Even if USA Won't Say It, Terrorists Want Religious War

USA Today ^ | 10-30-02 | DeWayne Wickham

[SJackson]

From the beginning of the war he declared on terrorism, President Bush has said its targets are the people who put America in their cross hairs, not the Islamic religion. But for those Muslims who are on the other side of the battle line, religious beliefs are at the heart of this conflict.

[Diana Rose]

Here is as good a place as any to ask .... Is it Moslem or Muslim?

[carton253]

According to the dictionary, both are correct. Moslem is a variation of Muslim.

[Diana Rose]

Thank you!

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

[onedoug]

If they're Islamist, they're enemy.

[meenie]

It is hard to win a war when you won't describe the enemy. Adolph Hitler would have been described as a member of the lunatic fringe element in Germany. Unfortunately when a leader has the support of a majority of the people in a nation, you have to fight the whole country, not the fringe element that holds the power.

This is also true of our immigration. You can't pick and choose because it is impossible to look into the brain and determine which holds evil intentions toward you. Until we are honest with ourselves and decide who the enemy is, we are spinning our wheels.

[Valin]

BUMP

[ffrancone]

IN 5 DAYS, THEY'LL BE VOTING DEMOCRAT

WHAT ARE YOU DOING TODAY TO HELP TAKE BACK THE SENATE?

TakeBackCongress.org

A resource for conservatives who want a Republican majority in the Senate

[Jabba the Nutt]

"No one in official Washington or the capitals of Europe will admit it, but the world is being drawn into holy war — one that pits the United States and its allies against al-Qaeda and the untold number of Muslims from Africa to Southeast Asia who sympathize with the goals of bin Laden's terrorist organization."

A liberal/anti-American exposes his lack of vision. It's not just against the United States and our allies, Muslim terrorists have attacked in Russia, in Nigeria and the Sudan, in Argentina, in Algeria. They're attacking Christians in Pakistan, Nigeria, Sudan (also animists)and the Phillipines. They're attacking Buddhists in Thailand, Hindus in India and Bali, Muslims in Algeria, Palestine and Pakistan. They're attacking the Han Chinese (atheists, taoists?) in China's far west.

Muslims are on the warpath against every other religion and against people within their own religion. Their economies are collapsing, without oil, they produce almost nothing. Their culture is collapsing, in Egypt in the 50's 3000 books were published, today 300 are published a year.

Depending how it goes in post-Saddam Iraq, the world may have to quarantine the Muslim world, so they can only foul their own nests, rather than murder the rest of us.

[philosofy123]

a Gallup Poll found that 80% of the people in Pakistan thought the U.S. military action against al-Qaeda and Afghanistan's Taliban government was "largely or totally unjustifiable." That view was shared by 86% of Moroccans, 89% of Indonesians and 69% of Kuwaitis.

I don't understand what else is needed to drill this idea into the heads of our population! The politically correct crap, the public education (indoctrination) is causing lots of people to disregard the threat. The enemy is ISLAM, the religion itself, and not the Moslems. The US MUST push hard openly to reform the theology and dogma that has become militant Islam.

[MHGinTN]

It is this postponeNIK attitude, masquerading as reasoned debate from the closet socialist, that endangers our resolve ...Before this nation goes to war with Iraq, it must defeat al-Qaeda and the wider terrorist movement it has spawned. To do as this postponeNIK suggests will buy the necessary time for Saddam Insane to develop a nuke and use it for blackmail purposes to stay in power.

SinkEmperor played the postponeNIK game to allow himself a wedge issue for distraction purposes, thus endangering US by avoiding the dangerous build up of Islamism which gave US 9/11/01. The clintondemocrat party did zero to fight the war against terrorists which sinkEmperor declared during his disgrace period, thus emboldening the terrorists against America. How many more murderous attacks must occur to our people here and abroad before the voters realize democrats want US endangered, believing we will then beg for democrat marshall law?

