How should peaceful relations between USA/Europe and Muslims be achieved?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Clearly an explosion of Islamic fundamentalism has followed in the backwater of the Iraq war. Waves of riots and hateful talk has swept across Europe and USA. Some time ago, USA and Great Britain invaded Iraq, beginning a campaign where ten thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed, tortured and deprived of their homes. What's even more scary, is that representatives of both sides are comparing these developments with the Medieval crusades and Jihad. Since the Iraq war, terrorism, hate speech and islamic extremism has increased dramatically. Muslim immigrants in European countries are stealing, gang raping and killing, and in mosques built by European tax payer money the muslim religious leaders preach hate and violence. USA now have half-serious plans of an invasion of Iran, which will get even bloodier than the war in Iraq if carried out.

The entire situation is absurd - millions of people in Europe and USA give money, food and other support to muslim refugees, while a few hundred European and American extremists do what they can to spread fear of muslims, and attack countries with muslim inhabitants at random. When the muslims respond to massmurder with petty crime and somewhat hateful speech, the muslims are immediately pointed out as the extremists. Does it really matter to a muslim whether he becomes a terrorist or not, when he's pictured as a terrorist no matter what he does, because of his religion or race? And then there's the terrorism and warfare in the middle east, two factors that both strike innocents, that haven't previously been involved in this ridiculous fight. More people join up on both sides, to fight a war which has no reason, a war which is the result of petty misunderstandings and leaders of both western and muslim societies having the communication abilities of a debile.

Here's my word of advice - do NOT join this fight. Do NOT fight terrorism, because those who lead the fights against terrorism fight a thousand citizens for each terrorist they kill. Do NOT fight as a terrorist against the extremism of the Bush and Blair administrations, because the leaders of terrorism strike a thousand innocent citizens for each guilty man they kill. By joining and fighting, you do not fight terrorism or imperialistic extremism, you support both terrorism and imperialistic extremism. If you want to fight, fight alone, and only go against the guilty. Fight with words, and if words can't stop crimes against mankind, fight with violence, because if you begun by fighting with words your opponents are warned, and have been given a chance of peace. But when you fight with violence, bear in mind that killing 1 guilty and 0 innocents will bring you closer to victory than killing 1000 guilty and 1 innocents. The problem isn't western society, or muslim society - the problem is a 100 extremist leaders in the west, and a 100 extremist leaders in muslim societies. You might see a hundred thousand soldiers fighting for western extremism, but they are doing their job, like German soldiers did their job during the second world war. You may see a hundred thousand muslims shout angrily and demonstrate in the streets, but they are led to it by their 100 extremist leaders.

I think a policy of independent thought, and causing no damage to civilians is the key to success in this war against extremist leadership. It's not a war against terrorism or a crusade against Islam. It's not a war against imperialism or a Jihad. It's a war against extremist leadership and weaknesses in the systems for how leaders come to power - in both America, Europe and the Middle east. Just like the Iraq war has only fuelled hatred and bad relations with the Middle east while costing an awful amount of money and lives for all participants, the planned war against Iran and the planned future terrorist actions against civilians will do so. You might not like the idea of having 1000 terrorists in the world preparing themselves for attacks against your civilians whenever they can. But attacking an entire country full of civilians for what a few individuals in those countries do is not justifiable, and will not solve the problem. Similarly, muslims need to not speak hatefully about entire countries like Denmark for what a few extremist people at an independent newspaper in that country have done, it will not solve the problem.

Truly the situation for Great Britain and USA is horrible now, even worse than when the 9/11 attacks happened, but attacking Iran will most likely only make it worse, just like attacking Iraq made it worse. Do not seek battle, seek victory. Attacking innocents and neutrals will not bring victory over the enemies.

[Don Corleone]

I disagree with the fundamental premise of this thread, that ill will between Muslims and the West began with the US invasion of Iraq. If I really need to, I can cite 20 acts of violence and terror that predate September 11th that show that those in the Islamic World that hate the West did so long before we went anywhere near Iraq.

The fact is, there is a small minority of muslims that believe it is incumbent on them to enslave all non-muslims in the world, and to place the entire world under Sharia. This dates all the way back to the days of the Islamic Brotherhood. The majority of the Islamic World pays lip service to peaceful relations with the West, but doesn't appear to be prepared to take the steps necessary to reign them in.

Our actions in Iraq certainly haven't done anything to quell tensions, and may have inflamed them further (if such a thing was possible, they may have already been at maximum inflation...) But, you could make the argurment (AND I AM NOT, FOR THE RECORD), well, if they're already pissed off, let's do what works for us...

EDIT: I should probably have been more clear that as it is a secular republic and one of the largest contributors to NATO in the past, for the purposes of this particular discussion, I do not include Turkey as part of te Islamic World.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I disagree with the fundamental premise of this thread, that ill will between Muslims and the West began with the US invasion of Iraq. If I really need to, I can cite 20 acts of violence and terror that predate September 11th that show that those in the Islamic World that hate the West did so long before we went anywhere near Iraq.

No, that was not the premise of this thread, the premise was that the invasion of Iraq made things worse. I quote myself:
"Just like the Iraq war has only fuelled hatred and bad relations with the Middle east while costing an awful amount of money and lives for all participants"



The fact is, there is a small minority of muslims that believe it is incumbent on them to enslave all non-muslims in the world, and to place the entire world under Sharia. This dates all the way back to the days of the Islamic Brotherhood. The majority of the Islamic World pays lip service to peaceful relations with the West, but doesn't appear to be prepared to take the steps necessary to reign them in.

Yes, and the very fact that our own leaders use that as an excuse to attack the decent muslims is what makes these extremists so much more successful. Obviously nobody with such an idea can have a good chance of succeeding with their ultimate goal, but they at least succeed more in their secondary goals to bring more chaos to the world. And similarly there are the extremists in western societies which believe the entire world should be enslaved under their conservative roman ideals and that the entire world should follow their law.

So the basic premise of this thread is that we are not fighting those maniacs, we're fighting for them, if we join either side of what is officially called crusade or jihad by the different sides. The real fight is against the extremists - both western and muslim ones. And that we on both sides should stop listening to these extremists. If we can't find a way of improving the situation, we should because of frustration not resort to measures that will make it even worse. And all actions that the extremists on both side carry out are doing just that - making it worse. Because each action draws in new people into the conflict, it gives new people reasons to fight, personal reasons, because the war killed their relatives and friends. But that war that killed their relatives and friends, why did it initially occur? Nobody knows.

The other premise of the thread is that fighting civilians and neutrals as an indirect method of fighting the enemies, the way it was done in Iraq, is not a sound strategy. Surely there are cases where people could achieve goals by attacking neutrals and indirectly approaching the real objective, but in the Iraq war the methods have been too indirect - as the statistics show the muslim extremism and violence has increased dramatically after the Iraq war. While there have been some 20 cases of extremism between world war two and up to the Iraq war, the few years following upon the Iraq war have seen some 10 cases of terrorist bombings, demonstrations, burning of embassies and flags, etc. It seems like some people from the masses are even embracing terrorism and extremistic violence, as a result of the war. Attacking any more countries would most likely just push things even further in that direction.

[Don Corleone]

Hmm, with an opening line like this...


Clearly an explosion of Islamic fundamentalism has followed in the backwater of the Iraq war. Waves of riots and hateful talk has swept across Europe and USA. Some time ago, USA and Great Britain invaded Iraq, beginning a campaign where ten thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed, tortured and deprived of their homes.

I wonder where I got the wrong impression about the premise of this thread. :idea2:

With regards to your two listed premises:

1)
So the basic premise of this thread is that we are not fighting those maniacs, we're fighting for them, if we join either side of what is officially called crusade or jihad by the different sides. I agree with this sentiment. As far as I know, the last official 'Crusade' was called in 1271, by the future Edward I of England. With regards to the West's reaction to Islamic fundamentalist terror, if that's what you're labelling as a crusade, let me ask you...should we have gone to the Mosques in London and begged forgiveness, to calm them down after the train bombings? Should we have left the Taliban in Afghanistan to continue to train Al Queda? I say a staunch "No". Which particular action we take that is helping or hurting our goal of ensuring our own security depends on which particular actions we're talking about.

2)
The other premise of the thread is that fighting civilians and neutrals as an indirect method of fighting the enemies, the way it was done in Iraq, is not a sound strategy. Well, yes and no. Civilian casualties are always regrettable. But it's hardly a reason to not defend yourself. There were civilians killed throughout Western Europe in the Allied's effort to liberate it from Nazi Germany. There were a lot of innocent civilian German citizens killed in the final assualt on the Reich. Were we wrong to drive Hitler from power? Yes, we should try to do our utmost to limit civilian casualties, but your inflammatory rhetoric, that we're fighting civilians... well, at the end of the day, everyone not wearing a uniform is a civilian. Does that mean that terrorist groups, who are technically not regulars of a recognized army, are free to do as they see fit and nobody has the right to stop them? If your answer is "Well, we shouldn't target innocent civilians", I would say only the terrorists do.

[Don Corleone]

Yes, and the very fact that our own leaders use that as an excuse to attack the decent muslims is what makes these extremists so much more successful. Obviously nobody with such an idea can have a good chance of succeeding with their ultimate goal, but they at least succeed more in their secondary goals to bring more chaos to the world. And similarly there are the extremists in western societies which believe the entire world should be enslaved under their conservative roman ideals and that the entire world should follow their law.


