Are we at war with Islam?
 

Disclaimer: I believe in freedom of religion and I don't think any one group, race, creed, religion are all bad. I also realize that Christianity has had its share of issues.

Are we at war with Islam? I've heard numerous people say no, including the POTUS. However, can anyone name one Islamic country that has no ties, either collectively or individually, to terrorist attacks? Islam is called by its adherents the religion of peace and they claim Islam has been hijacked by the few. And there are dozens of Islamic countries. Surely there must be one in which the religion has not been hijacked and used to attack the west?

Malaysia.

There have been lots of rumors, but no ties.

Mmm. I'll be back.

Off the top of my head...
 

Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait and Baharain.

You guys aren't understanding the question. Basically what I'm asking is is there one Islamic country who's citizens aren't involved in terrorism - zero participation? Not just that the government doesn't support terrorism.

GH - hasn't Malaysia picked up a bunch of JI terrorists there?

Since you are making yourself clearer...
 

Qatar and Baharain.

Qatar I might buy, but I'm sure I've seen Baharianis picked up somewhere.

MANAMA, Bahrain — Bahraini authorities are investigating whether the U.S. 5th Fleet base in this Gulf kingdom was the target of suspected terrorists arrested in recent days, government officials said Sunday.


Officials said Saturday that five Bahraini men, including at least one member of Bahrain's military forces, were arrested in the past one or two days for plotting terrorist attacks on the tiny island.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78720,00.html

Are we fighting against a specific interpretation (or group of interpretations) of the Koran? Could groups using this interpretation be considered a seperate 'sect' of Islam?
Thanks,

Solid

Russia's security services, the FSB, have long sought the extradition of Yandarbiyev from Qatar, where they claim he was being sheltered in a diplomatic compound under police protection. Qatar has denied all links to terrorism. The FSB accused him of helping to finance terrorist acts, including the Nord Ost theatre siege in which 40 Chechen gunmen held 800 Muscovites hostage.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/art...148534,00.html

Yep, Indonesians mostly (at least one Saudi). Picking them up indicates fighting terrorism, not being involved in it. A bunch have been picked up in Thailand as well.

Ok, Malaysia is tentatively on the list. I'll look again manana. Of course the reason is probably becuase they're all working in sweatshops.

No offense, but if your criterion is that a country is not against Islamist terrorism if any of its citizens are Islamist terrorists, then add the United States, Great Britain, France, Canada, China, Russia, Australia, Georgia, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Kenya, Spain and Sweden.

The core of al-Qa'ida recruiting has been among Gulf Arabs, but the point of al-Qa'ida was to build ties to Islamists, usually adherents of the Salafi or Wahhabi schools, throughout the dar al-islam, from the Philippines to Algeria, and into the dar al-harb. It was to be the base of a hydra-headed network of terrorists. So naturally you are going to find recruits among any Muslim population. But that really doesn't answer the question.

As far I am concerned, we are at war with a political ideology (and its adherents) which some have termed Islamofascism. Most Islamofascist movements are themselves offshoots of other fundamentalist or revivalist movements in Islam, such as Wahhabism. Many don't even like each other - a Wahhabi like Osama bin Laden would consider a Shi'ite Hizbullah member to be an apostate. But that doesn't matter anymore than it mattered that Hitler probably secretly thought Mussolini was an Untermensch. And cooperation of Islamists with secularists like the Ba'athists of Syria and Iraq or the Communists of North Korea doesn't change this either. And, as in World War Two, where we gave Spanish fascists a pass, a war against Islamofascism doesn't require fighting every Islamist group everywhere. Tactical considerations can come into play.

That said, while from our perspective our war is against Islamofascism, it is up to Muslims to decide whether it is a war against Islam, by choosing sides. Despite the "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric, most Muslims seem to not want to take sides. The terrorists haven't exactly enjoyed a recruiting boost as a result of OEF, the vaunted "Arab street" has been quieter than Detroit after a Stanley Cup win, and every government of a country with a Muslim population denounced the 9-11 attacks. On the other side of the equation, anti-American and anti-Western sentiment is rampant and governments have done little to quell it (and in many cases have fanned the flames), many Muslims do perceive the West as being at war with Islam, and political and religious leaders have done little to engage in the debate over the future of their religion, letting the Islamofascists define the nature of the conflict.

