War On Terror's Other Cost: Undeserved Anger At All Muslims

[T-Rock]

At the same time hypersensitive abrasive rants are rarely convincing, and the realm of those consumed by fear, which seems a tough way to go through life...

By stating that Islam is a political religion that mandates violence and intolerance towards the “Kafir” - constitutes fear ? I don’t get it. It doesn’t make any sense.

Why slander those who have legitimate concerns about the implications and the consequences of the fascist teachings of Islam? Doing this merely prevents legitimate criticism and debate about an important global problem. It’s not fear, it’s legitimate criticism.

Is it not OK to point out that the Catholic church frowns upon birth control, or that communism and free enterprise are incompatible?

Since Islam itself is relentless about prohibiting any criticism of Islam, and the death penalty is imposed on Kafir for doing so, isn’t that one of the most appropriate things to abrasively rant and criticize Islam for ?

The longer the issue of this cancer is ignored, the larger the problem will be when someone finally has the balls to tackle it…appeasement isn’t working…

I have the deepest respect for Major Gant

I have the deepest respect for Major Gant as well, and for Major Stephen Coughlin too...
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/DIME/do...emistJihad.pdf

[Pete]

Since everyone likes to through Major Gant's name around in this thread lets ask a question.

Nobody has ever said Muslims as a whole don't treat guests and visitors well.

Would Major Gant have been treated differently if he said "Guys, I just love this place. I'm getting out of the Army, coming back here and opening up a church"? Would his friends treat him the same? Would they protect him - or just stand by? Would the church do well?

[nmap]

Originally Posted by akv

I see it as just another operating system. I'm amazed at folks who believe they are privy to the true thoughts and intentions of men, woman, and children they don't know or of a particular faith they don't share. I don't think I can selectively interpret the true meaning of their scripture, or give them lectures on the evils of their faith, nor am I omnipotent enough to identify crocodile tears from condemnation of violent acts perpetuated in the name of their faith. You can argue talk is cheap, yes but that is a double edged sword. I don't imagine most Muslims like being told they are all terrorists anymore than Christians would appreciate being reminded men of your faith started WW2 and perpetuated the Holocaust.

Not so much an operating system as a part of an OS. And, since we are not omniscient, we cannot know their thoughts. Fortunately, we don't have to. At a conceptual level, we can replace the group with a black box.

What goes into the box? What comes out? Knowing exactly what the processes involved are may be nice, but is not necessary. When we apply this to Islamic societies, the answers suggest to me that they are a threat to us. Please notice that I refer not to individuals, but rather to the societies in aggregate, as well as the members. So long as their OS, particularly the Islamic component, remains the same, they will continue to be a threat. And, from their perspective, we will remain a threat to them.

Now, about WW2 and the Holocaust - those, too, represent an element of the OS. And they should be considered carefully - but, perhaps, not for the same reason you suggest. The Holocaust, in particular, has formed a background which has substantially modified Western thought, behavior, and policy - and, in many instances, those changes are counter to the West's best interests.

Because the West recoils from the Holocaust, it retreats, tail between its legs, when accused of racism. It refuses to press its values as true or correct, lest it be accused of intolerance. Whether in Europe or the US, we will not profile despite good reasons to do so. Thus, we see self-destructive absurdity piled upon self-destructive absurdity.

Collective aggression is an element of Islam. Collective guilt seems to be an element of the Western view. The interaction of these guarantees conflict as Islam expands and the West refuses to check that expansion. At some point, either Islam will win and the West we know will fall, or the West will conclude that tolerance can be overdone and will decide to resist. In my opinion, it is getting late in the day to choose resistance, so Islam just may win.

Recall the black box I mentioned? Look at the economy of Islamic states. Not very robust, are they? Their science doesn't seem to be cutting-edge, either. So if they win, we may have consigned the world to quite an unpleasant future.

MOO, YMMV,

[Saoirse]

Originally Posted by Pete

Since everyone likes to through Major Gant's name around in this thread lets ask a question.

Nobody has ever said Muslims as a whole don't treat guests and visitors well.

