Well, it's a topic that interests me. I think people should do more to understand the history of Islam and how largely it affects Arab/Muslim culture. It's just as much a socio-political movement as it is a religion historically, or at least pretty close.
The fundamentalist quarrel has been going on in Islam just about since it becamse a religion. The Shia have been more extreme and they set the tone, historically, for dying in the name of their religious values in the face of overwhelming odds. Their fight with the Sunnis - based on who should be the Islamic caliph - has been pretty harsh over the centuries.
It's also interesting to note that in order to unify the different Muslim sects, the caliph often turned to expanding the empire. Conquering and converting helped to build the base and keep everyone happy in a sense. I see no reason why some Islamists today would not try to do the same thing.
Historically speaking, when there has been a caliphate, (Islamic State) it has only been stopped through military force. The original caliphs and the Ottoman Empire were defeated. That defeat - and its embarrassment - is a common thread with groups such as Al Qaeda. They want a return to world dominance via an Islamic state that is ruled by strict sharia.
Lol. You're not giving any new info on warmongers, of any sect, including those on the Western front.
The question is how to deal with that ideology. The West has made big mistakes to that end. The Iraq war was a strategically stupid decision, in my opinion. We walked into a war that will not bring the results Bush, et al, hoped for. It's just who is willing to die more for Iraq. It's a war of attrition. An ideology that values the afterlife more than life is going to win that battle, and it is spreading in the region.
Bush, et al, wanted results, but so did their constintuents . And on we go.
But that is not to say the world should give up the demands of the Islamists. If we abandoned Israel, left Iraq, etc., the movement would not die out. I doubt we are "fueling" it as much as some think. As far as Saudi Arabia goes, it exports more terror and terrorists than any other Muslim state, period. But our economy would go under without its oil.
My take is that we leave Iraq. Not because Bush is the Lex Luthor figure so many make him out to be, but because his goal is not working. It's not going to work. Muslim countries do not separate government action and religion. Culturally, they are the same. Thus, we will always on some level be seen as an invading Christian force, trying to "fight Islam." This rallying cry is false, but it is true that we want a Western democracy. Well, many Arabs will never surrender to that because A) we want it and they dont' believe in Western democracy. So, here we are trying to force it on a country/culture that rejects it.
After leaving Iraq, I think we need to support dissidents in Iran, Syria, and elsewhere as much as possible without looking like a puppet master. The radical Islamists will try and seize Iraq to turn it into an Islamic State, and I am sure Iran will do its part to help the Shias take control.
Unfortunately, I think the next step will be waiting for some other catastrophe either in the West or in the Middle East that compromises world stability. After that, the international community will have to get together and form a true coalition to go in and solve the mess again. If the international community stepped in today and helped, perhaps it could change things. But they won't, so we will have to wait for the next shoe to drop.
Because, radical islam is not going away. It's not simply the product of the West - though some of our policies have been helpful to it. Its goal is to establish an empire and take on the world in the name of Allah. It stops there, not somewhere in Iraq or even in Jerusalem.
If this is the case, then, media has won, and we're all putzes. I don't believe that.
The good news is, I don't think a truly Islamic caliphate could ever be established. Too much quarreling inside the Arab community. (Who would be the caliph? That is what the Shia and Sunnis have disagreed about since the 7th century) Plus, I imagine there would be a resistance to the kind of totalitarianism Al Qaeda-type groups want to install.
It's a loaded issue, but I think it's the most serious issue of security since the Cold War.
Oh, and I should I add that I wish I was wrong about the Iraq situation. I really wish it would work out the way the administration has planned, actually. But I don't see it happening, and I think it was naive on their part to assume an idealistic situation like that - that was defended with dubious reasons and communication - could happen.
I say the answer to radical islam is security, cheap food on the store shelves, cheap entertainment, booze, and good weed...
what I mean is, somehow the person must be able to shelter and feed his/her family without fear of being killed...it sounds simple, but for use and most modern countries, safety is taken for granted...
having food available, all the time, a wide variety, makes even the worst day go away...
after someone has safely made it home, after a good day of work, with a full belly...sit back and relax in front of the old boob tube...it sooths the soul....
have a drink...
and perhaps a toke...
nobody can plan on blowing themselves up if the have all that...
Well, it's a topic that interests me. I think people should do more to understand the history of Islam and how largely it affects Arab/Muslim culture. It's just as much a socio-political movement as it is a religion historically, or at least pretty close.
The fundamentalist quarrel has been going on in Islam just about since it becamse a religion. The Shia have been more extreme and they set the tone, historically, for dying in the name of their religious values in the face of overwhelming odds. Their fight with the Sunnis - based on who should be the Islamic caliph - has been pretty harsh over the centuries.
It's also interesting to note that in order to unify the different Muslim sects, the caliph often turned to expanding the empire. Conquering and converting helped to build the base and keep everyone happy in a sense. I see no reason why some Islamists today would not try to do the same thing.
