Iraq Discussion.....for the rationally minded

[domer]

One would expect in a total number of 2937 posts there to be some flicker of intelligence but, ah, one can still hope. Despite your knee-jerk, over-the-top, too-much-by-a-ton characteristic way of responding, the FACT remains -- not subject to debate among responsible parties -- that "imminence" is a key element that must be present before a preemptive strike can be justified, precisely for the reasons I alluded to in my last post. Suppose that by every indication, the certainty of attack (on today's facts) is assured and that it would be devastating ... but that the capability for the strike will take two years to congeal, in the context of a fairly volatile political landscape. What I say is this: you and your Bushisms can kiss my ass.

[_JS]

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.

I think one issue to address here is the organisation of Islam. I hear, quite often, people say something like "Muslim leaders need to condemn..." or "Muslim leaders need to educate..." and sometimes they mean leaders of countries and other times they aren't sure what they mean.

Islam is not as hierarchically organised as Christian denominations. We may want it to be and we may try and conform it as best we can in our minds, but it isn't. There are different "experts" on Islam. For example, there are jurists who are experts with the law (known as mufti) and there are mullahs, who are sometimes very knowledgable about Islam (and other times are just locally respected). There are Imams, ulema, qadi, faqih, muhaddith, Marja Dini, Maulana, and many more titles of different varieties of scholars and experts - but none of them are officially "leaders" as are the bishops, presbyters, councils, and pastors of Christendom.

It just isn't the same. And in no case are secular leaders considered to be more knowledgable, as Colonel Qaddafi pointed out when he ruled the Hadith to be useless and only the Koran to be the official text of Islam. Let's just say he had more popular days as an Arab leader.

I think there is a common misconception amongst Western folks that Islam is organised just like Christianity and they keep waiting for Muslim Bishops (presbyters, councils, etc) to condemn attacks or as you said "educate people." It just doesn't work that way. Nor do the vast majority of Muslims want it to work that way.

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.

Take a real objective view Sirs. Isn't that a little disengenuous for Iraqis, considering that we invaded their country and it had nothing to do with militant Islam? That seems like a hard sell for the average Iraqi. Even if American soldiers weren't there, you'd be fighting this war. I don't think so.

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

I think its is more likely that the nutters are fighting a very easily identified political struggle. The battle in Iraq has little to do with militant Islam. This was a war that was fought when the British first took over for the Ottoman Empire after World War I. The Brits were the first to put the Sunni's in charge and squash the Shi'a and Kurdish rebellions. The Shi'a and Kurds have been the poor and oppressed in 20th and 21st century history. We turned the balnce of power on its head. Naturally the Sunni are fighting that. It has little to do with radical militant Islam, and much more to do with trying to find balance in a power vacuum.

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.

As a whole with the War on Terrorism (not just in Iraq) I still disagree Sirs.

People aren't born evil. They aren't born torturers, murderers, bombers, and terrorists. There is much more to this than militant Islam and an attempt to convert the world. They have to be able to convince people to join their cause. It is at that point that we can stop them, not through the violence of war, but through other means. We have to make these people see that this world is not so terrible that innocent people need to be murdered.

It is a bit like the riots of the late 60's in a lot of US cities and riots that would take place in places like Brixton 20 years later in Britain. Some people refer to them as "race riots" and leave it at that. But there is always something more, something deeper. It doesn't excuse rioting behavior, but it gives a better perspective to the frustrations of the communities where it takes place (such as Watts for example, or Brixton).

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.

I'm not talking about appeasing anyone. I'm talking about exactly what I said: 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.

Don't confuse working to life up those in desperate poverty in the Islamic countries with appeasing terrorism. I'm not referencing Palestinians alone, in fact I think you'll find that none of the 9/11 terrorists were Palestinian. And also, as I keep telling you, not all Palestinians are Muslim. You seem to very often confuse political terrorism with religious terrorism.

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.

Again, I think you fail to understand the organisation of Islam. Most Muslims do not wish to be a part of militant Islam. I don't recall any of you talking about how Christians should stand up and and condemn the IRA or the UVF. They've killed quite a few people as well. Why wasn't that a "Christian problem" yet this is a "Muslim problem?"

