Are we at war with Islam?

[bailaviborita]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

...the core question of the Cold War.

What is wrong with an approach that is informed by the following sensibility?

If I'm following you- we'd publicly announce a strategy to counter terrorist attacks that would lead to terrorist calculations of possible war outcomes under any contingency always resulting in outcomes so unfavorable to them that there would be no incentive for their leaders to initiate an attack. Is that right?

The thoughts I have on that are:

- would have to have strong home support for that kind of response (I'm assuming the response would be so great as to work- sort of like nuking or totally destroying the capital of whatever country the attacks came out of?)
- we'd probably have to display the response at some point (I'd argue Hiroshima and Nagasaki gave powerful examples to the USSR as to what we were willing to do)
- we'd have to assume no autonomous sleeper cells would do things on their own and that the terrorist leaders are rational

Although I think the thought is good- I'm not sure the other factors hold that would make it feasible/valid. Maybe if we lost hundreds of thousands to a WMD attack. Anything short of that and I'd argue that the political will at home isn't sufficient to pursue such a strong deterrent strategy. Although, it would be much cheaper, faster, appealing (to human nature), sensical, strategic, etc.

Some have argued that we can't do COIN in Moslem countries anyway- so this would free us up from an impossible mission and allow us to focus on conventional warfare. Too bad we didn't think of this right after 9/11. We could have just knocked Taliban strongholds back into the homo habilis era and warned more would follow if they so much as showed their faces again. Would that have worked?

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by bailaviborita

If I'm following you- we'd publicly announce a strategy to counter terrorist attacks that would lead to terrorist calculations of possible war outcomes under any contingency always resulting in outcomes so unfavorable to them that there would be no incentive for their leaders to initiate an attack. Is that right?

The thoughts I have on that are:

- would have to have strong home support for that kind of response (I'm assuming the response would be so great as to work- sort of like nuking or totally destroying the capital of whatever country the attacks came out of?)
- we'd probably have to display the response at some point (I'd argue Hiroshima and Nagasaki gave powerful examples to the USSR as to what we were willing to do)
- we'd have to assume no autonomous sleeper cells would do things on their own and that the terrorist leaders are rational

Although I think the thought is good- I'm not sure the other factors hold that would make it feasible/valid. Maybe if we lost hundreds of thousands to a WMD attack. Anything short of that and I'd argue that the political will at home isn't sufficient to pursue such a strong deterrent strategy. Although, it would be much cheaper, faster, appealing (to human nature), sensical, strategic, etc.

Some have argued that we can't do COIN in Moslem countries anyway- so this would free us up from an impossible mission and allow us to focus on conventional warfare. Too bad we didn't think of this right after 9/11. We could have just knocked Taliban strongholds back into the homo habilis era and warned more would follow if they so much as showed their faces again. Would that have worked?

Bailaviborita-

My thoughts are much in line with yours. I think garnering enough popular support for such a strategy would be the greatest obstacle. I think the discussions over the efficacy of such an approach would be energetic, even bitter. But why not have that discussion? This line of conversation may prove untenable or it might lead to an approach that would make America more secure.

My thinking is that this approach would motivate nations to do more to control the conduct of their own citizens. These nations would need to understand that they might be held accountable for terrorist attacks. They would need to understand that terrorist attacks would be construed as acts of war.

The citizens of these nations, rather than dancing in the streets and handing out candy to celebrate bin Laden's 'victory' on 9/11 would have good reason to think that their champion had placed not only their lives in peril, but their very way of life at risk of prompt and utter destruction. This realization could lead to massive demonstrations that led to conversations in which people realize "Hey, these guys, who claim to speak in our name, what have they done for us other than gotten us killed?" (Do not ordinary German citizens pour into the streets by the thousands when their idiot countrymen praise the ghastly specter of Nazism?)

It is said that Muslims have a remarkable sense of their history. Maybe if they had a better sense of our history they'd consider the advantages of leaving us the hell alone. Or, better yet, finding ways to make peace and to form lasting bonds of genuine friendship. The history of the American people is a story of folks from different pasts of finding ways to get along as citizens, neighbors, and friends.

The U.S. has been shouldered with the onus of the burden of proof since this war began. America has conducted itself with a level of restraint that is a testament to its national character (for better and for worse) and to the leadership of Bush the Younger. He has, for reasons I believe history will vindicate, allowed America to be seen as the heavy. Our angst has clouded our vision. In this ongoing myopic moment, we do not see all the tools at our disposal.

Yes, the implications of this line of reasoning are horrible and the potential outcome is horrific. And that's exactly the point.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by tom kelly

Team Sgt. You gave JMI too Long to respond....Regard's, tom kelly

You are correct and I've fixed the problem.

