Understanding Sharia

[ QUOTE ]

We may already be fighting WWIII and are simply unaware of it at this point.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think we in fact are. It’s just not the type of war we’ve known in the past. And I don’t mean just the terrorists. But, another subject for another time.

[ QUOTE ]

…invade Muslim countries one by one…


[/ QUOTE ]

The Arab community is not as united as it once was (thank you Israel) but I’m not so sure all of them would stand by and let this happen. Of course, it would take a while for them to realize just what we were doing and they’d babble and bicker for quite a while before uniting.

I agree Iran is the primary target (and probably onscreen now in more than one “what if” scenario). As to Iraq, I would have been on Colin Powell’s side when he apparently argued against the invasion. I definitely believed it was the thing to do when the intel we now know wasn’t accurate was presented to the White House and him. I never doubted his sincerity when he was presenting our case at the U.N. Nor GWB’s when he made the decisions he did.

My fear then was that we were about to embark on a trip we’d never undertaken in our history. The first strike. Now that we’ve done it, well we still don’t know.

And, had we taken out Iran instead of Iraq, Sadaam would probably be the pussycat Khadafi is today.

[ QUOTE ]

…upon invading a country target all the radical clerics with extreme prejudice…


[/ QUOTE ]

100% agreement

[ QUOTE ]

…allow other religious leaders to step forward from the community but quickly assassinate them if they started…


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. 100% agreement. And I think the word would get around pretty quick!

[ QUOTE ]

…same tired Islamofascist babble…


[/ QUOTE ]

I’d like to see the Imams all brought together to hash out just exactly the Koran says and means. OK, that’s not totally doable, but some sort of ecumenical council ought to at least settle the major differences. One says “this” about killing and another says “that.” Too bad they don’t have a Pope. (oh, and that thing about the virgins? How many donks have strapped on a pack for that little gem?)

[ QUOTE ]

If there were entire populations of radicals in place, I would round them up and kill them systematically. I would put a campaign in place to detain every reporter who came into the area until this process was complete, thereby preventing the flow of information out of the area.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, Ex, how do you really feel? J Man, you are really opening the proverbial can here. The potential threat of insurgents has to be dealt with, yes. Early and decisively. Word of the “unfortunate fate which befell certain countrymen” will spread without CNN’s help, I’m confident.

I think the media embed idea had a lot of plusses and few ticks on the downside. Major downside ticks in your scenario, so leave ’em back at their comfy hotels. For these little forays of yours, you have to use small groups of our guys that know how to do it, fast, and keep quiet about it. My only concern would be insuring we’ve got the right targets sighted. I could be convinced.

[ QUOTE ]

Eventually, the radicals would be replaced by more moderate, spoken tolerant, Imams. Once the movement is neutralized in one country and a democratic state with a free market is established, move to the next state, where the Islamist movement is the strongest. Execute all their radical Imams and so on.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here’s another sticky place. Without some sort of cohesiveness among the Imams and commonality in their teaching, the cycle will never be broken. Some little guy claims he’s spoken directly with Allah, knows the “true way,” forms his own little army, and stuff starts hitting the fans again. Simple eradication won’t solve it, I don’t think. (see ecumenical council)

Also I question whether our (the US) definition of democracy and free market is ever going to be accepted, totally, in that part of the world. To many of them, free market means Sadaam’s way of doin’ bidnezz. So many of them don’t seem to give a rat’s ass about their countrymen starving. And keeping them uneducated is the best way to do whatever the hell they want. Not unlike Mexico. (ooops, another subject)

When we somehow get things sorted and semi-settled in Iraq, I don’t doubt their neighbors are going to be watching more than a little closely at how it‘s working. Eventually, success there, I believe, is going to make for changes throughout the region. The intent of GWB’s policy. Then we don’t have to do this “invasion thing” again.

Yes, our use and mis-use of energy has to change. I don’t think you can isolate the transportation sector. It’s across the board. We use it like it’s never going to run out. And still goes for ten bucks a barrel.

Also, the good citizens of Florida and California are going to have to accept oil rigs operating off their pristine shores. It’s out there, we need it (until the damned fuel cells are a reality) and they sure as hell shouldn’t be allowed to prevent them. (can you say Public Domain?) Oh, and let’s not forget the ANWR thingie. It’s got too much potential to be so worried about a few critters in a very small portion of a very large area. They’ll move.

While we’re drilling, our less than adequate and dangerously located (can you say hurricane?) refinery situation has to change. Somehow, someway, the pollution problem vs. profit necessity, differences have to be settled.

OK, I feel a lot better now! Thank you for the opportunity to calmly air our semi-mutal views. Permission to go ashore?

Good luck to you and hope to cross words with you again. (I think there’s a line back there but I’ll pass, this time.)