I never get offended. I was waiting for you. From United States, Great Britain, France, Canada, China, Russia, Australia, Georgia, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Kenya, Spain and Sweden, are those citizens true Americans, British, French, Canadians, Chinese, Russian, Aussies, Georgian, Belgians, Danes, German, Kenyans, Spanish and Swedes or were they raised in closed enclaves of a Muslim nature? I'm talking about CITIZENS. I don't know exactly how to say it without sounding racist.

Consider this. The police go into a predominantly black neighborhood looking for a gang member. A confrontation or shooting takes place, and a crowd gathers. How often have we seen peo ple the neighborhood protest the police, rather than the criminals, who are after all victimizing other blacks themselves? Does that make the fight against crime a war on blacks?

This is a very imperfect analogy, but I hope the point gets across. It is understandable, but not excusable, that too many Muslims betray that natural human instinct toward tribalism. But Muslims are hardly the only ones to fall into that us vs. them trap. Look at the widely different responses of black and white Americans to OJ Simpson. Did the majority of white Americans rationally consider all of the evidence and conclude Simpson was guilty, while the majority of black Americans rationally analyzed the same evidence and conclude he was not, or did people - white and black - simply not bother with rational analysis?

One problem with the analogy, though, is that there is something in Islam that connects it to Islamofascism, while black criminals are just as much predators on black society as white (if not more). This is the fact that for most Muslims, Islam does sanction violence in the name of the faith. So too many Muslims are forced to argue nuance - this is terrorism (bad) but that is jihad (good); this is suicide (impermissible), that is martyrdom (permissible). Furthermore, while certain commandments and cheek-turning verses notwithstanding, Christianity also has been held to sanction violence in the name of the faith (see, e.g., the Crusades), the Christian world has more effectively dealt with this by separating religion and the state. There is still religiously justified violence in Christian societies - see Northern Ireland, Croatia - but not nearly on the same level. But Islam by its nature cannot so easily separate religion and state. Islam is a law-based religion, and mosque and state are inextricably inclined. The Iraqi constitutional debate attempted to address this, but all they did was put a gloss over it. I mentioned elsewhere the need for an enlightenment or renaissance in Islam, to redefine the relationship, but I honestly don't know whether it will work. Judaism is a law-based religion too, and one which was originally very violent toward non-Jews, but somehow arrived at its own compromise. I don't know if that could work for Islam. Leaving aside the fact that I doubt many Muslims would want to take theology lessons from Jews, there are also many differences between Islam and Judaism that saying the two are law-based, while Christianity is faith-based, ignores.

But leaving aside theological disputations, consider it as a tactical matter. Do we want our war to be with a few thousand terrorists or with a billion people who live all over the globe and have nukes? If we say, "yes this is a war against Islam", we not only concede defeat to the Islamofascists in a theological and political dispute, we immeasurably increase the cost of the war and make enemies out of people for no reason but the accidence of their birth. That's not who we are and not who we want to be.

AL said it all.

I'm agreeing with most of what your saying, but I think Northern Ireland is a very poor comparison.

I would suppose we could just as well turn around the question to be: "Is Islam at war with us?"

The truth is that Islam and Christianity have been at war since the Crusades. I find it interesting that we called the Crusades "Holy Wars" which is what "Jihad" is to Islamics.

Actually I don't think that we are warring against Islam per se. We went to the Balkans to stop the ethnic clensing of the Islamics.

It's a bit like being at war with a non-democratic nation. In reality, the war we are fighting is against the army and the government. However, because that government and army supposedly represents the civilian population of that country, it is considered that we are at war with that country.

Is that applicable?

Solid

I don't see any other wanabees posting in this thread, so if I am out of line for speaking my mind, my apologies, I will erase this and not do it again.

No we are not in a war against Islam. You can search for countries that do not have citizens who are terrorists and be hard pressed to find one. But the issue is not if the country has those people, it is if the country itself supports them. If I can provide a short description of who these people are. Islamists (often referred to as Islamic Fundamentalists a word which is taken out of contest and originally applied to Christianity during reformation to use it in a different context of another religion is difficult, therefore a word such as Islamist is more appropriate and to it may be applied whatever connotations it acquires) are of various types and beliefs. As a whole, all Islamist groups use religious symbols to further a political ideology. There are multiple roots of the development of Political Islam. To start as was spoken of before in another post, there are two major sects of Islam: Sunni Islam and Shi'a. There are others, but they are less of a political force. There is no need to go into their history it would take too long, but the majority of Muslims in the world are Sunni, while the Shi'a are found mostly in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and Central Asia.