Hmm, two points in this statement I would like to address... the first is that since the terrorists have no hope of ultimately reaching their goal, we should do nothing in response and just let them continue to blow up trains and buildings until they realize the folly of their designs. Personally, I say no.

Second, the extremists that are enslaving people to Roman ideals... Hmmm, Palestine just freely elected Hamas as the governing party. Hamas doesn't recognize human rights of non-muslims and has called for the extermination of Jews around the world. Doesn't sound as though anybody is being enslaved to such conversative Roman ideals as 'human rights' to me.

You know, I've said this to friends before, and I'd still bet that I'm right. If we on the right want those on the left to agree to put an end to Islamic terrorism, we must stop putting the issue in terms of survival, for according to the left, we have no right to survival. We need to make it a woman's rights issue. No more female circumcisions, no more honor killings... then, just maybe then, in the eyes of the left, the West will cease to be the bad guy....If we had invaded Iraq over a woman's right to abortions, we would have had hippy support galore.

[yesdachi]

I will refrain from commenting on some of the points you have made in your editorial of the situation (best way I can think to describe what you have written) that I don’t agree with but I will try my best to answer the question.

How should peaceful relations between USA/Europe and Muslims be achieved?
Perhaps it would be best to replace “Muslims” with “Middle Eastern Countries”. That said, the Middle Eastern Countries need to police themselves. Keep the criminals, terrorists, suicide bombers, etc. under control and you will never see an American soldiers boot on your soil or missile in you airspace. Want peaceful relations? Don’t allow your “citizens” to blow up our stuff. This is kind of a simplistic way to look at it but I think the idea rings true.

The expression, you can’t have your cake and eat it too applies well to this subject. Middle Eastern Countries (and anyone else with a similar situation) can not sell us oil and not expect us to be involved in their business and politics.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Hmm, with an opening line like this... [...] I wonder where I got the wrong impression about the premise of this thread. :idea2:


Ok, with "explosion of" I meant "it's been a very big increase in"... :balloon2:



With regards to your two listed premises:

1) I agree with this sentiment. As far as I know, the last official 'Crusade' was called in 1271, by the future Edward I of England. With regards to the West's reaction to Islamic fundamentalist terror, if that's what you're labelling as a crusade


The title "crusade" comes from several speeches by George W Bush before the Iraq war.



let me ask you...should we have gone to the Mosques in London and begged forgiveness, to calm them down after the train bombings? Should we have left the Taliban in Afghanistan to continue to train Al Queda? I say a staunch "No". Which particular action we take that is helping or hurting our goal of ensuring our own security depends on which particular actions we're talking about.


Attacking Iraq didn't improve the situation, and it was obvious beforehand it wouldn't achieve anything in reducing terrorism and muslim extremism. Afghanistan had some justification. As for the train bombings in London, the guilty clearly stated it was revenge for the Iraq war, a war which as explained was both unnecessary and ridiculous. I really feel sorry for the British and American parents who have lost their children in a conflict they were fooled into believing was about self-defense. As for what you should have done after the train bombings? Well, you shouldn't have ended up in that situation in the first place. You bomb Iraq, many civilians are killed, chemical weapons are used in Fallujah. Then a small number of London civilians are killed. What can you say? There's nothing in the deed of those terrorists that you haven't already done. So frankly I don't know what you should do in that situation. Everything you would do in that situation would be hypocritical and look ridiculous. That's perhaps why Blair didn't do anything at all after the train bombings. Because there was nothing he could do.



2) Well, yes and no. Civilian casualties are always regrettable. But it's hardly a reason to not defend yourself.


That argument is old, and very incorrect. If you neighbor tries to shoot you, do you go into the nearest supermarket and kill everyone?



There were civilians killed throughout Western Europe in the Allied's effort to liberate it from Nazi Germany. There were a lot of innocent civilian German citizens killed in the final assualt on the Reich. Were we wrong to drive Hitler from power?

Hitler killed millions and millions, and had plans to kill more millions. The casualites caused by allied attacks weren't even close to those Hitler wanted to, and would have, caused. However in Iraq, the civilian casualties inflicted upon muslim population is much higher than anything Saddam Hussein could have caused. And the European and Anerican civilian casualties following upon the war against Iraq, and the general hatred against western countries which gets increasingly strong in muslim countries, is much higher than anything that could have been caused if Iraq had been left alone.



Yes, we should try to do our utmost to limit civilian casualties, but your inflammatory rhetoric, that we're fighting civilians... well, at the end of the day, everyone not wearing a uniform is a civilian


Let's do some math - in Iraq casualities among what is officially called "civilians" have mounted to some 30,000 persons. More people are iinjured and killed as an indirect result of material destruction. The villains in Iraq, Saddam, Zarqawi and their closest assistants amounted to some 100 persons. This means a cost of at least 300 innocents killed per guilty person. Add to that the American and British casualties, and the American and British civilians killed by terrorism and racistical hatred following upon the war. The death toll is clearly much higher than anything Saddam Hussein would have been able to achieve. And the costs in money makes it even more ridiculous. The casualties in New Orleans following the Katrina hurricane were worsened because too much American army personell were away in Iraq instead of at the home front, raising the death toll even further. The economical weakening of USA caused by the war has put the USA at a serious disadvantage compared to rising economies like China. Also, the new hatred born in Iraq and the entire muslim world will probably cause several thousand more civilian casualties in western countries. So - was it worth it? Was it worth the lives of 50,000 to 100,000 civilians to kill 100 guilty, guilty people who had by the way already committed their crimes and wouldn't commit that many more crimes in the future?

Again, to clarify - yes terrorists should be defeated. But to be ready to kill so many civilians and cause so much new terrorism in a panicked attempt to get to punish of every single guilty terrorist is not sensible. It's made worse by the fact that most modern terrorists are suicide bombers, which means you can't tell whether they're terrorists or not until they've attacked, so if you want to punish terrorists, you can't, unless you capture people who have not yet committed any crime, because you suspect they may commit a crime in the future, which is against human rights. And by causing more terrorism, you drive society closer to a point when it must be prepared to capture innocents that haven't committed crimes because of the excessive damage that they, through numbers, can cause society otherwise.

What I'm saying is that your methods are flawed, not your desire to defeat terrorism. We're both trying to defeat terrorism, the difference is our methods. By the way, rushing after 100 terrorists, being ready to cause the deaths of 50,000 civilians in order to get them, gives an impression of panic, not an impression of military strength and discipline. It's like a Medieval army sending half of their infantry line running after five horse archers.

[Kagemusha]

Ofcourse you need two participants to have a fight. I think there many reasons of the hostility between West and Middle East,which some come from long way back from history.But i would just to drop one thought in this matter.I think the whole issue rols around a fundamental question: Does killing of extremist create more extrimist or make the majority of population to self govern itself better and in the long run defeat extrimism from itself.
Lets play a little scenario here.Its 1930´s and you have the opportunity to attack and Destroy the Nazi leaders in Germany?Any intelligent person understands that the reason Nazis are gaining popularity in Germany is becouse of the unfair peace conditions after WWI. Would be acceptable ro assasinate kill rout out the Nazi leaders while they havent done anything to other Nations outside Germany,but you know that they are fanatics and very dangerous?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Hmm, two points in this statement I would like to address... the first is that since the terrorists have no hope of ultimately reaching their goal, we should do nothing in response and just let them continue to blow up trains and buildings until they realize the folly of their designs. Personally, I say no.

I said the terrorists have no chance of succeeding in enslaving the entire world, but they do have a chance of causing damage and bomb. What I did NOT say, that you somehow added, was that that would be an excuse not to fight. What I've been saying all along, is that the method of fighting them is wrong, not the idea of fighting them. As long as there's no better method available, even passiveness, and yes - attempting better security at airports etc. and letting them blow up our trains when they can get past that security, is better than being ready to let 50,000 civilians in both muslim and western countries die because we want to capture and punish 100 men who might commit an act of terrorism in the future.



Second, the extremists that are enslaving people to Roman ideals... Hmmm, Palestine just freely elected Hamas as the governing party. Hamas doesn't recognize human rights of non-muslims and has called for the extermination of Jews around the world. Doesn't sound as though anybody is being enslaved to such conversative Roman ideals as 'human rights' to me.


How about Iraq, that people are trying to force western ideals upon? If they want sharia at home, let them have it, but if we start pressuring them to have roman law in their home countries, we'll have a more difficult time saying no when they want sharia in Europe and America.



You know, I've said this to friends before, and I'd still bet that I'm right. If we on the right want those on the left to agree to put an end to Islamic terrorism, we must stop putting the issue in terms of survival, for according to the left, we have no right to survival. We need to make it a woman's rights issue. No more female circumcisions, no more honor killings... then, just maybe then, in the eyes of the left, the West will cease to be the bad guy....If we had invaded Iraq over a woman's right to abortions, we would have had hippy support galore.

On the contrary, my ideal is based entirely on survival. Our best chance of surviving is to not be ready to sacrifice 50,000 persons' lives to capture and punish 100 persons who might in the future want to commit acts of terrorism. I'd say - let them have as much female circumcision as they want - wouldn't it be discrimination if they couldn't have that when we allow male circumcision? - and let them have as much honor killing as they want. But for God's sake let's not forget that we're trying to make sure as many as possible of us live in safety and survive, and that we're not trying to "show our strength" in some ridiculous caveman-ish way, while being prepared to let 50,000 people die in our attempt to show our muscles.

[Don Corleone]

This is probably going to come as a shock to you, Legio, and many others on this board for that matter, but 1) I did not support the invasion of Iraq at the time and 2) I haven't supported the way the Administration has prosecuted the war.

