War on Islam or Terrorism?

[CrimsonWhite]

Is the war we are fighting a war on terror or a war on Islam? Please post your answers and reasonings.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

We are waging a war on Islam. We can candy coat this all we want to and President Bush can call it a "War on Terror." The fact remains that if the Muslim world isn't shown that we will respond then they will keep attacking the 'infidels' on their quest for a 1000 virgins. We need better tactics and better direction, but the war is necessary. I don't feel that Islam should be erradicated, just beat decisively.

 

[jillian]

We are waging a war on Islam. We can candy coat this all we want to and President Bush can call it a "War on Terror." The fact remains that if the Muslim world isn't shown that we will respond then they will keep attacking the 'infidels' on their quest for a 1000 virgins. We need better tactics and better direction, but the war is necessary. I don't feel that Islam should be erradicated, just beat decisively.

Well, at least you're honest.

 

[5stringJeff]

Since all the terrorists we're fighting seem to be Muslim, I would call it a war on militant Islam.

 

[manu1959]

if it is a war on islam why are we not blowing up mosques? why are we nopt bombing mecca? why are we going out of our way to respect the religious beliefs of those we have in military prisions by giving them koran's and allowing prayer and food preferances?

if it was a religous war, we would be exterminating them just as i belive richard I did during the crusades.

 

[deaddude]

if it was a religous war, we would be exterminating them just as i belive richard I did during the crusades.

Historically inaccurate, Richard only fought in a single crusade, died on the return journey. He did not exterminate Muslims, in fact he brokered a peace treaty with them which allowed the muslims to maintain control of Jerusalem, but also protected the rights of christian pilgrims to vist that holy city.

As to the subject, I am in full agreement with manu. It would be foolish to go to war with Islam as a whole. Last time I checked they made up approximately one fifth of the worlds population.

 

[I_Love_America!]

Did you mean "Mutually Inclusive," rather than "Mutually Exclusive?"

 

[Annie]

Did you mean "Mutually Inclusive," rather than "Mutually Exclusive?"

Use the quote button at bottom right of the reply form. Then we know who you are 'speaking to.' Thank you.

 

[Rico]

I don't believe we as Americans have of yet, and many on this board also, acknowleged that this is indeed a war with Islam. The terrorists are merely continuing that which is a historical precedent of Islam, namely, expansion of their religion through violence. Granted, Mohammed and his followers after his death, used organized military war as a method of extending the reach of Islam, but today is a difference merely in method not in motive.
The terrorists are Islamic are they not? The terrorists extol Islam, it's laws and practices, and proclaim to be killing "infidels" in the name of Islam? This is a fact. Furthermore the terrorists desire to bring down the West, including enemy number one to them The United States, because we are not Islam or believe differently. That is fact.

When was the last time you saw Islamic people protesting the terrorists use of violence against the West? Answer? It is also a fact that by not condemning or attempting to stop terrorism against the West that Islam is endorsing terrorism. It is the current means of extending Islam and destroying Christians and Jews. Islam cannot win a conventional war with the West, the United States in particular, so they resort to terrorism as their weapon of choice.

It is difficult for the Western countries to grasp and politically incorrect to state that Islam itself is the enemy but that's where we are. The fundamentalist portion of Islam, by far the largest and most violent, desires a return to the 7th century and the destruction of those, i.e. the West, that stand in its way.
Until we really face up to what is happening we will be fighting a piecemeal conflict into the forseeable future. We in the West, and of course first and foremost we Americans, must make it clear that not only do we intend to remain Christian, but that we will fight them to the death to maintain our faith and our culture.