I guess JMI could not back up his made-up "facts" and now he's gone.

Team Sergeant

[bailaviborita]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

My thinking is that this approach would motivate nations to do more to control the conduct of their own citizens. These nations would need to understand that they might be held accountable for terrorist attacks. They would need to understand that terrorist attacks would be construed as acts of war.

I just thought- would we have tolerated some Soviet proxies getting on planes and flying them into U.S. buildings back in the Cold War and killing thousands? And the Soviet Union wouldn't have tolerated any of their proxies doing it either, I would assume. So- that might have been a good strategy and might have motivated other nations to keep more control on their citizens and clamp down on wacko ideologies and religious leaders.

Although we had a pretty strong consensus on who the enemy back then was. Not sure if we have that anymore. Seems like at least 1/3 of our population today wants to blame the other 2/3 for all our problems.

[Richard]

I just thought- would we have tolerated some Soviet proxies getting on planes and flying them into U.S. buildings back in the Cold War and killing thousands? And the Soviet Union wouldn't have tolerated any of their proxies doing it either, I would assume. So- that might have been a good strategy and might have motivated other nations to keep more control on their citizens and clamp down on wacko ideologies and religious leaders.

MOO - institutional memory should have answered those thoughts - but dealing with a government like the former Soviet Union on some of the spectrum of war's levels (e.g., Cold War nuclear/conventional) was much different from dealing with them on some of the other levels [e.g., proxy wars (Angola, Afghanistan, Sinai, etc) and trans-national terrorism (e.g., Red Brigades, Baader-Meinhoff, PFLP, etc] - and were never wholly resolved nor often times effectively dealt with by us or the free world during decades of conflict - even when we knew their source of support.

[Note: I certainly do not want to get into a deep discussion on this aspect of our actions, but I personally think a pervasive acceptance of moral relativism among the last couple of generations of the more modern first-world societies have had a significant impact on this issue.]

For those of us who do remember the aircraft hijackings and dealings with the terrorist (nationalist) groups of the 60s, 70s and 80s, the 9-11 scenario of the relatively recent and growing trend of nihilistic terrorist actions has added a new dimension to this complicated process as it has evolved.

My question is - what next?

For me, some worst case answers to that question are (1) a prolonged, concerted, and insidious attack on our and the world's economic systems, developing a deep-seated and irreversable mistrust in and anger toward's the major government's and monetary systems, or (2) a blinding flash of light from an unidentifiable source over a - e.g. - San Antonio ("Remember the Alamo!") or any major city at 0845 in the morning during the daily rush to school and work. A pandemic could also be ugly, but I personally worry less about that - naively, perhaps - because such fears have seldom panned out as predicted for a myriad of reasons.

No answers - just thoughts here.

Richard's $.02

[Blitzzz (RIP)]

Originally Posted by Blitzzz

We are not at war with Islam, It is at war with US. Certainly a war that needs to be redefined. Blitz

Oh, did I say this. We are in defense of our selves against Islam. Islam has declared war on all who are not muslim. it's their book, they believe it, and act acordingly as much as possible. Blitzzz

Originally Posted by Blitzzz

Oh, did I say this. We are in defense of our selves against Islam. Islam has declared war on all who are not muslim. it's their book, they believe it, and act acordingly as much as possible. Blitzzz

I am confused. I remember reading that Mohamed called Christians and Jews 'peoples of the book' and therefore brothers to muslims. What about that part... or has modern islam as a whole forgotten the words of thier prophet?

Mohamed also said a woman should "dress modestly"..he never said squat about a burka..

It seems to me, that Islam and other religions are not the problem. It is how mortal man interprets that scripture to his own ends, either bad or good.

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Richard

For me, some worst case answers to that question are (1) a prolonged, concerted, and insidious attack on our and the world's economic systems, developing a deep-seated and irreversible mistrust in and anger toward's the major government's and monetary systems, or (2) a blinding flash of light from an unidentifiable source over a - e.g. - San Antonio ("Remember the Alamo!") or any major city at 0845 in the morning during the daily rush to school and work. A pandemic could also be ugly, but I personally worry less about that - naively, perhaps - because such fears have seldom panned out as predicted for a myriad of reasons.

San Antonio? What did we ever do to deserve that?

Back in 1980 or so, I met a gentleman who knew quite a lot about biochemistry and related matters; in fact, his dissertation adviser had missed out on a Nobel by a narrow margin. We would sit and eat chips with salsa while discussing get rich quick schemes. (Legal get rich schemes, I might add). Some of the things we discussed cause me to believe that a bio-weapons attack should be an area to be considered.

