CHILDREN OF THE GRAVE. a three part series
- Children of the Grave, Black SabbathSo you children of the world, listen to what I say
If you want a better place to live in spread the word today
Show the world that love is still alive you must be brave
Or you children of today are children of the grave.
Part 3: Opposition Symantics
In this final installment, I will try to present another aspect of the war, how it is assumed by Americans, some analogs for consideration, and then hopefully a cohesive explanation for my stance on Islam. I forewarn that the material is a bit dense so I will leave this entry open for an extended period of time.
I had alluded to the nebulous nature of our enemy in most areas of Iraq in the previous post. This began a new train of thinking on my part about the existence, focus, and driving force behind the "isurgents". It is my assessment from watching American news networks that we maintain troop levels here to secure the country against "insurgents". Sure there is that inexplicably slow process of electing a government, which we did last January, and are doing again in 11 days, but the reason fed to the populace is to defeat the insurgent movement.
Maybe I am overstepping with that last statement. I can't remember hearing the term 'movement' associated with insurgents; implies too much organization and purpose. What is the purpose of the insurgents? To disrupt? That is not a purpose. If it were a legitimate purpose then the insurgents would have been disrupting Hussein's secular government, also. They weren't. So what is the purpose of the insurgents? That is the dangerous question because once accurately answered, will unravel a much larger scale war. A war that only one side is truly willing to fight and die for.
It all began with a documentary about the rise of Castro in Cuba. Wednesday I walked into the shop and it was on TV, so I watched it. Fascinated by how much I was finally being told about the rise and work of the Cuban dictator, I started to realize how programmed we are to believe things in the name of Patriotism. I believe true patriotism comes from the honest integrity of the nation's society and not some pablum propaganda fed to us through the media. So, the documentary came to the point in which castro betrayed Che Guevara to protect himself. Che, though Communist, was a revolutionary and an icon in the realm of guerilla warfare. By definition, he was also an insurgent.
That is when the symantical game being played became more obvious to me. Insurgent has been presented and infused with a negative connotation. From the Wikipedia: When used by a state or an authority under threat, "insurgency" implies an illegitimacy of cause upon those rising up. In South America in the 1980's I remember them being called guerillas and our government funding specific (terrorist) rebellions. Even earlier in history, we Americans called them heroes.
I started my research on terrorism, insurgency, guerilla warfare, and government overthrow. There seemed to be nothing new in the existence of the current insurgency in Iraq, many conflicts in the 20th century were either based on insurgency, or insurgency was a factor. The difference apparently was the lack of an admitted unifying purpose for their actions. How could this be? Are these insurgents nothing more than disgruntled citizens showing their displeasure in copycat fashion? The level of insurgency here is amaturish in comparison to any other. Giving them the title 'guerillas' would imply too much legitimacy. The term 'terrorists' is not close to being appropriate since it is not terror they are promoting to disrupt a foreign government or society, it is their own. And also, most of the targets selected are military or political. A few are chosen to outrage as in the case of the Iraqi school children blown up near an American HMMWV. The 9/11 attackers were terrorists, the London bombers also. These folks in Iraq are guerilla by definition.
Guerillas, insurgencies, rebellions, conventional military operations all need a unifying ideology through which to communicate and base mission goals. It is no coincidence that the insurgent attacks in Iraq are all within the same realm. It is also no coincidence that events such as this happen. I have been blowing the horn of awareness since I started this blog and much longer before that in person. The common thread is too obvious for us to accept. It isn't an accident that immediately after the 9/11 attacks, the President responded by reassuring the American people and the world that this is not a war on Islam. But it is.
How much reactionary opposition I have taken by people for years when I point this out. Amazing to me that the most vehement opponents to this idea are people that have the least interest in islam, the Middle East, military, or foreign policy. The hardest critics have been whitebread suburbanite caucasions christians surrounded by white suburbanite friends and family. Astonishing that mostly they parrot some news piece touting tolerance towards islam. Why so much attention to something that is not the poblem? Imagine as a parent, walking in to the kitchen and seeing your 4 year old son standing by the cookie jar. You say, "Hello", he says "I am not hungry for a cookie" and stands there smiling. Hmmmm.
But it isn't simple. We are not trying to defeat islam much in the same way we were not trying to defeat Nazism in WWII. Along these lines of political thinking, we supported Nazism for many years, but we opposed the annexing of Europe to Hitler's Germany. Analogously, we gain nothing essential by trying to defeat Islam, while we must make it a factor in our fight. Why? Because that is the anthem that the uprising proclaims. They proclaim after every act that they did it in the name of Islam for Islam. We ignore those statements.
Obviously the insurgents desire some result from their actions. That result has never ever been revealed in the American media in a truthful manner. It is my summation that the insurgents want to install a sovereign islamic government, autonomous and self-derived. Arabic peoples are proud to a fault by western standards. The presence of Americans is an insult to their cultural sensitivity and the hand holding we provide in the development of the new government is seen as a thin veneer for American Imperialism. Right or wrong, it is hard to deny, especially looking back on our own history. We would have accepted no outside intervention. We westerners see a need for security and support to facilitate the democratic process. This language and conceptual set is as foreign to them as is being shown the bottom a sandal would be insulting to us. And they don't trust us because of Israel.
The reason we as a nation cannot admit that it is a war against Islam is simple. The answer is 1.2 billion. Even a decent percentage of these muslims being sparked to any action would be disasterous for the US military and western culture. The world system would very possibly implode.
The insurgency in Iraq specifically started out with the intent to reinstate the Ba'athists' control over the region. Orchestrated by Hussein before his demise, the insurgency was political in purpose. Once that was dealt harsh blows, Al-Qaida in Iraq was formed and mobilized to aid in the resistance. al-Zarqawi formed this sister organization to Al-Qaeda for two simple reasons; self-glorification and islamic beliefs. Hussein's troubles gave al-Zarqawi the opportunity he needed to gain infamy on the world stage. After the Ba'athist-fueled insurgency waned, the islam-charged rebellion began. Islam became the tool for recruitment, the justification for the deeds. But Al-Qaida in Iraq is not a terrorist group, it is a guerilla movement.
The symantics influences how we view al-Zarqawi as well as the insurgents themselves. Calling him a Leader of the resistance is too Romantic to keep public opinion neutralized. After all, we don't want to see t-shirts with the glorified image of al-Zarqawi being sold at Spencer Gifts at the mall, do we? The western masses must not be sparked into thinking for themselves on foreign policy matters. Luke Skywalker was the Rebel Leader...leader of The Rebel Alliance. How popluar would Star Wars be if Luke was referred to as the Terrorist Mastermind....leader of the Insurgency? We root for the underdog many times, and many times it is because the underdog is right or has some qualities we can identify in ourselves. I do not find anything honorable in the insurgency, not in Iraq or Afghanistan. I wanted to point out how we all need to be careful of symantics and how powerful labels can be.
