Understanding Sharia

[vulturesrow]

The one from Jordan asks me and another friend of ours (who is Jewish!) to send him Playboy magazines. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The one from Jordan asks me ... to send him Playboy magazines.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no way this can be in the same letter as a death threat!

Tell us more about the threats and the background. This is interesting.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Here Here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where? Where?

[Chris Alger]

So you think "the policy of the Bush administration" (1) is to create secular, rights-oriented democracies; (2) together with the undeniable promotion and backing of the proposed Iraqi constitution, which it had a strong hand in drafting, yet (3) everyone knows that the fruits of bush administration policy amount to "disintegration of the counrty and civil war." Why don't you just say: "I have no idea what I'm talking about and can't even organize my thoughts."

And why were the drafters "troglodytes"? Answer: because they are Muslims, and therefore The Other, worthy in your mind of forced extinction.

[ QUOTE ]
I am not advocating genocide by any stretch of the imagination. I am simply putting forward a strategy that I consider necessary to "win" against extreme elements of the Islamic faith.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your term, not mine, for what you advocate is "war of extermination" against all "Islamicists" or perhaps the even more nebulous "extreme element" within Islam. Whomever these turn out to be, together with their wives and children, countrymen, fellows and braod swathe of bystanders, the toll inherently means the slaughter of innocnent millions.

Nothing needs to be stretched to fairly call you genocidal, self-destructive and suicidal. You're guilty of the sort of real, hard-core America hating of the sort that led other avowed "patriots" desolate Europe repeatedly.

[MMMMMM]

I think Exsubmariner may be oversimplifying and over-reacting a bit. More on that in a moment.

Also, let's clarify the term "Islamists." My understanding is that it refers to those politically extreme Muslims, who generally want to bring about rule under Sharia, and are often willing to fight for this end. Also, the Global Jihadists such as bin-Laden and Zarqawi are included in this group. Islamism refers to hard-core political Islam, and Islamists are drastically opposed to any separation of the religious and the secular.

The group called "Muslims" is a much larger set, and in addition including some Islamists, of course includes a great many more moderate Muslims as well.

I don't think it would be possible to completely destroy radical Islam. It is the sort of fanatical ideology that just appeals to some people.

If radical Islam, or Islamism, keeps attacking the West, and things escalate instead of calming down, things could get a lot uglier than they are now.

I think Exsubmariner is right that we need to defeat radical Islam and the jihadists, etc. A problem is that they are intermixed with the more moderate population as well.

I don't see us trying to take over Iran or Syria or Saudi Arabia anytime soon. However if attacks on the West escalate, and the jihadist mentality continues to spread, and especially if Iran gets nuclear weapons--well then the West may have no choice but to launch a war against those countries and attempt to occupy and reform the Middle East, much the way Nazi Germany and Japan had to be defeated and occupied. Hopefully this won't come to pass. But if it does we have to win. And for matter of that, we have to win even if it doesn't come to pass.

Islam, and more especially, Islamism, are inherently opposed to virtually all liberal Western values. If they keep attacking the West and trying to enlarge their territory by force, push will come to shove a lot more than it has already. And unfortunately there isn't much to reason with against religious fanatics who cannot in their minds separate the secular, and secular politics, from the religious. I don't think all Muslims think like this but basically all Islamists do.

More hopefully, there has been progress made against al-Qaeda as recent reports indicate. Also, some large-scale terror attacks have been thwarted over the last few years. al-Qaeda is under inceasing pressure and hopefully is experiencing increasing difficulties.

Again, I think Exsubmariner is oversimplifying and overreacting a bit. However he is right that we need to defeat this crazy and pernicious ideology of radical Islam, and the fanatics who are willing to fight and die for it. It may never be totally defeated but hopefully it can be contained and its allure can be diminished if the example of Iraq should eventually succeed. Al-Qaeda knows this and therefore is deeply committed to ensuring that the Iraq experiment fails. Hopefully we can hunt down and capture or kill as many terrorists as necessary to thwart their most evil ambitions on many fronts.

There is yet hope that Iraq will mold into a democratic state, and that reason and democracy will spread throughout the Middle East. How much or how little hope, is anyone's guess at this point. That sort of spreading success however could well be the best way to avert another actual World War, of the West against the Middle East.

Some elements of the Middle East are already prosecuting that war against us, but the scale is not yet to the point where we would be compelled to take over and occupy most of the Middle East. However if a spate of truly large-scale terror attacks should be successfully implemented against Western countries, and if Iran continues on its path towards acquisition of nuclear weapons, such a World War may be the ultimate result. Europe is already awakening a bit from its slumber and lethargy. If they keep getting attacked, and are attacked far more damagingly, I think we may eventually experience a mobilization of the West not seen since WWII.