Historically speaking, when there has been a caliphate, (Islamic State) it has only been stopped through military force. The original caliphs and the Ottoman Empire were defeated. That defeat - and its embarrassment - is a common thread with groups such as Al Qaeda. They want a return to world dominance via an Islamic state that is ruled by strict sharia.
The question is how to deal with that ideology. The West has made big mistakes to that end. The Iraq war was a strategically stupid decision, in my opinion. We walked into a war that will not bring the results Bush, et al, hoped for. It's just who is willing to die more for Iraq. It's a war of attrition. An ideology that values the afterlife more than life is going to win that battle, and it is spreading in the region.
But that is not to say the world should give up the demands of the Islamists. If we abandoned Israel, left Iraq, etc., the movement would not die out. I doubt we are "fueling" it as much as some think. As far as Saudi Arabia goes, it exports more terror and terrorists than any other Muslim state, period. But our economy would go under without its oil.
My take is that we leave Iraq. Not because Bush is the Lex Luthor figure so many make him out to be, but because his goal is not working. It's not going to work. Muslim countries do not separate government action and religion. Culturally, they are the same. Thus, we will always on some level be seen as an invading Christian force, trying to "fight Islam." This rallying cry is false, but it is true that we want a Western democracy. Well, many Arabs will never surrender to that because A) we want it and they dont' believe in Western democracy. So, here we are trying to force it on a country/culture that rejects it.
After leaving Iraq, I think we need to support dissidents in Iran, Syria, and elsewhere as much as possible without looking like a puppet master. The radical Islamists will try and seize Iraq to turn it into an Islamic State, and I am sure Iran will do its part to help the Shias take control.
Unfortunately, I think the next step will be waiting for some other catastrophe either in the West or in the Middle East that compromises world stability. After that, the international community will have to get together and form a true coalition to go in and solve the mess again. If the international community stepped in today and helped, perhaps it could change things. But they won't, so we will have to wait for the next shoe to drop.
Because, radical islam is not going away. It's not simply the product of the West - though some of our policies have been helpful to it. Its goal is to establish an empire and take on the world in the name of Allah. It stops there, not somewhere in Iraq or even in Jerusalem.
The good news is, I don't think a truly Islamic caliphate could ever be established. Too much quarreling inside the Arab community. (Who would be the caliph? That is what the Shia and Sunnis have disagreed about since the 7th century) Plus, I imagine there would be a resistance to the kind of totalitarianism Al Qaeda-type groups want to install.
It's a loaded issue, but I think it's the most serious issue of security since the Cold War.
Edit:
Oh, and I should I add that I wish I was wrong about the Iraq situation. I really wish it would work out the way the administration has planned, actually. But I don't see it happening, and I think it was naive on their part to assume an idealistic situation like that - that was defended with dubious reasons and communication - could happen.
To start off, unfortunetly, I think you are right on your assessment of Iraq. I think the problem is too far gone for us to be able to repair it.
Historically military force was the only way to defeat a caliphate, but there is no caliphate today. There is no Muslim country, save Iran, that has a somewhat modernized army that we could defeat with shear military strength. The dynamics of warfare has changed. It is no longer two large standing armies facing off on a field of battle. It is now people strapped with bombs blowing themselves up in crowded public places and we cannot fight that by using Apache helicopters and Abrams tanks. We have to rethink our stragtegy. I feel, and this is only my opinion, that the best way to stop radical Islam is to kill the roots. In this case one of those roots is Saudi Arabia.
It is true that we can't afford to do anything about Saudi Arabia because they basically have us by the balls. This didn't have to be the case though. As I ststed we knew 30 years ago that our dependence on them for oil would be a problem and we did nothing about it. Could you imagine if back then we decided to put our intellectual might towards creating a fuel source, arenewable fuel source, where we would be today. We would be able to cut off Saudi Arabia. No longer needing them for oil. They would no longer be the receipiants on billions of dollars of oil revenue which they would use to fund extremism. Even knowing this we still don't do enough to cut the ties with the Saudis simply because too many powerfull people are making too much money off of them. Untill that ATM runs dry, which will coincide with the oil wells running dry, our government will do nothing.
Iran is another country that if noone buys their oil and natural gas they will become a non threat. To me this is the only solution to curbing radical islam. Yes the ideology will still exist but it's ability to operate beyond it's own borders will be severly diminshed. It will no longer be the global threat that it is today.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Well, it's a topic that interests me. I think people should do more to understand the history of Islam and how largely it affects Arab/Muslim culture. It's just as much a socio-political movement as it is a religion historically, or at least pretty close.
The fundamentalist quarrel has been going on in Islam just about since it becamse a religion. The Shia have been more extreme and they set the tone, historically, for dying in the name of their religious values in the face of overwhelming odds. Their fight with the Sunnis - based on who should be the Islamic caliph - has been pretty harsh over the centuries.
It's also interesting to note that in order to unify the different Muslim sects, the caliph often turned to expanding the empire. Conquering and converting helped to build the base and keep everyone happy in a sense. I see no reason why some Islamists today would not try to do the same thing.