Now as to their politically ideological development, it follows a few different strains. Whabbism was mentioned, but that is less of a political movement and more of a religious movement that seeks stricter interpretation of Islam bypassing much of the later legal development of Islamic law previous to the adoption of western laws in the Middle East. It is a sect that follows the teaching of a man named Abd Al Wahab; anyway history is unimportant in this context. It was mainly able to spread because the majority of Muslims in Saudi Arabia are adherents to this practice of Islam. The clerics therefore are able to keep a hold on the Saudi monarchy that is dependent on the Wahabbi clerics to keep the peoples support. This enables a secure source of cash, which the Whabbis use to support the conversion to their vision of a "true Islam". Interestingly enough, most Muslim student organizations throughout North American Universities, receive funding from this source to teach the Wahabbi version of things. Anyway, in the case of Bin Laden, it is interesting to note that while Wahabbi, he seeks to overthrow the Saudi regime, mind you he is also part of their royal family.

Ok I am getting off the topic. The ideological foundations of Sunni Islamists can find their modern origins in a large part in the development of the organization known as the Muslim brotherhood founded by a man named Al Banna in Egypt. He was a reactionist to the secularization of Egypt. He himself did not write the definitive works that would later carry this movement. That fell to one of his successors, Saiyd Qutb. Qutb wrote mainly while he was imprisoned in Egypt and his writings later became the backbone of much of the Islamist movements. He died before he completed his works and later followers had different interpretations of what he meant. Some believed that the problem lay with the non-Muslim world. Redefining the world in Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. Literally the house of Islam and the house of war. Anything not Muslim was therefore the enemy. The other body of thought professed that all Muslims who did not follow a particular set about "correct" Islam (Mawdudi was the main proponent) were in a state of ridda and jahyllia, harking back to how the new Muslims immediately after the death of the Mohammad fell apart and did not follow his laws until Abu Bakr (who followed him) was able to reconsolidate the fledgling empire. So each of these thoughts, hold different groups to blame, but both shared the same goal. The establishment of not just the Islamic state in each Muslim state (there is a difference between a state that has a majority of Muslims and one that is an Islamic state), but of a whole Muslim Nation.

From the Muslim brotherhood a large amount of other groups were formed, holding as their "bible" the writings of Saiyd Qutb. Among the Jammayat al-Islamiya which sought to mobilize students. Now oddly enough the traditional Muslim Ulema (scholars in a religious sense) led by the Muslim religious university Al-Azhar, was dead against the Islamist movement. A bunch of people with very little education in religion, ironically many were actually more western educated, were calling into question the way things had been studied and done for over 1000 years. They rejected the legal teaching of those that came before, with a few exceptions. They read two or three books by Ibn Taymmia and memorized the Qur'an and thought that they understood it better that everyone else had gotten it wrong. Part of the trouble they saw was in the rise of western institutions they saw as not fitting with Muslim society. Earlier in another post it was mentioned that Islam, Islamic Law, and Governance were not separable. That is exactly what the Islamists believe. Unfortunately they have obviously convinced many non-Muslims that this is true as well. Islam and Islamic Law are inseparable that is basically true. It is not true that the Muslim world must have Islamic Governance that is what Islamists would have everyone believe.

There are many who would state in an apologetic fashion that yes Islam as a religion says many bad things, but it is a religion of peace. This is not true. Islam is not a religion of peace, it is a religion that seeks converts and those who are not Muslim are wrong in their belief people of the book, Christians and Jews, are not forced to convert and are supposed to be accepted, but are still deemed wrong. But the same is true about most other religions. Islam is a religion, in such it is not fair to label it as a religion of either peace or war. If you have read your old testament you would find it to be one of the bloodiest most war inclined books written (or received as you like).

Again I find myself digressing. So from the perspective of these Islamists, coming mostly from the disillusioned middle class or poorer country people. They see the loss of the Khalifate with the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of the Turkish secular state as the end of true Muslim rule and see a need to go back not to the Khalifate but all the way back to an imagined Islamic paradise dreamed about in the time of the "four righteously guided Khailifs" who followed Mohammad in rule. Mind you this is only for Sunni Islam. So they would reestablish this pipe dream of an Islamic world. The truth is that it never really existed in the way they view it. There was never, except perhaps under the rule of Mohammad himself, a solely religious ruling of the people.

