Do you actually believe that is a common desire?

Demonstrate common traits other than religion between the populations of Indonesia (the most populous Islamic nation in the world), Malaysia, Chechnya, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Pakistan, Turkey, Morocco and Iran.

Take your time.

Let me put it this way...

If I heard the Pope claim that all non-Christians must be killed and that murdering a non-Christian was not a crime, I would expect to see him removed from his position immediately and a fight going on among other Christian leaders to step up to the microphone to denounce the statement and the concept.

If a Christian sawed the head off of an innocent Muslim in the West, I would expect a nationwide manhunt (with public cooperation), massive public apology, and immediate efforts to prevent that from ever happening again.

If a Christian walked into a public place and detonated a suicide bomb for political/religious reasons, killing many Moslems, I would expect to find an immediate relief effort, persecution of those responsible, denouncement by Christian leaders and politicians as a hate crime, and measures taken to prevent that from happening again.

If 19 Christians simultaneously hijacked four large commercial passenger jets and crashed them into the shrines at Mecca, Medina, Najaf, and the palace of the Saudi Royal family, killing 3,000 Moslems, I would expect the public outcry by Christians denouncing them to be tremendous and the cooperation to find and punish those responsible to be swift and merciless.

1. Those actions have occurred (some repeatedly) for religious and political reasons with Moslems as the perpetrators and non-Moslems as the victims.

2. Maybe I missed the news, but there has been nothing like the reaction that I would have expected by the Moslem world. Mostly a few half-hearted apologies from minor clerics living in the West, and some pro forma apologies from governments with reasons to remain friendly with the U.S.

I did see vast crowds of people ululating and praising the 19 hijackers and saying that it was a good thing though, and that America deserved it. Saw a bunch of flags burned, denials, claims that it was someone else but that it was still a good thing. Of course, they also want Israel wiped off the map and all Jews murdered as well, so maybe they are really Nazis disguising themselves as Moslems. Some of these same people are quite happy to accept US aid, though.

GH, I have no animosity against my neighbors, but when the cops come after a Brian Nichols or a John Couey, and the family/neighbors deny that he did it, obstruct the police, and attack them, I expect a few heads to get busted and a wagon full of people to be taken into custody. I would also expect that in the future, people in that neighborhood would be watched with more than a little suspicion.

I think at this point, the underwhelming response from the global Moslem community speaks volumes, and in light of the ongoing planning and attacks against non-believers, that watching the neighborhood closely and dealing with threats quickly and harshly is the best policy.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

TR:

I think I like the way you are spelling "Moslem." I think you are making a point and taking a position just with the spelling, which is nice sophistry. Could be wrong, of course.

RL

So it is the religion then and we should be at war with Islam?

The Catholic Church doesn't have the best history when it comes to its dealings with those who don't believe the way that the Church directs.

But your example is a poor one. Islam doesn't have a leader like the Pope.

But even with that leader, Catholicism didn't do much of a job of protesting the violence of the IRA over the last 70+ years. Maybe we should condemn all of Catholicism because their reaction didn't match my expectations?

Let's say a couple of protestent preachers of different sects said something about unbelievers deserving to die and burn in hell? You know, like the things that have come out of the mouths of some Evangelists in the past? Shall we condemn all of Christianity because most of us had the common sense to consider those people idiots and allowed the Police to deal with those that were criminals?

Members of Al Queda and JI have been taken into custody or killed in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand (with intelligence provided by Indonesia and Malaysia), the United States, Singapore, the United Kingdom, Australia and others that slip my memory at the moment. A number of those are Islamic nations, nations that are working with us in tracking down and eliminating those that threaten us.

Religious (Muslim) leaders in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Egypt, and Iraq (that I know of) have made public statements in opposition to Fundamental Terrorism. In addition, political leaders in Indonesia, Pakistan, Malaysia, Turkey, and Jordan (that I know of) have also made clear public statements about their position in opposition to Fundamental Terrorism.

Now, maybe the media coverage you've seen sucks. Wouldn't surprise me in the least. After all, the primary purpose of the media is not to report the news. It is to sell papers or gain viewership. And as demonstrated by the examples that you used (you are aware that some of the media admitted to using footage that was not related to 9/11 but got viewers?), the media (in every country I know of) is not to be taken at face value, especially if the issue is one that has the potential of an emotional response in that market. As stated in The Green Berets, "You could fill volumes with what you don't read in the papers".

As you have pointed out: Identify the threat. The threat isn't Islam, the threat is a group of people who are afraid of change and will use violence in an effort to retain power and avoid that change. Not especially different from the Reformation, an event in Europe that induced the same kind of response to Protestants that some seem to feel is appropriate for Muslims and also began 300 years of conflict.

