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.