In the structure of Shar'ia (Islamic law), the laws were debated and regulated by a class called the Ulema mentioned earlier. Their law system was extremely intricate and its proper application no longer exists. Furthermore, while the head of state and nominal religious head could appoint judges, once those judges were appointed he was even subject to their will in decisions. Similarly not all laws were religious laws. The Khalif had control over a variety of laws that were deemed to derive from the state and its rule including the collection of taxes, administration of roads, the police forces, and many other things. Maybe a good example would be the division of laws in Israel today. Religious courts control certain function including marriage (you can not have a civil

marriage in Israel). Given in the Islamic context many more laws followed from religious laws including laws of business particular including the charge of interest. But there was a separation in different types of laws. It is a complex topic and if anyone really wants to hear more about it just ask.

To continue, it was also never a dead law, but one which changed and grew in different direction with time. For example, there is the punishment of death by stoning for adultery, a punishment which the Islamic courts in Nigeria were eager to dispense a few years ago. Now if you look at actually cases of this, you will find very few people who underwent this punishment. In fact there are haddith (sayings of the prophet later incorporated into law) that tell of a woman coming to Mohammad and stating that she had committed adultery. His answer is to tell her he did not hear her and sent her away. It was only when she returned three times and she insisted the punishment be enforced for fear she would go to hell, that he carried out the sentence. Now why is it that the law is interpreted the way it is today. And why do the Islamists blindly fall into their pattern of fanatically beliefs.

There is a historical reason that is actually pretty simple. As the Ottoman Empire began to fall apart in the early 19th century, smart young individuals were sent off to Oxford and Sorbonne to study law and equip the Ottoman to modernize to deal in trade with the western world. What began here was a period of history called the Tanzimat. Laws were steadily replaced and religious courts slowly marginalized. Schools of study of the law were closed and what was once a living and breathing legal system was quickly replaced by its western counter part and restricted in it nature. There was nowhere anymore for those Muslims to learn the law, it infrastructure was dismantled and still does not exist. There are pockets of scholars, but few really have a good grasp of law as it was practiced. Instead they seek to apply it in the horribly misinterpreted manner as was witnessed in Nigeria.

The only country that still practices full Islamic law is in Saudi Arabia (the Taliban did not practice Islamic law). Even in Saudi Arabia their own understanding of the development of Islamic law is limited and their courts based on a particular school of thought that adheres to the strictest interpretations of the laws. On a personal level I don't like it and often find the Saudis I know to be the ultimate in hypocrites (a personal bias... found through experience). So Islamic law as it once was practiced does not exist. This is the legacy of which the Islamists don't speak, nor do they really know of, and when confronted with it, they scoff and say that one does not know or is obviously a western orientalist (i.e. someone like me who is not Muslim but knows the religion better than they do) or is a bad Muslim (those scholars actually interested in the development of their religion who do not accept everything someone with a long beard dishes out at them).

In many countries throughout the world there exist those Islamists who seek to convert others to their misinterpretations. They seek to establish a new Islamic order (of course they would conveniently be the leaders of this new order). They undergo indoctrination of their cause in madrasas throughout the world. Often pulling their new servants from the poor classes with an offer of education and brotherhood. Or they look to the disaffected urbanites unable to find work or unhappy with their lot in life as it stands. They use Islam to support their political objective. A state ruled by them. Where they dictate the laws as they see and interpret them regardless of what history says. In their domestic struggle they have exported through violence there beliefs. Much as the Arab countries have used hatred of Israel as a rallying point towards unification and cooperative action, the Islamists have attacked the west in order to gain the support of those in their home countries. They make us the devil. They paint us as evil. As Dar al Harb. They contort and use religion as means to political success. They use terrorism as a tool to spread their message and gather support by turning the eyes of their local populations outward and then painting the world in colors they want those in their homes to view. Then they seek to pick up on that support and use it to their cause. This is the war which we fight. Not against Islam. But against the radical Islamists, who threatens our homes, our families and friends, and our country and the countries of our allies. They chose the wrong political scapegoat. They are hollow and lack any true sense of religion. They are indoctrinated political animals at the bottom who fight as their masters lead them, and there masters are those who indoctrinate using religion as a force to control and to maintain control and see through their vision of the world as they believe it should. They are in essence the antithesis of freedom. A scourge on the name of all religions in their use and abuse of their own people. And in their tactics which threaten the lives of those who have nothing to do with them other than having been their scapegoats.

