HUH? I cannot seem to follow your question.

Its like me being a communist - GH thinks I'm one, but my mother isn't one and the other communists won't let me on the Central Committee.

sorry for the confusion. I dont agree that being jewish is like being a boyscout or joining a club.

I dont know if this adds anything to the discussion of whether we are at war with islam the religion or islam the ethnic identity. personally, I believe that "the fanatic" is one of the most significant inventions of historical time.

Where did I mention ethnicity?

Okay. I got it now. I was not tracking before.

I don't think Islam is an ethnic identity.

However, I fail to see the difference, since they identify themselves by their religion and take their marching orders from their clerics.

it is the ethnic aspect of judaism we are talking about, if we agree that believing you are jewish doesn't make you jewish.

ethnicity
n : an ethnic quality or affiliation resulting from racial or cultural ties;

IMHO, if others think that you are jewish, to an extent it's irrelevant what you believe.
Solid

WTH kind of reasoning is that?

You do not become Jewish because others think it so. If a person is not either a.) religiously or b.) ethnically/culturally Jewish you are not Jewish. Likewise, a person cant decide they are now Jewish, nod their head and it becomes so. There has to be a tie to one of the above.

I have to agree with NDD on this one. It sounds incredibly over-simplified and very non-Politically Correct, but I think it is quickly becoming a necessary admission if we are to to win the WOT/OIF.

Should we wage war with the Islamic leadership that incites all this hate in a public/straightforward manner or should it be a SneakySF type endeavor while maintaining a diplomatic smile in public?

These last few posts about definitions seem to be more related to this than the topic... :D (trying to get a few of the new smiley's to stick..haha)

ok, just dont accuse me of being diplomatic :D

That's the kind of thinking that gets one burned to the stake as a witch.

Maybe you should rethink your opinion.

Team Sergeant

The concept of ethnicity is as diverse as our world religions. I am merely commenting on a religious belief system, and not a diverse concept as ethnic origin or origins.

As seen below race is classified by biological means and not a simple religious based belief system.

While you can mix race and religious beliefs they are not analogous.

“Ethnicity is the cultural characteristics that connect a particular group or groups of people to each other.

While ethnicity and race are related concepts, the concept of ethnicity is rooted in the idea of societal groups, marked especially by shared nationality, tribal affiliation, religious faith, shared language, or cultural or traditional origins and backgrounds.

Whereas race is rooted in the idea of biological classification of homo sapiens to subspecies according to morphological features such as skin color or facial characteristics. "Ethnicity" is sometimes used as a euphemism for "race".
It is a term also used to justify real or imagined historic ties as well. Ethnicity goes far beyond the modern ties of a person to a particular nation (e.g., citizenship), and focuses more upon the connection to a perceived shared past and culture. See also Romanticism, folklore.�

http://www.wordiq.com/cgi-bin/knowle...itle=Ethnicity

I didn't mean that if everybody thinks you are jewish, you suddenly ARE jewish, but that in terms of social interaction, what you really are becomes irrelevant. (Hence my saying 'to an extent'... internally you are what you decide you are.)

This is the kind of thinking that has resulted in the past in people getting executed because, for example, everyone thought they were Jewish/Islamic/Christian when they really weren't.

Solid

PS: Judaism is just an example here.

as single concepts, ethnicity and religious belief systems possess common properties, mechanisms which act on bodies of people (in geographical distance or proximity). The word "religion" has its etymological roots in the word "bind". I agree that it is belief which all religions are based upon, but I also recognize that many religions are inextricably twined with other binding factors, such as ethnicity, or economics.

If religion were merely defined by whether or not individual adherent believed in it, then we as a nation would not be able to say we are "at war with islam", as we (I assume) would strongly defend an individuals right to freely believe. The point is that institutionalized religions have emergent properties, and it is not absurd to consider ethnicity and/or economics in analysis.

Race means skin color. There is no other accepted biological classification, and there are no "subspecies".

Regarding the main question - Are we at war with Islam? - I have already commented on the normative question: our war is with an ideology and its adherents, not Islam. But the open question was whether Muslims would see it that way. At best, most Muslims have not taken sides, but they have essentially acquiesced to letting the fanatics drive the bus. We do not seek a war with Islam, but the only ones who can make that not be the case are Muslims themselves, and so far, it is not looking good.