Would Major Gant have been treated differently if he said "Guys, I just love this place. I'm getting out of the Army, coming back here and opening up a church"? Would his friends treat him the same? Would they protect him - or just stand by? Would the church do well?

Pete,
Ya hit the nail on the head with that question. It is one I have been asking for years and I get blank stares. At the end of the day, is your muslim friend (when forced to choose) still your friend or will he be your judge and killer if it is decreed?
I believe I know the answer to that question. I will admit that there might be a smattering of them that would stand their ground against that ideology and stand by their nonmuslim friends/family members but that would be like a needle in a haystack.
IMO

[Sigaba]

MOO, it is a mistake of monumental proportions to assess the threat of radical Islam primarily upon perceived intentions. Capabilities matter.

IMO, many of the broad references being made in this thread to Nazism, the Second World War, and the Holocaust are historiographically sustainable only if one willfully ignores entirely the majority of research and debate over these topics that has occurred over the last forty or fifty years.

My $0.02.

[1stindoor]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

MOO, it is a mistake of monumental proportions to assess the threat of radical Islam primarily upon perceived intentions. Capabilities matter.

What did we as a nation believe them capable of on September 10, 2001?

IMO, many of the broad references being made in this thread to Nazism, the Second World War, and the Holocaust are historiographically sustainable only if one willfully ignores entirely the majority of research and debate over these topics that has occurred over the last forty or fifty years.

My $0.02.

IMO, not recognizing, and learning from, our own intel gaps in regards to Nazism and the rise of the third reich, will only cause us to repeat those same mistakes. Forty or Fifty years from now...what do you believe the research and debate will show regarding radical islamists.

I'll give you a hint...we choose to ignore the first attempt on the WTC, we choose to ignore the attack on the Cole, and we choose to forget attacks on Marines.

[The Reaper]

AMEMB, Tehran?

Beirut Barracks?

WTC 1?

Khobar Towers?

USS Cole?

9/11?

Is there a pattern here?

We intervened to protect Muslims from Christian (Bosnia) and Islamic (Iranian) aggression/oppression, and liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban. What did we get for it?

TR

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

MOO, it is a mistake of monumental proportions to assess the threat of radical Islam primarily upon perceived intentions. Capabilities matter.

My $0.02.

Intentions + capabilities = problem. True.

Intentions + demographics = bigger problem. (IMO)


Consider the population characteristics and growth of predominantly Islamic nations, factor in their intentions, then compare the demographics of Western nations.

Demographics is destiny.

[akv]

Originally Posted by Pete

Are you talking about TP's posts?

Just wondering.

Sir,

Yes, my fear comment was directed toward Mr. Paine and only him. For the simple reason, while folks here often disagree on issues, debate is thought out and respectful. I freely admit I have learned from both you and T-Rock, and will go read up on Major Coughlin as per his suggestion.

Specifically, I question the efficacy of citing pagan moon god references, claiming I read Islamic text, thus I have the answer, and emotionally telling another man to STFU for disagreeing with you. Given the depth and intellectual firepower of this forum there are better ways to make one's point.

I don't know the answer to your question about Major Gant. I do know it took guts for him to write that paper, and he is one of the few people articulating a solution on a topic we are all concerned with.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by 1stindoor

What did we as a nation believe them capable of on September 10, 2001?

FWIW, in the spring of 1999, after India test fired an Agni II, my forecast was that a coalition of states (what Bush the Elder latter labeled "the axis of evil") was going to drag the planet into a global war after Pakistan and India nuked each other. In this scenario, Iraq would use WMDs against Israel and the United States, someone was going to detonate something in Eastern Europe, and the DPRK was going to attack ROK.

From the stares I received from a classroom of undergraduates, I got the sense that people didn't really care what I thought. (How little things have changed.)

Originally Posted by 1stindoor

IMO, not recognizing, and learning from, our own intel gaps in regards to Nazism and the rise of the third reich, will only cause us to repeat those same mistakes.

