Are we at war with Islam?

[Pete]

Once again;

We are not at war with Islam but Islam is at war with the west.

To believe in Islam is to believe that your's is the only true religion.

With that as the starting point you have the small, overall, numbers of terrorists who are fighting the war against the west. They are supported by a larger number of inactive terrorists who provide the structure under which the first group can operate.

The vast majority of Muslims fall into the third catigory. They are the ones who believe Islam is the only true religion, they believe in the Qu'ran, they are against violence overall but say it's OK if Muslims have been slighted somewhere. Since Muslims can be slighted by a look, all terrorist actions against the west are "OK". They are keeping quiet, but by their silence, allow the first two groups to survive.

The 4th group is the very, very small group of Muslims who are speaking out against the violence. Since speaking out steps on some Muslim's toes they are apostate and subject the the next driveby beheading.

This war will continue until the majority of the third group realizes that all their problems are not caused by the USA, the west or the Jews. They are caused by the dictator or immans running their country.

Since this will not happen it will be the "Death of a Thousand Cuts" for the West. The West is too "nice" to win this fight.

We will not see this as it wil play out over the next 100 years or so. We can see only the begining.

Is another "Dark Ages" on the way? I think so.

[Ret10Echo]

Concur Pete... Negotiating or inaction is a sign of weakness. Those who think that we walk away and 'they' leave us alone are living in a left-wing liberal fantasy.

[Peregrino]

More voices saying "The Emperor Has No Clothes". Peregrino

We Cannot or We Have Forgotten How to Fight - by Col. David Hunt

February 16, 2007 - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252480,00.html

This has to be said, written about, yelled about, cried about and fixed, or we can all start learning to pray on rugs.

We cannot fight. Specifically, we cannot fight a global war - against anything really - but we especially don't seem to be able to fight one against terrorism.

We, that is, the United States of America, are the greatest country with the smartest, bravest, most compassionate people on the planet. The problem is we have forgotten how to fight. We have elected presidents simply because they are not someone else, and we have elections in which we argue about a war that happened 40 years ago, but hardly touched the one we are in right now. We send soldiers into war without the right gear and claim it's OK, even as they die.

We cannot even figure out why we go to war. Was it WMD that weren't even there? Was it a noble act to get Saddam out of power, which we did (but probably would not have gone to war just to do that)?

We promote generals and admirals with no combat experience and absolute zero leadership skills, who only knew how to use PowerPoint slides, and required those slides from combat soldiers before they were allowed to go into combat. We allow some of the deadliest, most competent warriors on the planet - United States Navy SEALS - to sit on their ultra-conditioned butts in a war zone without using them for even one damn day.

We allow a country we completely control (Afghanistan) to become the single largest provider of raw heroin, while the country we live in (USA) continues to be the largest users of that same heroin.

We allow victories achieved by our great soldiers to turn into Civil War at best - and complete chaos at worst. We lose $12 billion, because we don't know how to distribute money - so we put it on trucks, and give to people without checking on them and what they are doing with it. We deny for years that a country (Iran) is actively killing our soldiers. We prosecute our soldiers and Marines for shooting a bad guy too many times. We create rules that stop our soldiers from not just protecting themselves, which would be bad enough, but even worse, prevent them from fighting - or maybe that's not worse, but equally criminal.

We have not captured the men directly responsible for 9/11. We have not captured these murderers because we allow others to create safe havens where terrorists can hide and make their videotapes.

Now, some will counter my argument with patriotic remarks or with examples of how we really are doing well because . wait for it . because we have not been attacked again. Yeah, these are the same politically-blinded nutjobs who have allowed up to 20 million illegal aliens to not only get into our country and get drivers' licenses and complete medical care, but also created states that will not even question the status of these illegals, and therefore grant their children college educations. We cannot fight. Hell, we not only cannot fight, we work against ourselves while we are trying to fight.

The things I am pointing to are happening every day in this government of non-fighters. Wake up, kick them out of office, protest, yell, demand they protect your sons and daughters in uniform, demand we fight and fight to win - not just fight not to lose. We need a nation at war, not just a military fighting in one.