Yet your recent references of how these country's and their leaders really can't do that, because of geo-political reasons

You're confusing things again. I said some Arab nations cannot recognise Israel due to internal political reasons. The problem you have is that you don't understand the politics of the region at all and you cannot separate the political and the religious. You can't understand that the Baathists such as Saddam Hussein and Assad were two of the top fighters against Islamic radicals like Muslim Brotherhood. You can't understand that comparing the anti-Israeli terrorist groups to al-Qaeda is like claiming that FARC is a Christian terrorist group.

I'm not attacking you Sirs, not at all. But I think one should understand the region and the people before going to war with them, or making blanket statements about them. Otherwise you and a lot of Americans tend to suffer from the same disease of placing American-similarities on every global situation.

[Plane]

One would expect in a total number of 2937 posts there to be some flicker of intelligence but, ah, one can still hope. Despite your knee-jerk, over-the-top, too-much-by-a-ton characteristic way of responding, the FACT remains -- not subject to debate among responsible parties -- that "imminence" is a key element that must be present before a preemptive strike can be justified, precisely for the reasons I alluded to in my last post. Suppose that by every indication, the certainty of attack (on today's facts) is assured and that it would be devastating ... but that the capability for the strike will take two years to congeal, in the context of a fairly volatile political landscape. What I say is this: you and your Bushisms can kiss my ass.

It amounts to an axiom then that later is better?

I don't see why , if one has certainty and the threat is serious then what is the waiting for?


On the other hand I shall remember your arguement next time we are discussing Global warming which is not an immanant peril so responsible parties will not favor immediate action on it.

[sirs]

As a whole with the War on Terrorism (not just in Iraq) I still disagree Sirs.

That's not surprising, especially when we have 2 apparent different sources (why's) to the terrorism

People aren't born evil. They aren't born torturers, murderers, bombers, and terrorists.

Never said they were.  Most, if not all are "educated" in that direction.  Some would call it cradle to grave propaganda.  When you have textbooks that continue to show how Israel doesn't exist in your geographical region, when you have school children being taught as soon as they can grasp concepts how Israel, and any who support them, as the source of all their strife, poverty, disease & death, when you have radicals who will mutate the message of Islam to justify killing those monkeys, and infidels, that's when we get evil torturers, murderers, suicide bombers, and terrorists.

There is much more to this than militant Islam and an attempt to convert the world. They have to be able to convince people to join their cause. It is at that point that we can stop them, not through the violence of war, but through other means. We have to make these people see that this world is not so terrible that innocent people need to be murdered.

Something "greater" than trying to convert the world?  Interesting.  Js, religion is a powerful tool.  We all recognize that.  And made more powerful to folks who are either ignorant or taught to be.  According to a former Muslim/PLO Terrorist, Walid Shoebat "It is a fallacy that 'jihad' represents an 'inner struggle'.  There are over 100 quotes by Muhammad referring to jihad by the sword, by killing, by taking no prisoners, by forced conversion, or by enslavement, and only 1 quote referring to an 'internal struggle'"  Radical Islamic militants assert that Jihad is an actual war of conquest, entirely without limits or constraints, and that all nations and their peoples, who are not followers of Islam are inherently enemies of Islam itself, and therefor must either be converted, subjugated, or killed......in the name of Allah.  Now is this rational?  plausible?  probably not.  But will that stop them from targeting and killing innocents?  Absolutely not.  And the way to "convince them", as you say is to convince the moderate and peaceful  Muslims/Arabs/Persians/etc, of precisely what's being done to their religion of Islam, by these folks.  Yet you keep finding/rationalizing ways to claim how they can't

It is a bit like the riots of the late 60's in a lot of US cities and riots that would take place in places like Brixton 20 years later in Britain. Some people refer to them as "race riots" and leave it at that. But there is always something more, something deeper. It doesn't excuse rioting behavior, but it gives a better perspective to the frustrations of the communities where it takes place.

Plurality and Peaceful Co-existence is not an option with Islamofascism/militant Islam.  I'm not sure when you're going to gome to that realization

I'm not talking about appeasing anyone. I'm talking about exactly what I said: 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.