But I really don't think the problem will be something organized by a foreign state, or even a group such as Al Qaeda. Instead, it may be a result of a combination of resource depletion and population overshoot. Whether we look at Italy, facing migration from Africa, or the U.S. with migrations from Mexico and points south, the potential problem remains the same.

If - admittedly, quite a big if - oil proves to be the central linchpin of the global economy I believe it is - then depletion may cause sharp declines in the availability of food, and hence the twin problems of a breakdown of government and large numbers of desperate people who will do whatever is needed to survive.

How one fights that situation is problematic. What one does with wave after wave of desperate humans who will take any risk may present the defining problem of the upcoming decades. And it may extend in time for the remainder of this century.

Now all of this connects with Islam - because many Islamic states have large populations, rapid growth, and resources that have been strained to the limit and beyond. Not only could this represent a ripe ground for recruiting terrorists in the accepted sense, but it also represents (IMO) a possibility for the mass migrations mentioned earlier. I think we must ask ourselves what happens if such states as Pakistan or Indonesia falter - what will their populations do? And how do we fight it?

At least Al Qaeda has a discernible leadership. But what if the opposing force no longer has a leadership?

Perhaps Somalia is a model of the future. The situation in that small area is disrupting much. What happens of the Somalian condition spreads - and spreads a lot? (rhetorical questions, BTW).

[Warrior-Mentor]

Originally Posted by armymom1228

I am confused. I remember reading that Mohamed called Christians and Jews 'peoples of the book' and therefore brothers to muslims. What about that part... or has modern islam as a whole forgotten the words of thier prophet?

Mohamed also said a woman should "dress modestly"..he never said squat about a burka..

It seems to me, that Islam and other religions are not the problem. It is how mortal man interprets that scripture to his own ends, either bad or good.

Get a copy of the book "Reliance of the Traveller." Full title is:

Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat Al-Salik

You can find it on Amazon. Skip the sections on how to wash yourself.

Read the sections about "Abrogation" - which tells you later sections of the Quran overrule the earlier ones...

Then read about Jihad.

[SF_BHT]

Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor

Get a copy of the book "Reliance of the Traveller." Full title is:

Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat Al-Salik

You can find it on Amazon. Skip the sections on how to wash yourself.

Read the sections about "Abrogation" - which tells you later sections of the Quran overrule the earlier ones...

Then read about Jihad.

WM is right about reading this Ref... You will have your eyes opened when you finish........

[Blitzzz (RIP)]

Not My book, and it's not what you believe it's what they believe. our bible has many versions also but the koran is "sacred". and supposedly unchanged.
When they attack us ,I'm not going to ask which book they are reading. Blitzzz

Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor

Get a copy of the book "Reliance of the Traveller." Full title is:

Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat Al-Salik

You can find it on Amazon. Skip the sections on how to wash yourself.

Read the sections about "Abrogation" - which tells you later sections of the Quran overrule the earlier ones...

Then read about Jihad.

Great thank you Sir. I have done the internet research thing, and all I find is stuff like the above. ( my comment)

It is truly sad that man takes religion and turns it into an evil thing to harm others.

Ordered, will be here tuesday.. thank you..
AM

[Richard]

Get a copy of the book "Reliance of the Traveller." Read the sections about "Abrogation" - which tells you later sections of the Quran overrule the earlier ones...Then read about Jihad.

Don't have time or the desire to read the full text of that or any other book on the topic, Raymond Ibrahim - who has testified before Congress on this issue - has an excellent essay on this concept at:

War and Peace — and Deceit — in Islam
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/ibrahim022709.html

Richard's $.02

[redleg99]

Get a copy of the book "Reliance of the Traveller." Full title is:

Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat Al-Salik

You can find it on Amazon. Skip the sections on how to wash yourself.

Read the sections about "Abrogation" - which tells you later sections of the Quran overrule the earlier ones...

Then read about Jihad.

Something to consider is that Reliance of the Traveller is a manual of Shafi'i school jurisprudence.
Since Shafi'i comprise less than 30% of all Muslims* it might be a mistake to assume all Muslims, or even all Shafi'i for that matter, truly believe what it says.

* Wikipedia says 28%. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafi%27i

[SF_BHT]

Originally Posted by redleg99

Something to consider is that Reliance of the Traveller is a manual of Shafi'i school jurisprudence.
Since Shafi'i comprise less than 30% of all Muslims* it might be a mistake to assume all Muslims, or even all Shafi'i for that matter, truly believe what it says.

* Wikipedia says 28%. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafi%27i

OK I will agree that it is Shafi'i but it gives you a good base for 1/3 +/- of the nut jobs. There are so many sects it is hard to get one Good Ref that covers all.

We here on this board do not use Wikipedia as a ref. Please refrain from doing so as anyone can change the data and they have a lot of erroneous info on it.