So, let's say we officially label it a religious war. How does that help or hinder how we prosecute the bad guys? What's the bottom line impact of doing so?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
NOSC Shooting
- Thread starter PenguinGal
- Start date
Because it's honest; uncomfortable, but honest.
I know both you and Flash to be fine scotch sipping scholars - maybe this will resonate
"The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish . . . the kind of war on which they are embarking." - Dead Carl.
I know both you and Flash to be fine scotch sipping scholars - maybe this will resonate
"The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish . . . the kind of war on which they are embarking." - Dead Carl.
Last edited:
Labeling what's going on now as a "religious war" accomplishes nothing except aligning us with our adversaries' narrative - that this is another Crusade launched by the West to destroy Islam. There aren't many who would die to defend ISIL, but defending Islam is a sacred duty of every Muslim. It's a narrative that strengthens their recruitment and motivates their soldiers. So how exactly would our agreeing with it help us?
And more to the point - it's not accurate anyway. There is nothing in any Allied war aim that even remotely aims at destroying Islam as a faith, or converting anyone, or even de-establishing it as state religion anywhere. We're at war against organizations that have openly avowed their goal of killing Americans and destroying our property and influence in the world. Their religious motivation for fighting us has nothing to do with why we're fighting them, any more than the war with Japan was a war to destroy Shintoism. If the Taliban had not sheltered AQ and it's leadership, would we ever have gone to war in Afg? Are we talking about invading Saudi to root out Wahhabism?
The Troubles in Northern Ireland was not a religious war. It was a civil war in which each side happened to be more or less religiously homogenous - mostly Catholic Republicans vs mostly Protestant Orangemen, with the British in the middle.
If you want to see a religious war - look at what's happening across North Africa and the Middle East now. It's essentially an Islamic Civil War, with Shia states and organizations fighting Sunni for who will dominate the Muslim world. It's spilling across borders and cultures in a way no one could have predicted, and it will continue to boil over for a long time.
And more to the point - it's not accurate anyway. There is nothing in any Allied war aim that even remotely aims at destroying Islam as a faith, or converting anyone, or even de-establishing it as state religion anywhere. We're at war against organizations that have openly avowed their goal of killing Americans and destroying our property and influence in the world. Their religious motivation for fighting us has nothing to do with why we're fighting them, any more than the war with Japan was a war to destroy Shintoism. If the Taliban had not sheltered AQ and it's leadership, would we ever have gone to war in Afg? Are we talking about invading Saudi to root out Wahhabism?
The Troubles in Northern Ireland was not a religious war. It was a civil war in which each side happened to be more or less religiously homogenous - mostly Catholic Republicans vs mostly Protestant Orangemen, with the British in the middle.
If you want to see a religious war - look at what's happening across North Africa and the Middle East now. It's essentially an Islamic Civil War, with Shia states and organizations fighting Sunni for who will dominate the Muslim world. It's spilling across borders and cultures in a way no one could have predicted, and it will continue to boil over for a long time.
First of all, I never used, suggested, or implied that "religious war" or "crusade" should be terms that are used in our objective discourse. I simply stated that "our" unwillingness to call these acts of radical islamic terrorism is disingenuous and, in the end, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the fight.
I'll offer this as a reasonably middle of the road rebuttal to this argument. If you're interested I can go to the bookshelf or just about any modern PME reading list to provide several more source documents challenging that specious world view. Their religious motivation has everything to do with why we're fighting because it is what animates them.
BT BT
Arming recruiters may not be the answer.
I'll offer this as a reasonably middle of the road rebuttal to this argument. If you're interested I can go to the bookshelf or just about any modern PME reading list to provide several more source documents challenging that specious world view. Their religious motivation has everything to do with why we're fighting because it is what animates them.
BT BT
Arming recruiters may not be the answer.
Last edited:
I can't disagree with this more. Fundamentalist Islam is incompatible with the west. Some will evolve out of that thinking. Some will join up. The majority, just like the many Catholics who don't spend every Sunday protesting at the local Planned Parenthood, assimilate just fine and see the bigger message and value (in my opinion) in their religion.
Just like we have the Westboro Baptist Church, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, & Amish folks, we will have some Muslims who will not adapt to the environment. The majority of those will probably still do so peacefully, like the Amish, and maybe some will fail to adapt in some non-violent but shitty way, like the WBC. Some, like the guy in this case and others like him, will be driven to violence. It's the price we pay for our freedoms. You're free to own guns and think crazy shit in our country. If you skirt the system right, you can do both simultaneously.
You kind of ellipsized an important part out of my quote. Of course it has everything why the radical Muslim organizations are fighting us. I said it has nothing to do with why we're fighting them. The "Why We Fight" - it's because they've attacked us and intend to continue. My issue is with the "clash of civilizations" rhetoric some people, including in our government, insist on using. It's pointless, unhelpful, incorrect, and plays right into the enemy's strategy. We're not at war with Islam - we're at war with ideologically-driven terrorists and a few states who back them. Of course I understand that they're motivated by religion, I'm not an idiot.
And to that point, it disheartens me that so many Americans are raising the war cry against the Muslim community at large ("Get them out of our country!"). I think that mindset is creating more division and opposition than we're already facing, not to mention devaluing and degrading our country. It's also becoming a giant red herring for people to bite off on.
Word.
Interesting that Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations" has a section entitled "Islam's Bloody Borders" within Chapter 10 (Fault Line Wars). Even more interesting is that he predicted NATO/Western Civilization would push east to the dividing line between Western Catholicism/Protestant and Russian Orthodox with the result Ukraine could possibly split in 2. Article was published in 1993, book in 1996.
Well, this quickly becomes a chicken v egg scenario, no?
The reason why I think it's important to continue to accurately label these attacks as radical and Islamic (when they are) is because it continues to put pressure on those who are most likely to effectively address it; Muslims. The legions of moderate, westernized, and civilized Muslims who are not seeking to bring jihad to your local strip mall.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Yea, all these Indonesians, Indians, and Nigerian Muslims are really fucking up our world. They need to be Christianized, pronto.
I would suggest that there's also a significant risk that doing so will have the opposite effect. I would further argue that this conflict is much more a political and socio-economic struggle with a religious dimension. Aggrieved and powerless people take up violence against those in power. There's nothing new or particularly religious about that.
I too have read about insurgencies; that is not what we're talking about. Was the punk in Chattanooga powerless and aggrieved? Maybe within the confines of his home due to alleged family dynamics, but in the larger scheme of things? Nidal Hassan? Aw-Alaki? Richard Reid? Any of these folks "aggrieved" or "powerless" while living first-world lives in America or the UK? The common denominator animating all of their actions was their religion.
Nigeria might not be the best example.