Historically speaking, when there has been a caliphate, (Islamic State) it has only been stopped through military force. The original caliphs and the Ottoman Empire were defeated. That defeat - and its embarrassment - is a common thread with groups such as Al Qaeda. They want a return to world dominance via an Islamic state that is ruled by strict sharia.
The question is how to deal with that ideology. The West has made big mistakes to that end. The Iraq war was a strategically stupid decision, in my opinion. We walked into a war that will not bring the results Bush, et al, hoped for. It's just who is willing to die more for Iraq. It's a war of attrition. An ideology that values the afterlife more than life is going to win that battle, and it is spreading in the region.
But that is not to say the world should give up the demands of the Islamists. If we abandoned Israel, left Iraq, etc., the movement would not die out. I doubt we are "fueling" it as much as some think. As far as Saudi Arabia goes, it exports more terror and terrorists than any other Muslim state, period. But our economy would go under without its oil.
My take is that we leave Iraq. Not because Bush is the Lex Luthor figure so many make him out to be, but because his goal is not working. It's not going to work. Muslim countries do not separate government action and religion. Culturally, they are the same. Thus, we will always on some level be seen as an invading Christian force, trying to "fight Islam." This rallying cry is false, but it is true that we want a Western democracy. Well, many Arabs will never surrender to that because A) we want it and they dont' believe in Western democracy. So, here we are trying to force it on a country/culture that rejects it.
After leaving Iraq, I think we need to support dissidents in Iran, Syria, and elsewhere as much as possible without looking like a puppet master. The radical Islamists will try and seize Iraq to turn it into an Islamic State, and I am sure Iran will do its part to help the Shias take control.
Unfortunately, I think the next step will be waiting for some other catastrophe either in the West or in the Middle East that compromises world stability. After that, the international community will have to get together and form a true coalition to go in and solve the mess again. If the international community stepped in today and helped, perhaps it could change things. But they won't, so we will have to wait for the next shoe to drop.
Because, radical islam is not going away. It's not simply the product of the West - though some of our policies have been helpful to it. Its goal is to establish an empire and take on the world in the name of Allah. It stops there, not somewhere in Iraq or even in Jerusalem.
The good news is, I don't think a truly Islamic caliphate could ever be established. Too much quarreling inside the Arab community. (Who would be the caliph? That is what the Shia and Sunnis have disagreed about since the 7th century) Plus, I imagine there would be a resistance to the kind of totalitarianism Al Qaeda-type groups want to install.
It's a loaded issue, but I think it's the most serious issue of security since the Cold War.
Edit:
Oh, and I should I add that I wish I was wrong about the Iraq situation. I really wish it would work out the way the administration has planned, actually. But I don't see it happening, and I think it was naive on their part to assume an idealistic situation like that - that was defended with dubious reasons and communication - could happen.
I think there has been a false stutus quo when it comes to Muslims and Democracy, and even Democracy itself.
First - Too many people equate Democracy with Nike's and McDonalds, but that is simply not the case. Democracy is simply the ability for a group of people to decide their own future through voting and establishing institutions that help self-govern. That's all it is folks! Democracy allows for the formation of some type of consitituion and "bill of rights" that protect people from their government and gives them rights that no one can take away.
Look at Japan and South Korea, they are both democracies yet they are still able to hold on to many traditional aspects of their culture. They do not worship celebrities and obsess over body image, wealth, sex, etc. like Americans do. If a culture does not want a Wal-mart on every corner they are free to spend their money elsewhere. If they do choose to support these types of businesses, then whose to blame - the system or the culture???
Second - How is it that people think "Muslims" or "Arabs" do not want Democracy??? That idea is absurd to me. EVERYBODY wants democracy people. That is like saying people don't want free speech or freedom of religion. There are literaly millions of Muslims around the world who have assimilated and prospered in democratic nations.
Too many people look at Iraq, see a mess and then have a knee-jerk reaction that we are "forcing" democracy on a people that "don't want it". The reality is that the situation is so complex and so fucked up that it is unfair to make such a statement.
Take the Muslim whose kid was killed by a US soldier, or simply killed in the middle of a fireright between US soldiers and others. Suppose they are upset and oppose the US occupation. How can you honestly say that they don't want democracy?
Take the Muslim who witnessed the abandoment of Iraq by the US in 1991 and therefore doesn't trust us. How can you honestly say they don't want democracy?
Take the Muslim who is scared to support the US becuase for past 4 years we came to his neighborhood, got in a couple gun battles and then left. Many Iraqi's are scared to support a side right now becuase they fear retribution if their side loses. And right now it is too early to tell who the hell is going to win. And with most of our senior leadership in congress already trying to leave, that sure doesn't bode well for our side. How can you say they don't want decmocracy?
There are dozens and dozens of different reasons that people in Iraq are opposed to the US, and many MANY of them have absolutly nothing to do with not wanting a democratic government - a concept that is litteraly lost on many as they are ignorant to the prosperity and freedom it can bring to their lives.
