Excellent point!

IMHO their (jihadist) ideology is crystal clear - Islam is the one true religion, and must be dominant over all. Terrorism is their methodology/modality of choice that pushes forth this religious ideology. It has worked well for them thus far. The common man/woman loses faith that his government can protect him/her and the appeasement begins (Spain comes to mind here). There is no jihadist secular or nationalistic cries for freedom or equality, only those sacred cries of Allah Akbar.

While I suspect that both our percentage numbers of true jihadists is low, is there any other religion, in present day, wherein 70%, 80%, 90% of their believers would remain mute and unwilling to condem killings, maimings, beheadings, and forced conversions, all in the name of Yahweh, Buddha, Christ, etc? I think even the Krishna's would step up to the plate (or Terminal B) on this one.

Casey: It is not uncommon to see what you speak of right here in the US. Again, not religious but just plain apathy. People are beaten up, assulted and even killed while crowds of people stand-by as spectators. In most cases the percentage is close to 100%.

You will still die if you catch a bullet with your forehead, whether you admit your current state or not.

I fail to see the importance of your question.

The situation is analyzed and a response is thought out. If the threat, intensity of conflict or the adversary's political objective puts us into a position where war is a part of the solution, then that's just how it is.

Does that sound right to you?

I have to disagree Sir. Your example of two random people in the street fighting for unknown reasons verses a religiously condoned, religiously indoctrinated, and publicly encouraged act of blatant terrorism are completely different situations and don’t merit a comparison. Since you are using the USA in your example, let's look at one of the latest incidents involving a dominant religious ideology and subsequent dominant political power within the USA. The Catholic Church is a good one. Let’s look at the latest pedophile scandal.

Catholics from all over the country were outraged with the church's support/shelter/leniency that it provided to the scumbag priests who were perpetrating these acts. They didn't care one bit whether the "religious leaders" decided the acts were forgivable and were repented for by the scumbags according to religious principles and guidelines.

They (the everyday worshippers/citizens) withheld their money (donations), support, attendance, and demanded immediate action or else. Even though it was against the Vatican’s wishes and Catholicism, etc not to forgive and forget after the church confessional and punishment was given to the offenders, this outrage was expressed very publicly by the citizens.

Now, this was not a beheading, a suicidal explosive laden pig killing innocents, etc AND the people accused of doing this were not given aid, money, or considered martyrs for their action by the Church officials. They were punished and reprimanded (a little) by the church itself, and the act itself was considered and publicly admitted to be against church values and laws. Yet average everyday Catholic’s still felt that their religion was being tainted and demanded a more equitable punishment and controls be created and put in place to prevent another such tragedy. This was above and beyond what the "religious leaders" told them was right or needed according to the church law.

Where exactly is that type of reaction in the Muslim world especially in the middle east?

I agree with your content, but not the analogy. People are assaulted and killed by others everyday in front of apathetic spectators. But these are criminal acts, comitted during crack binges, robberys, domestic assaults etc over money, rage, jealousy - the list goes on. What we're talking about here is assault and killing of all kaffirs (non-believers) condoned by the very diety itself. Add in the present day "fatwas" or religious edicts to pick up the pace as it were, and it all revolves around one point - the religion.

Hint: Velvet glove.

I wouldn't say velvet glove just yet. We can't get a consensus on this board of mostly like-minded people - imagine Washington. Besides, its easier to use people if they think you aren't against them.

Switch the tables: Islam in a velvet glove.*

Read NDDs reply again from that point of view.

Except for those who just look at the statements and decide from there the state of things, does it really change the actual threat? That you don't acknowledge somebody's hidden intent to kill you does not remove it. Not a good point to base policy on.

Ok, second thought, I think I get it when the expression is turned around again.

*I interpret the expression 'velvet glove' as masking of force

I am sorry that my response fails to impress you, O' Munificent One of Great Enlightenment, Potentate of Worldly Political-Military experience, and Caliph of Combat Experience.

By way of offering a more acceptable opinion to Your Exalted Eminence, the state of the hostility, declared war, undeclared war, police action, counter-insurgency, or nation building is irrelevant to this matter.