During the Cold War there was a running debate among diplomatic historians that America's responses to international events after 1945 were too narrowly focused on the 'lessons' of the Second World War. (In general, the ups and downs of 'summitry' [i.e., personal diplomacy], in particular the conferences held in Munich, Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam.) Similarly, American military historians frequently pointed out that the United States seemed intent on refighting its last war, that the general public placed too much emphasis on World War II as 'the Good War,' paid too little attention to the Eastern front, romanticized the military effectiveness of Nazi Germany, and under appreciated the military effectiveness of the United States.

Originally Posted by 1stindoor

Forty or Fifty years from now...what do you believe the research and debate will show regarding radical islamists.

I have no idea.

One hot spring day in the early 1990s, Robert Divine, while going over page after page of a bibliography/reading list on the history of American foreign relations, pointed out how the Spanish Civil War, once the most contentious topic of political and historical debate among Americans, had since faded into obscurity in the United States.

His graduate students looked up from their furious note taking, confused frowns on their faces. He did not specifically mention Chevy Chase's running joke on Saturday Night Live, but that's what came to at least one student's mind. The moment of levity quickly vanished as the stress of understanding his comments (is he saying we do or do not have to read this particular book) was compounded by the thought that what is vitally important today may not be tomorrow.

Originally Posted by 1stindoor

I'll give you a hint...we choose to ignore the first attempt on the WTC, we choose to ignore the attack on the Cole, and we choose to forget attacks on Marines.

Of late, I wonder when was this choice made? After these attacks occurred? Or was the choice made when the American people picked Ronald W. Reagan over James E. Carter, Jr.? (The greatest 'failure' of his presidency was Carter's inability to make a convincing case for his vision of American power. If one plows through his public remarks dating back to the 1976 presidential campaign, one can find ample evidence that he envisioned the geostrategic environment that America faces today.)

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Or was the choice made when the American people picked Ronald W. Reagan over James E. Carter, Jr.? (The greatest 'failure' of his presidency was Carter's inability to make a convincing case for his vision of American power. If one plows through his public remarks dating back to the 1976 presidential campaign, one can find ample evidence that he envisioned the geostrategic environment that America faces today.)

Lots of words by lots of politicians.
On April 15, 1986, 300 bombs and 48 missles spoke loudly.

Didn't have too many problems from gaddafi thereafter.
Some people don't understand anything but force.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Lots of words by lots of politicians.

For better and for worse, American strategy is formed largely in the arena of political culture. Does dismissing this influence help or hinder one's ability to understand and to influence American strategy?

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

On April 15, 1986, 300 bombs and 48 missles spoke loudly.

Didn't have too many problems from gaddafi thereafter.
Some people don't understand anything but force.

IMO, your assessment of Operation ELDORADO CANYON over looks both the operation's diplomatic and political contexts* as well as the destruction of Pan American flight 103 in 1988.

__________________________________________________ ________
* Edward Schumacher, "The United States and Libya," Foreign Affairs 65:2 (winter 1986/86); Robert Oakley, "International Terrorism," Foreign Affairs 65:3 (special issue, 1986); Mark E. Kosnik, "The Military Response to Terrorism," Naval War College Review (spring 2000): 13-39.

[MK262]

Originally Posted by Green Light

On 9/12 one had a one-time opportunity for all Americans to come together. All did. Except the Muslims. Did you see them marching in the streets in protest of the attack on our country? No. They just stayed home. We could have stood there, arm in arm as fellow countryment. But no.

I don't trust them because of their religion. I don't trust them because they never cried with us. They celebrated. A man cannot serve two masters. He will love the one and dispise the other. That's a quote, Richard.

They have not joined the right side so they must be on the wrong side.

I suppose people such as this soldier don't count in your view?

[MK262]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

How old were you on 9/11?

Cause I saw mobs of them celebrating in the streets, worldwide.

TR

True.

And others held candlelight vigils for those that were killed.

http://www.time.com/time/europe/photoessays/vigil/

[Pete]

Originally Posted by MK262

I suppose people such as this soldier don't count in your view?

Nidal Malik Hasan was an American Soldier who was also a Muslim.

Going tit-for-tat is a useless game.