You're talking about addressing a symptom (Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and your perceived evil apartheid that Israel is supposedly practicing, while I'm trying to get you to focus on the problem of militant Islam.  As I've referenced before, the modern incarnation of fascist totalitarianism is located in radical fundamental Islam, and it's members.  They see Islam as the perfect religion, destined to rule the world and, with one of their primary responsibilities being to purge it of the infidel.  Yes, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a by product of it, but in its current manifestation, the Palestinians are simply being used by these radicals to justify their murdering

Don't confuse working to life up those in desperate poverty in the Islamic countries with appeasing terrorism. I'm not referencing Palestinians alone, in fact I think you'll find that none of the 9/11 terrorists were Palestinian.

When you keep referencing how we need to understand what makes them "terrorists" get angry and do the vile and murderous acts they do, I'm sorry, that's the road to appeasement.  Note how you helped make my point about 911 terrorists not being Palestinian.  I never claimed they were.  I claimed, and accurate I do believe, of being members of militant Islam, who attacked us on 911, NOT because of our support of Israel, but because of our overall non-Muslim ways, basically being the head infidel.  IIRC, did you realize before 911, and I do believe even before we went into Afghanistan, at no time did Usama or AlQeada reference the plight of the Palestinians?  It wasn't until after our military intervention, and kicking their butts into the mountains, that all of a sudden their actions are supposedly at the behest and support of the Palestinian cause.  BS, it's at in the support of their cause.

And also, as I keep telling you, not all Palestinians are Muslim. You seem to very often confuse political terrorism with religious terrorism.

Nor have I been laying claim that it's strictly Palestinian/Muslim.  You seem to confuse what I've been saying with what you think I must mean.

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.

Again, I think you fail to understand the organization of Islam. Most Muslims do not wish to be a part of militant Islam. I don't recall any of you talking about how Christians should stand up and and condemn the IRA or the UVF. They've killed quite a few people as well. Why wasn't that a "Christian problem" yet this is a "Muslim problem?"....I said some Arab nations cannot recognize Israel due to internal political reasons. The problem you have is that you don't understand the politics of the region at all and you cannot separate the political and the religious

Any murder in the name of God, Allah, or whatever is not only a problem, but requires condemnation in order to provide it both the context and perspective to other moderates and those trying to figure out what the hell is going on.  Are you trying to say that since you didn't hear enough condemnation aimed at the IRA, that this requires the same tact.....to be fair, or something??  Again, the one best NON-violent approach to disarming militant Islam, and in turn address the issues of the Palestinians, you find ways to rationalize how it can't be done,  Then condemn us and Israel when we use violent means in dealing with these terrorists.  Frellin amazing  You again put this all on Israel to change their "evil ways", and pray to God that the terrorist organizations & Radical Islamic militants, bent on seeing their destruction magically start joining hands and singing KumBaYa.     

I'm not attacking you Sirs, not at all. But I think one should understand the region and the people before going to war with them, or making blanket statements about them. Otherwise you and a lot of Americans tend to suffer from the same disease of placing American-similarities on every global situation.

I realize you're not attacking me personally, nor is Miss Henny, and I sure hope it doesn't come off that I'm attacking you, since I'm not.  I simply wish you could open your eyes and objectively get past the Palestinian problem as if that's the core gripe behind militant Islam, and see that ideology for what it is, a malignancy, one that has hijacked a perfectly peaceful and loving religion, using it to justify the slaughter of thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women, and children.  Does it mean we shelve the Palestinian problem?, of course not.  Does it mean that Israel is pure and mountain rain water?, obviously not.  It means before we can tackle that symptom, we need to deal with the disease.  And if you're going to continue to lock up our best non-violent chance at dealing with it, up in the medicine cabinet, our patient is just going to keep getting sicker........perhaps even die.   

[Xavier_Onassis]

I disagree that Immanence is important .

If there is certainty and seriousness in a perceived threat , what good is waiting for it?