I think that our resident legal counsel was referring to the velvet glove that I keep my iron fist inside, suitable for smacking disrespectful kids of no real experience, if you get my drift.

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, did it make a sound?

TR

I am sorry for having been disrespectful. My first post was just what it was, expressing that I did not understand the analogy, and how I had interpreted it (to get a reference). It was a literal answer and the question whether or not it sounded right to you was meant that way too, questioning the validity of my own statement. Obviously it wasn't right, as you put it.

I deepened that trench with the second post.

Thank you for the explanation.

Again, I'm truly sorry for expressing myself disrespectfully.

No problem.

Now stop digging.

TR

That is what I meant by velvet glove.

Edit: I see that others understood . . .

One relevant point that I have not seen made yet relates to the lack of a political/religious dichotomy in Islam, which you had in Christianity. It is said by many that we are not at war with Islam, but with a political ideology. But I think this puts a Western lens on the Islamic world that blurs, rather than sharpens, the issue at hand.

To suggest we are at war with a political ideology as against a religion is to suggest that there is a seperation between them. It suggests that among those we are describing, there is a distinction between religion and politics. This is a very natural way for Westerners to look at the situation. In Christianity - from the beginning but especially since The Reformation - just such a dichotomy exists. It is very natural in America for the question, "What religion are you?" to be considered seperately from the question, "Who will you vote for?" One influences the other, for sure, but a catholic republican is no more a contradiction in terms than a catholic democrat.

I'm not a biblical scholar, but I've read some good analyses that attribute this dichotomy in Christianity to Jesus himself, when he said, "give unto God what is God's, and unto Caesar what is Caesar's." This is considered, by my readings, to be the Biblical origins of the Western idea of a division between one's spiritual and material life. Maybe some of our more astute biblical scholars can fill in some more background on this aspect of Christianity. This dichotomy in Christianity left a deep imprimature on the Western consciousness, so deep that today it is often taken as a universal fact of religions as such.

If you're dealing with a Western country with a tradition like this, such as the Nazis, then it is useful to distinguish the politics from the ideology. But what if you are dealing with a religion that recognizes no such distinction? Or, more specific to this case, considers such distinctions virtual apostasy? In this case the value of discriminating between the religion and the political manifestation of it is questionable.

If, as most proponents of labels like Islamofacism suggest, the problem is a politicized variation of an otherwise peaceful religion, then how does one explain the utter lack of reaction against it by the Islamic majority? It is not only a question of a lack of reaction against it by Muslims, it is also a question of why there is actually broad sympathy for the "terrorists" at worst, and ambivalence or mixed sympathies at best. If the "militant Islamists" were truly a real fringe minority among an otherwise peaceful group, then a good litmus test of this theory would be to imagine a similar scenario within another relatively peaceful group. But it's hard to imagine general sympathy and support for the depredations of this kind of terror among other communities.

The nature of the problem is that the "terrorists," as they say themselves, are really just taking Islam very literally, and attempting to apply it in its unadulterated 7th century version. Like any other religion, Islam has evolved over the centuries. Under the practical pressure of day to day crises through the centuries, Caliphs and relgious scholars issues edicts and interpretations that form a large part of the modern Islamic dogma. UBL and company are old-fashioned purists in this respect. They reject many of the rationalizations of modern clerics trying to find practical solutions to cope with an overpowering West. In this sense, and to speak literally about it, it is the moderns who have perverted Islam from its roots, and the terrorists who are closer to the pure interpretation.

I think this explains the general sympathr or ambivalence towards the terrorists in the Islamic world. The reality is, despite the protestations of Western politicians to the contrary, the message of the terrorists actually does resonate with what most Muslims have read in their Quran, have heard in their madrassas or mosques, and have understood about their religion. There is no basis in their faith to seperate out the political moves of the "terrorists" from the religious justification. In Islam, the two are inextricably intertwined.

I wouldn't have said so a year ago, but I am becoming more convinced that we really are, in the broad sense, at war against Islam. Until that religion changes from within, or is marginalized or wiped out, we will still face threats from those, like UBL, who intend to take its message very literally.

D9:

What a pleasure to read substantive posts from you again. Are you no longer in training? ;)