Posted on 01/07/2007 10:35:17 PM PST by neverdem
President Bush has said that the war against global jihadism is more than a military conflict; it is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century. We are still in the early years of the struggle. The civilized world will either rise to the challenge and prevail against this latest form of barbarism, or grief and death will visit us and other innocents on a massive scale.
Given the stakes involved in this war and how little is known, even now, about what is at the core of this conflict, it is worth reviewing in some detail the nature of our enemy - including disaggregating who they are (Shia and Sunni extremists), what they believe and why they believe it, and the implications of that for America and the West.
Islam in the World Today
The enemy we face is not Islam per...
--snip--
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has also declared his absolute hostility to America.[26] Last October, he said, "whether a world without the United States and Zionism can be achieved... I say that this... goal is achievable." In 2006 he declared to America and other Western powers: "open your eyes and see the fate of pharaoh... if you do not abandon the path of falsehood... your doomed destiny will be annihilation." Later he warned, "The anger of Muslims may reach an explosion point soon. If such a day comes [America and the West] should know that the waves of the blast will not remain within the boundaries of our region."
He also said this: "If you would like to have good relations with the Iranian nation in the future... bow down before the greatness of the Iranian nation and surrender. If you don't accept [to do this], the Iranian nation will... force you to surrender and bow down."
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
This is a terrific article. The author clearly understands that the theological and eschatological differences between radical Sunnis and equally radicals Shiites does not prevent them from making common cause against mutual enemies. It is a stinging rebuke to those who contend that such disparate factions could never cooperate.
What makes you think they give a damn for what is the reality since they have their own truth. Isn't it obvious the Pelosi, et al fools have been floating a myth they prefer?
BUMP!
bttt
By the headline, I thought this was about Nancy Pelosi.
Since I live in ground zero times two, NYC, I can hope for reason, can't I?
You're not that naive based on what I've read of you in the recent past.
Incorrect.
"There may be moderate muslims. But there is no moderate islam." Ibn Warriq.
L
The religion of Islam is the problem ... Islam destroys civilizations, people only serve it. [And if you don't know what 'IT' is, I have much work to do on this thread, but suffice it to say a black rock is the focus of the worshippers, a dead, black, revered rock, the perfect Chauncey Gardner focus for desperate fools.]
Great movie, that one.
L
I'm not sure what you mean. Being born here, having family and friends and still staying in NYC, or having hope that the dems will wise up? If it's the latter, the same could be said for many of the pubbies too.
The West has been whistling past the graveyard of the Middle East and Islam since 1492. If they didn't have relatively cheap oil, the area would be avoided like the plague. IMHO, the clash of civilizations has been inevitable. Modernity has just hastened it.
Ah, I'm glad someone is old enough to 'get it'.
'Reason' is a word foreign to liberals.
Recent converts from Islam say 70+ plus percent support Jihad(genocide) worldwide..
I'm an Opto-pessimist.. I hope for the best but expect the worst..
The Optimists can and probably will get multi-millions maybe billions murdered..
That's true as a general rule, but it's not a reason to give up on the hope that the power of reason can change minds, even more so when accompanied by harsh facts from the future attacks that Islamists promise. Talk about interesting times. We are in one heck of it.
I don't believe both major political parties will survive, but one probably will. The question is which one, and what will replace the opposition, IMHO.
The disparate factions of Islam are not fully cooperating. We see small examples of cooperation, but not the nightmare scenario.
If the Muslim factions unite behind a single leader (as Bin Laden hoped), we will face a nightmare war against 1.2 billion people consisting of never-ending terrorist attacks on civilians.
Bush's strategy is to create an offsetting Muslim faction (free and democratic) in the Middle East.
"We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."
This is why the current leadership in Iran is not concerned about US or Israeli retaliation. This is why we cannot deal with Iran the same way we deal with other regimes where personal interests trump global ambitions.
It's only cheap if you exclude the costs of military and political engagement with the barbarians over there.
If this happens, there will be NO civilians, only combatants.
Trickle down annihilation works, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Keep spewing.
So, if we make the dead black rock go away for some reason...Things will get better???
No, don't get me wrong, I would not be offended if that ever did happen...And I honestly believe we could handle the backlash from the gazzilion followers of the dead black rock followers...
BTW, I got what you said before you said it...;-)
I am not convinced that there are 1.2 billion radical Muslims worldwide. Certainly, it is disheartening (to say the least) that very few "moderate" Muslims have been willing to speak up, in fervent opposition to the radicals; and that makes the "moderates" complicit, in my view. But all the Wahhabis (or Salafasts) plus all the radical Shiites would still not equal 1.2 billions Muslims.
Even so, there are more than enough to cause major trouble. And we had better wake up to that fact--soon.
~~snip~~
This is significant because for many Muslims, the proper order of life in this world is for them to rule and for the "infidels" to be ruled over.
The second point is at odds with the first. I tend to believe the latter.
history lesson ping
That is an illogical and counter factual statement. The tenor of a religion is determined entirely by the attitudes and behavior of it's adherents, and that by how they interpret the dictates of their religion. The history -- and for the matter of that even a "slice of time" sociological study -- of the major religions indicates they are all liable to wide ranges of evolution and interpretive gloss, whatever their sacred texts may say.
A religion is, almost entirely and exclusively, what its adherents make it. If there are moderate Muslims then there is, ipso facto, moderate Islam.
Of course I understand what Warriq means: That the radical, violent, terrorist, jihadist interpretation of Islam is the CORRECT and ONLY CORRECT interpretation of Islam. This is a stupid message to preach, because it validates the ideology of our enemies. It's also ironic that it's gleefully by some Christians here since it's EXACTLY the same tactic that activist anti-Christian atheists take: Claiming that the most extreme and nonsensical interpretation of Christianity is the only valid one.
Given that the Democrats want to talk to these monsters, one can hardly blame the insane for talking like this.
Only if you think the truth is stupid.
L
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.