Now there are many such organizations, I began to mention the Muslim brotherhood and its offshoots for a reason.

The name Mohammad Atta may ring a bell. He flew in the pilot seat of one of the planes that hit the world trade center. He was a member of one of these groups trained by Al Qaeda. He was Egyptian.

Al Qaeda's second in command Ayman Al Zawahiri is the son of a prominent Cairo doctor. From an old family, who grandfather was the Sheik of Al Azhar.

During the Russian Afghan war an estimated 526 Egyptians died fighting, 1/5 of the total deaths.

In well known "Londinstan" on the bank of the Thames, two Egyptians come to mind. Mustafa Kamal (Abu Hamza Al Misri) is the former publisher of the GIA weekly Al Ansar (ask me about the GIA sometime). He has a son in jail in Yemen for kidnapping British tourists. He also happens to run the Finsbury Park Mosque a central hub in the Islamist network in progressing the Jihad.
The second is Yaser Al Sirri, who heads an Islamic news agency in London that supplied the letter of accreditation to the two fake journalists who assassinated Massoud in Northern Afghanistan three days before 9/11.

Why am I mentioning all of these individuals? Well they are all part of the Muslim Brotherhood or its affiliates I should say. Followers of Islamists principals. The sum of the earth. They all come from Egypt, but many had to flee their own country which would not tolerate them. Two of them simply settled in comfort in the religiously free environment of England. There home country is for the most part Muslim. We are not at war with Egypt. We are definitely not at war with England which is home to two of these terrorists now. We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with these men. These people who seek to war with us. These people, who have brought violence, hurt, and hate with a message of religious intolerance in promoting themselves.

Sorry to have gone on and on. This topic gets me going. I am ready to be blasted for my views now. So shoot away. If I have offended anyone I am sorry. If I was wrong for posting this bit, I am sorry. I will remove it immediately. I felt these thoughts were important enough to write. It is my opinion (quite abridged actually). But is opinion based on roughly 5 years of research dating previous to 9/11.

Rudy:

I'm going to try to read your posts, but I would like to make a suggestion that may help old blind people such as myself:

Shorter paragraphs.

:)

Sorry about the long winded nature of the post. I will reedit it and break it down to smaller paragraphs. :D

Excellent! I started reading and was going to just pick up the gist from AL's reply to it. LOL

Now I'll read the whole thing.

Here they come!
 

Bahrain rioters hit streets, torch cars of Arab playboy boozers



SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Monday, March 22, 2004
ABU DHABI – Shi'ite attacks against foreigners are now targeting playboys from neighboring Arab states who come to Bahrain for the more readily available alcohol.

Western diplomatic sources said last week's street violence appears to have shifted its focus from Westerners to Gulf Arab nationals who use Bahrain as the watering hole of the region. The kingdom is the only Gulf state that approves the public sale and consumption of alcohol, banned by Islam.

Most of the patrons in the La Terrasse restaurant, one of the targets of last week's rampage, were Gulf Arabs, particularly Saudi nationals. Two cars owned by Saudi nationals were torched.

The diplomatic sources said the Shi'ite vigilante campaign appears to be supported by members of Bahrain's parliament, dominated by fundamentalists. Many parliamentarians have called for a ban on alcohol and the expulsion of the U.S. military presence in the kingdom.

LMAO!
 

These guys are something else! They are like a religious "MOB" gone crazy.

ALLAH...I can't get my freak on!

"Didn't I see every last one of you guys in that titty bar last night, drinking liquor and passing out money to the strippers"?

One point I think I made earlier was that our war was not with Islam, but with the adherents of a political movement - call it fundamentalism, Islamism, political Islam, jihadism or Islamofascism (no term is entriely satisfactory) - which embraces terror as a means and subjugation or destruction of all non-Muslims as a end. I noted that from our perspective our war wasn't against Islam, but it was up to Muslims to decide whether from their perspective it was. Muslims had to choose sides, and it appeared that most were not.

While I think the points I made about the relative quiet of the "Arab street" and the points GH made about Southeast Asian Muslims remain valid, I am not as sanguine about where this stands as on rereading my posts it looks like I might have sounded.