The greatest act we as Americans can contribute to this will be the weaning of the United States from the Arab/Islamic teat of oil. The backwards bastards think they have us over a barrel (At $75.00 a barrel of oil they do) and they believe us to be weak liars with no faith or morals. So we MUST rid ourselves of any dependence, and with effort and forsight, any importation of oil from Islamic countries. When we accomplish that we can begin the real fight against Islam. As long as we appear as nothing but a preening, self indulgent people, who will lie down with dogs merely to quench our thirst for Islamic oil, we are in a no win situation. We MUST become energy independent and that is the first step to defeating Islam. Without the sword of Islamic oil embargos over our heads, and the subsequent presence of Americans and Westerners in the region because of oil, the enemy of Islam has no teeth. Removed of its ability to harm the West through oil embargo coupled with the lack of Westerners in the region to terrorize cuts the rug out (yikes a pun) from underneath the threats from Islam.
Islam is on the march. We are its targets. Until we come to grips with the reality of the situation we will continue fighting terrorism as if it had no base to support it. It's base is Islam. It's goal is the capitulation and absorbtion of the West and Christendom. To act as if terrorism has no conection to the religion it expounds and relies on for its capital in blood and money welcomes our ultimate destruction.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Did you mean "Mutually Inclusive," rather than "Mutually Exclusive?"

Nope I said it right. I know what it means.

 

[I_Love_America!]

Use the quote button at bottom right of the reply form. Then we know who you are 'speaking to.' Thank you.

I was quoting the original survey itself.

 

[Annie]

I was quoting the original survey itself.

Well ok then, the terminology works.

 

[1549]

Plain and simple:

Fighting islam is wrong. It is a misunderstood religion with devoted followers all over the world including many in the U.S. The VAST majority of these muslims are less violent than your christian neighbor who pisses on his own religion by owning guns, voting Republican, and watching Pat Robertson.

Few care to acknowledge that terrorism--and even violence in the US--is an outgrowth of social environment. When a population has little, it becomes desperate.

You throw in the idealists who look to improve their environment and the power hungry who can take advantage of the idealists and the desperate...suddenly you have a legit movement.

Rico is right that American dependency on oil is not a good thing, at the same time withdrawing from oil use would only worsen the situation. More impoverished people who need someone to blame.

I am not a believer in war, but I do feel that the campaign in Afghanistan was necessary. It cleaned out a state that made no effort to stop terrorists and it improved the lives of the locals.

Iraq is a different story. Iraq was not a 3rd world country before the war, but 3 years of bombing puts a country on the bubble of disrepair. In previous countries that had an economic dominant minority (like the one that existed in Iraq under Hussein) the fall of the dominant minority led to ethnic cleansing. That would be a tragedy caused by America's paranoia.

 

[Bonnie]

1549

Plain and simple:

Fighting islam is wrong. It is a misunderstood religion with devoted followers all over the world including many in the U.S. The VAST majority of these muslims are less violent than your christian neighbor who pisses on his own religion by owning guns, voting Republican, and watching Pat Robertson.

Few care to acknowledge that terrorism--and even violence in the US--is an outgrowth of social environment. When a population has little, it becomes desperate

Not our faults, we as a nation are very generous . Blame their dictatorships for their misfortunes and lack of freedom to better their lives. Im so amazed that you say terrorism comes from oppression yet you staunchly disagree with us being in Iraq and liberating people who once were terribly oppressed and slaughtered..It makes no sense!!!!!!!

I am not a believer in war, but I do feel that the campaign in Afghanistan was necessary. It cleaned out a state that made no effort to stop terrorists and it improved the lives of the locals.

Iraq is a different story. Iraq was not a 3rd world country before the war, but 3 years of bombing puts a country on the bubble of disrepair. In previous countries that had an economic dominant minority (like the one that existed in Iraq under Hussein) the fall of the dominant minority led to ethnic cleansing. That would be a tragedy caused by America's paranoia.

I really don't see how People who vote Republican, watch Pat Robertson, own guns for their own protection and the protection of their families equate to violent people. That is a broad cliched and ridiculous statement.
So much for you having an open and tolerant mind??

 

[Abbey Normal]

Plain and simple:
...
Fighting islam is wrong. It is a misunderstood religion with devoted followers all over the world including many in the U.S. The VAST majority of these muslims are less violent than your christian neighbor who pisses on his own religion by owning guns, voting Republican, and watching Pat Robertson.
...

I'm curious: Which misunderstood part of Islam killed Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh for criticizing the treatment of women under Islam?