With over 70% of the country facing down threats from various groups to go to the polls 3 times already in Iraq, isn't it a bit too soon to say that Muslims or Iraqi's or Arabs refuse the democratic process?
Can people responsibly make the claim that the two are just not compatible???
It's a cliché answer but, education. Let hope and eductation flow in the region and no one will be interested in the fundamentalism point of view anymore.
I would have to agree. Anyone that allows their religion to consume them to the point of committing murder DEFINITELY did not continue on with their education far enough. This includes population on both sides of the Atlantic.
Talk about the mentally fragile. Actually it's fucking pathetic.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
The US abandoned Afghanistan (Iraq) after ousting Russia by secretly training and arming the local mujahaideen "freedom" fighters. This gave rise to the Taliban btw...
Should the US now duck and run and repeat this process again to create Taliba part 2 bigger badder stronger?
They say you can always judge a man by how he does business.
Why must the US always meddle and fuck with things instead of just doing business?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I think there has been a false stutus quo when it comes to Muslims and Democracy, and even Democracy itself.
First - Too many people equate Democracy with Nike's and McDonalds, but that is simply not the case. Democracy is simply the ability for a group of people to decide their own future through voting and establishing institutions that help self-govern. That's all it is folks! Democracy allows for the formation of some type of consitituion and "bill of rights" that protect people from their government and gives them rights that no one can take away.
Look at Japan and South Korea, they are both democracies yet they are still able to hold on to many traditional aspects of their culture. They do not worship celebrities and obsess over body image, wealth, sex, etc. like Americans do. If a culture does not want a Wal-mart on every corner they are free to spend their money elsewhere. If they do choose to support these types of businesses, then whose to blame - the system or the culture???
Second - How is it that people think "Muslims" or "Arabs" do not want Democracy??? That idea is absurd to me. EVERYBODY wants democracy people. That is like saying people don't want free speech or freedom of religion. There are literaly millions of Muslims around the world who have assimilated and prospered in democratic nations.
Too many people look at Iraq, see a mess and then have a knee-jerk reaction that we are "forcing" democracy on a people that "don't want it". The reality is that the situation is so complex and so fucked up that it is unfair to make such a statement.
Take the Muslim whose kid was killed by a US soldier, or simply killed in the middle of a fireright between US soldiers and others. Suppose they are upset and oppose the US occupation. How can you honestly say that they don't want democracy?
Take the Muslim who witnessed the abandoment of Iraq by the US in 1991 and therefore doesn't trust us. How can you honestly say they don't want democracy?
Take the Muslim who is scared to support the US becuase for past 4 years we came to his neighborhood, got in a couple gun battles and then left. Many Iraqi's are scared to support a side right now becuase they fear retribution if their side loses. And right now it is too early to tell who the hell is going to win. And with most of our senior leadership in congress already trying to leave, that sure doesn't bode well for our side. How can you say they don't want decmocracy?
There are dozens and dozens of different reasons that people in Iraq are opposed to the US, and many MANY of them have absolutly nothing to do with not wanting a democratic government - a concept that is litteraly lost on many as they are ignorant to the prosperity and freedom it can bring to their lives.
With over 70% of the country facing down threats from various groups to go to the polls 3 times already in Iraq, isn't it a bit too soon to say that Muslims or Iraqi's or Arabs refuse the democratic process?
Can people responsibly make the claim that the two are just not compatible???
...
Think about what you have just stated...
Now... think about an Arab Country where the vast majority believe Israel is evil and does not belong where they are.
Give them the power to elect leaders by themselves... guess who they will vote for. And look at the election results in Iraq. The majority of people are Shi'ites. guess who's in charge. There is a reason why Muqtada Al Sadr wields influence over there... he has a ton of supporters. There is a likely possibility that Al Sadr (or like minded religious fundamentalist) will rise to power in Iraq through the Democratic process we have enabled. A Shi'ite controlled power who aligns themselves with the other Shi'ites in the region... Iran. Maybe you've forgotten that these are the SAME SHI'ITES that gave us Ayatollah Khomeini and Hezbollah.
Yeah... Democracy as a Principle is a good thing. In practice, the "Good" depends upon which side of the fence you are on... America or Iran.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Think about what you have just stated...
Now... think about an Arab Country where the vast majority believe Israel is evil and does not belong where they are.
Give them the power to elect leaders by themselves... guess who they will vote for. And look at the election results in Iraq. The majority of people are Shi'ites. guess who's in charge. There is a reason why Muqtada Al Sadr wields influence over there... he has a ton of supporters. There is a likely possibility that Al Sadr (or like minded religious fundamentalist) will rise to power in Iraq through the Democratic process we have enabled. A Shi'ite controlled power who aligns themselves with the other Shi'ites in the region... Iran. Maybe you've forgotten that these are the SAME SHI'ITES that gave us Ayatollah Khomeini and Hezbollah.
Yeah... Democracy as a Principle is a good thing. In practice, the "Good" depends upon which side of the fence you are on... America or Iran.