I will grant you, for a loudmouth like myself, the silence of my dissent has been deafening, but frankly, I viewed speaking out against the administrations policy in Iraq as counter-productive. Those who are against the war would assume I agreed with them, which I most certainly do not (my reasons for staying out of Iraq are radically different in many cases then most of the anti-war left). I think it would be a huge shock to most people to know there is also an anti-war right, but here's a hint, read more George Will. And those who support the President would assume I was against him, which again, I am not. I think the President used the right reasoning but arrived at the wrong conclusion.

Regardless of whether we should be there or not, the way we have pursued our stated goals in Iraq has been abysmal. We have not won hearts and minds. We have not brought security and peace. We have planted the seed of Democracy, but frankly, it's wilting.

Now, with respect to democracy in Iraq, it might surprise you to know that much fo the Constitutions of Afghanistan, and what is being proposed in Iraq, draws HEAVILY on Sharia, not Roman common law. If an extremist Shiite party had won a majority of seats in Iraq, the government you describe would probably have been instilled. It wouldn't have been all that great for us (and this was one of my principal objections to the liberation of Iraq in the first place), but I honestly believe it would have happened. However, even with low Sunni turnout, that's not who got into power. More moderate factions within the Shiite religious parties came to power, because that was the will of the majority that voted for them.

Trust me, if the US was forcing what we wanted down the entire country's throats, the Kurds would own the entire place, problem solved.

[Rodion Romanovich]

@Don Corleone: I agree with your entire post :2thumbsup:

[Navaros]

Put simply, the infidels (ie: USA army) need to stop trespassing on Muslim lands or interferring with Muslims in any way, then there will be peace.

[Devastatin Dave]

Can't and won't happen.

[drone]

Put simply, the infidels (ie: USA army) need to stop trespassing on Muslim lands or interferring with Muslims in any way, then there will be peace.
What is your definition of "Muslim land"? And, more importantly, what is their definition of it?

[Brenus]

Put simply, the infidels (ie: USA army) need to stop trespassing on Muslim lands or interferring with Muslims in any way, then there will be peace.”And what about the Infidels (ie the Muslims Extremists/fascists immigrates) stopping to try to impose their view in the Western (more or less Christians) society in imposing their point of view on clothing, school’s currilum and uniforms, drawings, freedom of speech, morality, etc. That could be a good start. :laugh4:

[BigTex]

The entire idea of this thread is screwed up, muslim extremism didn't start with the war in iraq, come on. Muslim extremism started round the 1960's, even in the wars in afghanistan during the 1980's they were screaming the same thing "JIHAD!! the westerners are invading!". Its only now that we have realized its there, we've mearly brushed the sand of the festering wound.

[Upxl]

Ha yes.
Seems to me the only way to stop the fighting is “everybody stop believing”!


https://youtube.com/watch?v=2_VIDVmDAwQ

[Brenus]

“Seems to me the only way to stop the fighting is “everybody stop believing”!” I vote for this one.:laugh4:

[Navaros]

Can't and won't happen.

I agree it won't happen. Which is precisely why there never will be peace between Muslims and the infidels.

I was just answering the question of how peace could happen, theoretically; although in reality indefinite war with the Muslims is inevitable.

[Hurin_Rules]

As far as I know, the last official 'Crusade' was called in 1271, by the future Edward I of England.

Actually, that is incorrect. Official crusades were called throughout the later 13th, 14th and 15th centuries (The Crusade against Varna, the Nicopolis crusade, etc.). In addition, crusading Bulls were dispensed by the papacy as late as the 17th century; some of the Catholics who fought at Lepanto in 1571, for example, had received crusading indulgences. Also, the Military Orders survived into the 19th century, although by the late 16th they were small and, with the exception of the Hospitallers, virtually powerless. The Hospitallers were finally effectively disbanded only by Napoleon, in 1798, and even after that the order survived as a charitable institution. There are still Teutonic Knights around today.

Beyond this, moreover, many Muslims see the Western imperialism of the 19th and 20th centuries as a new round of 'crusades', shorn of the explicitly Catholic trappings. This is why Ousamah bin Laden and others routinely refer to Jews and Westerners as 'crusaders'. President Bush put his foot directly in his own mouth when he referred to the impending war in Afghanistan as a 'crusade'. This of course played directly into the hands of the Muslim Jihadists, who had long been claiming that a crusade was exactly what Bush, a right-wing Christian, had intended. Bush later retracted his statement, and his governement dropped any references to the word 'crusade'.

Sorry Don, I don't mean to beat up on you about this; but I did feel it necessary to provide historical context for your claim that the crusades ended in 1271.

[Upxl]

“Seems to me the only way to stop the fighting is “everybody stop believing”!” I vote for this one.:laugh4:


Don’t sarcasm me man.:boxing:

It’s okay.
I wasn’t serious anyway.:juggle2:
(except the not believing thing).

[Don Corleone]

Actually, that is incorrect. Official crusades were called throughout the later 13th, 14th and 15th centuries (The Crusade against Varna, the Nicopolis crusade, etc.). In addition, crusading Bulls were dispensed by the papacy as late as the 17th century; some of the Catholics who fought at Lepanto in 1571, for example, had received crusading indulgences. Also, the Military Orders survived into the 19th century, although by the late 16th they were small and, with the exception of the Hospitallers, virtually powerless. The Hospitallers were finally effectively disbanded only by Napoleon, in 1798, and even after that the order survived as a charitable institution. There are still Teutonic Knights around today.

Beyond this, moreover, many Muslims see the Western imperialism of the 19th and 20th centuries as a new round of 'crusades', shorn of the explicitly Catholic trappings. This is why Ousamah bin Laden and others routinely refer to Jews and Westerners as 'crusaders'. President Bush put his foot directly in his own mouth when he referred to the impending war in Afghanistan as a 'crusade'. This of course played directly into the hands of the Muslim Jihadists, who had long been claiming that a crusade was exactly what Bush, a right-wing Christian, had intended. Bush later retracted his statement, and his governement dropped any references to the word 'crusade'.

Sorry Don, I don't mean to beat up on you about this; but I did feel it necessary to provide historical context for your claim that the crusades ended in 1271.

No apology necessary. Where I am factually incorrect, I should be corrected. I appreciate the enlightenment.

So, if the last papal Bull authorizing a crusade was in the 17th century, it's still been over 300 years, no? The mere existence of military orders doesn't mean a state of war exists or that a crusade is ongoing. Mexico maintained an army in 1849 that it's kept until this day. That doesn't mean that the Mexican-American war never ended (although, with all these illegal immigrants demanding the right to run the country, maybe it does).

President Bush using the term crusade to describe our actions in Afghanistan was unforgivable. Of all the gaffes people call him on, this one rings true with me and we should chastise him over it. To that end, I believe he did apologize and retract the statement though... I tried to find a reference, but doing a search on: Bush crusade Afghanistan, I got SWAMPED with pages of anti-war websites.

One more question Hurin, while I'm reading about the Varna Crusade... is it your contention that even though the Turks invaded the Balkans only decades before, it was theirs for all time forward and the Western powers, primarily the Hungarians, should be ashamed for attempting to liberate their homeland?

[Hurin_Rules]

In regards to the topic at hand, a few suggestions to Western nations for promoting peaceful relations with Muslims:

1. Stop bombing their countries.

2. Stop supporting authoritarian governments. The US has for decades supported repressive regimes because such regimes provided stability and served US political and economic interests. Such support, however, alienates many Muslims, especially the moderates, who are engaged in a life-or-death struggle with the extremists for the soul of Islam. I think we have to give the Bush regime credit in this regard for questioning the policy of appeasement and consciously rejecting it, denouncing many authoritarian measures in countries such as Egypt (although the silence on Musharraf in Pakistan is deafening). Although much of the new policy so far has just been talk, I think Bush et al. have taken a very positive step in this regard.

3. Help to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. This is perhaps the single greatest irritant in Western/Muslim relations. Unfortunately, the Bush regime for long refused to intervene and let the situation spiral further out of control; it also needs to lean on Israel more to stop provocative actions and killings. Europe must lean on the Palestinians more to take positive, measureable steps to renounce terror. I know this is an intractable problem, and there is no easy solution, but the Bushites took a huge step in the wrong direction by invading Iraq and assuming that a resolution of the Iraq invasion would help promote a solution in Israel; in fact, it appears to have had the opposite effect. This makes the Bushites effective withdrawal from the Israel/Palestine conflict in the early part of Bush's regime particularly damaging.

Those, as I see it, are the main issues here.

[Rodion Romanovich]

@Navaros: Of course peace with muslims will be possible in the long run! There's nothing in muslim or western ideals that are incompatible with the existence and acceptance of the other part. The only reason why there's a conflict is because we make it a conflict! All who fight fight because "it looks like the other side is fighting us, so we had better defend ourselves". Both sides think the other side started it. And nobody can give any stronger arguments than the other side why their view of who started it would be the correct one. If the conflict is based on such thin material it is ALWAYS possible to solve by negotiation if the parts are clever enough to realize that further bloodshed is useless to their objectives.

Western countries have superior economies and military power right now. They have to act responsibly, because no Middle east country has the power, tools or room to breathe enough to do so.