Those are all Islamic nations. Not all of them are our enemies.

They are not all considered "good" Islamic nations though are they? I mean by the salafi jihadists?

And I think there are significant portions of the populations in all those countries that do consider us their enemies.

I think it is immaterial in this case what the nation-state policy is toward the US. We are not battling nation-states. But rather segments of the populations in each that do not recognize political boundaries. What makes them terrorists is not whether they are Indonesian, Malaysian or Saudi - that would appear to me to be the least relevant of their characteristics.

Well said, GH.

Exactly. The center of gravity of this effort is not Islam, a nation-state nor a religion per se, it is the fundamentalist co-option of the Islamic Faith something that a non-muslims can not do on their own. Islam has to take back Islam. Only they can separate the fundamentalists from their population base, only they can resolve the factors that are splitting their own religion. Our role is to remove those irritants that fuel the hate for the west, provide military support to hammer those targets we can isolate from the non-offending portion of Islam, etc. Just a very abbreviate thought.

Jack Moroney

You are using semantics as an argument? I used the Pope to compare a leader of one of the factions of Christianity, since Catholicism strikes me as one of the more hierarchical Christian religions. Feel free to insert arch-bishop, bishop, or the leader of your choice to make the comparison to whoever could issue a fatwa. What is the equivalent of a Grand Ayatollah? The factions of Islam do have leaders, do they not?

Last time I checked, the IRA never called for the deaths of all non-believers worldwide, or even targeted Americans, much less blew up large public buildings here, attacked navy vessels, hijacked and blew up aircraft, bombed American embassies, etc. They confined their struggle to their country, and largely among themselves. I am looking for tapes of IRA members sawing off the heads of screaming Americans. Hmm, can't seem to find any. Do you have the pictures of Americans cheering in a parade over the deaths of either side in Northern Ireland?

You may occasionally hear a Protestant cleric saying that someone is going to Hell, most usually his own church members. I have not yet heard any advocating genocide or attacks on all non-believers. Have you seen a lot of Christian churches turning out here to go burn down a local synagogue or mosque? You seen the Baptist Convention calling for that or issuing permission to do so?

Christianity has already experienced its Reformation and Inquisition. One of my options I stated was for Islam to have such an epiphany and modernize to accept (or at least tolerate) other beliefs and acknowledge basic human rights.

Islamic countries appear to be cooperating with us to whatever extent they need to for their own survival, no more, and no less. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia continue to sanction teaching hatred, intolerance, and murder in their schools at the same time that they assist us (in some lesser degree) in the GWOT. Statements against terrorism made by the religious leaders in several of those countries that you cited are weak, ineffectual, and conflict with their own statements supporting the terrorists.

So you think that the footage of the planes hitting the towers, the Islamic terrorists sawing off the heads of prisoners, the IED and VBIED casualties, and the crowds holding up the papers and placards from those events are faked? Was the moon landing a fake as well?

The threat, as our President articulated, is not just those who actually commit terrorist attacks on us, but the supporters and "tolerators" who aid, abet, and assist them. Do you remember the role of the various UW elements? Is the supporter, the aide, the auxilliary, or the underground not part of the opposition?

In summary, does the threat by Islamic terrorists not also include those who enable the terrorists, to include the populaces who support them?

TR

Agreed, but we mut be very precise in how we accomplish removing the irritants so as to not give the guerrilla (and those that support them) more cause. Take the cause away from the guerilla and you make great progress toward victory.

I agree to some extent, however, significant portions (majorities in some cases) of the populations of those nation-states are our allies... and they are Islamic. And I also think it is foolish to assume that all (or even a significant percentage worldwide) Muslims identify themselves by their religion before their nationality.

The most relevant characteristics of those we are concerned with are not appreciably different from the characteristics of any other terrorists. A willingness to use violence against civilian targets in order to create terror. A need to have power and a willingness to corrupt whatever cause they can use to recruit to do that. Islam isn't the cause, it's the hype. Like an advertising agency seeing what hook they can place.

Did you condemn every veteran when Timothy McVeigh set off that bomb in Oklahoma City? Did you condemn every gun owner as the Waco mess occurred?

Sure, many did. Is that the same target identification skills that we encourage and train for?

One implication of the affirmative position here seems to be that we should wage a conventional war against all Islamic countries like in WWII. Is that what is being proposed? Bomb them all into the stone age? Or are you people just venting some anger?

