority and power, to the Muslims in order to implement the Shariah (in Britain).”
In 2004, he said that a terror attack on the British soil was "a matter of time"; following the 7 July 2005 London bombings, he refused to condemn the atrocities. He glorified the perpetrators of 9/11 atrocity as the ‘Magnificent Martyrs.’ (Wikipedia).
Anjem wants Sharia implemented in UK. He wants to dismantle the democratic system and replace it with Islamic law and Jurisprudence.
England has approximately 1.6 million Muslims. Now, suppose a raving, hate mongering, idiotic lunatic like Anjem Chaudary can sway even 2% of this Muslim population, that will amount to ~20,000 radical Muslims. Suppose out of these, just 2% are radicalized enough to engage in terrorist activities, there will be 200 to 400 Islamic terrorists on the streets of Britain. That is a large number, given that the 9/11 atrocity was orchestrated by no more than 20 individuals.
So, how can we meet this challenge?
The answer is simple; exercise the sovereign right of freedom of expression and speech. Show these radicals that their dogma is flawed, hollow and incompatible with civilized ethos.
There is no other alternative. Political correctness, appeasement and other such strategies will simply not work.
The reason is: these Islamists are utterly convinced of the supremacy and transcendence of Islam. To them, all that matters is forwarding the message of Islam. They can only be challenged by facing them squarely.
Such Islamists, although a small minority, must be challenged squarely; no more, no less. Their so-called divine religion, which they claim to be the best of all, must be analysed and duly criticized. That is the only way to confront challenge of the Islamists.
What the West must understand is that such Muslims will inevitably increase in number, so will there radical voice. They will make increasing demands; there already are Shariah complaint courts in England. Next, there will be demands like separate schooling for Muslim children, segregation of Muslim women from non-mahram (unrelated) men in work places, and so on and so forth.
Again, ad-hominem attacks and empty rhetoric against Islam will accomplish very little, but rational criticism of Islam, namely of the Quran and Muhammad, will accomplish a number of things:
1. It will make the Islamists realize that they are living under a democratic system
2. and in true democracy, criticism of a truth claim is a very natural and healthy activity.
3. Criticism of Islam will make Islamists realize that no matter what they do or say, democratic system (which they are enjoying) will not become subservient to their rhetoric.
4. Such criticism will impact the psyche of Muslim and non-Muslim population and make them, at least, think that there, perhaps, are aspects of Islam that are incompatible with many a things they take for granted in the West.
5. Rational criticism of Islam will, in the long run, lead to greater understanding of issues and problems within Islamic dogma, and how they can be addressed.
Currently, many ex-Muslims, atheists and liberals in the West are raising concern about messages of the Quran and life of Muhammad. Individuals like Geert Wilders and Wafa Sultan are trying to shed light on exactly how dangerous the Islamic Dogma is. But much more needs to be done.
Every ex-Muslim, Humanist, liberalist, and atheist must do whatever in his or her power to make sure that sovereignty of basic human rights such as freedom of expression and speech is protected.
If the West is to remain truly democratic, then there is simply no other choice then to assert their core values in effective and efficient manner.
SOURCE:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/01/exmuslim-on-why-islam-should-be-criticized.html
testedone
01-23-2010, 22:20
If you’re willing, let’s do an informal test with your friends – I’m curious to find out what happens.
Nothing over-the-top. Just greet them with the traditional greeting among Muslims.
“as-Salamu ‘alaykum.”
Then listen closely to their response.
Here’s why, Reliance of the Traveller states:
P75.28 “By him in whose hand is my soul, none of you will enter paradise until you believe, and none of you will believe until you love each other.
Shall I not tell you of something which if you do it will create love among you?
Increase the custom of greeting each other with ‘as-Salmu ‘alaykum.’”
If they give you an “as-Salamu ‘alaykum,” great – you have real friends.
I suspect what you’ll hear is “alaykum as-Salamu.” Or some other variant like “Wa ‘alaykum” or simply “alaykum.”
Why?
Because it’s the law.
O11.5 “Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comly with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation and property. In addition:
(3) “are not greeted with ‘as-Salamu ‘alaykum.”
R33.2 “…Scholars disagree about greeting non-Muslims with ‘as-Salamu ‘alaykum’ or returning their Salams. We hold that it is unlawful to say it to them first, though it is obligatory to return their greetings by saying ‘Wa ‘alaykum’ (and upon you), or simply, “Alaykum.’ Other scholars hold it is permissible to greet them first with ‘as-Salamu ‘alaykum’ "
R 32.6 A male “…should not …greet her with “as-Salamu ‘alaykum” (A: which is unlawful in the Shafi’I school) nor return her Salams if she says them.”
Just read through this whole thread...
I never noticed this before, my company (software & technology) I deal with a lot of muslims and sometimes (although not as much since coming back from AFG) I will greet them and they DO respond with “alaykum as-Salamu.”
I need to watch closer when they greet each other now...great thread folks...
In 2004, he said that a terror attack on the British soil was "a matter of time"; following the 7 July 2005 London bombings, he refused to condemn the atrocities. He glorified the perpetrators of 9/11 atrocity as the ‘Magnificent Martyrs.’
Theologically speaking, it’s sad to note Qur’anic doctrine backs Anjem Chaudary’s position. :(
Sure, there are those, especially folks like CAIR, MSA, ISNA, POTUS, and western apologists who will quote the Qur’an, and say that it teaches : “…whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.” (Sura 5:32) - yet fail to mention where this concept diverges and that innocent lives in the context above applies only to Muslims, not the non-Muslim.
In context, the Qur’an goes on to say: “The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;” (Sura 5:33).
Those who “strive after corruption in the land”, including Muslim and non-Muslim alike are guilty, and should be killed. Corruption in the land, or mischief on earth, is a huge category of offenses that go against Islam with the main offense being that of disbelief.
“And as for those who disbelieved (it will be said unto them): Were not Our revelations recited unto you? But ye were scornful and became a guilty folk.” (Sura 45:31)
(83:29, 25:55, 16:27, 2:91, 2:99,98:6, 8:55, 2:65-66, 5:58-60, 7:166,...to name a few)
The above explains why Anjem Chaudary said what he said during his notorious interview, in which he had Islamic doctrine backing his convictions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4
Anjem wants Sharia implemented in UK. He wants to dismantle the democratic system and replace it with Islamic law and Jurisprudence.
It appears Sharia Courts have gotten out of hand in Britain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIrtNoxpxw
Warrior-Mentor
01-24-2010, 09:51
Theologically speaking, it’s sad to note Qur’anic doctrine backs Anjem Chaudary’s position. :(
Good post. I would just point out that instead of theologically speaking, you could say LEGALLY speaking. This is a legal framework from which they operate...