Thought for the day.
 

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-...?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

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

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?

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. (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.)
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.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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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. 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?)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>>

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.

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.

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.

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-Ameri.../dp/1400065445


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"

I'll save you the trouble of getting the book. Attached below are 5 pages of easy reading.

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!

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?

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.

And what are those two prevailing views? Do you have a footnote or a link so I can read them?

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."

I continue to argue that tone is irrelevant.

What specifically don't you like about the structure? This is a red herring to distract from the actual debate.

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.

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?

It’s CAIR and other Islamic activist groups that are actively engaging in revisionist history as previously discussed here:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=507056

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:



.

In response to post #62
 

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.What is laziness?

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

clarity
 

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
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.

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."

We'll agree to disagree on tone.

Since intonation is lost on the web, I'm not sure how to take that?

That's fair enough.

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 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?

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).

Richard

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.

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.

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.


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 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.

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.

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.

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.