Indonesia. I think that says it all - I've certainly explained why it should to you before. It's the only Muslim country I know particularly well and they are very much anti-terrorism.

Indonesia. I think that says it all - I've certainly explained why it should to you before. It's the only Muslim country I know particularly well and they are very much anti-terrorism.

Actually if we are to believe your premise that there are no innocent civilians in war, then RW is right. Their silence is their endorsement of the violent muslims.

Actually if we are to believe your premise that there are no innocent civilians in war, then RW is right.

It's not a premise I agree with. I simply stated it because it seemed to be directing the thinking of a number of people both here and elsewhere. I personally believe the civilian population must be either treated well or exterminated if victory is to be assured. I would much rather the former to the latter, but being half-arsed about it does nothing for the war effort.

Indonesia. I think that says it all - I've certainly explained why it should to you before. It's the only Muslim country I know particularly well and they are very much anti-terrorism.

---Cacto

Yes, you have explained it, but as you say....."it's not a premise I agree with". Silence gives assent.

The residents of German cities and towns not far from the death camps were purposely paraded before the the stacked, emaciated bodies of inmates and forcibly given tours of the facilities. They said "we didn't know". Right.
Okay, maybe you didn't see the endless trains with locked, filthy cattlecars full of thousands upon thousands of Jews and other prisoners going in full and coming out empty. Maybe the wind was always blowing the other way, so you didn't smell the burning flesh in the ovens or have ashes falling on your rooftops.
It was doubtable then, though (including for my great uncle Arthur, whose Rainbow Division, the Fighting 42nd, liberated Dachau) and still is today. They knew; but they said, and did, nothing.

With the worldwide media, however, it's impossible not to know of the violence of the Mideastern Muslims.
If the Indonesian Muslims are so scandalized by the perversion of their faith, then where are they? Where are the outraged demonstrations against the Muslim false prophets who call for violence against the West? Where are the outraged volunteers, marching in lockstep and pouring into Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel (who, let's not forget, has been facing the violence of Muslim martyrs for nearly 60 years) to help us in the West stand against the perverted Muslim incursion and violence?

"If you're not with me, you're against me." It was true 2,000 years ago, and it's true now.

Where are the outraged demonstrations against the Muslim false prophets who call for violence against the West? Where are the outraged volunteers, marching in lockstep and pouring into Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel (who, let's not forget, has been facing the violence of Muslim martyrs for nearly 60 years) to help us in the West stand against the perverted Muslim incursion and violence?

First of all massed protest aren't so common in non-Western countries. They just don't do it in Indonesia. It's generally only the heavily westernised (students in the main) or the highly paid who protest. Dissent tends to be spread through rumour or, when it's all too much, considerable violence.

As for marching in lockstep into Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel, who's going to pay for it? Most of the Muslim world is in the 3rd world; who's going to bankroll them for a holy war? Only the terrorists have the money and inclination to recruit from the poor and dispossessed or the rich and angry.

On reflection I think the Western governments and Israel might not want them there anyway.

"If you're not with me, you're against me." It was true 2,000 years ago, and it's true now.

Well yes, but the Roman empire fell. It was the Catholic Church that survived, and they survived precisely because they made their enemies their allies.

First of all massed protest aren't so common in non-Western countries. They just don't do it in Indonesia. It's generally only the heavily westernised (students in the main) or the highly paid who protest. Dissent tends to be spread through rumour or, when it's all too much, considerable violence.

---Cacto

Then I guess fellow Muslims killing completely innocent people in the name of their selfsame god just isn't "all too much" to warrant mass protest. How intriguing.

As for marching in lockstep into Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel, who's going to pay for it? Most of the Muslim world is in the 3rd world; who's going to bankroll them for a holy war? Only the terrorists have the money and inclination to recruit from the poor and dispossessed or the rich and angry.

---Cacto

You mean to tell me there's no one in the Muslim world, no obscenely oil-rich Sheik, no nation anywhere, that could say "We agree with you. This has to stop. Here....if you want to take your stand, We'll help you"?
No; you're right. There isn't, and that's because they all, to varying degrees, feel the same way as the zealots. Every last one of them.

