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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>1% with terrorists.

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

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

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

Then it sounds like Hitler and his final solution.

Would you prefer Celtic Catholic Terrorists?

And Arab Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists?

I prefer what ever makes you happy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TR

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

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

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

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

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

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

TR

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

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


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

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

TR,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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