I feel a little bad, in that A, I let this thread peter out, when it really was for the most part a rational discussion going on, and B, I did write up a nice response to this particular post by Js, but apparently it got eaten b the cybermonsters that periodically show their claws. So, I'll take another stab with tackling both targets with this post
Our biggest point of contention then is probably how we see the threat. I see it as a repeating of history, a growing new fascist movement, with a religious twist. You on the other hand see militant Islam as.......... well, I'll let you explain it, and the threat it doesn't pose
Militant Islam is what it is. Really, militant terrorism of any radical ideology is a representation of marginalization, injustice, oppression, and the loss of dignity (or at least the perception of such). Think of riots throughout history and that will generally be an underlying cause (with perhaps some notable exceptions for bread riots).
OK, so far so good
Nothing can justify terrorism. So don't get me wrong.
We're 2 for 2
Yet, military actions, bombing, "collateral damage," those types of actions only lead to more people coming to understand the message of the fringe ideologies.
NOT, if as I have been saying all along, the Muslim leaders are able to effectively educate the difference between accidental death involved in collateral damage vs targeted death at the hands of those who have hijacked their religion. Yea, yea, I know, death is death, and a father's not going to care how, just who. The point remains if both can be explained, it's much more likely that an understanding of the message that there is a war, and it's their own radical elements fostering, festering, and facilitating it.
If your house has been reduced to rubble, your family killed, and your holy shrine run over by a tank, then you are going to look at these people who are talking about injustice and loss of dignity with a whole new sense of respect. "Damn, I thought these guys were nutters, but now they make a lot of sense."
As is the case that most of the deaths are mass murdering car bombs & suicide bombers in the most populated locations, such as market places, schools, mosques, etc., again it's more plausible that the "nutters" can be indentified as those that have mutated the message of Islam vs the accidental death caused via collateral damage, and that with their assistance, can help bring an end to their movement, and thus reduce, if not completely abolish the rubble causing tank
So if you are asking me what I think, then no, I don't think war is an appropriate response at all. I think we, both as a nation and a member of the international community, need to begin looking at what makes people turn violent, angry, and seek such horrible revenge even at the cost of their own lives.
With all due respect Js, they've already let us know why they (Radical Muslims/Islamofascists) are angry, and no, it's not because of supposed interferrence in their ways or support of Israel. For some yes, that's the reason. But for the core of militant Islam, with they're actions, rhetoric, and claims of Koran justification, it's because we're not Muslim. And because we're the infidels, who dare not embrace Allah and the ways of the Koran, we are to be wiped out, if we can't be made to convert or be subjugated to it. Does it mean it's doable, like Tee keeps trying to reference? Highly doubtful. What it does mean is a continued growing perceived win-win movement where they kill as many "infidels" as possible, and if they get killed in the process, lots of virgins await them. Yea, it's an irrational mindset, but radical fundamentalists of any religion will latch on to those passages of killing non-believers, and believe they are doing God's work. They're condemned when they do it in the name of the Christian God, and they are condemned when they do it in the name of Allah. Difference being, there's a massive growing element of 1 that is not occuring in the other.
We need to address the underlying problems that have led so many to hatred and desperation. We cannot answer the violence of terrorism with the violence of war. We have to demonstrate a different path, a better path.
Alas my friend, you can not appease militant islamic terrorists. You can not placate, rationalize, and try to "understand why they feel the way they feel". We seem to be trying to discuss 2 different things. I think you're trying to reference the "plight of poor Arabs/Palestinians", as if they alone are the foundation to militant Islam. I'm actually referencing militant Islamics, who can be poor, middle class or upper class. They're a mutation of a very peaceful religion, who's focus is on killing the infidels. The "why" is because we dare to not embrace the Muslim way, and convert to it. And the only way of dealing with them is surgical removal. But you're right in 1 vane. It will take more than "the violence of war". It has to come from within. It has to come from the Muslim community. They have to rise up and condemn these factions, and take a much more active roll in taking them out. Yet your recent references of how these country's and their leaders really can't do that, because of geo-political reasons, leaves us nothing BUT war in dealing with militant Islam. Did you take that into consideration? You are removing the most important non-violent option of dealing with militant Islam, yet condemn our use of violence, when it's all that's left
IMHO, it would have been reprehensively immoral as well as militarily illogical to have left the vacuum as is, following the accomplished mission of taking out Saddam
I can't disagree with your last sentence, as reprehensible as it is to have been led into an unjust war and then stuck in to clean up the mess. It has little if anything to do with terrorism though. Iraq is a war about Iraq and the people there. It is a nation of arbitrary borders and little sense of identity.
Your opinion of this being an unjust war is duely noted
Anything but actual military intervention, right?
As I said above, in this case military force may be counter-productive.
In which case, I wholly and rationally disagree, but appreciate your comments none the less