Some flaws in comments above:
- saying that a small number of muslim extremists fighting western ideals must be responded to by going against all people who are muslim is a dangerous and unfair generalization. Some people defend that flawed view by "but look there are thousands in the news videos from demonstrations". There are many muslims in the world and those thousands are only a fraction that aren't representative of the group as a whole. Furthermore, if people keep blaming all muslims for what a few muslims do then you can be damn sure all muslims will eventually join the side of the extremists because their situation can't get any worse if they're already considered criminals and terrorists and their only choice is then to fight. Give the innocent men a chance to show their innocence! It will not hurt your fighting against the extremists. Fighting muslim community at large because a few of them are extremists is absurd. It's just as random as oppressing people because of their race, skin color, or favorite ice cream. Furthermore, drawing innocents into the fight on your enemy's side is the very opposite of successful military doctrine. Divide et impera, divide and conquer, not unite your enemies and make them more numerous. To attack the innocents along with the guilty, and using careless rhetorics that imply that you consider all muslims terrorists or barbarians will cause exactly that - a united muslim front. Is that what you initially wanted to fight? No, what you wanted to fight was really a small number of extremists. But when you've drawn the entire muslim world into the fight, and they defend themselves against you, you can be sure as **** you'll soon consider it necessary and normal to fight against muslims as a whole. That would be a totally pointless war. Also imagine if such a war would break out in the future, and China and Russia would like to join the fight to take advantage of the weakened fighting parts - a real mess.

- It's noteworthy that five years ago, most western citizens supported actions against muslim extremism, standing united determined to fight, while now around 50% in every western country is strongly against the fighting. When the concept of muslim extremism is diluted and weakened by applying it to innocents too, and when a fight that hurts so many civilians compared to how many guilty are hit, then we can no longer fight the real extremism, the core problem. I'm sure most well-educated muslims that aren't terrorists look upon the west in the exact same way, urging their terrorists to stop, but unfortunately they can no more stop terrorism than we can stop our own governments from going to war at random.

- Trying to blame the muslim masses for what terrorists do is like putting a mother in jail if her son committed a crime. The innocent among the muslims have little chance of stopping the terrorism, just as little chance as western governments have had at stopping train bombs and similar. The modern form of terrorism by suicide bombing is often secret until the very day the terror act is carried out. Therefore it's important that we fight this extreme threat in a way that eliminates it, not in a way that encourages more of it. A common flaw in some people's reasoning is that a suicide bomber squad can be scared by setting examples. When formulated clearly in words it becomes apparent what a foolish idea it is to try and deter a person prepared to sacrifice his/her life for an act of terror by fear by setting examples. The way of fighting terrorism caused by extremistic misconceptions of Islamic faith is divide et impera, divide and conquer, not unite and strengthen. More concentrated efforts on guilty and less open warfare. Make sure the true extremists stay few. Improve security at airports and trains and similar. Maybe we can never get rid of them totally by that method, but making the terrorists multiply in numbers while thinking a death toll of 50,000 innocents is worth the effort to capture and punish 100 guilty will only make it worse. There's more reason to live in fear when our own leaders are ready to sacrifice 50,000 men, women and children to by fear of death try to set an example against 100 suicidals who are maybe planning to commit an act of terror. And there's more reason to live in fear when those 100 suicidals are joined by hordes of men and women who are more serious and eager to quickly get to sacrifice their lives to kill western civilians. If west quickly reacts to an act of terrorism by sacrificing the lives of 50,000 persons because the terrorists killed 3,000 then you've truly given the victory to the extremists.

[Hurin_Rules]

No apology necessary. Where I am factually incorrect, I should be corrected. I appreciate the enlightenment.

Then you're both a gentleman and a scholar :bow:



So, if the last papal Bull authorizing a crusade was in the 17th century, it's still been over 300 years, no? The mere existence of military orders doesn't mean a state of war exists or that a crusade is ongoing. Mexico maintained an army in 1849 that it's kept until this day. That doesn't mean that the Mexican-American war never ended (although, with all these illegal immigrants demanding the right to run the country, maybe it does).

You're right to an extent; the problem of course is that the ending of the crusades merged almost imperceptibly with the new and massive wave of Western imperialism in the 19th/20th century, as Britain, France, et al. carved up Africa and the Middle East among them, bringing with it missionaries and economic exploitation. In the minds of many Muslims, this was a replay of the crusades, and of course the effects of colonialism are still felt to this day in most of these areas. I'm not saying the western campaigns of the 19th and 20th centuries were crusades, but it is undeniable that that is precisely how they continue to be viewed in much of the Muslim world, rightly or wrongly.


President Bush using the term crusade to describe our actions in Afghanistan was unforgivable. Of all the gaffes people call him on, this one rings true with me and we should chastise him over it. To that end, I believe he did apologize and retract the statement though... I tried to find a reference, but doing a search on: Bush crusade Afghanistan, I got SWAMPED with pages of anti-war websites.

Check out the Guardian's coverage of the gaffes here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,558322,00.html



One more question Hurin, while I'm reading about the Varna Crusade... is it your contention that even though the Turks invaded the Balkans only decades before, it was theirs for all time forward and the Western powers, primarily the Hungarians, should be ashamed for attempting to liberate their homeland?

Not at all; I'm not quite sure where in my remarks you'd get that idea. It was not my intent to make any judgements as to the legitimacy of the crusades themselves; I was simply trying to provide historical context and show how they had been (and continue to be) viewed. Explaining someone else's views does not mean I personally subscribe to them; if that were the case, I could never discuss the Nazis.

[Don Corleone]

I don't think peace is achievable. Even moderate Muslims will never accept Israel. Once they gain control of Palestine, they won't allow Christians or Jews to visit their holy sites. This will cause a lot of tension. Not to mention, most of Southeastern Europe was at one time part of the Caliphate and parts of Spain, Sicily and Italy were at times part of the Caliphate. Until they are returned to Sharia, there will be no peace. In a way, I have to respect the chutzhpah... "Sure, we want peace. Give us everything we ask for, and then there will be peace".

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Stop invading muslim countries.:idea2:

[Kralizec]

I said the terrorists have no chance of succeeding in enslaving the entire world, but they do have a chance of causing damage and bomb. What I did NOT say, that you somehow added, was that that would be an excuse not to fight. What I've been saying all along, is that the method of fighting them is wrong, not the idea of fighting them. As long as there's no better method available, even passiveness, and yes - attempting better security at airports etc. and letting them blow up our trains when they can get past that security, is better than being ready to let 50,000 civilians in both muslim and western countries die because we want to capture and punish 100 men who might commit an act of terrorism in the future.

If you bust into a persons home and find a ton of explosives attached to belts with detonators, you wouln't punish them?
That's of course a hypothetical (but plausible) example, but it illustrates that it's ridiculous to claim that any act to prevent a crime is wrong.


On the contrary, my ideal is based entirely on survival. Our best chance of surviving is to not be ready to sacrifice 50,000 persons' lives to capture and punish 100 persons who might in the future want to commit acts of terrorism.

The vast majority of civilian casualties in Iraq are caused by suicide bombers. While the US is of course partly responsible for the escalation of violence, claiming that every death in Iraq is a 'sacrifice' on their part is just demagogical.
Suppose you want to build a big, modern hospital, wich could save up to 5,000 people from premature death per year. And take into account that construction work is a dangerous business and that probably at least 1 construction worker is going to accidentily die.
Does that mean you are somehow prepared to let a man die so that 5,000 may live? Yes and no. Yes because you know that it will probably happen. No, because as Forest Gump brilliantly put it: shit happens. Unless you put the entire society to a complete stand still, the only thing you can do is strive to keep these accidents to a reasonable minimum.
Likewise in military conflicts you have to unfortunately accept that a certain amount of civilian casualties is unavoidable, but you should strive to keep it to a minimum. Wether the Bush administration has done enough to ensure that, I'd say no, but that would best be described as criminal negligence and not as murder like you're implying.


I'd say - let them have as much female circumcision as they want - wouldn't it be discrimination if they couldn't have that when we allow male circumcision?

Female 'circumsision' is worlds apart from male circumsision. The former literally involves cutting off the clitoris because those who practice it think that depriving women of their ability to have pleasure in sex is virtuous. It's an act of pure barbarism, and has very little -if anything- to do with Islam. IIIRC it's almost entirely limited to certain African countries like Somalia (but not Egypt).


and let them have as much honor killing as they want. But for God's sake let's not forget that we're trying to make sure as many as possible of us live in safety and survive, and that we're not trying to "show our strength" in some ridiculous caveman-ish way, while being prepared to let 50,000 people die in our attempt to show our muscles.

This too, is pure demagogy because you're only adressing a strawmen version of the US strategy and I think you perfectly realize what you're doing. Do you really expect the average backroom patron would not notice? Then don't resort to such nonsense, it insults the intelligence of the reader.

[Tachikaze]

Method 1: The West needs to divest in the Middle East. I started a whole thread on this premise. Since greedy capitalists want Mideast oil, they are instead willing to watch the terror continue while they make deals, buy oil, and sell it to a public who are "addicted to oil". "Islamic terrorists" have not attacked any nations that are not involved in the Middle East, even Christian ones. The "jihad" is not for relgious purposes, but for poltical ones.

Method 2: We all become atheists, agnostics, or Buddhists.

I like Method 2 the best, even though it contradicts my claim in Method 2.

[KrooK]

What should we do?
Don't be afraid of muslims and do muslims exactly same things like muslims are doing christians. If they ban Christ in Saudi Arabia we should do same thing with Allah into Europe.
Futhermore if muslims don't like our western civilisiation, we can't force them to live here. Deploy them on ships and send to North Africa or Middle East. Then they will be able to live into their tradition and culture.
My post looks racist - If someone things I'm worse because of mine religion - I'm doing same thing.:skull: :2thumbsup:

[Louis VI the Fat]

I am not so sure that there is such a thing as a war between the west and Muslims at the moment.