This post was inspired by a Freedom Fighter that I respect and admire for his conviction to his cause and his resolve in effecting his deed. Jan Palach brought attention to the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1969 by means of public self-immolation. An everyday man can stand up and make change in the world.
posted by Dorman at 16:59
54 Comments:
There has always been 2 things I have believed in…..
1) There are always at least 2 sides to every story.
2) The media does not tell the whole truth, but only what THAY are told to report.
I don’t fallow this whole Iraq situation as closely as some, maybe even most. It’s not that I don’t care, but rather because I have so many other issues to concern myself with. But I can tell you this. As stated before, I am a Gulf War Vet. I spent a few weeks in the sand and many months on a tin can watching hundreds of sorties depart and return. That was almost 15 years ago. Although most assume that the ‘Gulf War’ was from 1990-1991, officially it has never really ended. I choose to believe that this is nothing but an extension of the original. With a long lull in the action, we went back in years later (well, we really never left) to take care of business that the ‘ol pres’s dad started years ago. Yes, he was asked by Saudi Arabia for help on 7/8/90. He was asked to send troops, but nun the less; it’s still his mess.
I’m somewhat ignorant to today’s entire goings on over there so all may shoot at me at will. It’s my opinion and opinions are like (censored word goes here).
See Mrs. Dorman, I didn’t even swear!
Jan Palach A man who fought against occupation of his country by a foreign army intent on taking away his religion and more. Thanks for the link, I will be reading more about how this great super power drove this one man to do what he did.
"the President responded by reassuring the American people and the world that this is not a war on Islam. But it is."
Wow. I would like to think this is a war brought on by ignorance on all sides, with legitimate complaints by all sides. and rather than confront these issues and try and work to an understanding we have all gone cowboy. I have read the Koran, and it is no less silly than the bible in some ways. it has valuable lessons inside, just like the bible, and calls for war against infidels, just like the bible. i do not disagree with your statement, but instead would prefer that we back out of this religious venture, and start applying logic along with heart. i am not holding my breath, and in reading through your lines and matts i do see a war that will not be over for a long time. at some point we either rise above our base tendancies, or we wipe ourselves out. i vote for rising above.
sorry i had to come back over and see some actual adult conversation. i put up a serious post today, and have spent all day dealing with little twerps. thanks for the breath of fresh air.
I would like to think that all armed conflicts have thoroughly contemplated justifications for them. I would also like to think that Heidi Klum will leave Seal's ugly ass and run away with me when I return to Germany. I'd say it is just as likely.
To clarify also, in case I didn't hit the mark, the war against Islam is not a war to necessarily eradicate it from Earth (that's my personal goal) but instead it has to be realized that islam is the tool and method the enemy uses for recruitment, attack, and justification now. Attacking that breaks down the system that the enemy functions under. I firmly believe that 99% of these walking bombs have no idea of politics but are doing it under islamic promises. Islam is a shackle.
and APoV, another of my quiet revolutionary idols....
Thik Quang Duc
Speaking of superpowers and sacrifice. But the truth is the US had nothing really to do with it. ahem.....
word just in:
" Heidi Klum will leave Seal's ugly ass on monday new york times reports. Klum has developed hots for a military blogger in Iraq and will be waiting naked in his driveway for him to return, identity of the blogger is as yet unknown."
see what happens when jack doesn't show up and get torqued? god i miss him. *sniff*
off ap wire
>eluded
Try "alluded"
> I can't remember hearing the term 'movement' associated with insurgents; implies too much organization and purpose.
They have plenty of both. Have you seen the movie "The Battle of Algiers?" It's like a primer on insurgency against occupation. The organization and purpose and deep, but not hard to set up.
>What is the purpose of the insurgents? To disrupt? That is not a purpose. If it were a legitimate purpose then the insurgents would have been disrupting Hussein's secular government, also. They weren't.
Saddam was better at maintaining a murderous terror state than we ever could be. Plus, he was from Iraq and grew his power base there over the years. We just arrived. Any insurgency has a much better chance against us than against him. Attempts to fight Saddam were strangled at the cervix.
> Are these insurgents nothing more than disgruntled citizens showing their displeasure in copycat fashion?
No, many act out of sincere conviction, but most do so because if they don't help the insurgency, then THEY are terrorized and killed, along with their families.
> The level of insurgency here is amateurish in comparison to any other.
Amateurs or not, they are achieving their objectives and we ain't.
> Guerillas, insurgencies, rebellions, conventional military operations all need a unifying ideology through which to communicate and base mission goals.
Hardly. Fear for your life and the lives of your children is enough. And look at you, Dorman, over there serving in a war and doing your duty when you obviously think for yourself. Most people in the US no longer agree with Bush's handling of the war, we're not "unified," but the government is unhindered.
> ...the President responded by reassuring the American people and the world that this is not a war on Islam. But it is.
Oh, I agree that it is. But that doesn't make it right. Islam is not terrorism. We ought to use our resources to defeat terrorism. But we don't. You are there in Iraq, of all places. Better he should have invaded Mexico. La cerveza es mejor.
> Why so much attention to something that is not the poblem?
Well, in this case, you're saying that it is. So some of us commented on that.
> They proclaim after every act that they did it in the name of Islam for Islam.
Jim Jones did what he did for Christ. So he said. Does that make it true?
> Obviously the insurgents desire some result from their actions.
They want power, to become the new Saddams.
> It is my summation that the insurgents want to install a sovereign islamic government, autonomous and self-derived.
Quite likely. But also allowing murder and torture and plunder.
> This language and conceptual set is as foreign to them as is being shown the bottom a sandal would be insulting to us. And they don't trust us because of Israel.
Agreed.
> The reason we as a nation cannot admit that it is a war against Islam is simple.
I admit it. But I don't want it. I want us to defeat terrorism.
> ... Al-Qaida in Iraq is not a terrorist group, it is a guerilla movement.
Agreed. It's both, but agreed.
> How popluar would Star Wars be if Luke was referred to as the Terrorist Mastermind....leader of the Insurgency?
Well but we don't see Luke blowing up marketplaces or crowds of children.
> I do not find anything honorable in the insurgency, not in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Agreed.
...Dorman, I read your whole post and you never made an argument for your case, which I think, from your previous posts, is that Islam is evil and must be crushed. Your mind is lost in the wilderness of your own words.
brainhell
cannot argue with your comments but your logic trail can be applied to chrstians. do you want to make that leap or perhaps, would it not be better to find a way not to throw the baby out with the bathwater? tough call. i think that we as humans are a long way away from these kinds of leaps. better baby steps.