Vote and throw the damn dangerous democrat party out of power, those who obstruct action for our future safety. Our military is well capable of dealing with Iraq and al Qaeda ... and when we do take Baghdad, the capture the intel in the form of paper trails which lead from Saddam to the various terrorist networks (and the Pali terrorists of Yeshisassisfat festering in Israel). It is time to act, not spin, time to be resolute, not a postponeNIK, time to protect our interests, not lay our collective necks bare to the democrat appeaser philosophy.

[Revolting cat!]

McPaper BUMP!

[LiteKeeper]

bump for later read

[Aquinasfan]

The world has been divided into two regions, bin Laden said in his post-9/11 message: "one of faith where there is no hypocrisy and another of infidelity, from which we hope God will protect us."

That argument seems to have taken hold in much of the Muslim world.

No s-it. It's Islam stupid:™

Ethiopia
Somalia
Sudan
Chad
Algeria
Egypt
Tunisia
Nigeria
Uganda
Israel
Lebanon
Yugoslavia
Russia
India
Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Pakistan
Phillipines
Indonesia
East Timor
Thailand
United States

[denydenydeny]

Indexing.

[Aquinasfan]

Moslem or Muslim?

I prefer Mohammedan because it signifies "follower of Mohammed" as in "follower of Mohammed, not God." Besides, they don't like it.

Mu·ham·mad·an   Pronunciation Key  (m-hm-dn) also Mo·ham·med·an (m-) adj.

1. Of or relating to Muhammad.
2. Offensive. Of or relating to Islam; Muslim.

n. Offensive

A Muslim.

[Diana Rose]

Mohammedan. That works for me. :)

[JasonC]

Of course Bin Laden and company -want- it to be a religious war. But we don't have to let them get what they want, and we aren't. It is not simply up to them, because they only -claim- to represent a billion people. In fact they do not. If they did, they would already control every Muslim country. As a fact, they control Iran (with a huge but disorganized domestic opposition) and perhaps Sudan - having lost Afghanistan. They have opposition groups and cells elsewhere of course, but they hardly speak for a billion people.

You don't let your opponent dictate the terrain on which you fight. You don't give him a billion allies simply because he wants them and declares that he wants them. The writer of this peace seems to regard the Islamicists -desire- for a religious war as dispositive and final, as though we have no choice in the matter, and therefore it is blindness and folly not to "call" it a religious war. Which is just poor strategy. We'd rather fight a war against a few nutjobs, because it is easier to win.

"But it isn't just a few nutjobs, because some of them want a religious war". True. But equally, it isn't a full blown religious war, because some of them want it to be just a few nutjobs. Where it really falls is not up to Bin Laden and company, nor up to us. It is up to those billion Muslims and their governments.

If they choose to side with Bin Laden, they get religious war. If they choose to side with us, they get a war against a few nutjobs. We are deliberately presenting them with that choice, because it enables them to back the winning side in a minor war if they choose cooperation with us. Whereas they will be on the losing side of a major war if they choose confrontation.

This is simply smart strategy, not denial of a "painful reality". There is no more "reality" to Bin Laden's desires than ours, and we have rather more power to get the split to happen our way. What will Muslim governments and populations choose? They will of course split, with some siding with each, based on their own interests and pressures on them, etc. We will get most of them, however, because losing major wars is not enjoyable.

It will mostly be powers that can't live with us anyway, who side with the Laden view - without being particularly religious about it, incidentally. Thus Saddam doesn't have a pious bone in his body. But he knows he is at war with us regardless, and he'd rather have allies in that war than face us alone. While e.g. Pakistan needs us desperately to avoid being isolated and at the mercy of India's superior military. So even under heavy domestic political pressure from Islamicists, their government sides with us.

The ordinary interests of geopolitics are not repealed by Bin Laden -wanting- a religious war. States have interests and pursue those interests, by choosing who to treat as an enemy and who to treat as a friend. They do not have any desire to abdicate their power to make those decisions to a self appointed fanatic who just wants to throw them against said fanatic's own enemies.

You have to recognize the two fronts of Bin Laden and company's campaign. Toward us, they want war as representatives of a billion people. Toward the existing leaders of those billion people, they are usurpers who want those leaders' jobs.