Stop Blaming American Foreign Policy And Know The Real Reason Why America Is Hated

[MGB8]

Here's the bottom line. Until Muslims take account for the Jihadists in their midst, until they stop them, then Muslims are placing themeselves and all of Islam at risk. What do you think will realistically happen if the US is hit by a Nuclear bomb from a Jihadists, or if Israel is? Do you believe Mecca will be spared? Are you willing to chance it? And what do you think the destruction of Mecca would do to Islam?

Meanwhile, there are some who believe that Jihadism is so ingrained in Islam that it cannot be stopped - that Islam and Jihadism are one and the same. It is not the most unreasonable belief, sad to say, given the mass support that OBL and other Jihadists have in the Muslim world - in the way the Muslim world views this as a conflict of civilizations.

If the US had a bunch of ex-green beret's committing acts of terror in the Muslim world - blowing up buses and hotels, etc. - murdering people - what do you think the US would do? Don't you think they US would first renounce these people, turn over everything they have on them, ostracize anyone who supports them, cut off all the finances, and then join in the hunt themselves - so that the US would not be tainted with the evil of these Green Beret's.

but that is NOT how the "Ummah" has reacted - they have reacted with denial and then justifications. That leads to the suspicion that Islamdom in general approves of these attacks on the West.. that they approve of Jihadism. That instead of renouncing, Muslims embrace the Jihadists. But, Bush was right. In this war you are on one side or another. Islam needs to choose. Is it on the side of the Jihadists, or on the side of peaceful co-existance in this current world-order. If Islam, on the whole, is on the side of the Jihadists, then Islamdom must be prepared to bear the consequences of that support.

[RichardP]

There is not one culture, religion, race or creed that is above reproach: nor is it solely Jews who are being murdered by this sickly mutation of Islam. Yes, they slaughter other Muslims, too, Christian and Hindu… and so forth.
Ironically, a Hindu gentleman with whom I once spoke, said; “Look where the violence and mass-murder is happening, the majority are Muslim atrocities.” He was right; does that make him intolerant an out-and-out racist? No; in fact, it was he who hired many Muslims to work in his thriving business.
I have inkling; you have a bone to pick with Judaism – that, it is we who are the true terrorists, alongside America, the UK and the coalition. You aren’t Michael Moore, perchance, are you?
As a footnote: The Holocaust is as relevant today, if not more so, please, respect that. Or are you one of those who equate Israel to a Nazi State? Perhaps, one who sees the State of Israel as the true threat to world peace, which is an all too common malady, suffered by many. So, you see me the way you choose, and sadly, this is the way you come across to me.

[MGB8]

Richard,

I don't think Quicken is anything more than a genuince nice American liberal, who doesn't think that the world is quite as harsh and brutal as it is, and doesn't realize the necessity of the threat, and sometimes use, of force.

[RichardP]

Yes, I am sure you are right... by the way good post, MGB8! I was thinking a 'flower-child'... each to there own. Cheers!

[Quicken]

MGB8: no bomb ever

http://www.cfr.org/pub7432/charles_d...etaliation.php

Richard: I'm a republican and a librarian. I was a Democrat until Bush 41. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[MGB8]

You cite one op-ed. Nu? That is one op-ed. And, in fact, it is the WRONG message to send.

If terrorists don't care if they die, don't care of thousands of their brother and sister Muslims die... then what is the deterrent?

I think you misunderstand terrorism. Listen to what terrorists say. Terror is not an act of desparation - it is an act of hope. Hope that this ability to kill so many will lead "their side" to victory in what they percieve as a conflict of civilizations - because Jihadism requires an expanding Islamic Caliphate, and the US and the West stand in the way of this. The only way to defeat Jihadism is to destroy the hope of victory. That hope can only be destroyed if the Jihadis have something that they care about, something that would doom their cause, realistically threatened. The only thing that fits there is not people, but places. In many ways, this is better - fewer people would have to die, only buildings would have to be destroyed.

Only when the Jihadists realize that terrorism will not forward their goals of an Islamic world, because it threatens the very existence of Islam (due to the likely, and it is likely, despite your hopes) retaliation... only at that point will terrorism as a tactic of Jihadism truly be defeated.

[Mediocrates]

MGB8: no bomb ever

http://www.cfr.org/pub7432/charles_d...etaliation.php

Richard: I'm a republican and a librarian. I was a Democrat until Bush 41. Sorry to burst your bubble.

If you actually read the source article you'll find that the author's main objection is that current nuclear doctrine and policy are tactically insufficient to address the nature, type, location and strategies of potential nuclear enemies. In other words, the broadsword approach simply won't work as either a strategic deterrent nor as a military weapon.

[MGB8]

I don't know if I agree with that, at least not completely.

The threat certainly is not sufficient to deal with terrorism. A whole array of actions and policies are needed. However, I do believe that the threat is a Necessary component of that array - without it, you still have no real deterrent on the Jihadis that will dampen the motivation of hope.

[Quicken]

It's an op-ed piece from the Council of Foreign Affairs....very prestigious and very old. You should read it more carefully. It fully reflects our government's policy.