I do have an entry in which I show Islam corrupted from the start by the originator, Mohammed. Allah Tahlize
and Luke killed 10's of thousands by blowing up the death star, couldn't have all been military on board, maybe KBR had 3rd world nationals running the Death Star DFAC and scrubbing rhe Death Toilets.
Billy Bob,
I think my point was that Dorman doesn't have a point. But if Dorman's condemnation of Islam can be applied equally to Christians, I think that shows how pointless it is to identify Islam as the problem.
Dorman,
Yes, I recall that post, and that I disagreed with it. As to Skywalker al Hassani, he was engaged in an organized military operation against an enemy base. and when the American military kills unintendeds (like at a wedding) we respond that they are 'collateral damage' and that it was a safe house or that we took fire from there, and that insurgents have weddings too. My point is NOT to defend the war record of Luke Skywalker (please let's not start a side debate on that!), but rather, that when you're killini' people, you tend to have justifications which make it OK in your mind, but maybe not OK in other people's minds. And so the terrorists and insurgents will continue to believe that they are justified, and they're just USING Islam as an excuse, and that you call for a war on Islam plays right into their strongest suit.
brainshell
i do totally agree, but if dorman said nothing, they would continue their battle with the same intensity. that is because dorman and several thousand of his friends are standing there in iraq.dorman does not help his cause, but he is there in iraq, and as far as i am concerned, while he may be idealistic, he has got the right to make commentary on war as he is in one. his words cannot make that situation any worse, and if it did, how would you measure it?
Whoa. Let's put a stop on purposely putting words in my mouth. First of all BH, my personal stance on Islam as a whole was not even a topic in this post.
I stated that islam has been used as the tool that supplanted political intention and communication after the original Ba'athist insurgent groups were scrambled. Al-Qaida in Iraq obviously in-your-face uses islam as the tool for recruitment, communication, and for control of the masses. They use a muslim vocabulary, use muslim motivators, convince the perpetrators that they operate within the muslim paradigm and are promises a muslim reward.
I think your blind defense of religion is stupid frankly, as is the blind defense of anything that bears examination. Christianity has nothing to do with this but it could be examined in the same way....go ahead. And the result is? Christianity is messed up and violent too? Ok, so how does that have a lick to do with what I am saying? Did I EVER once say that Christianity is the answer and we should convert these folks? No. So enough with that intellectual dishonesty. Islam is corrupt on its own merit, if Christianity is too then so be it.
Hitler youth were indoctrinated into the nazi belief system. Did we attack the kids or the nazi philosophy used as a tool to bind them to the cause?
Once we can realize how islam is used in the regeneration of insurgents then we can break that cycle in a more effective way than just waiting and killing them. that should make some of you non-violence advocates happier than Rumsfeld's plan. Once we can disillusion the muslim populace to the wiles of the insurgency then we have a chance to get them to stop being influenced.
Billy Bob,
Oh, Dorman has the right to say what he likes. By saying that Dorman is playing into their strong suit by (apparently) fingering Islam as the enemy center of gravity, I am not claiming that he as an individual is helping the insurgents. The Bush people are giving the insurgents (and the terrorists) loads and loads and generous loads of support and motivation. Dorman can't hold a candle to that. Dorman has, I think, correctly identified their sub rosa policy: A war (a Christian Crusade) against Islam. That doesn't make it smart. I'm saying that Bush and Co. are losing the WAT, by misguided adventures, and Iraq is just a case in point. The war against Islam is another case in point.
> Let's put a stop on purposely putting words in my mouth.
Perish the thought.
> ...my personal stance on Islam as a whole was not even a topic in this post.
OK, but then I don't see what you are proposing that is any different from the Administration line. I do consider myself a careful reader, but maybe I missed the point of your post.
> I stated that islam has been used as the tool that supplanted political intention and communication after the original Ba'athist insurgent groups were scrambled
True.
But Islam is not only a tool used by those who twist the message of Islam, it is their most effective shield. You attack Islam and you walk directly into their trap. They would LOVE it if we would attack Islam more openly. It's already a powerful recruiting tool, don't help them make it more powerful.
> I think your blind defense of religion is stupid...
I don't defend religion.
> Did I EVER once say that Christianity is the answer and we should convert these folks?
No, but have you ever once understood that I am saying that you will not get anywhere by attacking a religion? All you do then is cause the 2.1 billion to rise up against you. Al Qaeda would LOVE that!
> So enough with that intellectual dishonesty.
Good thing I never undertook that approach.
> Islam is corrupt on its own merit...
I disagree. The proof is in the pudding. The world us full of many Moslems who are not terrorrists.
> ...if Christianity is too then so be it.
My only point in mentioning Christianity is to show by analogy that you can't get anywhere by appearing to attack people's religions. My point is that your supposed "case" against Islam was so one-size-fits all that it could be used against any religion. An argument that broad has no merit.
> Hitler youth were indoctrinated into the nazi belief system. Did we attack the kids or the nazi philosophy used as a tool to bind them to the cause?
We made war on both. If we had killed Ratzinger with a bomb in WWII, no tears would have been shed.
> Once we can realize how islam is used in the regeneration of insurgents then we can break that cycle in a more effective way than just waiting and killing them.
True. Islam is misused in the regeneration of insurgents. Part of breaking the cycle is to acknowledge that Islam is a valid faith that we respect, and pointing out that the killers are twisting a fine faith, and lying about it in order to create a cauldron of violence that benefits maniacal thugs.
I attack the true cause of something and don't let fear or PC get in my way, a spade is a spade.
I have proven, yes proven, before that Islam is only MISinterpreted by the moderates and those non-fundamentalists. That's the meaning of fundamentalist in the first place. They do exactly what Mohammed said AND did. If others want to water it down and change it while keeping the same name of the religion, then so be it, but don't consider them REAL islam. And don't even try comparing american muslims to mid-easterners.
The point of this post was pretty obvious....you americans get played by wording from the media and administration. Also, we are not fighting a war on terror here, we are not fighting Al-Qaeda nor the Taleban nor anyone that had ANYTHING to do with 9/11, but because of well chosen words the populace assumes we are.
How sickened I am every time i see a commercial on TV from people back home thanking us for "fighting for their freedom" and "making America safer for them to live". Puh-lease. Insurgents exist because we are here. They are NOT terrorists.
funny to me still how nazism, communism, satanism, etc still all have the ability to make everyone conclude that they are all bad and need outlawed or eliminated, but another obviously dangerous group/philosophy/religion is valid because they are a religion. Wouldn't want a nazi living down the street from you I bet. Ignorant hypocrites.