Seems to me you need to draw some distinctions within these populations if the strategy is UW. But what do I know? :munchin

What qualifies as a supporter, TR? Does the farmer in his field growing rice and just wanting to raise his kids and get on with his life qualify because he doesn't object the way you think he should? Does the man who runs a little store or works in a factory because they just want to live their life and don't pay any attention to this whole issue?


If so, you have a basic choice, TR. You can go to war with 1.48 billion people, or you can recognize that a large portion of that 1.48 billion don't support the terrorists and can be brought around to be allies in the fight against the actual enemy who are a very small % of that 1.48 billion.

You seem to prefer the first choice. I prefer the second.

Btw, I didn't say that the planes crashing into the WTC was a fraud, or the plane hitting the Pentagon, or the Bali bombing. I'm a New Yorker who lost friends in those towers, but I don't blame Islam. I blame the terrorists who committed the acts. Just as I blame the IRA for bombs in London, not Catholics. What was a fraud was the footage of Arabs celebrating, at least the footage used by some of the media. And MOST Muslims aren't Arabs.

Perhaps not. I am sure that those causing the problem do. And how will we ever know about the others? I see a lot of calls for "independent Muslim states" in the countries you mentioned.

Context probably has a lot to do with how they define themselves - and they, not us, have made Islam and establishment of a caliphate with strict adherence to shar'ria the context of the conflict. They, not us, use their religion to justify the isolation, genocide, treatment of women. etc. I am happy to call them AWG Terrorists if they quit mentioning Islam, Allah, the Q'uran, etc.

What do you consider significant? 1%? 10%? 30%?

In at least some of those countries, I would bet that the % that consider Americans to be their enemies is less than 5%.

Might be able to show that a higher % of Americans consider America their enemy... :D

The countries I mentioned are Muslim states. Calls for "independent Muslim states"? In Thailand and the PI, yes (although not much of such a call in Thailand actually). But Indonesia? Malaysia? Jordan? Morocco?

And your context and definitions clearly point out the failure to discriminate. Not all of Islam is interested in isolation, not all of Islam practices genocide, and not all of Islam treats women significantly differently than non-Islam.

Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists. That's who we are war with. Not Islam.

Kind of like Irish Catholic Terrorists (or Irish Protestant Terrorists),

>1% with terrorists.

Perhaps a greater percentage of Americans do consider the US their enemy. I'm sure that is the case if you define it as the Bush administration. When they start flying planes into buildings and chopping off heads, we should deal with them the same way McVeigh was dealt with.

Notice the difference. In the former even you put the religion first. In the latter it was the nationality. In fact, in the former you didn't even mention the nationality. ;)

Fine. When you're dealing with the people who are actually with the terrorists. When you start talking about dealing with the other 95-99%...

Then it sounds like Hitler and his final solution.

Would you prefer Celtic Catholic Terrorists?

And Arab Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists?

I prefer what ever makes you happy.

I would say that the people we are fighting today (Chechens, Saudis, Yemenis, Jordanians, Iranians, et al) identify themselves as trans-national Islamists. They have no country, just a cause, and that cause is to kill as many non-believers as possible. Quick reality check, have we been attacked by any non-Muslims lately?

You continue to go back to the "soft" Islamic states of SE Asia. Perhaps they are a different sect with a different value set. There are still some hardcore Islamic extremists there, maybe in smaller numbers.

I would maintain that the majority of Muslims in the Middle East are supportive of the terrorism against the U.S. and Israel.

Seems like this discussion with you is focusing on what the U.S. might do or feel, rather than the overt actions over an extended period of time that the Islamic terrorists HAVE taken against us and our interests. Which is the greater threat?

Are you crucifying us for our impressions, rather than blaming the Muslim terrorists for their actions in deeds and words?

Who is a greater threat to kill millions if they have the capability (which we have had for 50 years and not employed since 1945), us, or the Muslim terrorists?

Where should we focus our attention today, on the Aussies? The Anglicans?

TR

I think you are missing the point. Or maybe we're just talking about different issues.

Should we carpet bomb (or nuke) cities in muslim countries to get this over with more quickly?

I advocated nothing of the sort. It appears that you are trolling and trying to agitate. If you have a realistic opinion to contribute, please do so.

Counsel, let's just say that the next Islamic terrorist plot is successful, and a surplus 25MT warhead is popped from a shipping container in the Greater LA area while you are on a business trip.

What will you say we should do then, have a weenie roast and sing "Kumbayah"?

The globe is too small these days to sit here protected by the two great oceans and hope that they can't get it here from there. It is too easy and the stakes are too high.

TR

No, I am not. We are trying to define who the enemy is here, and you are using a very broad definition. When you do that, it raises questions about who should be targeted by us and in what way. I think my question was quite appropriate in light of your prior statements and comparisons of this war to the war against the Nazis.