Well said, but this problem isn't only in Iraq and Iran, Look at Palestine where Hamas won the majority in their last elections. Look at Lebenan where Hezbollah's political faction is gaining power in that government. Look at Egypt where the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood is gaining strength. All of these parties have steadily grown in size and power, within their respective governments, through the democratic process.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
...
Think about what you have just stated...
Now... think about an Arab Country where the vast majority believe Israel is evil and does not belong where they are.
Give them the power to elect leaders by themselves... guess who they will vote for. And look at the election results in Iraq. The majority of people are Shi'ites. guess who's in charge. There is a reason why Muqtada Al Sadr wields influence over there... he has a ton of supporters. There is a likely possibility that Al Sadr (or like minded religious fundamentalist) will rise to power in Iraq through the Democratic process we have enabled. A Shi'ite controlled power who aligns themselves with the other Shi'ites in the region... Iran. Maybe you've forgotten that these are the SAME SHI'ITES that gave us Ayatollah Khomeini and Hezbollah.
Yeah... Democracy as a Principle is a good thing. In practice, the "Good" depends upon which side of the fence you are on... America or Iran.
so the only thing that will work is the people realizing that the other way (non-theocratic) is a better way to live..and eventually they will stive for change.....in addition the more trade, travel and contacts they have with the western world the faster this will happen. Assure you more drink and play when they come to the US than not.....just goes to show. Course....poster up in this thread said some pot may help....imagine all the pot we could have dropped on Iraq for the cost of this war...that would have chilled them out...fer sure. Soooooo again....sing with me.....just a little patience....yaaaaaaayyyaaaaaa.......just a little patience...
Well said, but this problem isn't only in Iraq and Iran, Look at Palestine where Hamas won the majority in their last elections. Look at Lebenan where Hezbollah's political faction is gaining power in that government. Look at Egypt where the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood is gaining strength. All of these parties have steadily grown in size and power, within their respective governments, through the democratic process.
...
Oh, I agree completely. Democracy in the Middle East means a hell of a lot more countries that want Israel to pack and move to Idaho.
And here's a little hint:
If the political parties have their own PRIVATE ARMED MILITIAS... elections usually are not a good method for them to choose their own government.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
so the only thing that will work is the people realizing that the other way (non-theocratic) is a better way to live..and eventually they will stive for change.....in addition the more trade, travel and contacts they have with the western world the faster this will happen. Assure you more drink and play when they come to the US than not.....just goes to show. Course....poster up in this thread said some pot may help....imagine all the pot we could have dropped on Iraq for the cost of this war...that would have chilled them out...fer sure. Soooooo again....sing with me.....just a little patience....yaaaaaaayyyaaaaaa.......just a little patience...
...
Actually a benovolent Dictatorship would work for them. I mean, again... look at the Iraqi elections. Sure, the individual people cast their ballots... but, many of them went to their religions elders for guidance. They are the ones who told them who they should vote for. imagine if that was how it worked here... where your Church instructed whom to vote for... and you followed their instruction. Is that Democracy?
A Benovolent dictator who called all the shot and took care of ALL his people would work. But, how many dictators are benevolent?
...
And I do like the pot thing. When was the last time you seen two stoned dudes fighting. They would be more concerned about getting some Doritos than to put together and plant that I.E.D.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Actually a benovolent Dictatorship would work for them. I mean, again... look at the Iraqi elections. Sure, the individual people cast their ballots... but, many of them went to their religions elders for guidance. They are the ones who told them who they should vote for. imagine if that was how it worked here... where your Church instructed whom to vote for... and you followed their instruction. Is that Democracy?
A Benovolent dictator who called all the shot and took care of ALL his people would work. But, how many dictators are benevolent?
...
And I do like the pot thing. When was the last time you seen two stoned dudes fighting. They would be more concerned about getting some Doritos than to put together and plant that I.E.D.
but slow change from within is the only way this will work, I see no other option...the difference between the lifestyle in a theocratic fundemental Muslim world and that of our current western world will eventually cause its demise....we as humans want comfort....sex....prosperity...fun..its in our nature..and all humans will to this strive, this is the exact reason so many fundementalists are working so hard to keep this fight going...as they know...everytime they get us to kill one of them...it keeps them in power....we're playing right into their hands...think about it...what if we didn't go into Iraq...we had many many muslims on our side...now...we fked that opportunity up.
but slow change from within is the only way this will work, I see no other option...the difference between the lifestyle in a theocratic fundemental Muslim world and that of our current western world will eventually cause its demise....we as humans want comfort....sex....prosperity...fun..its in our nature..and all humans will to this strive, this is the exact reason so many fundementalists are working so hard to keep this fight going...as they know...everytime they get us to kill one of them...it keeps them in power....we're playing right into their hands...think about it...what if we didn't go into Iraq...we had many many muslims on our side...now...we fked that opportunity up.
...