==========================================================

The threat must be feasible. In the Islamic world especially, most threats are mere posturing and buffoonery. The Syrians, the Egyptians, pretty much every Arab bunch in the area has vowed to "push Israel into the Sea", and there they are, still high and dry, still unpushed. The only people who believe this bullcrap are the American Jews who send bazillions to Israel and lobgby Congress to send bazillions more.

Saddam was not to be taken seriously. It was all a ruse, and a very, vert expensive one, certainly not worth all the maimed Americans, all the widows and ophans, all the men driven mad by war, and all the billions and billions, probably enough to raise New Orleans to the height of Denver.

[Plane]

I disagree that Immanence is important .

If there is certainty and seriousness in a perceived threat , what good is waiting for it?

==========================================================

The threat must be feasible. In the Islamic world especially, most threats are mere posturing and buffoonery. The Syrians, the Egyptians, pretty much every Arab bunch in the area has vowed to "push Israel into the Sea", and there they are, still high and dry, still unpushed. The only people who believe this bullcrap are the American Jews who send bazillions to Israel and lobgby Congress to send bazillions more.

Saddam was not to be taken seriously. It was all a ruse, and a very, vert expensive one, certainly not worth all the maimed Americans, all the widows and ophans, all the men driven mad by war, and all the billions and billions, probably enough to raise New Orleans to the height of Denver.

I agree that raiseing the ground level of New Orliens is a good idea.
I don't agree that all unfreindly threats are from buffoons .

I am getting a very plesant mental picture though , of Osama Bin Laden dressed like Bozo.


In any case , it behooves us to elect leadership with wisdom so that intelligence is used well.
And to fund and otherwise support a massive spying program so that such intelligence is there for evaluation.

If we must wait for certainty to be better than a shadow of a doubt,
and seriousness to be on a par with Pearl Harbor ,
and also we must wait for the last possible minute ......

Then we cannot afford to be surprised or tricked , we need to know everything humanly possible to know.


So do you agree with haveing a strong intelligence effort?

[Michael Tee]

I tried to get some kind of overview on this thread, which I think was really well-argued by all sides and covered a lot of ground.  The fundamental split seems to be between those who recognize the immense complexity of the concept of "terrorism" and therefore of the so-called "war on terrorism" and those who tend, IMHO due to some combination of ignorance, bigotry and intellectual laziness,  to oversimplify.  Invariably the oversimplification wnds up with the world divided into two camps, the virtuous "us" and the evil everybody else.  Henny deserves special commendation for her analysis of the various paths by which "terrorists" come to "terrorism."  Certainly "terrorism" is far from monolithic, although both the uninformed and the politically unscrupulous have their own respective reasons for portraying it as such. 

I would like, if only on an experimental and temporary basis, to abandon all efforts to classify human actions as "terroristic" or "anti-terrorist" or "not terrorist" and instead to classify human actions in terms of harm done, i.e., number of human beings likely to be killed, wounded, poisoned or otherwise injured in consequence of any particular act or policy.  So that, for example, we look on a decision to plant a bomb in a crowded market in terms of what's the likely cost in life and limb.  And we similarly evaluate a decision to invade a country to free it from a tyrannical dictator and bring it under a democratic regime - - what's the cost of THAT in life and limb?

The first thing I think we'd realize is that the so-called "terrorists," when evaluated in terms of their actions' likelihood of maiming and killing are probably going to come out not as badly as (say) the Bush administration, even if we accept their (the Bush administration's) current explanation for being in Iraq (that it's all about liberation and has nothing at all to do with the oil.)

So you have a willingness on the one side to blow people to bits to (a) destroy the enemies of God or (b) drive the invaders out of the homeland or (c) radicalize people to rise up, and on the other side to (a) bring democracy to people who never knew it and/or (b) steal their oil.  At the end of the day, dead is dead, for whatever political or religious objective and yet on behalf of the over-simplifiers, you have this overweening conviction that they are the good guys and the people they call "terrorists" are the bad guys.  What is wrong with this picture?