Right now, the State Department cannot even fill the posts they have in Iraq, because they cannot order their people to go. Unbelievable! Right now in Iraq, there is no legal system, no banking system and close to no government - yet we the greatest nation in the world, with thousands of government workers in D.C., and we cannot afford, or worse, aren't willing, to send some of them to Iraq? We not only cannot fight, we won't. You see, fighting is not just soldiers dying in Mosul - it is also FBI agents doing their jobs, (by the way, they can't, because only 33 of them speak Arabic). Fighting is also the Department of the Treasury cracking banks with links to terrorists.

Fighting this war can happen in our homes, where we should sacrifice to help the cause. In World War II, it happened with war bonds, moms working in factories, with blackouts, and tin drives. In this war, our leaders not only tell us not to fight, they also tell us to go about our business as if nothing is wrong. We cannot fight if we are lying to ourselves while we're doing it.

"So what?" you might ask, "We have not been attacked, and well, we like this president - or we don't, but there is global warming or there is that blonde who died with at least four guys claiming to be the father of her baby, while her own body is getting ripe in a morgue - or some diaper-wearing astronaut running around - or my flat screen TV works really well." Did I mention that we cannot fight?

[Team Sergeant]

I'm sure they're "tens of thousands" of muslims (all over the world) taking to the streets right now in protest of this new "islamic" terror tactic. islam putting the "B" brutality.

Team Sergeant
Proud Infidel


Pentagon: Children Used in Iraqi Homicide Bombing
Wednesday, March 21, 2007

WASHINGTON — Iraqi insurgents appear to have adopted a new tactic since the start of a security crackdown in Baghdad, using children in a suicide attack on Sunday, a senior Pentagon official said Tuesday.

Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero, deputy director for regional operations on the Joint Staff, told reporters that a vehicle was waved through a U.S. military checkpoint because two children were visible in the back seat.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260060,00.html

[x SF med]

Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero, deputy director for regional operations on the Joint Staff, told reporters that a vehicle was waved through a U.S. military checkpoint because two children were visible in the back seat.

Cowards, and animals.

[JGarcia]

The link is to an OP-Ed that Steven Pressfield wrote. He is the author of several popular novels, one you are probably most familiar with is "Gates of Fire."

The essay describes middle eastern tribalism and how it pertains to the current war. Other essays he's written are also available on his website. This essay is in line with the essay Peregrino posted by Col. Hunt.

http://www.stevenpressfield.com/content/op-ed1.asp

[x-factor]

Wow. I just finished skimming all 51 pages...an excellent exchange. My post is going to be mostly a recombination of what others have said, but maybe it will be useful as a summary/synthesis.

Are we at war with Islam?

Islam writ large? No...but we are in a zero-sum fight to the death with the Salafi/Wahhabi/Jihadi faction of Sunni Islam. (Incidentaly, I don't like the term Islamofascism. Its trying to fit a square peg in a round hole just because its a pre-existing easily understood hole.)

There are three factors that put us necessarily in a state of war with this faction:
1) they are violent not by temporary necessity but as a matter of philosophy
2) they reject compromise out of hand as a metaphysical sin
3) they are aggressively expansionist, again not as a matter of opportunity but as a matter of principle

If they were not all of these, we could find a way to coexist. (Incidentally, I would not put Iranian fundamentalism in the same category, as I do not believe they are all of these things.)

The issue of course is that there is no Salifistan. Salafism is as much a part of Islam as Baptists are of Christianity. The crux of our strategy has to run along counter-insurgency lines:
1) distinguish friend from neutral from sympathetic from enemy
2) respect all, aid the friend, woo the neutral, watch the sympathetic, and kill the enemy
3) employ all capabilities (diplomatic, economic, cultural, military, etc) in concert against the problem

For my money, the best historical example of this type of strategy is the Brits in Northern Ireland...in that its the best example of hard and soft power being used in tandem towards an identifiable end.

