Once again, I didn't say we should, or would, ever go to war with Islam. Clearly, the president is saying that we will not. It does amaze me that nobody, including President Obama thinks that it is even a possibility that the collective Nation of Islam would ever go to war with the US.
So... you're afraid of Louis Farrakhan? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_islam If you're are talking about Islam as in the religion, as in over a billion people, well, they're not going to go to war with the US. Aside from every other reason, the most logistical one I can think of is that there is no central leader of Islam to command the troops. The only way that what you're suggesting ever happens is if we fully invade Saudi Arabia and rename Mecca as Jew Land USA.
The idea that we can just sit around a campfire, making S'mores and singing kumbaya with these folks and they'll suddenly decide they were wrong is naive. Sometimes people just need to be killed.
Aren't you in grad school? If so, you should know that plagiarism is among the most serious of offenses. Implied in your second sentence is the idea that the terrorists can be negotiated with. That view is not just naive, but dangerous. As for taking classes in "conflict resolution", I don't watch Oprah or Dr. Phil. I have studied negotiation, and I can tell you there's no Zone of Agreement available between our two sides. Therefore the BATNA is to hunt them down and kill them where they live.
1) Where do you classify the Palestinians, nutballs or Islam as a whole? 2) In the middle east as a whole, would you say that it's only the nutballs that hate Israel, or Islam as a whole? #1 - it depends on the person, eh? The civilians or those who are members of NGO terrorist groups who bomb buses and pizza parlors are nutballs. There's plenty of Palestinians who are muslims and who would love to thrive in peace in their own nation alongside israel. They're not nutballs, right? #2 - Islam as a whole clearly doesn't hate Israel. Given certain concessions, Israel has found peace with Egypt and many other Arab/Islamic nations have offered recognition and trade. I simply don't see any scenario where any significant portion of the whole of Islam goes to war against us. For certain, several of Qatar, UAE, Turkey, Iraq, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other Arab states are our allies, and not anywhere near hating us.
You're talking like "terrorist" is a pre-determined state. It's not. And they CAN be negotiated with. Not everyone we would label a terrorist is a zealot like Osama bin Laden. The majority of them are people whose lives have been adversely affected and are being swayed by zealots to commit acts of violence. Typical conservative mindset: getting along is for pansies and housewives. Good show. Very mature. I might agree with you if you were talking about the terrorist leaders only. Those people will never be swayed in their thinking, no matter what. But you're talking about going out and killing anyone who is a terrorist, seemingly without considering the fact that that will make more terrorists. Who is a terrorist? Who gets to decide?
Okay, provide an example of an Islamic terrorist who can be negotiated with. Arafat was offered 98% of what he wanted in Oslo and he still turned it down. And he was considered reasonable. Now you're saying we open a "conflict resolution" dialogue with members of Al Qaeda? You misread my post. I'm not saying conflict resolution is for pansies; I'm saying that "confict resolution" is an idea that only works in an Oprah worldview where people want to work out their problems. The terrorists want to win, period. Look at it from a Clausewitz point of view--War is an extension of politics by other means. When there's no chance for agreement, then conflict resolution is worthless. These are loose networks, but they are networks nevertheless. If you're a member of that network, you're a terrorist. As for who gets to decide, the terrorists do. They can decide which path they choose.
Perhaps one of the thousands of people in one of the "loose networks" you mention? You really think all of those people that you just labeled as terrorists are zealots who will accept nothing other than victory or death? Yeah, that's Arafat, not some Iraqi or Palestinian who joined a terrorist organization because his entire family was killed. Uh, yeah. That Iraqi or Palestinian joined al-Qaeda out of desperation, not because he is unbending in his fervent hatred of all things western and al-Qaeda was his #1 terrorist organization choice. al-Qaeda has thousands of members, it's not such the prestigious best-of-the-best terrorist organization we make it out to be. Yes, there are those who are ideologically against the west and join terrorist organizations to fight the west. There are MANY others who do so because these organizations act like community resources to war-torn people, and that is how they recruit. I think my main contention with what you're saying is that you're making no distinction between terrorist leaders and ideologues and the people they recruit. The problem with your "loose networks" is that the Middle East is all about networks. It's what they do. If a cousin or an uncle joins al-Qaeda, his entire family isn't going to abandon him or cast him out of the family. They are then in his network, and by your logic, terrorists. All of his friends, and their families are terrorists. It's not like a terrorist is a shady guy with a mysterious past and no family to speak of and the only people who would ever associate with him are other terrorists. If that were true, then I would agree with you.