Another feature of this debate was the absolute conviction with which those who have had little or no contact with Muslims, with Muslim thought or with Islamic belief systems (who in fact in one case indignantly refused to even look at some of the source material) nevertheless pronounce as experts on what Muslims think and what Muslims want.  Again you have a monumental ignorance of reality reflecting mediated versions of Islam (mediated through Zionist "scholars" of the Muslim world, such as Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes, both Jews and both supporters of the state of Israel with obvious axes to grind) yet the authentic voices of the various strains of current Muslim thought are terra incognita.  Sirs, for example, refutes the commonly held belief that jihad refers to an internal struggle by pointing out that the Koran has "100" references to jihad as actual, physical combat with weapons.  Now you can bet that sirs did not come by this knowledge through his diligent reading of the Koran, rather this was his "mediated" view of Islam, that part or parts of it that the so-called scholars of Islam (the only ones that sirs is allowed or permits himself to read) have culled for him and the rest of the North Americans whose views of the world come from tightly controlled media sources.  There's a whole industry of pro-Zionist "experts" on the Muslim world appearing like clockwork on the MSM and while alternative views are available, they are relatively much harder to come across.  I think Henny did a particularly fine job in exposing that type of ignorance and bigotry for what it was.

There's a lot of anger and hatred in the Middle East, sirs definitely has that right, but how much of it was generated in one way or another, directly or indirectly, by the actions of Westerners, Christians and Jews, seems to go largely unrecognized, except in the token acknowledgement, "Oh I don't mean to claim that America/Israel is/are as pure as the driven snow."  That's just not good enough for an effective understanding of the situation.  My concern is that the hatred has by now built up to the point where nothing can defuse it.  But I think that a blind pursuit of the same policies that got us all to this point is the craziest of all possible solutions.  Something has got to change and the change will have to come from this side.

PS although I know that some of you are more likely to stick needles in your eyes than to read a book that I recommend, I am nevertheless going to recommend Joe Sacco's cartoon book "Palestine," which is a little dated now, as it refers back to the First Intifada, but in terms of who the "terrorists" are and what their life stories are, it's timeless.  Sacco is a real journalist and this is the story he brought back, after interviewing everybody involved, Jews, Palestinians, Christian tourists, soldiers, resistance fighters, feminists, children and adolescents.

[Plane]

http://www.amazon.com/Palestine-Joe-Sacco/dp/156097432X

[_JS]

Sirs,

I'm not sure where else to go with this discussion because I'll never see the world in such manichean terms as you quite clearly do.

I would like to clarify a few things first.

Again, the one best NON-violent approach to disarming militant Islam, and in turn address the issues of the Palestinians, you find ways to rationalize how it can't be done,  Then condemn us and Israel when we use violent means in dealing with these terrorists.  Frellin amazing  You again put this all on Israel to change their "evil ways", and pray to God that the terrorist organizations & Radical Islamic militants, bent on seeing their destruction magically start joining hands and singing KumBaYa.

I never once "put this all on Israel" and I have no idea where you got that idea. Moreover, you mention Israel several times in your reply, but I barely mention them at all in my post. In fact, the only time I did mention them was only as an example to illustrate the difference between political groups with militant wings (similar to Sinn Fein and the IRA) as opposed to actual radical Islamic militant groups such as Muslim Brotherhood or al-Qaeda, who have strictly religious goals in mind.

You seem much more caught up with Israel in this discussion than I am. Yours and Domer's "kumbaya" joke is getting a bit stale and simplifies my point far beyond recognition.

When you keep referencing how we need to understand what makes them "terrorists" get angry and do the vile and murderous acts they do, I'm sorry, that's the road to appeasement.

No it isn't. Primarily because I'm talking about before anyone decides it is better to put down their tools and pick up a weapon. That decision is far easier to make when you have no future, no dignity, no options, no prospects.

Are you trying to say that since you didn't hear enough condemnation aimed at the IRA, that this requires the same tact.....to be fair, or something??

*sigh*

No. My point is that because westerners have little understanding of Islam, all of these calls for Muslim leaders to condemn attacks become confusing, if not ridiculous to Muslims in the United States and around the world. Some of these groups that make attacks are no more related to Islam than FARC is related to Christianity, yet for some reason this administration and the media have grouped them together. So for Muslims it would be the equivalent of pondering why Christians aren't running around condemning FARC attacks or IRA or UVF attacks when they took place.