There is a sense of a western civilization, and of the Umma, the Muslim community. But neither are monoliths. The Muslim world even less so than the west. Morroco, Somalia, Turkey, Qatar, Bangladesh and Indonesia? They differ as much as Catholic countries like Bolivia, Switzerland, Mozambique and the Phillipines.

Nor is there a troublesome relation between Muslims and the west, but between Muslims and everybody else. Ninety percent of conflicts the west has are with Muslim societies, but they are but a high profile minority of the ninety percent of global conflicts which involve Muslims.

The west needs to take a good look at itself for a start, sure. Hurin made three good points.

But overall, it is the west has got human rights, internal peace and international cooperation. And there is no such thing as a western urge to deny anybody else these things. Even when granted that sometimes western policy is detrimental to others achieving them.

So the bulk of change needs to come from within the Muslim world itself. Islam is at war with modernism, not with the west. This is true even if in the minds of many Muslims the west and modernism are synonyms.

I have or had several hopes for change in the Muslim world: an enlightened Islam formed by European Muslims, a Turkey that is growing into an industrialised first world nation, the longing for change by the Iranian youth, the vibrancy of the smaller Gulf states, Islam in India maturing as India awakens, economic growth in South-East Asia.

Any of those could turn into rolemodels for Muslim societies, could become spearheads for a turning of the tide in the internal struggle Islam fights with modernism.

[Strike For The South]

Yall act like this is something new. Crusades anyone? Muslim threat to Veinna or Spain? This is just a countinuation and has just been hightend. Both sides have a element which will never quit but eventually oil will become obselte and the muslims will have to find something new to bargin with. With no oil all the middle east is a contuinuation of Africa. Muslims carry most of this burden mind you. They seem to want to live here (IE USA, UK Etc) but seem to want us to bow to there social standards. Saying that one of two things will happen. 1. The west gives in further perputatig this extremism or 2. The west stands and the extremist movement has nothing on which to burn. All we need to do is weather the storm (not sit back and take it weather it) and they will run out of steam.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Blah, blah, blah, that's all I hear SFTS...

:laugh4:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Short answer to thread question = victory.

Attacking extra-national terrorism is, to say the least, difficult.

Taking out the terrorists themselves is difficult, like wiping out the cockroaches in an old apartment building, they're surprisingly resilient and keep breeding new ones quickly.

It is better to attack their support structures, finances, training facilities, and to undercut their support.

Iraq is, oddly enough, an effort to do that. The long-term goal is a semi-stable and largely secular republic more akin to modern Turkey. If achieved, the region is likely to be pulled, collectively, toward that direction politically -- which will undercut the lure of terrorism.

Short term, however, many view the US as foreign occupiers -- which we are, and view us as potential imperialist overlords -- which we are not. The terrorists, who are regrettably not all dim-witted, are well able to play on this for recruiting and for support.

I agree that it's hardly and elegant solution, but I doubt and truly elegant solution exists.


Implicit in Legio's original post, however, is that any aggressive action can only worsen the problem and should therefore be avoided. I disagree, because to leave the problem un-addressed will NOT cause it to wither on the vine, but will yield a world in which terrorism wins and becomes the primary political tool and a central element of human interaction.


I would also like to note a rare moment of agreement with Tachi'. I suspect he and I might have different means for achieving it, but a decoupling of the West and Middle East oil would help alleviate some of the underlying issues involved.

[Divinus Arma]

Some time ago, USA and Great Britain invaded Iraq, beginning a campaign where ten thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed, tortured and deprived of their homes.

Thanks for starting off with an unbiased view. Give me a break. Good topic ruined by your liberal hate-mongering. Nicely done.

edit: I may post a more comprehensive response when I take the time to look past the initial bias and address the essence of the concept.

edit: Okay I read all of the first post, and it only got worse. I'm glad you side with Bin Laden. Thanks for sharing Legio.

[Divinus Arma]

Implicit in Legio's original post, however, is that any aggressive action can only worsen the problem and should therefore be avoided. I disagree, because to leave the problem un-addressed will NOT cause it to wither on the vine, but will yield a world in which terrorism wins and becomes the primary political tool and a central element of human interaction.



Agreed. Legio seems to see this whole concept in the wrong light. Bin Laden and his cronies seek one thing: Global Islamic Totalitarianism. The Imams only help them by preaching hate.

The enemy is not Islam. The enemy is ignorance.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I don't think peace is achievable. Even moderate Muslims will never accept Israel. Once they gain control of Palestine, they won't allow Christians or Jews to visit their holy sites. This will cause a lot of tension. Not to mention, most of Southeastern Europe was at one time part of the Caliphate and parts of Spain, Sicily and Italy were at times part of the Caliphate. Until they are returned to Sharia, there will be no peace. In a way, I have to respect the chutzhpah... "Sure, we want peace. Give us everything we ask for, and then there will be peace".

I think you're underestimating the understanding and will of negotiation among muslims. So far the only reasons given for Israel have been the Holocaust. The muslims have listened to that argument, and drawn the conclusion that a Jewish state is indeed necessary. No muslim is really questioning that, except in a few recent statements meant to be provocative, mainly from Hamas. What muslims are still questioning, is why Israel should be located where it currently is located, maybe because the reasons for that have hardly been mentioned aloud, and not because they don't exist, because they do exist. I think that if Israel stops using the Holocaust as the only argument, and tell the entire story, and concentrate on explaining the reason why Israel deserves to be located where it currently lies too, then the muslims would be able to understand that too, at least in the long run they would accept it, like they have accepted that a Jewish state must exist at all, after a few decades. The key reason as I see it for why Israel should be located where it currently lies, is the bravery of the Jewish rebels mainly in 117 and 132 AD. Literally every people in Europe and the Middle east wanted to crush the oppressive, corrupt late roman empire, but the Jews were probably the most successful rebels, and as a result became the victims of most of the roman anger. The 117 AD rebellion was a milestone in the fall of the roman empire, because it was the first time a larger scale cooperation between long time enemies of Rome united. Divide et impera was good for conquering enemies one by one, but the flaw in Rome's strategy was that the enemies of Rome could some time unite and fight against Rome all at the same time, then being stronger than Rome. If the Jews hadn't been the bravest and most effective rebels against the oppresive, corrupt late roman empire, they would have been able to live in Judaea also in the period from 132 up to 1948. As a result of their sacrifice, a number of coincidences has led to repeated oppression in many of the places they have settled in since 132. Not only does it seem Judaea is the safest place for Jews to live, but they also deserve their reward for doing what literally every other people of Europe and the Middle east wanted and needed to do. Explaining why Israel lies where it currently does is the key in that part of Middle east conflicts, and I'm sure it can be done much better than I've done it here.

[Rodion Romanovich]

It is better to attack their support structures, finances, training facilities, and to undercut their support.

The flaw in that reasoning is that you don't need much training to suicide bomb a train. You don't need much money to make a bomb out of what you can find in a grocery store. Another flaw in this idea is that this often means attacking and destroying the economies of entire countries.



Implicit in Legio's original post, however, is that any aggressive action can only worsen the problem and should therefore be avoided. I disagree, because to leave the problem un-addressed will NOT cause it to wither on the vine, but will yield a world in which terrorism wins and becomes the primary political tool and a central element of human interaction.

That's something I never said, neither explicitly or implicitly. I said that aggressive action against countries, causing death tolls of about 50,000 innocents to reach 100 guilty, is not going to improve the situation. I said "even passiveness is better". When you say "even x is better than y" the word "even" shows that you're considering that x is not a good solution either, but you recognize that the option y is worse yet, that option y is totally insane, because it's worse than an already bad option. And indeed a death toll of 50,000 people isn't worth it to try and scare 100 persons who are fearless enough to sacrifice their lives. What's so difficult to understand with this? Everyone, both we and the actual terrorists, know that a suicide bomber can't be fought in any other way than by stopping him/her when he/she has attached the bomb to his/her clothes and is on the way to make the attack. If lucky, you might be able to stop the suicide bomber earlier because you find bomb equipment in his/her house, but that can only give punishment for illegal ownership of weapons unless you want to remove democracy, and thus give victory to the extremists. The good news is that the extremists are so few, so that even if we didn't have security, they would do very little damage to our societies. It's all about minimizing our own casualties, and causing the death of 50,000 people by an Iraq war is an increase of casualties compared to what even passiveness would have given. Passiveness would lead to around 10 terrorist actions for a total of some 2,000 casualties at the most, per year. Increase security, and you can reduce terrorist acts to perhaps one per year, for a total of some 200 casualties, which is a much better result.

[Brenus]

“There's nothing in muslim or western ideals that are incompatible with the existence and acceptance of the other part.”
The only problem with this statement is that the Muslim Extremists/Fascists don’t think so. See Alija Izetbegovic, Former “Moderate” President of the Republic (he declared one day Islamic before it was cancelled by the Dayton Agreement) of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in “the Islamic Declaration”, I quote: "... The first and foremost of such conclusions is surely the one on the incompatibility of Islam and non-Islamic systems. There can be no peace or coexistence between the "Islamic faith" and non- Islamic societies and political institutions. ... Islam clearly excludes the right and possibility of activity of any strange ideology on its own turf. Therefore, there is no question of any laicistic principles, and the state should be an expression and should support the moral concepts of the religion. ..."