Actually this view point is going to be oversimplified because if I am late for chow I am in deep doodoo and still can't fend for myself that well. RL, there is no single target group and carpet bombing as a term is not all that way off but the munitions are information/psyop. You not only have to take out the insurgent but you have to separate him from his base of support which right now are both other extremists and those that support them because they are scared shitless not too. Think concentric rings if you would like with the guerrilla at the center and the folks that support him in various ways forming a series of rings to include the diaspora. Some folks need to be killed, others contained and separated from the guerrillas, some need re-educations, others might need to be moved from an area and yet others need to have the threat removed from the area in which they are in. All muslims read from the same book but not all read or heed the same msg. Just like the Christians who dwell on the bible and take whatever passages suit them-in spite of the fact that the bible is a compilation of a whole series of opinions, interpretations, and serious editing. There is not cookie cutter approach to any group, country that harbors them, or groups that support them and it is going to take a lot of work to find the right buttons to push to address all of them. The worldwide muslim population provides a huge resource for manipulation and recruitment, the trick is to determine the who, what, when, where and why-then we can determine the how. Mess call has sounded


Jack Moroney-call me anything but never late for chow.

Well, it may have been fast, but I think that is pretty good, Jack. It sure doesn't sound like the same sort of war as fought against the Nazis.

TR,

Sure, Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are an extreme threat, especially if they have a nuclear device. Seems to me that is just another reason to want to exploit the intelligence gathering abilities and other assets that those of Islam who are friendly to us, who also recognize the threat rather than treating the whole of a religion as a threat.

"Soft" Muslims of SE Asia? I would remind you that there are more Muslims in SE Asia than there are in the Middle East. Those "soft" Muslims are the ones that deal with economies that require more than just pumping oil and selling it. Maybe that is why they are "soft".

By the way, it was "soft" Protestants that founded the bulk of the Colonies that eventually became the United States. I would think that we might find a little more understanding for those who are willing to live and deal with the world than to dismiss them as "soft" Muslims.

And don't forget, Christianity's reformation took 300 years of war to finish most (not all) of the wars within it. It tore most of the known world apart during that time period. Are we willing to have Islam do the same? Or do we need to help to make it more peaceful, more managable, and more to our benefit?

Well, I've gone from communist to fascist now?

Like Col. said, there's more than one way to "deal" with them.

Some need a level, some need a screwdriver, most need tape - and yes, some need a hammer.

OK, instead of Hitler and the final solution, how about Stalin and the Gulags.. or Mao and the reeducation camps.. :D

Some interesting reading regarding Muslims:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0303/p01s02-wome.html

http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050...0412-1959r.htm

http://democracyiniraq.blogspot.com/

http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/

http://www.weeklytelegraph.co.uk/new...portaltop.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...0003_1,00.html

http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/articlenav.php?id=56

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/i...03101357373329

In my opinion, that is what the mullahs are doing in the madrasas.

Which is not all of Islam. Or even a majority of Islam.

Today

Madrassa enrollment is low and declining in Pakistan because of an increased number of options available to parents, and appears to be low in many neighboring countries, as well.

The commonality among these terrorists is that they are Islamic. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but it appears that a damn sight more Muslims are attacking us than any other threat we face.

How many Muslims does it take preaching hatred and intolerance to harm us (and their own religion)? One? Ten? A million? 25%? 45%?

How many dead Americans represent an acceptable loss to Islamic terrorists before we can pin the rose on them? Are we willing to accept further casualties before we call the threat what it is, Muslim extremists and their enablers?

No one suggested going after Muslims who are not involved in terrorism, or supporting terrorism. I suspect that there are more who are ambivalent than anything else, but I also believe that there are more Muslims against us than assisting us.

You can keep citing the vast number of Muslims in SE Asia who are not directly involved and the commonality of Middle Easterners in this, but several nations in SE Asia, including the Phillipines, sure seem to have their share of Islamic terrorists.

I think that we should be using the multiple approaches that have already been articulated to resolve this, but anyone taking up arms or issuing fatwas against us opens themselves up for the hammer resolution.

Frankly, I would be looking to refocus issues to incite discord among the different Islamic radical groups, and help them kill one another off to their hearts' content. That is just my .02, YMMV.

TR

Wow! Well stated TR! My sentiments exactly! :lifter

The question which starts the thread is:

"Are we at war with Islam?"


I disagree. I agree with most of what you said, but I think there is an awful lot of evidence that the terrorists and their supporters (in any region) are a minority. In some regions, like SE Asia, they are a rapidly disappearing minority.

I thought THIS was interesting.