Again.. i totally agree. The change HAS to come from them. For example, it is likely that the outcome in Iraq would have been completely different if THEY had initiated a rebellion and the U.S. sent in military forces to aid and assist them. Our mandating Democracy upon them created the current situation. They have to WANT Democracy in order for it to work.
How would present day America look if France had come over here in 1760 and fought the British and defeated them and set up their form of Parlimentary Rule in place?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
You can lead a society to water but you can't make them drink your water in the form of piss.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Can people responsibly make the claim that the two are just not compatible???
They are compatible. My point is that it won't look like a Western-style democracy. Like I said earlier, Islam is a social/political system as much as a religion. There is absolutely no concept of a separation of church and state. They are, in many ways, the same thing. Most Muslims are not extremists, but there are many who want sharia law implemented. And even more want at least a serious sharia influence on their government policies/decisions. This is much different than the West, where there is a concerted effort to separate what religion says and what government does. (Even by most religious people in public office.) Everything is tied to the Quran and what religous leaders declare, including a democratically elected government.
2000: Lubbock; 2003: OKC, Dallas, San Antonio; 2006: Los Angeles II, San Diego; 2008: Atlanta (EV Solo); 2012: Dallas (EV Solo); 2013: Dallas; 2014: Tulsa; 2018: Wrigley I
Maybe we could round them all up and put them on an island just like they used to do with the lepers in the bible. Then they will either blow each other up for fun and games to keep up with the jihad. Or they can start learning how to build boats to get back to the main land to start blowing up western places again.
The reasons for the spread of politicised, radical Islamic ideology are very complex, particularly in Britain, where the end of the British Empire has seen the global economic result of "reverse colonisation" (the phenomenon where former colonial subjects of the Indian Subcontinent found they had to head to the old imperial centre, England, to sustain a living). Racial and class separation, poor educational structures within British society itself, ghetto-like segregation of communities in poorer towns and cities, and a sense of racist and Orientalist Otherness reinforced all the time in the western media , all work to create a feeling of disenchantment in many young people born in Britain but of colonised Indian subcontinental/now largely Pakistani origin. Where they'd expected hope of redress from their previous colonial exploitation, a sense of bitterness at being marginalised even to this day continues. Some young males have gone to fight coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Someone said education was the key to changing this, but British governments need to fund education better in poorer areas around the UK, in the first place.
However, in the case of these recent attacks, we're dealing with hospital consultants, so even the comparatively affluent seem set on destabilising British infrastructure.
My friend, I just want to thank you for posting such well thought-out opinions time and time again.
It's a cliché answer but, education. Let hope and eductation flow in the region and no one will be interested in the fundamentalism point of view anymore.
Yeah, education is the enemy of any and all religious extremism.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
The solution is simple. If the West insists on exploiting the resources in the Middle East, thereby undermining the dignity of people in those countries, the fighting will continue and will never end. There must be a reform in most of our trade policies and in the efficiency of energy use so the exploitation will stop. Religion is a tool that the powerful use to manipulate the desperate and that's always been the case throughout human history.
The solution is simple. If the West insists on exploiting the resources in the Middle East, thereby undermining the dignity of people in those countries, the fighting will continue and will never end. There must be a reform in most of our trade policies and in the efficiency of energy use so the exploitation will stop. Religion is a tool that the powerful use to manipulate the desperate and that's always been the case throughout human history.
I'm not sure if our exploitation of resources are undermining the dignity, but it's more that as long as there is a lot of money going to the people in power for these resources, there is absolutely no motivation for them to change anything. A civilization grows and advances to meet the changes and challenges that if faces, their leaders are on the oil gravy train so as far as they are concerned, there aren't any changes that need to be made, and all of the infighting is just greedy leaders using religion as a tool to try to get in position for the oil money.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Do you think that if the West essentially abandoned the region (left Iraq, withdrew support from Israel), the jihadist movement would die down significantly? Or, do we need to defeat the ideology some other way?
Of course Education!!!...but that comes in peace time. In Arab regions their people need to run to the palaces and cut every man's throat wearing the long white clothes.........their families live a western lifestyle and everybody else in the country suffers....
the region suffers from years of mental depression battered by their own leaders...so sadd...maybe that is why they attacked us, a cry for help.
And All we have left is the racist, imperalist brothers from the west...God help us all.
ZakiaTheGreat..."Hey, where is Atlanta under default time zone?"
Do you think that if the West essentially abandoned the region (left Iraq, withdrew support from Israel), the jihadist movement would die down significantly? Or, do we need to defeat the ideology some other way?
i think a trip to the adult store, a little ky jelly, and a girl might go a long way. convince those nutcases that women are sexy and should be seen. it's impossible to stay pissed at the world when that blonde bombshell strolls by and your eyes glaze over and mouth begins to water.
Comments
yee-haww.
wtf?
Lol. You're not giving any new info on warmongers, of any sect, including those on the Western front.
Bush, et al, wanted results, but so did their constintuents . And on we go.
you are overestimating a dumb idea.