In too many areas, too many influential Muslims have taken sides, and for all intents and purposes they have chosen the Islamofascists' side. At best, they have, by not taking sides, ceded the voice and face of Islam to the Islamofascists. At worst, they have actively given credence to the Islamofascist doctrine.

We have had a number of tactical victories in the GWOT - the liberations of Afghanistan and Iraq, the denegration of the al-Qa'ida infrastructure and Qadhafi's newfound love of the West, to name a few - but we may have suffered our biggest strategic setback all the way back in October 2001. This was Saudi Arabia's refusal to allow bases in the Kingdom to be used for OEF because, the Saudis said, they couldn't allow their bases to be used to bomb Muslims.

Now these very bases had been used for a decade to enforce the no-fly zones over Iraq, and had been used in Desert Storm. And Saudi troops had themselves fought in Desert Storm. So the fact that the people who were killed happened to be Muslim couldn't have been the key obstacle for the Saudis. That leads to the conclusion that by bombing al-Qa'ida and Taliban bases in Afghanistan, the Saudis were concluding (and framing the debate for many other Muslims) that we wouldn't be bombing people who happened to be Muslim, but that we were bombing them for being Muslim. The Saudi government chose sides, and it chose the other side.

The Saudi government wouldn't be the Saudi government if it didn't try to play both sides, so they still quietly supported the coalition war effort, but the public face was one of "the Americans are targeting Muslims" rather than "civilized peoples (Muslim and non-Muslim) are targeting terrorists." But this playing both sides opens Saudis up to charges of being munafiqeen (hypocrites who act Muslim but are really kuffar, unbelievers). The ideal scenario would have been for the Muslim world to denounce bin Laden and the Islamofascists as munafiqeen themselves (some Muslim leaders did this, actually, but not enough). From a tactical standpoint this would have been advatageous, because it would have permitted observant Muslims to join with non-Muslims to fight these apostates. But it would have been more valuable from the strategic standpoint, because it would have been Muslims making the point that Western leaders were trying to make from the beginning, that the war was not against Muslims, but against murderers who had no right to call themselves men of God (even within the context of a religion that does countenance killing in the name of God).

But it didn't happen. Instead, in too many cases, Muslim countries have stayed out of the war because they couldn't join a war on Muslims. The exceptions have been few - Jordanian SOF in Afghanistan now, Afghan and Pakistani troops fighting the Taliban and al-Qa'ida, Yemeni counterterrorist ops, even Saudi Arabia's own counterterrorist ops - and have been characterized as pragmatism. Pakistani President Musharraf is one of the few leaders of a Muslim nation who has publicly and vehemently denounced his enemies as un-Islamic, and he is dismissed even in the West as a stooge for the Americans. Meanwhile, a group of so-called "men of God" in Islamabad proclaimed over the weekend that the Pakistani army jawans killed fighting against the Taliban and al-Qa'ida forces in the recent operations didn't deserve an Islamic burial.

I honestly don't know what it will take to rectify this state of affairs, or if it can be. Musharraf is effectively a lone wolf, and has had two near misses in assassination attempts. A few Iraqis have denounced other Arabs for shedding crocodile tears during the American-led invasion, but never having shown too much concernwhen Saddam was killing Iraqis by the thousands. But it may be too late. The civilizational war may be upon us, though we want it not.

Re: Here they come!
 

Another reason behind the incident at La Terrasse was that teh owner (a Muslim) did not hang a banner out before Ashura.

I'll tell you one thing, once that island host the Grand Prix next month and the local see how much money is made off the sale of booze, parliment will not stand a chance of banning it.

A few things AirborneL.

The successful over throwing of A-Stan and Iraq were strategic, not tactical in the GWOT.

The saudis cowards are in the war for two reasons and two reasons only. After the fall of Kuwait they knew it would not be long before the same fate befell them if they didn’t act and give permission to the US to enter and defend their country they would soon become part of Iraq.
The al-qaida recently targeted (the last year or so) the saudi government and ruling family (one in the same). I knew this would be the end of a friendly between the two and the beginning of the end for al-qaida.

The many nations you speak of joining the fight is a token effort at best. Why do you think the Pakistanis are now ripping al-qaida a new asshole? Again two reasons, the US has asked them to, and the bigger reason and real reason, the al-qaida has almost killed the president of Pakistan and he’s pissed. He now knows that if he’s going to continue to play with his grandchildren he’d better kill all the al-qaida he can before they kill him.