Go get um tiger!
"Islam is a valid faith that we respect, and pointing out that the killers are twisting a fine faith, and lying about it in order to create a cauldron of violence that benefits maniacal thugs."
agree totally. most religions,excepting the belly rubbers, have a war component in them, either metaphor, or literal. there are many good muslims, and many good christians, my first point earlier, was that we cannot go after religion yet, it is way too early, and frankly, i think we need it, as there are many people i do not want to see without a moral compass. we have to go after ignorance, try enlightenment and love, and understanding first, take enough time to exhaust all options peaceful, then when no growth is seen and only then," metaphorically nuke them", if we don't operate this way, the human race is a goner.
BBG, I appreciate the comments. I am not religious, and had long ago left my Roman Catholic upbringing, but I think it's a dangerous thing to decide one day that my beliefs are fine but, well these other people, they will not allowed to have theirs any longer. Like the presumption of innoncene until proven guilty, allowing freedom of beliefs is fundamental to dignified life. There is also concept of proportionaility, we no longer put entire families into debtors prison, it is does not benefit society to punish anyone at all related to the person that failed.
Stalin, Mao, and others have all tried to eliminate faith in their countries. They have failed. Where they have "succeeded" they failed humanity in their methods.
It is not Islam that is being protected. It is ourselves.
Dorman,
Referring to Islam, you decry the perception that [an] "obviously dangerous group/philosophy/religion is valid because they are a religion."
While I disagree that Islam is "obviously dangerous," I have been unable to persuade you otherwise, or convince you that basing our national policy on such a notion would be a mistake.
Fair enough.
So what I would like to see, then, is a plan from you regarding what we should do about it, if indeed Islam were "obviously dangerous."
What action should we take?
dorman i have backed you 100% on this, and further I know what you are saying but brainshell's last post, begs a good one from you. i know, i know what you did and did not say, and i read between the lines, but either you expand or defend, or submit. i believe in you, give the man what he asks for.
leave nothing fuzzy or grey. this discussion is a critical as any to all our survival.
adendum:
dorman
i know what i think you would say, i learned a bunch about you in the flurry we had a month ago. i came out of that with more respect for you, than I had before. because of that respect, I will not dare to put words in your mouth. not that brainshell is simple(he's not)but think Lindsey Graham (i love that little punk) and put it in terms a child would get. these kinds of things cannot be too high up. That is why my Sunday Sermon swung so low, everybody has got to get it.
then those that cannot, well you know.
Once that was dealt harsh blows, Al-Qaida in Iraq was formed and mobilized to aid in the resistance. al-Zarqawi formed this sister organization to Al-Qaeda for two simple reasons; self-glorification and islamic beliefs. Hussein's troubles gave al-Zarqawi the opportunity he needed to gain infamy on the world stage. After the Ba'athist-fueled insurgency waned, the islam-charged rebellion began. Islam became the tool for recruitment, the justification for the deeds. But Al-Qaida in Iraq is not a terrorist group, it is a guerilla movement.
Just one thought, though this seems fairly correct I think it would be more correct to say that the Ba'athist and Islamist organizations were formed simultaneously, but the Ba'athists already had a base to pull from for fighters as opposed to Zarqawi needing to recruit as he went with the Ba'athist movement crescendoing (or waning) as Zarqawi, who had been working more closely with them in 2003, became independent with zarqawi now declaring himself a totally separate entity.
However, I think it that your statement seemed to imply that he was not there until after the Ba'athists went kapoot. (though, I know you probably did not mean to imply that).
As far as questions of ideology and movements, the three main groups or labels do have have specific ideologies and goals though the problem may be that they are incomplete and do not specify what is usually a long list of demands and expectations for governing. (this is not a problem for us because lack of such specifics can appear as "no plan" - think kerry campaign 2004 - which is usually a losing hand in a political fight.
For instance, yes, the Ba'athists would have liked to defeat the Americans and free Saddam, putting him back to power and hoping to return to at least pre-2003 conditions. That is a movement and ideology, but it lost legitimacy actually on April 9 so everything after that is really just a rearguard action since the Ba'athists as an organization will not be able to come back to power.
Now, the second group of largely Iraqi "insurgents" is not fighting just for the hell of it either. This is really about representation and security of a minority in the new government. I think this group is looking for the new government to fail, but not necessarily so they can have total power over Iraq, which, again, with the Shia having large representation in the military, backing of Iran and lots of money and arms flowing to them, would be an impossibility unless Iraq broke into three parts. Instead, what this group is looking for is "leverage" or a bargaining chip to leverage additional representation in the government, by delegitimizing the government and putting it in a weaker position, thus providing the leverage required to extract specific guarantees such as financial security and safety from persecution for real or perceived past injustices as an arm of the regime. I don't see these as "Ba'athists".
I believe that the political leaders of this group who are recognized as "legitimate" use the military operations the same way Sien Finn used the operations of the IRA to stir up trouble whenever they needed to create disruption in the activities of the recognized Irish government and British activities in order to get their demands at least listened to.
Further, as we see with negotiations with "insurgent leaders" of this second group, they are following a classic opposition insurgency by first having put out a list of over reaching demands regarding the ouster of American forces, the implementatin of a "pure" Iraqi government, the expectations of 50% representation in the government (far larger than their actual population) and then negotiating down from there to simply protection of rights and secutiry, economic protection and legitimate representation.
If there is any part of the insurgency that one may find some common ground to work with, this is it and we are making efforts towards that.
And, hey, if the negotiations go south, all they have to do is go back to blowing things up and re-instate their old higher demands.
I'm sure that, besides the three basic things I've listed, this group of insurgents have some other demands, but I would need more statements from them to make a good analysis.
Whom we do get the most statements from is the AQ folks largely because they are small enough that they need to rely much more on public addresses to re-enforce their position as the scariest guys on the block. They too actually have an ideology or movement that we well knew yet ignored for some reason, maybe because we do know how small it is in comparison to the other movements and how little it is accepted when the Iraqis split into 3/5 Kurd/Shia, 1/5 sunni secularist and maybe 1/5 potential sunni Islamist for recruiting . Basically, this group says it wants to set up Iraq as the primier emirate following sharia law. The model that they have been using in the areas they do take over is setting up a shura of mujihadeen (so, little actual representation from other traditional leaders like clerics who don't exactly fit their model and shiekhs or other civic leaders like businessmen), an "Islamic court", security apparatus and vice and virtue police. These are generally separate from the guerilla military wing. They have set the model for their expected governance of an Islamic emirate and their movement is to install it all over Iraq.