That is my point. At times it must seem nearly farcical for Muslims to read articles on why they aren't condemning this or that. Or why their "leaders" (see what I said on Islam and hierarchy) aren't condemning people left and right. There was a Cal Thomas article not long ago that was condemning an American mullah on a prayer he made to an interfaith group. The prayer is the very opening of the Koran. Yet, Thomas attached another prayer to it that had nothing to do with the Koran at all and in fact would never have been said by a Muslim mullah and never attached to the opening prayer. If you read it closely Thomas admits he got the information second hand from a website.

My point is that Islam has no reason to listen to you, or me, or Cal Thomas when westerners who know so little about it start talking about how it should govern itself. Do you go around telling Catholics how the Church should govern itself? Even if you did, why should they listen to you?

That is my point Sirs. Quite frankly, you don't know enough about it to be giving advice to the entirety of Islam.



I am way past the Palestinian issue, if we want to keep it out of the discussion that is fine by me.

[Michael Tee]

plane, thanks for posting the Amazon link to Joe Sacco's Palestine.  The link mentioned another excellent graphic work, Persepolis by M. Satrapi, the story of a middle-class girl from a relatively liberal home growing up in Iran under the Islamic Revolution, and I think it would be a lot more acceptable to those of the right-wing persuasion than Palestine, because it's pretty unsympathetic to the mullahs and their moronic supporters.

[sirs]

I never once "put this all on Israel" and I have no idea where you got that idea.

The idea is gotten by the continued referencing of how bad Israelis policies are, how that is the supposed foundation of the entire Middle East conflict (that and our supposed "interferrence), and yet nothing is referenced in what the Arab & Persian countries need to do, to reign in militant Islam, or even in helping out the Palestinians, by rovding them sancuary, and even offering them citizenship.  No, it's all about how bad Israel is and what they need to do.  so, yea, without a verbatim quote, the implication is crystal clear

Moreover, you mention Israel several times in your reply, but I barely mention them at all in my post. In fact, the only time I did mention them was only as an example to illustrate the difference between political groups with militant wings  as opposed to actual radical Islamic militant groups such as Muslim Brotherhood or al-Qaeda, who have strictly religious goals in mind.

Excuse me??  You're the one that consistently references their "apartheid practices", as well as how we need to understand why terrorists become terrorists, thru apparent endless poverty and strife, with nothing to look forward to.  Innuendo is a strong oder in many of your posts, Js.  Could we rightly assume how such poverty of Palestinians is facilitated by the policies of Israel?  ergo, if we understand that, then we can grasp what needs to change....Israel.  Or maybe I'm wrong.  Perhaps your referencing the poverty that permeates the entire Middle East region.  So, what could be facilitating that?  Hmmmm, royal families, living in palaces, imans living in the lap of luxury, with the greatest of clothing and accessories, ruling their countries with an iron fist, while the oil profits largely get banked or used to build bigger and better residences vs shared with the populace?  Just guesses on my part, but how far off would I be?

I'm talking about before anyone decides it is better to put down their tools and pick up a weapon. That decision is far easier to make when you have no future, no dignity, no options, no prospects.

So, in your view, what has led to that "no dignity, no options, no prospects, no future mentality?  Perhaps Israel and her policies towards the Palestinians??

Are you trying to say that since you didn't hear enough condemnation aimed at the IRA, that this requires the same tact.....to be fair, or something??

No. My point is that because westerners have little understanding of Islam, all of these calls for Muslim leaders to condemn attacks become confusing, if not ridiculous to Muslims in the United States and around the world. Some of these groups that make attacks are no more related to Islam than FARC is related to Christianity, yet for some reason this administration and the media have grouped them together.

JS, they USE ISLAM as a justification for their killing. They're TARGETING AND MURDERING MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN, IN THE NAME OF ALLAH.  You're using lawyer speak, when the fact remains that, regardless of if they're related or not, they're USING Islam to justify their torture and slaughter of innocents.  How is this "confusing, if not ridiculous" to Muslims anywhere?

