Posted on 01/07/2007 10:35:17 PM PST by neverdem
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.