[Exsubmariner]

So, you would support plan A or B if there were a technically efficient manner to execute them?

As for plan C; I assume you are talking about the parts of the peice which explain how you must expose the destructivness of the ideaology... i.e. educate the populations..... You cannot do that, in a technically efficient manner, I mean.

[Exsubmariner]

Nuts,
Please keep in mind that I am not being subtle here on purpose. It simplifies things greatly. Better minds than mine could probably formulate subtle and effective ways to accomplish what it is I am talking about. Using scaples instead of broadswords, figuratively speaking.

I feel compelled to point out that the capacity of the US government to conduct "black ops" has been greatly reduced, mainly thanks to eight years of the Clinton Administrations policy of "spies? we don't need no stinking spies."

Special ops and a policy of assassination would probably be very effective. Kill the terror cells in their infantcy. Of course, it would be impossible to ensure 100% bad guys only would be killed, so we must be morally clear that innocents will die and accept the blackness of that on our conscious. As a society I doubt we have the capacity for such an undertaking.

Unfortunately, I fear that means many, many more of us will die before we do. Terror will only get worse. 9/11 has already become the benchmark. I doubt that open war or covert war makes any difference.

As for a Moslem equivalant of a kind Vatican counsel...I think it is coming, but the participation of clerics form extreme Sharia practicing sects is highly unlikely. It will probably be constituted of religious leaders already living in the west, which would give the eastern sects reason to discount it.

The key to domestic energy production is the political victory of the nation's interest over the special interests of enviroactivists in this country. The backlash is brewing. On energy and many, many other things. I look forward to 2008.

X

[Jdanz]

i think your statements in this thread contradict your ideas on freedom to an incredible degree.

If you want to be free to make choices, you have to let other people be free to make choices, if life liberty and happiness mean to you a happy afterlife, then people must be free to pursue that as well, by your logic.

[Exsubmariner]

I see no such contradiction, honestly.

There is a distinct line to be crossed in defending my own freedom from those who would take it from me vs. being tolerant of others seeking their own freedoms in whatever manner they see fit. I recognize the right of no one to exercise their freedom by taking mine.

Statements made in this thread are simplified and put forward with the pure notion of what would be necessary to actually "win" the war against Islamofascism.

BTW, I am thinking very hard about your posting in my other thread and I am trying to formulate an adequate reply.

[Jdanz]

that's all i can really ask for, i'll continue in that thread.

[Jdanz]

just as an aside, i really wish we had some muslims on this board posting in politics (if in fact we don't?)

my very good friend and roomate happens to be muslim, and i'd say he's my most religious friend at school, and of course he's a completely "normal" guy. There are certainly as many crazy christians or jews as muslims. Just that some people we don't like happen to be muslims, and use islam as a justification for action doesn't mean much.

wacky christians /= christians having no value
wacky muslims /= muslims having no value

however people = people

that doesn't mean we can't have different desires and goals, as do many americans, engineers, jews, young and old. People have ideas about what life means and what makes it worth living, and without fail these ideas don't line up neatly along any group lines, regardless of certain preponderances.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
So, you would support plan A or B if there were a technically efficient manner to execute them?

[/ QUOTE ]
Heard the story about the sergeant running up to his officer to report why the soldiers have stopped firing at the range? He said, "There are seven reasons. The first one is they run out of ammo."

[ QUOTE ]
Plan C - expose the destructiveness of the ideology... i.e. educate the populations... You cannot do that, in a technically efficient manner, I mean.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is not only technically possible (and in a relatively efficient manner as well), it seems like the only sensible play left.

By the way, it is not simple "educating the populations". You have not read it thoroughly or you have not understood it. The man says, for starters, that WE must understand what we are up against; we must go beyond the anti-muslim propaganda. We must learn about the enemy.

We don't know - and we don't wanna learn (e.g. MMMMMM).

[Exsubmariner]

Sorry Cyrus,
I don't mean to argue here, but we have a hard enough time providing education to our own children. How are we going to educate children on the other side of the world immersed in a culture where their religious leaders tell them to kill Americans so they can go to paradise and spend eternity with 72 virgins?

I did read the whole article and the part about understanding our enemy. My retort is that we are a couple of thousand years ahead of them in our cultural thinking. The best we could hope for is to find hole in their ideaology to use their own rhetoric against them. Chances are it would be ignored. Ideaologically speaking, I don't believe there is any way to win them over.

A propaganda campaign inside countries who supply us with oil, and are closed off to us, and who censor and control the flow of information inside their own borders would be incredibly difficult, to say the least.

This leaves nuclear weapons.

X

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
This leaves nuclear weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

You understand, I trust, that a NL tournament poker strategy that ultimately leads to moving all-in being the only tactic for survival means either that you have been terribly unlucky somewhere along the line or that the strategy has been extremely faulty.