Posted on 09/23/2014 2:20:42 PM PDT by NYer
snip
To picture the jihadists and leaders of the Islamic State as mere “terrorists” or thugs is to use Western political terms to blind ourselves to the religious dynamism of this movement. No wonder our leaders cannot or will not understand it. This purpose, when successful, is a terrible thing.
snip
Briefly put, Islam, in its founding, is intended to be, literally, the world religion. Nothing else has any standing in comparison. It is to bring the whole world to worship Allah according to the canons of the Qur’an.
Ping!
Think Crusade!
When a people become too civilized to do what's necessary to survive in an uncivilized world, they won't survive, nor do they deserve to survive.
Only a blind fool would answer in the negative.
I don’t think that world religion really is/was the purpose of Islam. It always was a war plan designed to further the self-aggrandizement of an ego-maniac (Mo) by bribing violent psychopathic criminals to his service.
Mo’s gone, but the machine rolls on.
Sometimes I think that Islam is whatever the people high up in the Islamic hierarchy want it to be. Why, sometimes I even think that Obama envisions himself as the arch-interpreter of Islam and Marxism. Everyone else is doing it wrong.
bkmk for later
A good article but it fails to mention one important thing, that is, that Islam itself is divided. There is a great rift in the religion itself and for many centuries the largest number of victims of violence from Islam have been other Muslims.
If they were to unite (as ISIS proposes ... again at the point of a sword) they would be a great threat to the West.
But until they do unite, they are not a great threat. Sure, one side of each sect can cause a lot of damage and death ... but nothing on the scale of what ISIS intends to bring upon other Muslims who they consider to be not of the “true faith”.
Therefore, they must defeat, completely subdue and dominate and then and force into service their own ‘muslim infidels’ FIRST before they can begin on a quest to do the same to non-muslim infidels.
I propose that they will have great difficulty doing this as it has never been done over many centuries but not for lack of trying. Many millions have been slain, maimed, brought into slavery to those ends but still, no success in getting a “one true Islam” amongst themselves.
In the meantime while they are busy trying to unite all Muslims (and slaughtering many in the process), why get in their way?
This seems like the most stupid tactical error that can be made ... to cut short one’s enemy from destroying itself.
This is essentially what we are have been doing in the ME since Bush I went in to ‘help’ the Kuwaitis (who were ever so ungrateful for us sparing them from Sadaam). I realize we had other geo-strategic reasons for doing so ... but still, why would we bother to save the Kuwaitis from Sadaam? Even if it is only in hindsight, we must acknowledge now that was a stupid move.
Long term I’d like to see us wait until our enemy kills more of our enemies because this will mean fewer people for us to deal with later.
Let’s defend our own territories in the West but do not waste precious lives, equipment, assets and money protecting Muslims from Muslims. This just makes no sense whatsoever.
This is a lengthy article and perhaps you missed it but that divide is mentioned:
Obviously, the enemies of the Islamic State and its jihadist allies are not only the “Crusaders” or the West. Some of Islam’s bloodiest wars were its invasion of Hindu India, where the tension remains marked. There are also Muslim efforts into China. The Philippines has a major problem as does Russia. But Islam wars with itself. The Sunni/Shiite struggles are legendary. It is important to note that one of the first things on the Islamic State’s agenda, if it is successful in surviving, is to unite all of Islam in its creedal unity.
It further develops the impact of this, regionally ...
All existing Islamic states are some sort of compromise between the true Islamic mission and forces, usually military forces that limit this world-wide unification. Almost all standing Muslim governments recognize the danger to themselves of a successful Caliphate. They all have some form of jihadist presence within their boundaries that seek to control it in the name of their very survival.
Perhaps that is why Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are joining forces with the US.
I do not trust any such partnership. They are "joining forces" to save their own hides ... that's it. They will turn on us in due course. Do you really think the Muslims in these countries care about us?
This is what I mean about tactical errors. Why protect Muslims from other Muslims?
Reinforcing the idea we must kill them (islamists) all.
I take it seriously, but I’m not sure that our president and staff do.
Very good point. When I read “The mission of mankind is the submission to Allah in all things. Once this submission is in place, the sphere of war will be over.”, i thought that they will just turn on each other, Sunni vs Shia, and other heretics.
You are conflating the message of Schall's piece with the true nature of Gulf War I -- which was strictly political and economic, having nothing to do with Islam, at all.
The Iraqis and the Kuwaitis weren't going to slaughter each other, not would the Iraqis have slaughtered the Saudis -- who were next in line. Oil and, thus, economic leverage were the only stakes for these then-secular regimes.
Thus, we weren't taking sides in a religious war -- as you're suggesting -- we were intervening in favor of "the free flow of oil, at market prices", just as GHWB pronounced.
Or, at least, confirming the notion that Islam and the West cannot co-exist forever.
At some point, one must win, the other be destroyed.
It is inevitable...
I didn’t say we were taking sides in a religious war. The reasons given at the time were that the poor Kuwaiti’s were being overrun and slaughtered and we just had to go in and save them. (I remember the rhetoric back then)
I’m saying, economic interests or not, we should stay out of there and they should stay out of here.
It’s not religious for us, but it is for them.
Yes, as they have done for over 600 years and counting.
I don’t see any reason to expect it to be different this time.
You do not recall "The free flow of oil at market prices"? It was on the tip of GHWB's tongue and was repeated incessantly at the drop of a hat.
Precisely because it was THE reason for intervention -- and a legitimate one.
Personally, I don't recall a single humanitarian justification issuing from the administration.
Very refreshing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.