if your position even remotely resembles oppressing thousands of peaceful American Muslims,
We should be careful before assuming that a recognition of a Clash of Civilizations between Islam and the West implies a desire to oppress those Muslims who actually do live peacefully among us.
The question on the table is this:
Do Islamic moderates represent "true Islam," or are the elements of Islam that are intransigently hostile to us the true spiritual heirs of Mohammed?
I've come to the latter conclusion, but I also recognize the benefit of fighting against a fractionalized opponent, rather than a coherent, pan-Islamic jihad. The best course, it seems to me, is to correctly identify our foes and thier motives, while prudently avoiding actions that would make them a more dangerous enemy.
We should be careful before assuming that a recognition of a Clash of Civilizations between Islam and the West implies a desire to oppress those Muslims who actually do live peacefully among us.
I don't have to assume it, the poster in question admitted such. He has called for this repeatedly in fact, all over the forum.
IMO, that's a huge mistake.. if for no other reason (of which there are several, actually) than the "benefit of fighting against a fractionalized opponent" you cite.
As far as the question of Radical Islam being the mainstream.. I honestly don't know.
The Bible, for example is very plain and explicit.. Yet you see very spirited arguments on the interpretation of scripture that exist to the present day. I know that personally I have big problems with the way some passages are intrepreted by my Catholic bretheren.
I maintain that I am correct in this and by the same token I can see where a "moderate" Muslim might argue that he's a "true" muslim and be convinced of it..
He may well be wrong, but if he believes it and is not using the Koran to justify religious oppression then who am I to argue and why would I wish to?