HOwever, I believe that this group has met its own limitations and may have scaled back their expectations to simply first taking and controlling one part of Iraq where they can set up base and dig in for the long haul when they might influence or expand to a larger commiserate area.
The limitations on these expectations come from three main points:
1) No matter how devout their host tribe or area, they alwayrs tend to go over the top and tick them off, disrespecting local leaders, supplanting them with their own shura council (including locals who are less than respected and their own foreign fighters...don't believe me, believe Zawahiri's letter), and basically inflicting arbitrary laws that do not resemble the shaira law many of them may have lived under being Ashari and other sect of sunni, not wahhabism.
2) The base of their movement is extremely small and must fear, as zawahiri noted, that beginning a civil war with the Shia as the specified group is a lose-lose situation.
3) They cannot establish their political ideology until they actually can own and operate freely, openly and with relative security in some area and where ever they try to do so, we attack them driving them underground or away. Recruiting to the cause is much harder when you can't openly operate, even if you do take advantage of things like the internet and open media.
As an example, imagine the US military's probability of recruiting efficiently if it were unable to have recruiting stations in the open and go securely from place to place or have unmolested bases of operation.
These last will be the least likely to give up and requires, not a political solution so much as psyops and military to reduce potential number of recruits and attrit existing forces.
So, to say that none has a "movement" is incorrect. What is correct is to say that each group's movement has variable potential for success in achieving their goals.
Finally, on the war with Islam, I think that Dorman's point about WHY we say things like we're not a war with Islam is the valid point. If you want to win an insurgency, as we've seen in Iraq, you have to be able to separate the insurgents from their base and the first thing you do is define boundaries which allows the citizens a safe place outside of your aggression and diminishes the ranks of potential recruits.
Divide and conquer. However, I also agree that "conquering" or destroying Islam is extremely unlikely. Just as unlikely as destroying Christianity. Yes, the expectation is that Islam becomes less of the lone vehicle of self and political expression in the ME (since governments are notoriously represeeive), less of a cult like religion and more inline with certain other Muslims ideas about the spirituality of Islam instead of its political construct.
Right now we do have to fight physically the forces that attack us and that includes where ever these forces set down and try to take root. And, in fact, by delegitimizing them, we are, however mildly at the moment, attacking Islam as it exists today.
By pushing for democracy, what we are looking to establish is an outlet through which political identity can be developed and expressed at the local level which will help people move away from "I am a Muslim first" ideologies and identify more closely with their local identity (ie, I am Saudi ARabian first and Muslim second).
Right now, Muslim first is what allows the Islamists to identify with and pull recruits from a larger group. Again, maby over simplified, but it is "divide and conquer".
However, I do want to say, while we are discussing this here, it is unlikely that we will see any such statements from our government, regardless of who is in charge, because of course the problem of 1.2 billion people identifying with the religion and secondly because, aside from religion, the other thing these groups have in common is recurrent colonization over several hundred years and this colonization was able to take place because the Europeans were fairly successful at coopting local disputes to "divide and conquer".
Don't think that this is not in the back of the mind of every person in the ME, even those who are opposed to the Islamists and tyrranical governments. They are extremely aware of their history.
I was having a discussion with an Iraqi who was very much opposed to Saddam, the terrorists and thankful for the US intervention. However, while we were discussing the different insurgency groups I mentioned that the likely strategy would be to divide and conquer. when I used that phrase, he became very upset and then proceeded to give me a history lesson of the region along with instructing me that such language would be even more inflammatory if I had been speaking to someone I did not know.
so, while I understand why it is people wish for a more succinct acknowledgement of who and what we are at war with and how non-recognition of the fact seems to confuse those that should be behind it, the lack of direct acknowledgement would in fact, be an important part of the strategy. so now we have moved from "these men are not Muslim" to, "they call them selves Muslim and others refer to them Islamofascists and they coop a good religion to further their all to material and political agenda".
Baby steps, but important if you do not actually want to be involved in an actual, balls to the wall, world war that would certainly include more than just the Islamists and the US as each nation would determine which side most threatened their national interests and security and choose accordingly. One would not like to bet, in the current atmosphere, that the big dogs would all flock to our side.
Oh, meant to add of course, that group two, the major part of the insurgency, is not just about altruistic endeavors to protect their large "identity group" of sunnis. The same way that certain "leaders" of identity groups in the US have used incidents to get their races in front of the camera, thus recognized as the "leader" and developing their position of power through the only conduit that the government and these identity groups can speak to each other, group two also consists of individuals who are simply using the issue as a vehicle of power, largely for purposes of self interest.
It just so happens that they have the money, the conduits for negotiation and the people willing to pull the trigger whether this is for money or for some other reason of loyalty (I almost hesitate to say "tribal" but that seems to be more of a factor for the insurgents in the far west of Anbar).
well kat, impressive. you get into a few details that i did not possess as much knowledge of as you seem to, but your trail looks sound. i was wishing again for discourse that was lowered or dumbed down a bit, actually more now, this conversation needs to be seen by anyone who pulls a lever in the U.S. (war has always been a grey area with no easy answers, yet another reason we should knock ourselves out to prevent them)
too late now. which brings you sir back to dorman....and....
BH's argument(oxymoron) persists simply because he flatly ignores the reserach / proof that I had given a while ago. There is no argument, just a blind repetition of that senseless mantra that Islam is peace and all religions are good. Who gave Islam a stamp of approval? How about satanism? If all of you fail to accept the obvious history of Islam that don't argue with me about it. Why bother since you can then pick any basis for an argument and sleectively ignore the facts of the others.
Do the reaserach yourself but if i hear a continued parroting that islam is peacful and the violent ones are the ones misconstruing it, then i will stop posting entirely. Why should I bother trying to have some debate if proven points are just disregarded.
Oh, and Dorman can't eliminate islam, to do so is impossible....for a whole religion to be erased....
Tell me this, what religion did the arabs have before Mohammed forced islam on Mecca? Answer it without Googling or using wikipedia. Where is that religion today? Exactly.
DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELVES
DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELVES
DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELVES
DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELVES
DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELVES
DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELVES
DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELVES
DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELVES
DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELVES
Thank you Kat, posts like yours make my time worth it.
I did mean to say that the ba'athist's oragnization of insurgents was before zaqawri's involvement. At least that is the evidence that I have seen. al-Z seems to be more an opportunits than anything for an Iraqi purpose. He moved in and tried keeping momentum of the insurgency.
What bothers me most about the insurgency is truly difficult to put into words. Evfen for guerilla warfare, the "attacks" are so low grade and ineffectual 98% of the time. For the most part, the effective attacks make the news. Fine, maybe 4 a week. But the constant worthless mortaring of basis with 2 or 3 mortars seems like nonsense; piontless.