Yep. Paradise awaits them. It's their belief system that's fucked. Here's your primary error: You believe terrorists are created because of something we did to them and that they wouldn't be terrorists otherwise. We may be the excuse, but these people are looking for any feigned insult to become terrorists. If it wasn't us, it would be the Israelis or the House of Saud or the decandant lifestyle lived in Beirut or Dubai. Funny, not many member of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan were Afghani. They were from other countries who were drawn there as a cause. The same with Iraq. Al Qaeda is like a nutjob magnet. Completely wrong. The Bin Laden family hasn't joined Al Qaeda; they're still in the construction industry. If you look at the biographies of most terrorists, you'll find they generally are disaffected and socially maladjusted. They're like the kids that shot up Columbine. Madrases and mosques find and cultivate these kids.
So for the record, they're all zealots. Everyone in the "loose network" of a terrorist is a terrorist, and you are condoning killing them. Awesome. In the case of Iraq, yeah, we were responsible for some of those people turning to terrorism. In the case of Palestine, we weren't. That may be true for the people with the deep idealogical disagreements with the west and what it stands for, but not for the majority of the people you call "terrorists." You can't seem to get over the fact that the people we call terrorists might be in it for reasons other than irreconcilable and fundamental disagreements over how we live our lives. It sure makes killing them a lot easier to swallow if you paint them that way, doesn't it? That's true. The Afghans were with the Taliban and al-Qaeda was populated at that time mainly by religious zealots. We killed a whole lot of them in 2001. Right. Yes and no. While there are always Mujahid, mainly from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, who follow al-Qaeda wherever they are currently fighting, most of their members, the ones who are out there every day blowing themselves to pieces, are local recruits. This is true for most terrorist organizations. Right. Come on, completely? The bin Laden family is one of the richest on earth. Do you really think they are going to give up on their fortune and business to follow Osama into the caves of Tora Bora? This is a special case. You are smart enough to know that you can't make a sweeping generalization based on Osama fucking bin Laden. The terrorists that have a biography that you could look up are not the terrorists I am talking about. I know you're trying not to pull your best Talkhard/Shooter by making wide, sweeping generalizations, so I would probably add "some" or maybe even "a few" in that sentence somewhere.
Whenever I have made statements associating Christianity with the evils done in the name of that religion - the Inquisition, Crusades, Holocaust, genocide against native peoples, witch burning, apartheid, Ku Klux Klan, up to the present day of murdering doctors, burning clinics, bombing the Atlanta Olympics and the Fred Phelps hate cult - invariably I am told that I am being unfair. That these people are either a caricature and not true Christianity, or else that I am seeing only one side of Christianity. That Christianity is Martin Luther King and Oskar Schindler as much as it is Torquemada and Nathan Bedford Forrest. But when the President of the United States suggests that Islam is not just al Qaeda and burning girls' schools, we hear he is a traitor, soft on terror, at "best" naive liberal. The Christian bible also promises paradise to martyrs. Christianity celebrates its martyrs, starting with Jesus. And there is no lack of intolerance written in the Christian bible. So tell me. Why are the atrocities in the name of Christianity not truly representative of Christians but the atrocities in the name of Islam really representative of Muslims?
I'm sorry, but what the fuck? Did you even read this thread? EVERYONE is saying, "of course we're not at war with Islam. We're at war with Islamist extremists and terrorists." Do the actual posts even matter to you or are you just on your own unstoppable jihad of hate?
Re-read my post. Yes, if you've decided to become a member of Al-Qaeda, you're a zealot. And unlike eager members of the SS, these people are true believers with a messianic view of their actions. And members of Al Qaeda and Wahhabists have at their core--using your words--an irreconcilable and fundamental disagreement over how we live our lives. I don't care how others live their lives, as long as they don't hurt anyone in the process. They care how we live our lives because they see us as polluting their culture and living the lives of infidels, therefore we must be killed. If that's their stance, I'm happy to send them off early to hang with their 72 virgins. The Taliban not only were one of the most repressive regimes on earth, but they allowed Al Qaeda to create their own government within Afghanistan. Therefore, they had to go. The world is a better place with them gone. And you don't think that both the designers of the terrorist acts and the ones that strap bombs to themselves shouldn't be killed before they have time to act? We'll agree to disagree. Okay, show that the vast majority of families of terrorist masterminds share the belief systems of the terrorists they spawn. Mohammed Atta's family had no idea what he was up to. They thought he was still in Hamburg. There's a reason why terrorists videotape their last will and testament--it's a way of letting their families know what they're planning to do. In other words, most of them hide their beliefs from their family members. Your definition of terrorist then is clearly off. Ah, I love this tactic. Your supposition is that all terrorists would grow daisies and go on a hugathon if only we wouldn't bother them, and I'm the one making generalizations.