We are at war with an ideology, that to me anyway is crystal clear. We can preach all the religious tolerance we like, it will become the reason for our demise. Most muslims do in fact think the attacks on the US were justifiable and reasonable. I’ve yet to see a muslim protest against the attacks on the US. It’s not going to happen, not even in this country.

One unflappable American trait is the fact that we enforce religious tolerance and we will continue to do so right up until they bury the last American.

Team Sergeant

Couple of observations:
1) Since the "political movement" is using the religion as the base for the call and the religious leaders are the political leaders, it would seem to me that it is indeed religious and not political. And can you separate the two in a culture where everything is tied to religion?
2) The "allowing" of the jihad to become the voice of the religion is to me making a choice. They have allowed themselves to be defined by the radical element, which makes them just as guilty.

Not taking the side against them is taking the side for them.

Factions of the Pakistanis. Today's ambush may help things in our direction, but there is still a considerable element within the official Pakistani government that is working against us.

Factionalization is good, in this case, though.

I didn't know they also had democrats.

SNAP!
 

The Pakistani's are a confused bunch as a whole. A part of their brain tells them their future lies in aligning with the US and the western world, the other part of their brain is screaming to shut the world out as we represent a major threat to their islamic religion/isolationism. They can not quite reach out far enough to do it on their own, they need our help reaching out to them to pull them into the first world.

Pakistan's demographics shows that they will struggle with this problem until their people are exposed to education, and positive western influences that will loosen the mulah's fist of control that entraps the majority of the under- educated, western-phobic, extremist islamic man on the street.

As an example. I was having a conversation with a young Pakistani the other day, who is a barrister/lawyer for a national corporation, that has recently become a private/non-government company. He is well educated, UK, and travels to the western countries on business. He and I were talking about mis-conceptions on both sides of this issue of mis-trust and fear of each other's religion/culture. I said that it seemed that it will take the human touch in order to break the walls the exist today. I explained that the media has done both countries a great dis-service in that extreme images, what these news organizations use to generate their revenue, separate our cultures by constructing destructive barriers of fear and mis-trust. Bombings, mobs burning our US flag, Christians being targeted by their extremist organizations, our images of immoral lifestyle, crime in the streets, lack of any spiritual control, and the media's portrayal of the US as a power mad country attacking the Islamic world for our greed and need for oil/power. The media displays these images for ratings and profit.

He admitted that I was one of the few Americans that took the time to talk with him, not just look at him like a potential terrorist. I told him I look at everyone as a potential terrorist...just kidding I didn't say that...maybe thought it but... :-)

Maya

I like the term "extremist Islam". Terrorism is obviously an extreme means, but is the stated purpose extremist or mainstream?

LMAO! I wish they did. Then we could just stand back and watch the country implode.

That is going to be INCREDIBLE!
 

I got a look at that project months ago...INCREDIBLE!

They put entirely to much money, time and effort...promoting that event for it to fail. :munchin

Don't be hijacking my thread with that fag car racing crap.

lol...
 

Just watch...evertime a Muslim/Islamic country or its leaders, begins to understand and try to embrace the future for the betterment of its people and followers...

Some radical ass Islamic/Muslim leader goes against the NORM! These so-called "clerics"...don't give a fuck about the majority of its people or diversity. Yet AL will quote, these leaders as if they know what they are doing is right.

AL, believes these "terrorist" are highly educated. I believe they are "indoctrinated" into a religion that still believe...the strict ways of the past, is the best way.

rant off for now...cable is being installed tomorrow...

BERLIN (Reuters) - German President Johannes Rau has canceled a planned visit to Djibouti Wednesday following urgent warnings from German security services of a planned attack against him, the president's office said in a statement Tuesday.

The statement said German security services had received information that an Islamic group planned an assassination attempt on the president, who was due to visit German troops stationed in Djibouti at the end of an eight day visit to east Africa.

Re: That is going to be INCREDIBLE!
 

EVERY single hotel room in the country is booked. People are renting out rooms in their houses. Gulf Air (sponsor of the event) has set up extra flight from Dubai. Schools are shut down for the race, hundreds of palm trees have been planted. Heck, they might even scrub the graffiti off the Tree of Life.

Got to walk the track with one of the engineers a little while ago. Pretty impressive.

I would not be at all shocked to find that incidents like the one mentioned above increase as the race approaches, or that the above incident was in part a reaction to the upcoming events.