And you know we could fill pages with other examples.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Plain and simple:

The VAST majority of these muslims are less violent than your christian neighbor who pisses on his own religion by owning guns, voting Republican, and watching Pat Robertson.

Show me the verse in the Bible where it is unchristian to own guns, vote Republican, and watch Pat Robertson. Chapter and verse please. This is possibly the stupidist thing I have ever heard.

 

[1549]

Not our faults, we as a nation are very generous . Blame their dictatorships for their misfortunes and lack of freedom to better their lives. Im so amazed that you say terrorism comes from oppression yet you staunchly disagree with us being in Iraq and liberating people who once were terribly oppressed and slaughtered..It makes no sense!!!!!!!

I see what you are saying. The old regime's oppression was terrible and, depending on the person, life is better without Hussein. Hussein's regime was not the sort that left the masses impoverished. Iraqi's are not terrorists. They did not live in the sort of country that would breed terrorism and Hussein viewed the presence of terror orginizations in his nation as a threat to his own power.

Now, while losing thousands of American lives...I think Iraq is more likely to breed terror than it was before. It also may be vulnerable to genocide (I stated that before). In the end the Iraqi people will make life without Sadam better or worse than it was with him, regardless of what kind of government America tries to implement.

I'm curious: Which misunderstood part of Islam killed Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh for criticizing the treatment of women under Islam?

Don't be ridiculous. You and I both know that things are often done in the name of religion by those who look to manipulate the texts to their advantage. Its what extremists of any religion do.

Show me the verse in the Bible where it is unchristian to own guns, vote Republican, and watch Pat Robertson. Chapter and verse please. This is possibly the stupidist thing I have ever heard.

I have to leave for class now, so I am going to be an ass about it and say read Exodus chapter 20. I will post more evidence and give my explanations later in the evening. Check them out some time if you still are interested.

I am sorry that I have to run after creating such a stir.

 

[Rico]

I see what you are saying. The old regime's oppression was terrible and, depending on the person, life is better without Hussein. Hussein's regime was not the sort that left the masses impoverished. Iraqi's are not terrorists. They did not live in the sort of country that would breed terrorism and Hussein viewed the presence of terror orginizations in his nation as a threat to his own power.

Now, while losing thousands of American lives...I think Iraq is more likely to breed terror than it was before. It also may be vulnerable to genocide (I stated that before). In the end the Iraqi people will make life without Sadam better or worse than it was with him, regardless of what kind of government America tries to implement.



Don't be ridiculous. You and I both know that things are often done in the name of religion by those who look to manipulate the texts to their advantage. Its what extremists of any religion do.



I have to leave for class now, so I am going to be an ass about it and say read Exodus chapter 20. I will post more evidence and give my explanations later in the evening. Check them out some time if you still are interested.

I am sorry that I have to run after creating such a stir.

antiquated. You posted you were going to class so I suppose you're in college. And of course they are teaching you the Marxism/Leninism revisionist version of history. For God's sake don't buy that tripe and learn to think for yourself.
Osama Bin Laden is from a VERY wealthy Yemeni family. Ayman al-Zawahiri was born to a prominent middle class family in Maadi, Egypt, a suburb of Cairo. Neither of these men are poor or ever were poor. Sorry but the Marxist/Leninist theory falls apart on first inspection of who these people are. That's the erroneus historical, economic, and social, mistake the left has made in regards to Islamic terrorists. It's actually the sons of the rich or moderately wealthy who are leading the cause.
This isn't an economically or socially caused movement. These people are hard core Islamic fundamentalists who want the West out of the region and preferably destroyed to make way for global Islam.
To attempt to simplify or categorize this struggle as one of a Marxist/Leninist understanding of history and dialectics is just flat out wrong. It mischaracterizes the reasons the terrorists believe what they do and their motivation to action. They are Islamic fundamentalists with a gun and a bone to pick with the West which they feel superior to on a moral and spiritual basis. They want Islam to be the sole (Not soul) religion on the planet. And they intend to use whatever means at their disposal to obtain their goals.