The goal was to make money. From us.
you're a loon.
there is no "next step".
If this is the case, then, media has won, and we're all putzes. I don't believe that.
I am a proud Caliphate Muslim. Praise Allah.
Praise Al-Sadr!
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
what I mean is, somehow the person must be able to shelter and feed his/her family without fear of being killed...it sounds simple, but for use and most modern countries, safety is taken for granted...
having food available, all the time, a wide variety, makes even the worst day go away...
after someone has safely made it home, after a good day of work, with a full belly...sit back and relax in front of the old boob tube...it sooths the soul....
have a drink...
and perhaps a toke...
nobody can plan on blowing themselves up if the have all that...
To start off, unfortunetly, I think you are right on your assessment of Iraq. I think the problem is too far gone for us to be able to repair it.
Historically military force was the only way to defeat a caliphate, but there is no caliphate today. There is no Muslim country, save Iran, that has a somewhat modernized army that we could defeat with shear military strength. The dynamics of warfare has changed. It is no longer two large standing armies facing off on a field of battle. It is now people strapped with bombs blowing themselves up in crowded public places and we cannot fight that by using Apache helicopters and Abrams tanks. We have to rethink our stragtegy. I feel, and this is only my opinion, that the best way to stop radical Islam is to kill the roots. In this case one of those roots is Saudi Arabia.
It is true that we can't afford to do anything about Saudi Arabia because they basically have us by the balls. This didn't have to be the case though. As I ststed we knew 30 years ago that our dependence on them for oil would be a problem and we did nothing about it. Could you imagine if back then we decided to put our intellectual might towards creating a fuel source, arenewable fuel source, where we would be today. We would be able to cut off Saudi Arabia. No longer needing them for oil. They would no longer be the receipiants on billions of dollars of oil revenue which they would use to fund extremism. Even knowing this we still don't do enough to cut the ties with the Saudis simply because too many powerfull people are making too much money off of them. Untill that ATM runs dry, which will coincide with the oil wells running dry, our government will do nothing.
Iran is another country that if noone buys their oil and natural gas they will become a non threat. To me this is the only solution to curbing radical islam. Yes the ideology will still exist but it's ability to operate beyond it's own borders will be severly diminshed. It will no longer be the global threat that it is today.
I think there has been a false stutus quo when it comes to Muslims and Democracy, and even Democracy itself.
First - Too many people equate Democracy with Nike's and McDonalds, but that is simply not the case. Democracy is simply the ability for a group of people to decide their own future through voting and establishing institutions that help self-govern. That's all it is folks! Democracy allows for the formation of some type of consitituion and "bill of rights" that protect people from their government and gives them rights that no one can take away.
Look at Japan and South Korea, they are both democracies yet they are still able to hold on to many traditional aspects of their culture. They do not worship celebrities and obsess over body image, wealth, sex, etc. like Americans do. If a culture does not want a Wal-mart on every corner they are free to spend their money elsewhere. If they do choose to support these types of businesses, then whose to blame - the system or the culture???
Second - How is it that people think "Muslims" or "Arabs" do not want Democracy??? That idea is absurd to me. EVERYBODY wants democracy people. That is like saying people don't want free speech or freedom of religion. There are literaly millions of Muslims around the world who have assimilated and prospered in democratic nations.
Too many people look at Iraq, see a mess and then have a knee-jerk reaction that we are "forcing" democracy on a people that "don't want it". The reality is that the situation is so complex and so fucked up that it is unfair to make such a statement.
Take the Muslim whose kid was killed by a US soldier, or simply killed in the middle of a fireright between US soldiers and others. Suppose they are upset and oppose the US occupation. How can you honestly say that they don't want democracy?
Take the Muslim who witnessed the abandoment of Iraq by the US in 1991 and therefore doesn't trust us. How can you honestly say they don't want democracy?
Take the Muslim who is scared to support the US becuase for past 4 years we came to his neighborhood, got in a couple gun battles and then left. Many Iraqi's are scared to support a side right now becuase they fear retribution if their side loses. And right now it is too early to tell who the hell is going to win. And with most of our senior leadership in congress already trying to leave, that sure doesn't bode well for our side. How can you say they don't want decmocracy?
There are dozens and dozens of different reasons that people in Iraq are opposed to the US, and many MANY of them have absolutly nothing to do with not wanting a democratic government - a concept that is litteraly lost on many as they are ignorant to the prosperity and freedom it can bring to their lives.
With over 70% of the country facing down threats from various groups to go to the polls 3 times already in Iraq, isn't it a bit too soon to say that Muslims or Iraqi's or Arabs refuse the democratic process?
Can people responsibly make the claim that the two are just not compatible???
I would have to agree. Anyone that allows their religion to consume them to the point of committing murder DEFINITELY did not continue on with their education far enough. This includes population on both sides of the Atlantic.
Talk about the mentally fragile. Actually it's fucking pathetic.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Should the US now duck and run and repeat this process again to create Taliba part 2 bigger badder stronger?
They say you can always judge a man by how he does business.