On reflection I think the Western governments and Israel might not want them there anyway.

---Cacto

I don't know enough to say yea or nay here, but the more guns pointing in their direction the better, in my book. And I'd be willing to bet that having other Muslims on our side would be welcomed, at least for the PR benefits.

It was the Catholic Church that survived, and they survived precisely because they made their enemies their allies.

--Cacto

They were willing to do so. Islamic terrorists are not.

I personally believe the civilian population must be either treated well or exterminated if victory is to be assured.

But History proves you wrong. They suffer, but are not exterminated. You seem to have an either or mentalitiy, and yet history shows a third course. one still open to the muslims.

But History proves you wrong. They suffer, but are not exterminated. You seem to have an either or mentalitiy, and yet history shows a third course. one still open to the muslims.

Give me some examples. I can't think of a conflict where a vacillating course of action has ever seen swift victory.

To: All

There are only two canonically-sanctioned approaches for the good Muslim in regard to the Infidel world. He must, when he sees no cause for open Jihad, regard the Infidel as a 'Dhimmi' - one subjected to a legal second-class relationship, required to pay taxes Muslims do not pay, requirements of dress which Muslims should not observe, and the stigma of forced inequality.

Or, the good Muslim must be prepared to kill all those who stand in the way of Jihad which is, properly understood, the world-wide imposition of Islam and Shariah law, and of political obligation to a Muslim Caliph. But since such a state of affairs ought to pertain throughout the world and does not, and since the conversion or killing of all Infidels except those willng to accept Dhimmi status is an existential equivalent to the Christian 'Great Commission', then all Muslims everywhere ought to see Jihad as a binding religious obligation.

Good Muslims cannot be moderate Muslims in the sense of being moderate in their response to the Infidel world. Moderate Islam isn't an anomaly. It's an outright lie.

To: All There are only two canonically-sanctioned approaches for the good Muslim in regard to the Infidel world. He must, when he sees no cause for open Jihad, regard the Infidel as a 'Dhimmi' - one subjected to a legal second-class relationship, required to pay taxes Muslims do not pay, requirements of dress which Muslims should not observe, and the stigma of forced inequality. Or, the good Muslim must be prepared to kill all those who stand in the way of Jihad which is, properly understood, the world-wide imposition of Islam and Shariah law, and of political obligation to a Muslim Caliph. But since such a state of affairs ought to pertain throughout the world and does not, and since the conversion or killing of all Infidels except those willng to accept Dhimmi status is an existential equivalent to the Christian 'Great Commission', then all Muslims everywhere ought to see Jihad as a binding religious obligation. Good Muslims cannot be moderate Muslims in the sense of being moderate in their response to the Infidel world. Moderate Islam isn't an anomaly. It's an outright lie.

Reminds me of an analysis of an article by a "moderate" moslem in Australia:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/003996.html

There are only two canonically-sanctioned approaches for the good Muslim in regard to the Infidel world. He must, when he sees no cause for open Jihad, regard the Infidel as a 'Dhimmi' - one subjected to a legal second-class relationship, required to pay taxes Muslims do not pay, requirements of dress which Muslims should not observe, and the stigma of forced inequality.

That's not strictly true. There are four classical legal schools in the Muslim tradition and each had their own subtly different rulings on the infidel. What could be considered a fifth and separate scholarly tradition has arisen just recently (the last century or so) and has proposed a more egalitarian approach to religion and religious equality. An attempt should still be made to convert non-Muslims, but this school (I haven't heard a consistent name for it apart from the inadequate 'modernist' label) argues that they should not be discriminated against.

How much the approach relies on politics is open to interpretation, but all religion does to some extent. It's practically the job of priests, rabbis and imams to make Faith seem like a good idea.

Good Muslims cannot be moderate Muslims in the sense of being moderate in their response to the Infidel world. Moderate Islam isn't an anomaly. It's an outright lie.