[sg1987]

Fox News

Report: 3 Killed in Attack on Bible Publishing House in Turkey
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
ISTANBUL, Turkey —
Attackers killed three people Wednesday at a publishing house that had been the subject of protests for distributing Bibles in Turkey, the government-run Anatolia news agency reported.
One person who had his throat cut inside the publishing house and another who jumped from the third floor to escape were taken to local hospitals for treatment, the private Dogan news agency said. Anatolia said one of those taken to the hospital later died.
Nationalists previously had protested outside the Zirve publishing house in the city of Malatya, accusing it of proselytizing, Dogan reported.
Video footage broadcast on private NTV news channel showed one man being tackled by police outside of the building, and another in a neck brace being loaded into a stretcher.
Malatya is known as a hotbed of nationalists and is the hometown of Mehmet Ali Agca, the Turkish man who shot Pope John Paul II in 1981.

[dennisw]

There are three factors that put us necessarily in a state of war with this faction:
1) they are violent not by temporary necessity but as a matter of philosophy
2) they reject compromise out of hand as a metaphysical sin
3) they are aggressively expansionist, again not as a matter of opportunity but as a matter of principle

I'm not sure why you would not put the Iranian fundamentalism in this category. Look at how they are attempting to influence events in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan. They are definitely trying to expand their influence, if not their territory . I'm not sure whether or not they view compromise as a metaphysical sin, but what does it matter if you cannot negotiate with them?

Secondly, if someone is violent towards us, does it matter whether or not it is motivated by temporary necessity or philosophy? I fail to see the importance of the above distinction. Additionally, if Iran was not supplying weapons and training to the Shiite factions or providing a safe haven to radical Islamist of all ilk, I believe our course in Iraq or Afghanistan would not be as difficult.

In the overall scope of things, Iran's determination in obtaining nuclear weapons may have a more adverse effect then all the activities of the Salafi/Wahhabi/Jihadi faction.

I believe we are faced with a Herculean task in trying to install a secretarian government in Iraq or Afghanistan, namely democracy. How can you have a democracy without freedom of speech? How can you have freedom of speech without freedom of religion? The answer is you cannot. As long as proselytizing is illegal which is what SG1987 points out in the previous post it seems it's a monumental task.

So are we at war with Islam? Practically speaking, I believe the answer is yes.

[tk27]

Originally Posted by dennisw

I'm not sure whether or not they view compromise as a metaphysical sin, but what does it matter if you cannot negotiate with them?

I am anxious to hear X-Factors reply, and will comment over this part only.
Iran can be negotiated with.
Timeline: U.S.-Iran Contacts, Council of Foreign Relations

In 2003 Iran was scared, it offered to:
- Help stabilize Iraq after the American invasion
- Cut ties with Hezbollah and Hamas
- Show greater transparency in it’s nuclear program
In return for:
- Ending hostilities between the two countries
- Lifting of sanctions
- Disbanding of Mujahedeen-e-Khalq

This is according to then Secretary Colin Powell’s chief or staff Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (US Army, retired), and career CIA analyst Flynt Leverett, then working as a senior director on the National Security Council for Condi Rice.

The White House turned it down.

[TENGU]

How true. Like always, we have to fight with an arm tied behind our backs
and ridiculous ROE. Until we take out Iran and/or Syria this will continue.
Unfortunately it's not our call who we fight and when to stop.
Our guys are swallowing sand and bleeding while politicos in DC are
having coktails and criticizing our methods
More concerned about the Guantanamo detainees and an Al-Queda "Bill of Rights" than our maimed soldiers.

[x-factor]

Should Iran be treated as an enemy? Yes. Certainly their national aims and ours are in conflict.

Should this conflict with Iran be treated as a zero-sum game? No.

I don't think Iran meets any of my criteria fully.

1) Are they violent? Yes, but not as a matter of philosophy. By that I mean, that mass violence isn't a goal in and of itself for them. If that were the case the world would look even worse than it already does.
2) Even the hardliners don't reject compromise completely out of hand.
3) Aggressively expansionist? Right now? Yes, because they have an excellent geopolitical opportunity. As a matter of philosopy? No.