For instance, at Anaconda, mortars fall in pairs or 3s probably 5 or more days a week. they hit nothing and seem to come from the same directions. There is lots of open space at Anaconda bu after years of kortaring, even the worst artillery soldier would have been able to tweak the tube to hit something by now.
But while I was walking around, I noticed that I was by the perimeter fencing and looking at a farm field in front of a long growve of fig trees (picture the line of palm tress before the napalm strafe in Aocalypse Now). This grove was about 1/4 mile from the spot I was standing at. One guard tower. lots of buildings, roads, people, housing, on the inside where I was. Why weren'tmortars launched from within the treeline? High probability of hitting easily seen targets, one guard tower that can't hit shit through the trees, and easy escape routes along the river.
Same for sveeral other FOBs. Why not save up those 3 mortars a day and launch a real offensive of maybe 50....really put the fob into chaos? it is like someone out there bis just going thru the motions...and very coincidentally at the same spot Rumsfeld meets with insurgent leaders (instead of capturing or killing them).
Those two facts have bothered me for a lon time now.
Dorman,
So what I would like to see, then, is a plan from you regarding what we should do about it, if indeed Islam were "obviously dangerous."
What action should we take?
I might be going off on my own little tangent here, sorry.
I don't think that all of the Big Dogs are going to flock to our side either. But with the trans-national growth of the IMU beginning in Uzbekistan, the problems in Chechnya, and the Islamic movement in the Xian Jiang province, countries like Russia and China are also realizing the threat of Islamic terrorists and insurgents that are affecting their own frontiers. Evidence of their anxiety is shown in the development of the Shanghai 6 (now the SCO after 2001). But what is important to keep in mind, and what many fail to see is the differences between the majority of peaceful Muslims and these others who fight in the name of the lesser jihad, and claim they are sanctioned in the killing of innocent non-Muslims or Muslims. But this is not so and is a perversion of Islamic belief and tradition.
I am not for war, fighting, and always believe that there is, or atleast there should be another way. Maybe that makes me simple minded or unable to see the problem in context. But I think we should strive to work with other nations against this common international threat.
It is extremely difficult, not to mention frustrating, in not being able to clearly identify the enemy(ies), but we should atleast pinpoint the incredible spectrum of Islamic beliefs. From wahabism, sufism, shia, sunni, fundamentalist, jadidism, and even the combination of shamanistic Islam in Central Asia, this religion has taken on so many forms and belief systems that we must differentiate, we must know atleast which groups we are fighting and why in order to make the job a little easier and a little less over-reaching. Its not black and white. It may all be Islam, but its not all of Islam.
dorman dorman dorman. you know we both see eye to eye on religion in general. i also noticed you weren't tossing rocks at me, so i know you know that. not that you have the answer to brainshells question, jesus as smart as you are you ain't jesus (not yet anyway) but if you have an answer for what to do about it say so, if not throw the red meat out there baby, and let the cats chew on it, we do need to talk about what to do, or else things will go like my two top posts warn of today. how do you suggest we solve the problem of islam? love ya man.
ok i will go first:
how about empowering the moderates, fully supporting, and encouraging them. showering the moderates with love and affection, then as we can, get our troops the heck out of there.
whatdayathink?
snooze button.
just got the news. thank frigging god or the nebulous void! just don't fly back on iranian airways. hit me when you here german. damn, now if more can come home. beautiful! you can rest a litle easier now big dick, but he better make it back to heidi, or i am am your worst portfolio nightmare.
Program on the emergence of civilization.
"14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind.
13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa.
None from the sub-Saharan African continent. "
Favor.
And disfavor.
They point out Africans’ failed attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it's applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization.
The roots of racism are not of this earth.
Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals.
The North American continent had none. Now 99% of that population is gone.
AIDS in Africa.
Organizational Heirarchy/Levels of positioning.
Heirarchical order, from top to bottom:
1. MUCK - perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as "god"
2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management
3. Evil/disfavored aliens - runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere
Terrestrial management/positioning:
4. Chinese/egyptians - this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds
5. Romans - The seamless transition between Cleopatra and Julius Ceasar may be a clue alluding to a partnership.
6. Mafia - the real-world 20th century interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality
7. Jews, corporation, women, politician - Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups.
Movies foreshadowing catastrophy
1985 James Bond View to a Kill 1989 San Francisco Loma Prieta earthquake.
Our society gives clues to the system in place. We all have heard the saying "He has more money than god." There is also an episode of the Simpsons where god meets Homer and says "I'm too old and rich for this."
This is the system on earth because this is the system everywhere.
20 cent/hour Chinese labor, 50 cents for material.
An $80 sweater costs less than a dollar; homage, tribute kicked upstairs vindicates the creative accounting.
I don't want to suggest the upper eschelons are evil and good is the fringe. But these individuals become wealthy exploiting those they hurt.
They have made it abundantly clear that doing business with evil (disfavored) won't help people. They say only good would have the ear, since evil is struggling for survival, and therefore only the favored could help.
The clues are there which companies are favored and which are disfavored, but they conceal it very hard because it is so crucial.
I offer an example of historical proportions:::
People point to Walmart and cry "anti-union".
Unions enable disfavored people to live satisfactorly without addressing their disfavor. This way their family's problems are never resolved. Without the union they would have to accept the heirarchy, their own inferiority.
Unions serve to empower.
Walmart is anti-union because they are good. They try to help people address and resolve their problems by creating an environment where there are fewer hurdles.
Media ridicule and lawsuits are creations to reinforce people's belief that Walmart is evil in a subsegment of the indistry dominated by the middle and lower classes.
Low-cost disfavored Chinese labor is utilized by corporate america to maximize margins. They all do it. Only WalMart gets fingered because they are the ones who help, and those who seek to create confusion in the marketplace want to eliminate the vast middle class who have a real chance and instead stick with lower classes who may not work otherwise. So they dirty him up while allowing the others to appear clean.
The middle class is being deceived. They are being misled into the unfavored, and subsequently will have no assistance from their purchases with corporate america.
The coining of the term "Uncle Sam" was a clue alluding to just this::Sam Walton and WalMart is one of few saviors of the peasant class.
Amercia is a country of castoffs, rejects. Italy sent its criminals, malcontents.
Between the thrones, the klans and kindred, they decided who they didn't want and acted, creating discontent and/or starvation.
The u.s. is full of disfavored rejects. It is the reason for the myriad of problems not found in European countries. As far as the Rockafellers and other industrialists of the 19th century go, I suspect these aren't their real names. I suspect they were chosen to go and head this new empire.