“If they ban Christ in Saudi Arabia we should do same thing with Allah into Europe.” You can’t compare democracy and dictatorships. Saudi Arabia belongs to the 2nd category.

“I am not so sure that there is such a thing as a war between the west and Muslims at the moment”. . I don't. When NATO bombed the Serbs to protect the Bosnian (Muslim) and the Kosovo’s Albanians (Muslims) no demonstration of gratitude from the “Muslim” world were organised. When a “Muslim” country is invaded, suddenly it is religious.
There is no war between a supposed Christian World and a Muslim World. The roots of the conflict are the usual one: “You have what want I want so I take it”
Bin Laden & Co want power, U.S. of A and western countries want oil and other strategic advantages and end of story.

“Bin Laden and his cronies seek one thing: Global Islamic Totalitarianism” So it is politic. It is fascism except fascism was based on catholism.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Well there are Christians seeking global totalitarianism, but that doesn't justify muslims trying to bomb all Christian countries, Brenus. That's the key issue in this thread - do not accuse the neutrals, because they aren't your enemies, they can even be your friends. Try to realize how few the extremist are, and therefore how powerless they are. Act against them in clever ways, but don't let them make you believe the most dangerous part of their propaganda. They try as hard as they can to make the neutrals look like their friends, in order to cause western aggression towards the neutrals, so that more neutrals are drawn into the fight on their side.

[LeftEyeNine]

I don't. When NATO bombed the Serbs to protect the Bosnian (Muslim) and the Kosovo’s Albanians (Muslims) no demonstration of gratitude from the “Muslim” world were organised.

Extermination of Bosnians was "watched" like a movie, whatever they did was too late. Not something much worthy to show gratitude. However I agree that Arab world was almost indifferent with what happened to Bosnians.

[Brenus]

“Extermination of Bosnians was "watched" like a movie, whatever they did was too late. Not something much worthy to show gratitude. However I agree that Arab world was almost indifferent with what happened to Bosnians.”
My translators in Gorazde were quiet happy to see the Serbian position bombed, and they thought it was worthy to be grateful. And yes, it was late, but not too late. And I saw that the “extermination” or “ethnic Cleansing” were done in both sides. The Serbs were picked up as “badies” for political reasons it is too long to explain here, but the Mudjahidines and the HVO did exactly the same to their opponents.
And the Arabs World was indifferent to the Bosnians because they think of themselves as the only real Muslims. Also because it was hard to explain why Muslim fought against Muslim (Izetbegovic versus Abdic).

And that is why it wasn’t a war between Religions but between Nationalisms. And the nationalities were defined by the religious traditions (most of them were atheists, anyway), Serbs/Orthodox, Croats/Catholic and Bosnians/Muslims.

“Well there are Christians seeking global totalitarianism, but that doesn't justify muslims trying to bomb all Christian countries, Brenus” I don’t because I don’t believe it. The war isn’t between Christians and associates (Jews) and Muslims but it is political fight for resources and lands. And when I say resources that include water, oil, mineral and whatever societies need.

If we stop to think in terms of Religions like Bin Laden and W. Bush, the goals of each is more readable. No Jihad, no Crusades, just the normal staff, expansion, protection of national interests, whatever they are, markets… Again what we need in analysing is less Bushim, more Marxism, less ideology, more economy.

[LeftEyeNine]

Brenus hits the spot right there, well done. Al Qaeda and their offical or disguised comrades are all fighting for political scores, it's not a Jihad. Religion is how the people are motivated to death to achive such goals.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I don't think peace is achievable. Even moderate Muslims will never accept Israel.

I disagree. Moderate muslim countries such as Egypt and Jordan have formally accepted Israel after some time trying to destroy it unsuccessfully. The average people there have accepted the existence of Israel - but are now being radicalised again by the apparent unwillingness of the Israelis and the wider international community to address the Palestinian issue. Remember, Israel is subject to some fairly serious UN resolutions that it cheerfully ignores while other are held to the strictest account.

Even the ordinary Iranians that I speak too on my visits are supportive of a Middle East solution that sees Israel as an integral part of the region. No-one of intelligence, Muslim or otherwise, thinks the state of Israel is going away.

What causes problems is that people apply the same logic that makes the case for Israel to the Palestinians' desire for a homeland. In doing so, they see a lot of double standards applied - perhaps for reasons of realpolitik, but hypocrisy nonetheless. Unfortunately, this provides demagogues and rabble-rousers easy opportunities to radicalise the simple and unthinking.

Muslim, Christian, Jew - put 'extremist' before all these and add in dictatorships that have a vested interest in the Middle East being a haven for 'terrorism' (ie the Saudi Royal Family would have a real problem with demands for democracy should the Palestinian problem not give them a distraction for their people) and you have constant conflict.

Peace will come when leaders on all sides stop posturing and start talking, because the ordinary people are very, very tired of conflict. Moderate muslims want the same quiet life we all do.

[yesdachi]

Well there are Christians seeking global totalitarianism, but that doesn't justify muslims trying to bomb all Christian countries, Brenus. That's the key issue in this thread - do not accuse the neutrals, because they aren't your enemies, they can even be your friends. Try to realize how few the extremist are, and therefore how powerless they are. Act against them in clever ways, but don't let them make you believe the most dangerous part of their propaganda. They try as hard as they can to make the neutrals look like their friends, in order to cause western aggression towards the neutrals, so that more neutrals are drawn into the fight on their side.
The thing is the so called neutrals are not neutral. The extremists are sleeping, eating, training, recruiting and destroying right next to them, heck they are even blowing them up collaterally and the neutrals are not doing anything about it, therefore they are supporting them. The extremists can not be stopped until the neutrals choose to help stop them.

I hate to sound unsympathetic but if you are not with us, then you’re against us. And if 50,000 die because they are harboring the enemy, so be it. I would rather see another 50,000 die than see another friend or family member die on “western” soil. If you want peaceful relations, police your own criminals. Stop them from attacking and threatening others.

Edit: we are helping some of the neutrals gain the courage though in the fact that we are helping them to be able to vote and other things.

[Rodion Romanovich]

The thing is the so called neutrals are not neutral. The extremists are sleeping, eating, training, recruiting and destroying right next to them, heck they are even blowing them up collaterally and the neutrals are not doing anything about it, therefore they are supporting them. The extremists can not be stopped until the neutrals choose to help stop them. [...]
If you want peaceful relations, police your own criminals. Stop them from attacking and threatening others.

With that logic, you're cooperating with the 10,000 murderers in the USA.



I hate to sound unsympathetic but if you are not with us, then you’re against us. And if 50,000 die because they are harboring the enemy, so be it. I would rather see another 50,000 die than see another friend or family member die on “western” soil.


Included in those 50,000 are several thousand people on western soil, as I mentioned above. And as I also explained I'm all for fighting terrorism, I just dislike your methods of doing it, because we all know they won't fight, but only strengthen, terrorism. Nobody is against someone because they want to fight for the same goal but in another way. If it's really so easy for you to think of someone as an enemy and opponent when they are neutral or even on your side, then your diagnosis is paranoia, and I advice you to seek a good terapeut before you end up doing something dangerous to your closest.

[Tachikaze]

Islam is at war with modernism
What's "modernism"? Driving cars instead of walking? Making things out of plastic instead of biodegradable materials? Bubblepacks? Rapant commercialism? Advertizing on every flat space larger than a thumbnail? A 55% divorce rate? Fat TV addicts, who become diabetic at 40? Ozone-depleting emissions? Pop-up ads? Drive-through weddings? A populace who thinks they can't be safe without having guns in their purses? Junk food?

[Redleg]

What's "modernism"? Driving cars instead of walking? Making things out of plastic instead of biodegradable materials? Bubblepacks? Rapant commercialism? Advertizing on every flat space larger than a thumbnail? A 55% divorce rate? Fat TV addicts, who become diabetic at 40? Ozone-depleting emissions? Pop-up ads? Drive-through weddings? A populace who thinks they can't be safe without having guns in their purses? Junk food?

Way to spin the term modernism.

:laugh4:

[Kagemusha]

What's "modernism"? Driving cars instead of walking? Making things out of plastic instead of biodegradable materials? Bubblepacks? Rapant commercialism? Advertizing on every flat space larger than a thumbnail? A 55% divorce rate? Fat TV addicts, who become diabetic at 40? Ozone-depleting emissions? Pop-up ads? Drive-through weddings? A populace who thinks they can't be safe without having guns in their purses? Junk food?

Modernism is that there isnt public stonings,that men and women have equal rights,that young girls are not mutilated.Raped women executed.That Priests doesnt dictate contries politics.Also freedom of self expression and that belonging to sexual minority wont cause you to be executed or mutilated if caught.That people are not dying in hunger becouse despots use all the countries income to themselves and their families while their people are dependant on the supplies given from the countries, they accuse everything about in this world.Thats "modernism"

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The flaw in that reasoning is that you don't need much training to suicide bomb a train. You don't need much money to make a bomb out of what you can find in a grocery store. Another flaw in this idea is that this often means attacking and destroying the economies of entire countries.

Such a campaign is difficult, agreed. I feel little compassion for countries that actively support terrorism, though I would opt for a less devastating counter-measure if one exists.


