"Islam seeks our destruction."
Pretty well sums it up, doesn't it? Why don't people understand that simple statement?
War on Terror is too ambiguous.. start at least, by declaring war on known Terrorist States. Begin with Iran.
Sadly, the West has yet to admit that it really is a war. We are pretending it is a police action, which is a great way to loose wars.
The first sentence should go on a battle flag !
Our religious upbringing, which ingrained in us the propensity to 'live and let live', is going to get us and/or our children killed. We won't be 'let live' ourselves, because the anti-civilization hordes are taking over through the sheer magnitude of their expanding population and sphere of influence.
It's very simple, because the West cannot or will not accept the alternative, which is war for complete and utter dominance over the other side. The idea of declaring war on an entire religion smacks loudly of persecution and the history of war and persecution in the West condemns that in the harshest of ways - it's ingrained in the consciousness of the West. We feel that they've progressed beyond that, and think that by engaging in a world wide religious war, we'd backslide society by hundreds of years. Yell, scream, jump up and down, nothing short of a nuke will change this.
If this was an all out war in a building and positioning phase, one side would benefit greatly by having the other side refuse to acknowledge it was actually at war.
For later.
Well said. It's not looking good for the West.
Great points. We all have known (here at least), that we are fighting Islam in a religious war, not terrorism. But the key to this article is pointing out that we should be installing secular Attaturk style governments, not necessarily democracies.
You need to post more often. I love your little graphic.
However, for Bush to come out and declare things along the lines in which the author points would be to stir up more of a hornet's nest than has already been done by our actions. Does anybody remember Bush #41's comment, "Wouldn't be prudent"? Methods of action are passed down from Father to Son. 'Prudency' at the present time dictates we accomplish each designated task one at a time because it seems we are very alone in this struggle. Most of the rest of the 'Civilized World' (ie. Europe, etc.) seems to be, at best, uninvolved, and at worst, downright contrary to our overall mission. We are stretched at the present time, yet we must not fail, for Civilization depends on our success. 'Prudency' dictates a 'methodical' approach: First Afghanistan, then Iraq. Syria, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela........."Take a number, we'll be with you shortly".
I truly wish Bush would call a spade a spade! However, realistically, I know he can't. Not yet at least.
I am going to make a BIG assumption that the lack of belicose language on the Adminstration's part is actually a concious attempt to slow things down a bit and pick off these idiots one by one.
JMHO.
Excellent article ping!
I am glad most Americans aren't as irrational is this guy.
Yerushalmi assumes that there's an Islam distinct from the varying views of Muslims and it's downhill from there. Whatever people object to in a "neocon" war for democracy, a "paleocon" struggle of tribes simply asserting their tribalism would be worse.