Royalty is the right way to organize a society. Dictatorships and monarchies are a reflection of the antient's hierarchical organization.
Positions go to those who have favor with the rulers, as opposed to being elected.
Elections bring a false sense of how the world is. Democracy misleads people.
Which is why the disfavored rejects were sent to the shores of America::To keep them on the wrong path.
Jews maim the body formed in the image of "god", and inflicted circumsision upon all other white people, as well as the evil that is Jewsus Christ.
I think about how Jews (were used to) created homosexuality among Slavics, retribution for the Holocaust.
Then I think of the Catholic Church and its troubles.
What connection is here between Jews and the Catholic church???
If it is their sinister motives that’s behind the evil that is Jesus Christ are they being used at all?
Perhaps it is them who are pulling strings.
Their centuries of slavery in Egypt proves their disfavor.
The Jew leaders were granted the right to prey on the up-and-coming Europeans to try to fix their problems with the ruling elite, a recurring aspect of the elite's methodology.
Jews were ostracised for a reason.
Jewsus Christ is a religious figure of evil. He teaches of a begnign, forgiving god when quite the opposite is true.
The seperatist churches formed so they could still capture the rest of the white people, keeping them worshipping the wrong god.
And now they do it to disfavored people of color, Latinos and Asians, after centuries of preying upon them.
Since Buddism doesn't recongnize a god, the calls are never heard, and Asian representation is instead selected by the thrones.
Budda was the Asian's Jewsus Christ::: bad for the people. "They came up at the same time for a reason."
Simpson's foreshadowing::Helloween IV special, Flanders is Satan. "Last one you ever suspect."
"You'll see lots of nuns where you're going:::hell!!!" St. Wigham, Helloween VI, missionary work, destroying cultures.
Over and over, the Simpsons was a source of education and enlightenment, a target of ridicule by the system which wishes to conceal its secrets.
The advent of the modern Christmas was a brilliant move. It creates a vested interest among those who would prefer the Church of Evil be destroyed::::
As goes the Catholic Church so goes the majority of annual retail sales.
The similarity between the names "Santa" and "Satan" is no coincidence.
Retribution for the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, the Korean War got the disfavored United States into this socially depraved environment in the latter 20th century because we attacked an antient, revered peoples. Our continued presence keeps us in trouble.
When the disfavored americans attack the wrong people again, as they suggested they will, in Korea or elsewhere, they will pay dearly.
All peoples are ranked in terms of favor and disfavor. And when the disfavored abuse those above them, there is hell to pay.
All the groups mentioned throughout are necessary to justify the will of the managing species. They conceive a strategy, devise a plan yet need a way to implement it, and without these groups the managing species would be exposed in the course of execution. So, based upon their rank they are assigned goals to accomplish and are rewarded with favors.
Crys, thank you for that. Very awesome, and let us all remember that "peaceful muslims" does not mean that Islam is intended, invented, or meant to be peaceful. They are not radicals, they are basic fundamental followers of the actual written word of God. No sarcasm. truth.
Now, be it known that i am currently "on the move". I will have limited exposure for a little while more. Bear with it and keep the debate going because I have some more observations that I need to publicly examine.
Dorman sir,
When you're done moving, if you can, please show us your plan regarding what we should do about it, if indeed Islam were "obviously dangerous."
What action should we take?
and that is where our opinions diverge. like i said, its a perversion of their beliefs. its not the root of them. there are two kinds of jihad: the greater and the lesser.
Both are from the prophet Muhammad.
greater is the struggle within oneself to be a better human being, a test for obedience to God, a willingness to implement his commands on Earth.
lesser sanctions rebellions against an unjust ruler, whether Muslim or not, and can become the means to mobilize political and social struggle.
all of these new radical fundamentalists ignore the greater jihad advocated by the Prophet. most of these parties and groups have no plans of governance, usually are wrapped into a strong cult of leader, and want to implement their version of "sharia" to regulate personal behavior and dress codes for Muslims, but not distinguishing between Muslims and non-Muslims. They repress women and constrict society. And this is a distortion, I repeat distortion! It goes against hundreds of years of tradition and cultural history of these people and Islam itself. These forms of Islam are not even indigenous to countries like Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan, and prove that Islamic roots can be peaceful and unthreatening to our world.
while i think, i said i think i know what dorman will say, and i think, he has already grazed it, i too am looking foward to his comment, but right now, i am damn glad he is outta there. also glad he left Anonymous up here. i am doing a two parter on that wed and fri of this week. let the people speak baby!
Today was the thousandth day since the invasion.
I'm really glad you are "on the move"
don't forget to leave a few vote for pedro posters behind :)
Unfortunately, I don't have time to read the entire comment thread or to do my usual extended comment, but:
"Insurgents exist because we are here. They are NOT terrorists."
Err, no. "Insurgents" are in Iraq because we're in Iraq - They would be in Afghanistan if we handn't invaded Iraq, and if we hadn't invaded Afghanistan they'd be "terrorists" and they'd be here, killing us.
I don't know if you've seen it (I assume not, given the content of the piece) but I strongly recommend that you read and seriously think about Steven Den Beste's 2003 Strategic Overview
Islam has not undergone a Reformation - yet. Seeing people who supposedly share your religion using it to justify blowing your Moslem children to little pieces tends to have an effect on one's religious fervency. Al-Zarqawi's popularity in his native Jordan dropped precipitously after the recent suicide bombings there, for instance.
I think we're playing a deeper strategy than you apparently believe.
Err, no. "Insurgents" are in Iraq because we're in Iraq - They would be in Afghanistan if we handn't invaded Iraq, and if we hadn't invaded Afghanistan they'd be "terrorists" and they'd be here, killing us.
We are in afghanistan. Are they not insurgents there or just referred to as the taliban and/or it's supporters?
You know, no offense, that bold part sounds an awful lot like something that was said by bush or some talking head. I've heard that a billion times that, I'm sorry, it's as cliche as saying liberals are communists or hate america or that people who dissent are unpatriotic. The borders are pourous, but since we are in iraq, there are no terrorists in the u.s. who want to kill us here.
It isn't just the southern border that is pourous.
That last statement reeks as much as "well, bush is doing a good job since we haven't been attacked on our soil since 9/11". Guess what? We weren't attacked on our soil between 93 and 01 either. One major difference. We caught the bastard who tried to blow up the wtc in 93. The person responsible for 9/11 is still on the loose.
thanks mr. chase.
that comment was driving me insane.
i usually do not mind, and sometimes agree with kevin, but as london showed recently, i feel more lucky, than safe. any wonder i like living in the sticks? all i have to worry about is insurgent beaver (not such a bad thing) and terrorists that use mapquest, hell mapquest will send you to denver when you are trying to get to toledo.
you are welcome, crys.