That's something I never said, neither explicitly or implicitly. I said that aggressive action against countries, causing death tolls of about 50,000 innocents to reach 100 guilty, is not going to improve the situation. I said "even passiveness is better". When you say "even x is better than y" the word "even" shows that you're considering that x is not a good solution either, but you recognize that the option y is worse yet, that option y is totally insane, because it's worse than an already bad option. And indeed a death toll of 50,000 people isn't worth it to try and scare 100 persons who are fearless enough to sacrifice their lives. What's so difficult to understand with this? Everyone, both we and the actual terrorists, know that a suicide bomber can't be fought in any other way than by stopping him/her when he/she has attached the bomb to his/her clothes and is on the way to make the attack. If lucky, you might be able to stop the suicide bomber earlier because you find bomb equipment in his/her house, but that can only give punishment for illegal ownership of weapons unless you want to remove democracy, and thus give victory to the extremists. The good news is that the extremists are so few, so that even if we didn't have security, they would do very little damage to our societies. It's all about minimizing our own casualties, and causing the death of 50,000 people by an Iraq war is an increase of casualties compared to what even passiveness would have given. Passiveness would lead to around 10 terrorist actions for a total of some 2,000 casualties at the most, per year. Increase security, and you can reduce terrorist acts to perhaps one per year, for a total of some 200 casualties, which is a much better result.

Legio, I never said you were enthusiastic about the position you were advocating -- I don't think you're evil or stupid or uncaring -- but I do believe that you have (albeit reluctantly) accepted the idea that any real effort to attack terrorism is unwinnable. The passages I have highlighted in the quoted post (my italics, not yours) speak to this implicit position.

I disagree in that I believe that terrorism can be crushed -- at least in its extra-national form. The international efforts that crushed piracy as a threat to maritime commerce in th 1700's are one example; the virtual cessation of "kidnapping for profit" crimes in the USA is another. Many thought such problems insoluable; but consistent effort and active opposition can eradicate such unacceptable behaviors. Terrorism too can be thwarted.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I disagree in that I believe that terrorism can be crushed -- at least in its extra-national form. The international efforts that crushed piracy as a threat to maritime commerce in th 1700's are one example; the virtual cessation of "kidnapping for profit" crimes in the USA is another. Many thought such problems insoluable; but consistent effort and active opposition can eradicate such unacceptable behaviors. Terrorism too can be thwarted.

I believe that one day we may eventually find a way to defeat terrorism, and also develop accurate offensive methods when needed. But I compare our current situation to a Medieval infantryman in a shieldwall being fired at by a handful of horse archers. It's scary, but the damage they can do is limited. Charging to immediately stop the threat will only make it worse. But if you stay disciplined in the line, and think through your options you might figure something out eventually. At worst, your enemy will fire until he gets rid of all his arrows. But if the defensive shield wall is kept well enough in the meantime, the damage they can do before they run out of arrows will be limited. Not acceptable, no casualty is acceptable or desirable, but sometimes they can't be avoided completely. At worst, we return from the battle learning that for our next battle we must bring archers to counter the enemy horse archers. But headless haste will not be to our benefit.

If you already have better ideas and suggestions for future solutions it would be interesting to hear :2thumbsup: Ideally we should eliminate crime, terrorism, poverty and all these things, but often in reality a total elimination of these things aren't always possible. But anything that can bring us closer to these goals is very welcome.

[Kagemusha]

I think one big problem is that we are gutless when using the main strength The West possesses.We should use trade Embargo to those countries that harbour terrorism or dont care about international treaties like Iran and its Nuclear program.
We have to be able to take minor hits to our own economy if we really want things to change in Middle East.Throughout the History all rebel terrorist movements have had a need of somekind popularity from the main population.We need to make sure that the main population understands that harboring these maniacs will only cause suffering to the people.I think its better way then first we do nothing and sooner or later have to bring full scale war against those Nations.When the maniacs have taken over certain countries.For example full trade Embargo against Iran would make them think again about their Nuclear program and its benefits.Same thing with Palestine becouse a known Terrorist organization is running the country.

[Ice]

What's "modernism"? Driving cars instead of walking? Making things out of plastic instead of biodegradable materials? Bubblepacks? Rapant commercialism? Advertizing on every flat space larger than a thumbnail? A 55% divorce rate? Fat TV addicts, who become diabetic at 40? Ozone-depleting emissions? Pop-up ads? Drive-through weddings? A populace who thinks they can't be safe without having guns in their purses? Junk food?

Yup, those are some of the elements. You seem only to be focusing on the negative aspects though. I'm not going to list them, due to the fact they are fairly obvious, but the positive aspects easily weigh out the negative ones.

BTW, I actually agree with SFTS on this issue.

[yesdachi]

I think the Trade Embargo is a weapon we should not be afraid to use. I’m not sure why we are not, aside from the fact that it would cause grief to civilians (no more than war though).

[BigTex]

I think one big problem is that we are gutless when using the main strength The West possesses.We should use trade Embargo to those countries that harbour terrorism or dont care about international treaties like Iran and its Nuclear program.
We have to be able to take minor hits to our own economy if we really want things to change in Middle East.Throughout the History all rebel terrorist movements have had a need of somekind popularity from the main population.We need to make sure that the main population understands that harboring these maniacs will only cause suffering to the people.I think its better way then first we do nothing and sooner or later have to bring full scale war against those Nations.When the maniacs have taken over certain countries.For example full trade Embargo against Iran would make them think again about their Nuclear program and its benefits.Same thing with Palestine becouse a known Terrorist organization is running the country.

Wow I actually agree with Kage, we have gotten guttless over the generations to impose embargo's, I blame the hippe's and barney for that. But like a true Texan SFTS has made sense of the unsensible and yeah it will all blow over eventually if we stand strong. The only other possible way to resolve this other then by embargo's and patience is playing Cowboy's and Indians with them. I dont think I need to be explaining how the process of Cowboy's and Indians works.

[drone]

An embargo will do no good. Most of these countries will just get their stuff from Russia or China, so we just lose business. Also, what if they decide to reciprocate. Gas lines, anyone? Until we break the oil dependency, we are stuck. Screw the environmental reasons, our (the US mainly) dependence on foriegn oil is a huge national security concern. If the Arab nations shut us off now, we are D-U-N done. Economy wrecked, military neutered. As it stands now, our gas bills keep despots in power, fund terrorists, and force us to keep a military presence where it is not wanted. This is the problem the West should be looking at.

[Kagemusha]

An embargo will do no good. Most of these countries will just get their stuff from Russia or China, so we just lose business. Also, what if they decide to reciprocate. Gas lines, anyone? Until we break the oil dependency, we are stuck. Screw the environmental reasons, our (the US mainly) dependence on foriegn oil is a huge national security concern. If the Arab nations shut us off now, we are D-U-N done. Economy wrecked, military neutered. As it stands now, our gas bills keep despots in power, fund terrorists, and force us to keep a military presence where it is not wanted. This is the problem the West should be looking at.

Im talking about individual countries here.Why for Example Saudi-Arabia would cut of Oil from West.Becouse Iran goes under trade Embargo? Can Russians and Chinese provide everything to the Middle East? If so why are they not doing it already.Russia mostly provides raw materials today just like the Arabic Countries so its a natural competitor to them. We are stuck not becouse we cant do this but becouse we dont want to do this.

[drone]

Im talking about individual countries here.Why for Example Saudi-Arabia would cut of Oil from West.Becouse Iran goes under trade Embargo? Can Russians and Chinese provide everything to the Middle East? If so why are they not doing it already.Russia mostly provides raw materials today just like the Arabic Countries so its a natural competitor to them. We are stuck not becouse we cant do this but becouse we dont want to do this.
For the sake of this discussion, why would we not embargo Saudi Arabia? A large portion of muslim extremists are funded/brainwashed/whatever through the Saudi-financed Wahabbi system. They aren't harboring terrorists, they are just funding their growth in other countries. What's the difference? If we want to use an embargo to stop terrorists, we need to be consistent, no special exceptions.

Even without an oil cutoff, I just don't think an embargo would work. Too much money to be made, too easy to get around. China may not be able to provide everything directly, but they would certainly act as a middleman to secure sweetheart oil deals. An embargo would poison relations even more while doing nothing.

[Tachikaze]

Yup, those are some of the elements. You seem only to be focusing on the negative aspects though. I'm not going to list them, due to the fact they are fairly obvious, but the positive aspects easily weigh out the negative ones.
Maybe the people in some cultures don't agree with you that the positives outweigh the negatives. Maybe they want to have a society that preserves traditional ways of life. Sovereign nations have a right to sovereignty. We can't expect everyone to uphold the ideals that the West has about what is "progress".

I know a number of Saudi men who are quite modern in their thinking. They want more equality for women, for instance. But they also believe that government should follow the will of God. They have a right to have a government of their choosing. I can't say that a government run by priests is any worse than one run by corporations looking for profit.

There are people in this world who put morality as a very high priority, higher than convenience, higher than entertainment, higher than individual freedom. They value personal freedom, but it is not as important as morality, God's law, and their community.

To them, the West is a rapidly-declining Sodom and Gomorrah. They have a right to do what they can to stop it from spreading into their societies.

[Kagemusha]

For the sake of this discussion, why would we not embargo Saudi Arabia? A large portion of muslim extremists are funded/brainwashed/whatever through the Saudi-financed Wahabbi system. They aren't harboring terrorists, they are just funding their growth in other countries. What's the difference? If we want to use an embargo to stop terrorists, we need to be consistent, no special exceptions.

Even without an oil cutoff, I just don't think an embargo would work. Too much money to be made, too easy to get around. China may not be able to provide everything directly, but they would certainly act as a middleman to secure sweetheart oil deals. An embargo would poison relations even more while doing nothing.