So sorry fella but that age-old Marxist argument doesn't hold one grain of sand of truth in this situation. And you can tell your professors if they are propounding that theory then they are wrong and don't understand the situation.
This ain't your Soviet grandpappy's dialectics at work or a struggle of the proletariat. These are evil people with a perverted understanding of the will Of God and the desire to kill you and me. Think about the problem on your own, throw out Das Capital and the Communist Manifesto, and pull your head out of your backside before they further poison your mind with tripe that wasn't true in 1917 and it ain't true now. Thank you for your time and have a pleasant day.

 

[theHawk]

I answered "War on Terrorism" because that is what we are fighting at this moment. We should be fighting a war against all of Islam though. Islam fundamentally is not compatable with our western values. Just because a culture has incompatible values to our own is no reason to go to war of course, however this particular group seeks to impose their values on our own. There is no tolerance for not only the values of our western culture, but also for the people who hold such values. We probably would be perfectly content with the existance of their culture should they keep to themselves, but when they flood western countries and then expect the people of those countries to change laws to fit them as we are starting to see then it becomes apparent what their goal really is. And in order to prevent this from happening we simply must fight back. To say that we should be "at war with Islam" does not mean we should try to destroy the religion itself or its followers. It simply means we need to fight them until they give up their goal of changing our societies to conform to theirs.

 

[1549]

antiquated. You posted you were going to class so I suppose you're in college. And of course they are teaching you the Marxism/Leninism revisionist version of history. For God's sake don't buy that tripe and learn to think for yourself.
Osama Bin Laden is from a VERY wealthy Yemeni family. Ayman al-Zawahiri was born to a prominent middle class family in Maadi, Egypt, a suburb of Cairo. Neither of these men are poor or ever were poor. Sorry but the Marxist/Leninist theory falls apart on first inspection of who these people are. That's the erroneus historical, economic, and social, mistake the left has made in regards to Islamic terrorists. It's actually the sons of the rich or moderately wealthy who are leading the cause.
This isn't an economically or socially caused movement. These people are hard core Islamic fundamentalists who want the West out of the region and preferably destroyed to make way for global Islam.
To attempt to simplify or categorize this struggle as one of a Marxist/Leninist understanding of history and dialectics is just flat out wrong. It mischaracterizes the reasons the terrorists believe what they do and their motivation to action. They are Islamic fundamentalists with a gun and a bone to pick with the West which they feel superior to on a moral and spiritual basis. They want Islam to be the sole (Not soul) religion on the planet. And they intend to use whatever means at their disposal to obtain their goals.

So sorry fella but that age-old Marxist argument doesn't hold one grain of sand of truth in this situation. And you can tell your professors if they are propounding that theory then they are wrong and don't understand the situation.
This ain't your Soviet grandpappy's dialectics at work or a struggle of the proletariat. These are evil people with a perverted understanding of the will Of God and the desire to kill you and me. Think about the problem on your own, throw out Das Capital and the Communist Manifesto, and pull your head out of your backside before they further poison your mind with tripe that wasn't true in 1917 and it ain't true now. Thank you for your time and have a pleasant day.

No theory--liberal, conservative, or other--can be applied to reality and be 100% correct. There is too much we don't understand about society and the mind.

The theories regarding environment and structural violence creating physical violence are not antiquated and are likely more right than anything else. But as I stated before, there are also people hungry for power that can take advantage of that.

I will describe this not in terms of terrorism but in terms of communism. Communism was developed by a working class man: Karl Marx. It fit well with the world's proletariat and they adopted. It would be logical that the rich and wealthy shun communism...after all, they are rich and wealthy. But they don't because it is idealistic.

A movement meant for the poor, but often adopted by the wealthy.

Now to the middle east. The extremist movement is not the movement of the poor. It is promoted by conservative university teachers and what not, but it recruits and gains a lot of its power from the poor who can fill ranks. The leaders such as Bin Laden (son of the man who did all construction for the saudi royals) are the ones who buy into it for the ideals (a muslim world free of everything western) and the idea of power.

I hope that clarifies my argument.

I am writing the biblical stuff from before in its own thread