I feel more lucky, than safe. any wonder i like living in the sticks?
I don't think it has anything to do with luck. it took them a long time to plan an attack the size of 9/11. They are just waiting for us to put our guard down, much like between 93 and 01.
What I find preposterous is that some people think the world and we are safer, since the Iraq war began. Terrorism is on the rise world-wide. If you need a hint, check out that religion of peace website, dorman has on here.
what I also meant to mention was, I don't feel any safer, living in an area with a big bulls-eye on it.
you must be in the big cesspool er...the big apple mr. chase. my heart goes out to you.
> ... all i have to worry about is insurgent beaver (not such a bad thing)
Hah!
rev.
No I am in DC. Not much better, I know ;)
well, thank you all. you all said what I was thinking about Kevin's dumbass statement, but said it in a more obviously tactful way.
The insurgents are not terrorists. Christ almighty, do you people think that I just get a whim and write some random words in my blog or what? These people are NOT terrorists, nor are they a threat to american soil, nor did they have ANYTHING to do with 9/11. Maybe I listen to their proclamations after their deeds and the public tunes them out because it is easier to have a self-made delusion to feel safe and superior rather than let fact and evidence dictate reality.
I am almost home. The insurgents tried pointedly to effect their will on the elections here. Guage their power by their deeds at that crucial time. It is a good meter of the level of enemy we fight.
Dormna,
Just my hunch, but I think the period to gauge their power is AFTER we congratulate ourselves and start packing to go. They're not stupid, they want to rule that country without an 800-pound gorilla in residence.
And when you get a chance, please show us your plan regarding what we should do about it, if indeed Islam were "obviously dangerous."
What action should we take?
Crys,
"These forms of Islam are not even indigenous to countries like Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan, and prove that Islamic roots can be peaceful and unthreatening to our world."
proves nothing, remember genocide a few years ago? also, these aren't root cultures of islam, they are branch cultures.
Mohammed himself partook is and promoted these very same (minus the explosives of course)tactics and actions while he himself was alive and proclaiming the Koran. Hard to defend the idea that the "radicals" "distort" anything. Keep trying, almost had someone buying it that time :)
BH: It is hearts & minds. A) stop blindly defending things based on their categorization of "religion". Plenty of religions in the world that are unhealthy for humans and society. Religion is an ill-defined and nebulously scoped term. 2) Hold people accountable for the cultural and legal standards of the country you live in so that no more court time is wasted entertaining the "religious rights" of a freak from the Middle east so that she can wear a face covering for a drivers license. 3) close the borders better.
you lose all credibility in my eyes when you say things like "freaks from the middle east."
In mentioning those countries my point was exactly what you pointed out, though you derived an opposite conclusion from me. Before the countries, I said that fundamentalists were distorting Muhammad's teachings. That is what we need to understand. The branches of fundamentalist islam needs to be viewed separately from the rest. It is irresponsible to lump them all together simply because of "Muhammad's teachings" which are about more complex than a justification for holy wars. I think those that are using His teachings to justify their violent actions against innocent people are misconstruing His message, using only parts of it out of context.
And I think you are doing the same thing in justifying a blanket hate of Islam.
Its ridiculous. You are not going to defeat the world's second largest religion by declaring your own war on it.
I'm not trying to convince someone, I'm trying to convince you :)
And so you continue to ridicule my position after I set forth a simple plan. You continue to ignore what I say to continue an idiotic argument that apparently only you are having with youself.
Get it through your thick head that if the ORIGINATOR did the same deeds and encouraged his followers to do them too, then THAT is the true islam and anything different is distortion. Simple.
And Mohammed was one man, right? Tell me what the prevailing religion of the Middle East was before Islam conquered by the sword.....Dare you. He can do it, anyone with a set can do it too. Would you rather have me roll over and hide under the blankets of planned sustained ignorance such as many of you? Shall we all just give up the idea of sorld social change because it may be "too tough"? It is people like you that need people like me to defend you so that you can continue with the cranium under the sand. Otherwise you'd be saying prayers 5 times a day under a burka with no opinions whatsoever.
Islam is no more special than any other set of ideas. Satanism, apparently considered a bad idea...pedophilia a bad idea, KKK apparently another bad idea, violence a bad idea according to you all but yet you defend one of the largest perveyors of institutionalized violence in the world. (APoV, this is where you say that The US is the largest and I agree)
If you subscribe to this point of view then I say you are all cowardly hypocrites that would sell out your souls to hide from a decision based on evidence.
Nothing personal :)
But this "stance without facts" junk is getting mighty tiring. Can't wish something to be true by saying it enough times. Research and reality are sdly on my side.
Dorman,
> if the ORIGINATOR did the same deeds and encouraged his followers to do them too, then THAT is the true islam and anything different is distortion.
The true pizza is a brittle, wafer-thin crust with just tomato on it. That cheesy, pepperoni-and-olive thing you eat is a distortion. Capiche? The fact that millions and millions of people mean modern pizza when they say 'pizza' has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! STOP HIDING IN YOUR CAVE! WE HAVE TO CONFRONT PIZZA FOR WHAT IT IS, NOT WHAT DOMINO'S SAYS IT IS!
Sorry to up a can of irony on ya, Dorman, but since to date you seem impervious to any outside thought, I wondered if irony might get through.
As always, there is profound wisdom to what I say here. I'm pointing out that your argumentation is laughably weak. Even if you were right, your rhetoric is feeble. That's because things transform and change over time. Look at the US Constitution. Look at 'rock-and-roll.' Look at Anna Nicole's chest. Sorry to be the one to say it, but:
SINCE YOU SEEM SO SMART SO WHY THE HECK DON'T YOU POLICE UP YOUR OWN THINKING FOR ONCE?!
It's embarrassing to see you make these kind of mistakes. Like I said, you're lost in the funhouse of your own words. You've painted yourself into a corner. I provide a bridge for you: Come out.
What am I trying to say? That Islam is wonderful? No, I'm no fan of religions. What I am trying to say is that, in terms of strategy, you are playing directly into the hopes and dreams of al Qaeda when you vilify Islam. They'd like to see more soldier bloggers do it.
Just imagine the reception you'd get in the US BIble Belt if you went around spouting that Christ was evil, and so is his entire religion. Same deal with Islam.
I think my stars that you are not secretary of state or president.
Let's assume that we grant, for the purposes of debate, your claim that Islam is "obviously dangerous."
If so, the what action should we take?
You've been ignoring this question like a coward for a while now Dorman, and I know you're no coward.
Post a Comment
<< Home