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.

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.

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

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

[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.

[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”!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

[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.

Don’t sarcasm me man.

It’s okay.
I wasn’t serious anyway.
(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

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/waronterro...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.

[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.