A test case will be how the Moqtada as-Sadr arrest warrant and the Badr Brigades is handled. If Shi'ite leaders such as Ayatollah Sistani speak out against as-Sadr (who after all is charged with killing one of the most beloved of Shi'ite religious leaders), then there may be some hope. If they decide anti-American solidarity trumps doing the right thing, then there is little hope. I am not sanguine at this point. If nothing else, cowardice may play a role - the Badr Brigades have the guns and have shown they are perfectly willing to kill or terrorize Shi'ites who oppose them, and we haven't shown that we are able to protect them - and I doubt Sistani will take a firm stand and risk glorious martyrdom.

Epistimologically we cannot say that we are at war with Islam, since Islam is an intangible system of belief and it is not possible to make war upon an intangible concept or idea. If we equate Islam with "all Muslims", it is then possible to ask. Are we at war with all Muslims? Since then the action of war would be directed against the people who uphold a belief in Islam. The answer to that is, I think, is no. I can't really add anything that wouldn't rehash arguements already previously stated.

Re: Here they come!
 

That is not quite true. Dubai allows the sale and consumption of alcohol. Also, an average Bahraini can't just go buy some booze.
There are packies in Bahrain, but for a Bahraini to walk in and buy some Johnny Walker would be a no-no. So, they send in their Indian, Pakistani, or Sri Lankan drivers.

and no, we are not at war with Islam. In general we are at war with the political system (or lack thereof) enabled this crop of terrorists. In particular, then, we are at war with some leaders of some countries as well as a bunch of assholes running around killing people.

I highly recommend this week's Economist. Good essays on the future of the Arab world.

It occurs to me that Moslems are increasingly at war with us, whether we like it or not, and in spite of our hearts and minds campaign.

As Solid points out, perceptions are everything. These people see BW contractors as CIA, Mossaad, spies, etc., and treat them as such regardless of who they are and what their mission is.

I do not see how we can hope to sway those primitive people whose media, elders, religious leaders, and neighbors proselytize against us every day.

We can continue to ignore it, and let it grow.

Or we can acknowlege the fact and treat this as the cancer that it is. Identify those who wish us ill and take this war into their homes, and remove the tumors they represent while simultaneously trying to save the reminder of the Islamic body which is not trying to kill us.

Just my .02.

TR

This is a useful article: http://www.terrorismresearch.net/docs/taylor.pdf

Mmm, could be, but I don't think so. First of all, what is the difference? What is Islam if not an ideology and its adherents? Secondly, since Islam is the pervasive element in all of their actions, how can we separate the three? I would say we are at war with Islam and not at war with all Muslims before I would say the reverse.

Too many variables for me for a test case. if he whacked that other guy, they will probably give him up. Plus he's only 30 years-old, so he's probably considered an upstart by the real deals. Plus, they need our help in there, its an industrial area and even they won't be able to control the unemployed young people for ever. Better test case me for would be Arafat or one of the big Ayatollahs from Iran or Hizbollah. It will be interesting to watch the dance with Sadr though.

Huh?

I don't agree with this at all. In fact, I think I believe that it is only possible to make war on a belief or idea. Sure, you kill the adherents, but the actually war is on the idea that you oppose. Such as Hitler's conquest of Europe, communism, slavery, Islamic facsism, etc. You can kill thousands of them, but if you don't defeat the ideology, you don't win. That's why Vietnam, El sal, Nicaragua were important, despite what others may think. They were battles in the war against the ideology of communism. And that's why McNamara et al were idiots for judging success or failure by body count.

Jimbo, I didn't write that about the alcohol, its a quote.

I knew that. Sorry. I have fixed it.

Do they?

I can introduce you to many Thais who practice the Islamic faith. They identify themselves as Thai.

What will they do if their clerics issue a fatwa to kill Americans at the same time Thailand signs a non-aggression pact?

What difference did it make to someone in the Warsaw Ghetto whether they believed they were Jewish or not? What mattered was what the Germans and Poles thought.

Thailand is an ally of the US in the war on terrorism, so I doubt that a non-aggression pact is in the works. And they will do what they have been doing. Enlist. Support their country and their King.