Becouse we need to set an example. What is your solution Drone? How i understand that there are many regimes in Middle East that are in friendly terms with West. Then there are others that arent. I believe that if we sit back and do nothing the more extreme people will take over in many countries in Middle East like has already happened in Palestine.When the situation goes into that in enough countries over there we dont have to think the options anymore.I believe that every sensible measure has to be used in order to get rid of Extrimism.Was it Muslim Extrimism,Nazism,Communist extrimism or any other form. While using harsh methods will cause pain and suffering to many innocents.A full scale war will cause that to many more.I think that if we are too greedy not to use Embargo.Then why bother at all.Doesnt the Wahhabist priest that the God of West is money and it has corrupted our hearts?

[Ice]

Maybe the people in some cultures don't agree with you that the positives outweigh the negatives. Maybe they want to have a society that preserves traditional ways of life. Sovereign nations have a right to sovereignty. We can't expect everyone to uphold the ideals that the West has about what is "progress".

I know a number of Saudi men who are quite modern in their thinking. They want more equality for women, for instance. But they also believe that government should follow the will of God. They have a right to have a government of their choosing. I can't say that a government run by priests is any worse than one run by corporations looking for profit.

There are people in this world who put morality as a very high priority, higher than convenience, higher than entertainment, higher than individual freedom. They value personal freedom, but it is not as important as morality, God's law, and their community.

To them, the West is a rapidly-declining Sodom and Gomorrah. They have a right to do what they can to stop it from spreading into their societies.

I wasn't say that we shouldnt respect other cultures, I commenting on your comment about modernism. There are more positive things about modernism then negitive. Examples:
Better Health Care
Better Transportion
Better Communication
More Comfortable living

Just to name a few.

[Strike For The South]

Maybe the people in some cultures don't agree with you that the positives outweigh the negatives. Maybe they want to have a society that preserves traditional ways of life. Sovereign nations have a right to sovereignty. We can't expect everyone to uphold the ideals that the West has about what is "progress".

I know a number of Saudi men who are quite modern in their thinking. They want more equality for women, for instance. But they also believe that government should follow the will of God. They have a right to have a government of their choosing. I can't say that a government run by priests is any worse than one run by corporations looking for profit.

There are people in this world who put morality as a very high priority, higher than convenience, higher than entertainment, higher than individual freedom. They value personal freedom, but it is not as important as morality, God's law, and their community.

To them, the West is a rapidly-declining Sodom and Gomorrah. They have a right to do what they can to stop it from spreading into their societies.

I love this post. You know why becuase it is sheer utter hypocricsy. You constantly bitch and moan about the reilgous pepole in this country who try to save there communty and there morals and yet when the muslims do it it suddenly besomes some richous crusade. Sad really. Muslims need to be educated. This isnt about there damn morals its about oil and jealousy. Jelaous of our prosperity and the rich in the middle east protecting there oil profits. Religon is just a facade. this is no crusade or jihad or moral recovery. Its just jelaousy.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I don't quite understand the posters who have said that west should pressure countries to stop harboring terrorists, and use trade embargos if they don't stop their terrorism. Don't you know how difficult it is to fight terrorism even in your own country? The London bombings, for example, were made by British citizens, which British security measures couldn't stop until it was too late. To require a foreign nation to stop all terrorism is a requirement that is impossible for them to meet! It's almost like saying "make wine out of water or we will attack".

[Banquo's Ghost]

I don't quite understand the posters who have said that west should pressure countries to stop harboring terrorists, and use trade embargos if they don't stop their terrorism. Don't you know how difficult it is to fight terrorism even in your own country? The London bombings, for example, were made by British citizens, which British security measures couldn't stop until it was too late. To require a foreign nation to stop all terrorism is a requirement that is impossible for them to meet! It's almost like saying "make wine out of water or we will attack".

Terrorism is a very difficult nut to crack, not least because of its fluid nature - the old saw about one person's terrorist being another's freedom fighter is apposite.

However, distinctions have been made in the thread about internal and extra-national terrorism. Whilst noting that boundaries are fluid, these are useful definitions when thinking about strategy. You don't need to require a foreign nation to stop all terrorism - that is the language of the demagogues that use terrorism as a reason for excess. It is remarkably clear when a nation is taking all the steps it can to prevent both internal and extra-national terrorism. Britain is, Iran isn't, for example. Pakistan isn't (indeed it's security forces are sympathetic to Islamic terrorism) and neither is Saudi Arabia, but somehow we think it's better to let them off, for what are very short term gains.

Embargoes and sanctions can be very effective when used against countries that actively encourage, or passively allow, terrorists to conduct extra-national activity. However, these sanctions have to be both internationally agreed and enforced to be really effective. The down fall of every sanctions regime has been the willingness of corporates (with the tacit agreement of their governments) to find ways around - and go unpunished. Add to this other regimes that flout the rules with no sanction being brought upon them either, and it is easy to believe that sanctions don't work. As the world's economic powerhouse, the USA supported by the EU would be able to crack a huge whip against both those who allow terrorism and those who might feel tempted to break ranks. Russia particularly would need to be brought to heel, which is why I don't list the G8. (Just today they have announced support for the Hamas government in Palestine, against both US and EU policy).

Earlier posters who identified that economic pain comes with sanctions are right. But this is a pain worth bearing in comparison to sending men to die in foreign lands for no gain - and it would be more effective.

Bear in mind that there are many governments for whom the increase in 'terrorism' is a godsend, distracting the gullible at home. Putin's Russia is an excellent example, enabling him to revert the country to a KGB/FSB controlled state and get re-elected. And yet in Chechnya, his ill-disciplined and brutalised soldiers not only commit appalling atrocities in the name of fighting terrorists (with no censure from the West because they have been labelled as Islamic terrorists) but sell those very same terrorists their weaponry to make a decent living.

That is the real endgame of a military solution to the 'Long War'.

[Tachikaze]

I love this post. You know why becuase it is sheer utter hypocricsy. You constantly bitch and moan about the reilgous pepole in this country who try to save there communty and there morals and yet when the muslims do it it suddenly besomes some richous crusade. Sad really. Muslims need to be educated. This isnt about there damn morals its about oil and jealousy. Jelaous of our prosperity and the rich in the middle east protecting there oil profits. Religon is just a facade. this is no crusade or jihad or moral recovery. Its just jelaousy.
I believe that a culture that developed as a theocracy should be able to continue that way. The US was based on the division between church and state. I don't feel all nations have to be the same. There should be some theocracies for people who want to live in one. There should also be some secular republics.

I don't believe they are "jealous" (I think you mean envious). They have the means to have a Western-style, secular, capitalist state.

I agree with you that, in some circumstances, religion is just a facade. The terrorist attacks are politically driven.

[Tachikaze]

I wasn't say that we shouldnt respect other cultures, I commenting on your comment about modernism. There are more positive things about modernism then negitive. Examples:
Better Health Care
Better Transportion
Better Communication
More Comfortable living

Just to name a few.
I think, in that case, you'd better specify which Muslim nations you are referring to. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait have good health care, many private cars and better public transportation than San Diego, cell phones, and large homes.

Not much of a distinction.

[Brenus]

“The terrorist attacks are politically driven.” Yes, there are a new form of Fascim.

[Tachikaze]

“The terrorist attacks are politically driven.” Yes, there are a new form of Fascim.
Attacks are not made against all Christian nations, only those that are involved in Middle East politics. If the US bowed out of Middle East affairs, I'd bet the farm that the attacks from there against the US would stop.

[Strike For The South]

Attacks are not made against all Christian nations, only those that are involved in Middle East politics. If the US bowed out of Middle East affairs, I'd bet the farm that the attacks from there against the US would stop.

Dont hold you breath brotha. These people will always hate us for the simple fact we have the power. Terrosinm isnt about religon or our policys. Its all about power we have it they want it. Everything else is just a simple pawn.

[Brenus]

“Attacks are not made against all Christian nations, only those that are involved in Middle East politics. If the US bowed out of Middle East affairs, I'd bet the farm that the attacks from there against the US would stop.” Attacks weren’t only towards Christians Nations. Egypt is not a Christian Nation, Jordan isn’t, nor Turkey (in fact Turkey is worst because it is a SECULAR state). Stop to think in terms of Religions. Think politic. The terrorists will attack which stand in front of them. They want power to impose their ways. That isn’t religion. That is struggle for power, the same good one than centuries before…

[Tachikaze]

“Attacks are not made against all Christian nations, only those that are involved in Middle East politics. If the US bowed out of Middle East affairs, I'd bet the farm that the attacks from there against the US would stop.” Attacks weren’t only towards Christians Nations. Egypt is not a Christian Nation, Jordan isn’t, nor Turkey (in fact Turkey is worst because it is a SECULAR state). Stop to think in terms of Religions. Think politic. The terrorists will attack which stand in front of them. They want power to impose their ways. That isn’t religion. That is struggle for power, the same good one than centuries before…
Surprisingly, even though you seem to be arguing with me, your post supports exactly what I was saying: Egypt, Turkey, and Jordan are involved in Middle East politics and they aren't Christian. Thus, they weren't attacked for religious reasons but political ones.

[Brenus]

"Surprisingly, even though you seem to be arguing with me," I have definitively to improve my English. I agree with you...:laugh4:

[Tachikaze]

"Surprisingly, even though you seem to be arguing with me," I have definitively to improve my English. I agree with you...:laugh4:
My mistake. You're right, there's nothing in your post that says you are arguing.:oops: