Constructive engagement

[wacki]

On second thought MMMMMM, how do we know it's really Islamic fundamentalism? The 9/11 suicide bombers went to strip clubs. Isn't that a no no according to Islam? Then again, it is sin according to the Bible as well, and porn is still a multi billion dollar industry. So who knows....

[MMMMMM]

I'm a huge fan of religious tolerance, too. The one intolerable thing is applied intolerance. And Islamists (Islamic "fundamentalists") are the most reliously intolerant people on Earth--and they want to force everyone else to conform to their narrow vision, through political and/or violent means. This is why Islamism is so dangerous, and in a class by itself.

[wacki]

I'm not sure you got my point. I was simply wondering if the terrorists on 9/11 were truly Islamic (Muslim?). A lot of those guys don't seem to be religious. Hence the reference to the strip club. I just see a lot of flaws in the more violent extremists that makes me wonder if they ever really picked up the book. It also makes me wonder what really is the primary problem.

I agree with you that the Koran has some very questionable and dangerous sections in it.

[MMMMMM]

Hi Wacki,

I was responding to this: "I'm a huge proponent of religous tolerance and even I will admit this."--not to your post about the 9/11 hijackers. Do you view posts in Descending Date Threaded Mode Condensed Threads like I do?

[MMMMMM]

I'm not necessarily saying we should DO that at this point...but the point at which we should do it may not be all that far off, given the Iranian Parliament's determination to acquire nukes and their hatred of us.

[ACPlayer]

Both are equally bad. Ask the Jews killed by the Nazi's.

Islamic fundamentalism is very bad. However, it is the nature of fundamentalism and the environments in which it prospers and is promoted that should be studied carefully. Islamic fundamentalism in today's world is a reacion to poverty and perceived or real injustices and attacks on people. Without those, the fundamentalist message falls flat and is no real danger to us. This is what you and others need to understand.

In any event, Iran in particular has not been a threat to the USA as far as I can tell. I know that you can see behind simple rhetorical (you have already demonstrated the ability to do that when it pleases your preconceived notions). The Iranian chants should be viewed the same way as the "axis of evil" speech. Rhetoric aimed primarily at internal politcal goals.

If American economy suffers a great deal, look for an accelaration of the fundamentalist trends already underway.

[ACPlayer]

We were assured that the best minds had created the best plans to win the war and the peace by the administration. So, in their mind they moved all-in.

Of course in hindsight it is now obvious that the "peace-niks" were right and the administration was wrong in the decision to move all in and totally in competent in playing the hand they initiated.

Compare, GWB's poker skills to Nixon (who's move was a long term good bet).

[MMMMMM]

If you call our involvement in Iraq, "moving all-in", I wonder what you would have called the U.S. involvement in WWII. "Moving all-in for real", maybe?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Both are equally bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Christian fundamentalism is willing to co-exist with secularism and a secular government. Islamic fundamentalism is not willing to co-exist; it holds that the laws of man cannot trump the laws of God, even in government. Thus Islamic fundamentalism is far more dangerous.

Additionally, some of its leading modern-day practitioners are terrorists like bin-Laden or Zarqawi, as compared to the likes of Falwell and Robertson (who limit their form of "terrorizing" to things like instilling congregations with fears of hellfire). bin-Laden however practices actual terrorism.

You are comparing the fruit of deadly nightshade with the fruit of the lemon tree, and saying they are the same. But deadly nightshade will kill you, whereas a lemon only leaves a sour taste in your mouth.

[ QUOTE ]
Islamic fundamentalism is very bad. However, it is the nature of fundamentalism and the environments in which it prospers and is promoted that should be studied carefully. Islamic fundamentalism in today's world is a reacion to poverty and perceived or real injustices and attacks on people. Without those, the fundamentalist message falls flat and is no real danger to us. This is what you and others need to understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

It simply isn't true that "Islamic terrrism in today's world is a reacion to poverty and perceived or real injustices and attacks on people." THAT IS A MYTH.

(excerpt)"1: Terrorism and poverty: What are the links?
Since September 11, a number of politicians, including President Bush, have linked poverty with terrorism. At the March 2002 World Development Summit in Mexico, world leaders declared that the fight against poverty was intrinsically linked to the fight against terrorism. Common sense would dictate that there is a direct correlation between poverty and terrorism, yet the evidence gathered thus far does not lend credence to this proposition, and if anything, supports the opposite.

A recent Princeton study of Israeli and Arab terrorism in the Middle East demonstrated that not only were most terrorists likely to enjoy a living standard above the poverty line, but they normally had at least a secondary education.(1)

(1) 'Education, Poverty, Political Violence and Terrorism: Is There a Causal Connection?' Alan B. Krueger, Princeton University and NBER and Jitka Maleckova, Charles University, Working Papers, Research Program in Development Studies, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, May 2002. (end excerpt)

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/wsg/sept...ers/root2.html

(excerpt)
It is not too difficult to examine whether there is such a correlation between poverty and terrorism, and all the investigations have shown that this is not the case. The experts have maintained for a long time that poverty does not cause terrorism and prosperity does not cure it.

In the world’s 50 poorest countries there is little or no terrorism.

A study by scholars Alan Krueger and Jitka Maleckova reached the conclusion that the terrorists are not poor people and do not come from poor societies.

A Harvard economist has shown that economic growth is closely related to a society’s ability to manage conflicts.

More recently, a study of India has demonstrated that terrorism in the subcontinent has occurred in the most prosperous (Punjab) and most egalitarian (Kashmir, with a poverty ratio of 3.5 compared with the national average of 26 percent) regions and that, on the other hand, the poorest regions such as North Bihar have been free of terrorism.

In the Arab countries (such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but also in North Africa), the terrorists originated not in the poorest and most neglected districts but hailed from places with concentrations of radical preachers. The backwardness, if any, was intellectual and cultural — not economic and social. (end excerpt)

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/7250.html

[ACPlayer]

It is not I who said that the war was carefully thought out planned and that we had deployed all needed resources to manage the war and the aftermath.

In the minds of the people doing all the chip moving they were making a full commitment. Unfortunately, they are bad poker players and made a bad bet. Hopefully the result will be better than their play.