Why must the US always meddle and fuck with things instead of just doing business?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Think about what you have just stated...
Now... think about an Arab Country where the vast majority believe Israel is evil and does not belong where they are.
Give them the power to elect leaders by themselves... guess who they will vote for. And look at the election results in Iraq. The majority of people are Shi'ites. guess who's in charge. There is a reason why Muqtada Al Sadr wields influence over there... he has a ton of supporters. There is a likely possibility that Al Sadr (or like minded religious fundamentalist) will rise to power in Iraq through the Democratic process we have enabled. A Shi'ite controlled power who aligns themselves with the other Shi'ites in the region... Iran. Maybe you've forgotten that these are the SAME SHI'ITES that gave us Ayatollah Khomeini and Hezbollah.
Yeah... Democracy as a Principle is a good thing. In practice, the "Good" depends upon which side of the fence you are on... America or Iran.
Hail, Hail!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=465570&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments
Well said, but this problem isn't only in Iraq and Iran, Look at Palestine where Hamas won the majority in their last elections. Look at Lebenan where Hezbollah's political faction is gaining power in that government. Look at Egypt where the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood is gaining strength. All of these parties have steadily grown in size and power, within their respective governments, through the democratic process.
Oh, I agree completely. Democracy in the Middle East means a hell of a lot more countries that want Israel to pack and move to Idaho.
And here's a little hint:
If the political parties have their own PRIVATE ARMED MILITIAS... elections usually are not a good method for them to choose their own government.
Hail, Hail!!!
Cause and effect. I drink lots of water...soon I will visit bathroom. I kill a bunch of people...soon something bad will happen to me in return.
edit: http://www.determinism.com/
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Actually a benovolent Dictatorship would work for them. I mean, again... look at the Iraqi elections. Sure, the individual people cast their ballots... but, many of them went to their religions elders for guidance. They are the ones who told them who they should vote for. imagine if that was how it worked here... where your Church instructed whom to vote for... and you followed their instruction. Is that Democracy?
A Benovolent dictator who called all the shot and took care of ALL his people would work. But, how many dictators are benevolent?
...
And I do like the pot thing. When was the last time you seen two stoned dudes fighting. They would be more concerned about getting some Doritos than to put together and plant that I.E.D.
Hail, Hail!!!
but slow change from within is the only way this will work, I see no other option...the difference between the lifestyle in a theocratic fundemental Muslim world and that of our current western world will eventually cause its demise....we as humans want comfort....sex....prosperity...fun..its in our nature..and all humans will to this strive, this is the exact reason so many fundementalists are working so hard to keep this fight going...as they know...everytime they get us to kill one of them...it keeps them in power....we're playing right into their hands...think about it...what if we didn't go into Iraq...we had many many muslims on our side...now...we fked that opportunity up.
Again.. i totally agree. The change HAS to come from them. For example, it is likely that the outcome in Iraq would have been completely different if THEY had initiated a rebellion and the U.S. sent in military forces to aid and assist them. Our mandating Democracy upon them created the current situation. They have to WANT Democracy in order for it to work.
How would present day America look if France had come over here in 1760 and fought the British and defeated them and set up their form of Parlimentary Rule in place?
Hail, Hail!!!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
They are compatible. My point is that it won't look like a Western-style democracy. Like I said earlier, Islam is a social/political system as much as a religion. There is absolutely no concept of a separation of church and state. They are, in many ways, the same thing. Most Muslims are not extremists, but there are many who want sharia law implemented. And even more want at least a serious sharia influence on their government policies/decisions. This is much different than the West, where there is a concerted effort to separate what religion says and what government does. (Even by most religious people in public office.) Everything is tied to the Quran and what religous leaders declare, including a democratically elected government.
alternately: You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
My friend, I just want to thank you for posting such well thought-out opinions time and time again.
Yeah, education is the enemy of any and all religious extremism.
isn't that the truth....amen my brother...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I'm not sure if our exploitation of resources are undermining the dignity, but it's more that as long as there is a lot of money going to the people in power for these resources, there is absolutely no motivation for them to change anything. A civilization grows and advances to meet the changes and challenges that if faces, their leaders are on the oil gravy train so as far as they are concerned, there aren't any changes that need to be made, and all of the infighting is just greedy leaders using religion as a tool to try to get in position for the oil money.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Of course Education!!!...but that comes in peace time. In Arab regions their people need to run to the palaces and cut every man's throat wearing the long white clothes.........their families live a western lifestyle and everybody else in the country suffers....
the region suffers from years of mental depression battered by their own leaders...so sadd...maybe that is why they attacked us, a cry for help.
And All we have left is the racist, imperalist brothers from the west...God help us all.
i think a trip to the adult store, a little ky jelly, and a girl might go a long way. convince those nutcases that women are sexy and should be seen. it's impossible to stay pissed at the world when that blonde bombshell strolls by and your eyes glaze over and mouth begins to water.
actually, im pretty sure that IS how it works in many places here.