Regardless your view on fighting terrorism does not jibe with 9/11 commission:

Recommendation: The U.S. government must define what the message is, what it stands for. We should offer an example of moral leadership in the world, committed to treat people humanely, abide by the rule of law, and be generous and caring to our neighbors. America and Muslim friends can agree on respect for human dignity and opportunity. To Muslim parents, terrorists like Bin Ladin have nothing to offer their children but visions of violence and death. America and its friends have a crucial advantage-we can offer these parents a vision that might give their children a better future. If we heed the views of thoughtful leaders in the Arab and Muslim world, a moderate consensus can be found.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch12.htm

[MGB8]

Quicken.

That is the carrot. It is necessary. It is not sufficient.

You need a stick. It is also not sufficient. It is also necessary.

Your opinion that it "fully reflects our government's policy" is unsubstantiated. It is an opinion piece by one man. It talked about what candidates should say, in his opinion. The question is... so what?

YOU might agree with him. Doubtless many others do, too. I would wager, however, that if a nuke hit the US, many more would agree with the need to retaliate in a more severe way. I also would wager that many in the US government disagree with that policy... or, more accurately, that US policy has more layers and is more nuanced than what is contained in a little op-ed column.

ps. - I truly hope you have taken the time to read mideastweb.org's history, as well as the one at wilkepedia or answers.com. They are basic, and incomplete, but they will dispell some of the myths that you put forward in some of your recent posts, while also giving you a better background of knowledge upon which to form your opinions.

[Quicken]

If you actually read the source article you'll find that the author's main objection is that current nuclear doctrine and policy are tactically insufficient to address the nature, type, location and strategies of potential nuclear enemies. In other words, the broadsword approach simply won't work as either a strategic deterrent nor as a military weapon.

No the main idea is this:

And if America ever faces the stark choice between capitulation to nuclear terrorist demands and escalation to a nuclear war, I will target the terrorists themselves and not lead the United States into self-defeating wars."

[MGB8]

What is a self-defeating war? Certainly, that is a question of opinion, no?

Under your preferred policies, and that of this author, there is no effective deterrrent for an Islamist to Nuke a US city. You do realize that, don't you? In essence, with this policy, you have already surrendered to the Jihadis.

[Mediocrates]

The point is that strategy works against an enemy who knows you can identify them. Terrorism is rather squishy in that way. The Pakistanis weaponize a bomb, send it to Iran who gives it to their own SAVAK intelligence forces who control Hezbollah....and so on. It's very hard to figure out 'who' gives the order to use it. In fact that very opacity is really what lies at the heart of any nuclear doctrine for the Islamic bomb. Pakistan is very careful to aim its missiles only at India and only mention India in its doctrine. Iran would also have to be extremely careful once it's nuclear, who they included in their doctrine and what their targeting decisions and locations were. Because like it or not, and all their overinflated chestpounding aside, they can't take on the US, France, UK, Russia, China, Pakistan and India. So the point is, that without an identifiable doctrine and a locatable enemy, we would be very hard pressed to strike back here or there or anywhere else. On the other hand 'We will Bomb Mecca' sounds a lot like the mullahtards that run Iran and all sorts of histrionic statements they make that are a mix of paranoia, tactics and rage. Maybe it will rattle their cages but I'm unconvinced.

[MGB8]

I don't believe so. The Jihadists believe that they are fighting a war for Islam. They only thing that they value are the pillars of Islam. Everything else is more or less irrelevant.

You seem to be focusing on the national state - on preventing nations from arming these groups and using them as proxies. I don't think that is effective.

Jihadist exist outside of nations. They don't even need a nations backing - look at the Jihadists who exist in Europe and even the US. Nor do they necessarily need a nation to get a nuke. They need money and connections... but that might not require a nation to help them.

We are not just talking about deterring a nation's actions, here, although that is part of the equation. The problem with a movement like Jihadism is that it exists beyond national boundaries - those are in many ways irrelevant. They take aid and comfort when they can - but those are not essential. Additionally, in many of these nations, the idea that the state can have so much control over what happens in the countryside is a bit silly. A state itself can be very motivated to prevent such a terror attack, and never realize that it is being planned, trained, financed from within its borders.

[savvy]

Quicken, if you really read my post, you would realize that I was not calling for the eradication of Muslims in any shape or form. Infact, what people believe does not matter as much as their actions. You can believe in the jellyfish for all I care, as long as you do not use your beliefs to torture and kill everyone else and that's exactly what Islam has set out to to. Islam as an ideology must be fought, just as nazi Germany had to be fought. Muslims will only be targets if they continue to apologize for the crimes committed in the name of this religion and not do anything about it. Like if Islam nukes a country tommorrow and Muslims say, but that was only a small majority, isn't going to cut it. Don't talk, if you believe Islam is a religion of peace, Muslims must prove it through their actions and do so by not supporting their terrorists brothers in any shape or form, which they clearly continue to do all around the world. I was saying that ppl need to be educated about this ideology, but ppl can obviously distinguish a drug addict from a drug or an alcoholic from alcohol. If moderate Muslims do not act to liberate their fellow Muslims from things that keep them in bondage, then their as guilty of supporting them in all they do. And if you still think I am advocating violence against Muslims you have comprehension problems and cannot distinguish the sinner from the sin.