Adversarial though they may be, they are not exceedingly violent and, as tk27 noted, they are not beyond reason and negotiation. Furthermore, the Iranian government (much less the Iranian nation) is not at all a monolith. Ahmadinejad and the hardline faction talk like maniacs, but they're constrained by other factors, the populace chief among them.

Persians are an educated, cosmopolitan people. They've got garage bands and blue jeans, and the women are smoking hot under the veils they're forced to wear. A little time and a little pressure and Iran I think Iran will come around of its own.

Thats not to say they're not a threat. Iran should be aggressively contained and their government undermined through all sensible means. We should view it as basically a regional cold war. Iran needs to be slowly and methodically strangled...throwing haymakers is just going to cause more and bigger problems.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by tk27

In 2003 Iran was scared, it offered to:
- Help stabilize Iraq after the American invasion
- Cut ties with Hezbollah and Hamas
- Show greater transparency in it’s nuclear program
In return for:
- Ending hostilities between the two countries
- Lifting of sanctions
- Disbanding of Mujahedeen-e-Khalq

And after Muhammad broke the Treaty of Hudaybiyya (after having his ass handed to him by the Quraysh and agreeing to almost everything asked of him in negotiations), it became accepted practice for muslims to make treaties that allowed them to 'consolidate and reorganize' to regain an advantageous position, and then break the treaties when they were ready to strike.

Originally Posted by x-factor

1) they are violent not by temporary necessity but as a matter of philosophy...3) they are aggressively expansionist, again not as a matter of opportunity but as a matter of principle

Isn't this confirmed in the hadith by Muhammad that there are only three choices when a Muslim encounters an infidel:

• Allow them to accept Islam as the only religion and become Muslim
• Pay the Jizya (a money-making scam for Muhammad that allowed non-Muslims to keep their religion if they paid a 'tax'; not unlike the tributes demanded by the Barbary pirates)
• Kill them

Seems to me to meet the criteria of both conditions.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by x-factor

Adversarial though they may be, they are not exceedingly violent and, as tk27 noted, they are not beyond reason and negotiation.

So I take it you're raising your hand to go and begin talks with the iranians?

Originally Posted by x-factor

Persians are an educated, cosmopolitan people

Maybe a thousand years ago. You forget they stormed our embassy and held Americans for 444 days?

I'm going to get tired of you real quick.

I spoke persian and was taught by two female iranians, they both hated the religious government. Care to guess why?

TS

[x-factor]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

So I take it you're raising your hand to go and begin talks with the iranians?

Negotiation is fine as long as you know what you're trying to get and what you're not willing to give up. It is one aspect of a full containment strategy.

Maybe a thousand years ago. You forget they stormed our embassy and held Americans for 444 days?

No, I didn't forget and I'm all for a hardline. I'm just saying it needs to be well-considered because you don't want to solve one problem and cause three more. Especially if the problem you solved was more manageable than the problems you create.

I spoke persian and was taught by two female iranians, they both hated the religious government. Care to guess why?

TS

I'm sure they did and I'm sure I don't blame them a lick. A friend of mine is a brilliant astrophysicist who was chased out by those fools. But thats part of my point (one I probably didn't make in enough detail the first time)...the fact that a significant amount (if not a majority) of the population (especially the urban population) is cosmopolitan and does not like the theocracy is a source of leverage to be used as part of a comprehensive containment policy.

I'm not defending the Iranian government. I'm talking about how best to handle them.

The original point I was making was to contrast the Iranian hardline government with the jihadists. Its not that one is our enemy and one isn't. They're both our enemies. But, I believe, the jihadis are an existential threat and as such require faster harsher measures than the Iranians who (at present) aren't much different than any other despotic nation-state throughout history.

As for getting tired of me...I don't know what to say really. I'm a guest and will leave without question if you want, but wouldn't you rather have a good exchange than chase me off?