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.