Just as you can argue that it's possible to be a rich Christian so can you argue that tolerance was one of Muhammad's virtues. The Jews of Medina were treated as equals, thus creating precedent and holy precedent at that.

Reminds me of an analysis of an article by a "moderate" moslem in Australia

Do you disagree with Waleed's argument? Which school do you feel a 'moderate' Muslim belongs to? I would think you can't consider it as anything but a political label. I went back to it, and, more or less at random, found these points:

Engagement with Muslims then, becomes nothing more than an exercise in crude taxonomy. Upon entering public contemplation, every Muslim must immediately be reduced to a one-dimensional fiction. The moderate is good (or at least benign), the fundamentalist is nasty, and there is little, if anything, in between. There are tolerable Muslims and intolerable Muslims. But no Muslim can be complex, which is to say, human.

Does that seem unreasonable to you? He's arguing against the stereotyping of Islam into two types - fundie and moderate. To consider the same approach applied to Christians it would be akin to saying there are fundamentalist Christians and moderates; in such a world where do you put Catholics or Anglicans? Doctrinally they're fairly fundie, but politically they're moderate. I don't think he's being that hard-core.

He also says:

None of this excuses the barbarism that exists in some Muslim societies. But it does indicate that too often we have not been serious in attempting to explain it, preferring instead to use news selectively to perpetuate and bolster our cliched narrative.

As much as I adore cliches and not being serious about things, he has a point. When was the last time you saw a news report that examined the political, social and theological differences between Islam in the West and Islam in barbaric states like Iran? More often I just see reports on Islamif terror.

To consider the same approach applied to Christians it would be akin to saying there are fundamentalist Christians and moderates; in such a world where do you put Catholics or Anglicans?

---Cacto

This is true.....but when was the last time Christians, as a group, took any significant violent action against anyone in the name of their god? Five centuries, maybe? Ten? It's a different world now.
Make all the arguments you want, but in a world in which unstable people have the means to acquire weapons that could conceivably kill millions, I think the horse is leaving the barn and we can't wait for it to come back. The stakes are too high now.

This is true.....but when was the last time Christians, as a group, took any significant violent action against anyone in the name of their god? Five centuries, maybe? Ten? It's a different world now.

There were the purges in Bosnia a few years back and the religious violence in Ambon (which continues to this day).

Does that seem unreasonable to you? He's arguing against the stereotyping of Islam into two types - fundie and moderate.

To a large extent, yes. The Moslem is an outsider in the West. Whether he thinks sharia law should be followed in Western Society, whether he thinks it's wrong to inform on fellow Moslems who are plotting terrorist attacks is relevant to the larger Western-Moslem relationship. Whether he is going to be a fifth column, an enabler of terrorism, or a terrorist himself is relevant.

To consider the same approach applied to Christians it would be akin to saying there are fundamentalist Christians and moderates; in such a world where do you put Catholics or Anglicans? Doctrinally they're fairly fundie, but politically they're moderate. I don't think he's being that hard-core. He also says:

Seems to me you're using a point I didn't argue and asking me to defend it. I don't care what school of thought a Moslem belongs to, and apparently not too many people do. I venture to guess that most poor, barely-literate Moslems themselves, especially those in their native lands who don't have the same identity issues as immigrants to contend with, aren't familiar enough with the theology to make neaningful distinctions between schools of thought. Do you think the average Catholic or Orthodox has a grasp of the Filioque Controversy?

As much as I adore cliches and not being serious about things, he has a point. When was the last time you saw a news report that examined the political, social and theological differences between Islam in the West and Islam in barbaric states like Iran? More often I just see reports on Islamif terror.

Rarely. The dominant, state religion throughout the West is liberalism--a sort of liberalism that holds non-discrimination and egalitarianism as the be all/end all of our civilization. Such an analysis is not permitted or even seriously considered, because it might be possible (contrary to what I can deduce you believe) that the differences between our two worlds, the West and the Moslem world, are so magnificent, so profound, and so fundamental that we cannot and will never all just get along.