My point is that Islam has no reason to listen to you, or me, or Cal Thomas when westerners who know so little about it start talking about how it should govern itself. Do you go around telling Catholics how the Church should govern itself? Even if you did, why should they listen to you?

I'm not asking them to listen to me.  I'm asking them to listen to themselves.  I'm asking them if they believe this threat to their religion is real or not.  If they do, they need to do something about it.  If they don't, we will do something about it, as we don't want to see a repeat of the late 30's/early 40's.   But there's going to be alot more collateral damage, with that tact   

I am way past the Palestinian issue, if we want to keep it out of the discussion that is fine by me.

I have no interest in talking about the Palestinian symptom.  I'd much rather discuss the militant Islamic disease

[_JS]

The idea is gotten by the continued referencing of how bad Israelis policies are, how that is the supposed foundation of the entire Middle East conflict (that and our supposed "interferrence), and yet nothing is referenced in what the Arab & Persian countries need to do, to reign in militant Islam, or even in helping out the Palestinians, by rovding them sancuary, and even offering them citizenship.  No, it's all about how bad Israel is and what they need to do.  so, yea, without a verbatim quote, the implication is crystal clear

You are laying a lot at my doorstep that is not mine. Israel's apartheid policies are bad, yes. Do I believe they help prolong the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians? Yes. Have I suggested that is the foundation of all the conflict in the Middle East? No - and if you are going to make that accusation, I suggest you provide proof. Furthermore, while I strongly disagree with apartheid policies from any nation, I do not believe all of Israel's policies are bad and in fact I find some of Israel's work to be unique to that nation and absolutely remarkable.

Your "crystal clear implication" needs some polishing. You are building a strawman that doesn't exist.

Excuse me??  You're the one that consistently references their "apartheid practices"

In another thread where that has become the focus. I barely mentioned Israel in this thread, but you keep bringing them up and I don't know why.

Perhaps your referencing the poverty that permeates the entire Middle East region.

Yes.

So, what could be facilitating that?  Hmmmm, royal families, living in palaces, imans living in the lap of luxury, with the greatest of clothing and accessories, ruling their countries with an iron fist, while the oil profits largely get banked or used to build bigger and better residences vs shared with the populace?  Just guesses on my part, but how far off would I be?

In Turkmenistan you are spot on. In other nations you are way off. You are trying to make a blanket statement for a very diverse region. What role have we played and do we play in the poverty of these people? How can we help to reverse that? What can be done to give the people of the Mideast, no matter what religion they follow, a hopeful future with a lot of prospects?

So, in your view, what has led to that "no dignity, no options, no prospects, no future mentality?  Perhaps Israel and her policies towards the Palestinians??

Again you are bringing it up when I have not, so I'll ignore the second sentence.

The better question is what can be done to reverse the fortune of those who see this as a world with "no dignity, no options, no prospects, no future?" This isn't the United States Sirs. These aren't people whose kids are talking to each other on cell phones about what university they want to attend and who they want to take to the prom. Yes, some of them have money and choices, but too many of them don't. You want to end terrorism, give them opportunities.

JS, they USE ISLAM as a justification for their killing.

So what? If it wasn't Islam it would be something else. They use history as justification for their killing as well. They use the Gulf War and history dating back to the Ottoman Turks and the Soviets as well. Are all of us with a bachelor's in history not doing enough to condemn them? They use politics as well, are politicians or political scientists not doing enough to condemn them too? People with the will to kill and commit suicide are going to find an impetus to do it.

Why do members of FARC kill? Why did the IRA or UVF kill? Why does America have such a high homicide rate? What's our excuse?

Quite frankly, followers of Islam are constantly condemning the actions of terrorists. What do you want them to do? Many of those nations have been fighting terrorists far longer than we have. Are we suddenly the experts to tell them what to do about it? Are you an expert more than nations that have fought them for decades?

If they don't, we will do something about it, as we don't want to see a repeat of the late 30's/early 40's.   But there's going to be alot more collateral damage, with that tact

An amateurish theory of history based on little reality.

I have no interest in talking about the Palestinian symptom.  I'd much rather discuss the militant Islamic disease

A bold statement for someone who knows so little of the religion.