Probably thought they were Arabs.:D

This statement contradicts itself slightly. Unless by meaning "make war" you mean countering on the intellecual plane. You said it, killing the adherents does not stop it. You can oppose an idea, as we oppose the ideological beliefs you just mentioned. Hitler was defeated, but Nazism still survives today, i.e. in a weakened state. We didn't win the battle against the idea of communism, but outlived the USSR. I agree that the body count doesn't mean anything, unless you bring about the extinction of the idea in the minds of misled people. Otherwise those people are just replaced by others. If we are at war with Islam, do we then need to eradicat the religion from the face of the Earth? What of those Muslims who live in the US and those who do not agree with the violence perpertrated on innocents? I do not believe that Islam as a religion is what we are fighting but those who bring violence to the world in the name of their religion.

Sorry about the "epistomogically" thing, I wrote that after just finishing a chapter of my thesis and didn't switch gears.

They better stand up and take their ideology back from the abusers before we are forced to take more drastic measures.

There are good things about almost every ideology, religion, etc. They become a problem when taken to extremes - all of them.

Take communism for example:munchin , the idea of no strife because everybody works together and shares is a nice one. As is a government where everybody gets to participate directly and self-critics their flaws realistically. Of course it won't work, but its still a nice idea.

I agree with you. I don't have a problem with Mohammed or praying 5 times a day facing East. But when the radical minority rules the roost, is it still the minority? Is it our fault?

No I agree with you. But I do not think the minority is in total control. They are the ones we hear about and the ones we see, because they are the one who have targeted us. In essence, what they are in control of is not the population but the means of producing violent actions. On the other hand. Places like Saudi Arabia are equally a problem. Through their support of the Wahabi movement they use the money from their oil sales to filter through to the radical madrasas throughout the world and help establish religious dominance that spouts radical islamist ideals and promotes the violence against others.

I'm not answering for anybody else, but I think the difference between an ideology and its adherents is that ideologies do not change their minds. ideologies dont change at all.

people, adherents, do.

Right, they have become the voice of Islam to the rest of the world. I think that is exactly what they want.

Look, I know not all Muslims are terrorists. Just like all Catholic priests are not pedophiles. Not even most of them. GH has given good examples of non-violent Muslims in Asia.

But in any ideology, if the majority allows the minority to become the voice, then the minority dictates the course of events with regards to the external world.

Most people that go to a demonstration do not throw rocks at police, loot or set fires. But what is remembered about Seattle for example - the thousands that marched peacefully and exercised their rights or the few that caused problems? And the longer it goes on, the more you get "Well, if they're going to call me a terrorist and terrorism is the way my leaders want me to go, then I might as well become a terrorist."

Are we at war with Islam? Since the Islam most of us know is radical terrorist Islam and the Islamic world doesn't stand up and denounce the incidents and take their religion back - radical Islam is fast becoming Islam.

COME ON! Islam, communism, Christianity, Mormonism, Buddhism, Liberalism - sum total of the ideology plus the adherents and the actions taken by the adherents to give the ideology a physical existence.

Are we at war with Buddhists? NO! Because we all believe in Buddha? Is it becuase Buddhists think we are all ok people? Or is it because the adherents of Buddhism have not allowed the Buddhist ideology to be abused into attacking us?

We have a warrior ideology given a physical presence by the graduates of the Q. Without the ideology, we would be Air Force. Without the adherents, we would be simply an idea. Together, we are what we are because of what we believe and you can see it because we exist.

maybe this should be a poll. it would be messy though.

Are we at war with Islam?

- no. we are at war with a political ideology and its adherents.

-yes. our nation is or should be at war with a radical religious ideology.

-no. Islam is at war with christianity and judaism. it is a religious war.

-yes. a nation is at war with a religion when the radical religious leaders are the political leaders.

-no. a nation cannot be at war with an intangible idea.

-no. we are at war against arab playboy boozers who oppress the proletariat.

You can't separate the ideology from the action when the action is a result of the ideology.

Why aren't Christian Arabs attacking us? They're Arabs.

pulque - What are you? No laundry list. One or three words.

"I am a ..."

STOP THINKING ABOUT IT!

:(

I don't get it.

Crip - define yourself please.