Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Americans must respect Islam
salaam al-aqaaid    5/13/2004 10:18:35 AM
The outrageous atrocities commited by Americans at the Abu al-Grayyib prison complex speaks to a need for the United States Americans to give sensetivity training to its entire military so that they will no longer offind Muslims with the contemptious use of women as prison guards and unsavery adiction to homosexual pornographies. These things are offinsive to the Muslims community. Have you no shame? You must remove all women and homosexuals from contact with Muslim prisoners. This is offinsive.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
sorkoi2003    RE: Fighting AQ or fighting Islamdom   9/22/2004 11:22:28 AM
El Cid, I prefer the work of reputible academics than autodidactic hacks who think the access to the world wide web is sufficent to hide make for their ignorance. As you may agree there is so much confusion and ignorance on display sometimes that it is difficult even to have a reasonible dis-agreement. I am aware of much of the literature that AQ produce or is produced on their behalf. I am also aware of genalogy of AQ's thinking which makes difficult for me to come to the same conclusion regarding thier economic policies or thier capacity for mis-management (I am not saying that you are necessarily wrong - but you have no proof only at best a hunch- which maybe justified and maybe sufficient for you - but it should be presented as just that - a hunch). Also, the quesiton of American unipoloarity rather engaging in disucussion about Pax Romana and whether it was unipolar or not (for what its worth I would argue the system ifit can be compared to the modern international system was almost certianly bipolar with Parthian and Sassanid empire being a major limit on exercise of Roman power- some thing Romans themselves recognizied as evidenced by titles they use to address the King of Kings etc) I would refer you the Project for New American Century () and you will find literature that support the contention of the unipolarity of current sitution and desire by these neo-Reaganites to maintian that positon indefinately. There is little among this group which seems to suggest a preference a mulitpolar plural world order. I suppose I am coming to the conclusion that your defination of civilization is purely normative one in which exclusion of groups like AQ becomes a tautology. There is nothing wrong with that, but I was under the impression you were using civilization in some inter-subjective postive sense. I agree with you fully about the differnce between a war against AQ and thier allies and war against Muslims and Islam. If the west was at war with Islam- you are right people would notice the difference. To illustrate the point (and this an illustration not direct example) I would imagine it would akin to differnce between trying to occupy Iraq and trying to occuppy a landmass big as Russia and populous as China- there are as at least as many Muslims as Chinese in order of magnitude, all the Muslim economies would be thrid largest (after US and China in PPP terms), the area of Islamdom covers is nearly equal to that of the Russian Federation. Apart from the fact that Muslims are globalized and can be found in large numbers outside Islamdom (Europe has 20m, the Americas perhaps 6+ million) Of course, Islamdom does not have a central leadership which is big advantage (but as the Soviets found in Afganistan- it can also be a dis-advantage since you cannot just destroy one central HQ) but it seems to streach the bounds of imagination that it would be a walk in the park or like invading Grenada or Panama... Considering this site dedicated to discussion of Strategy- its surprising that are those who think fighiting Islamdom and fighting AQ is the same sort of thing. As for your earlier comments about Muslims not being demonizied so far(for practical not even ethical reasons)- do you think you need to revise your opinion in light of some of the comments on this thread?
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:economics: the next oil crisis   9/22/2004 2:59:01 PM
Actually, elcid, considering that the Persian nations are more likely to bow to the will of the radical islamist movements (considering the predominance of islam in their cultures), this DOES have merit in this section, even if you choose not to see it so. Just what percentage of islam is the population of the majority of the OPEC/Persian Gulf oil-producing nations? We have already seen Saudi try and dictate to us how we will behave when we are there protecting their butts, most likely they caved in to some form/branch of islam in doing so (US service women must adhere to certain (could almost be termed "restrictive") dress codes). My point being: we are being foolish if we don't consider the possibility that if these more radical sects of islam secure a strong enough foothold, they could well affect the output of oil to western nations, and that is something we, nor Europe, can afford. Seeing occupation as the only solution is foolish. One must have contingencies in case Plan A doesn't pan out to our favor. If we stand by and let those other Persian/Middle Eastern nations succumb to the muslim radical beliefs/doctrines, we run the risk of losing that continued supply of crude, and that DOES affect us here at home in our economy. Pardon me for disrupting YOUR thread. But considering the nations there that supply much of the non-muslim world with a good portion of its oil ARE predominantly muslim, that IS a legitimate economic concern. And considering the "righteous" divisions of islam don't seem too interested in sweeping away the filthy, that certainly is cause for concern. Do you really think that if we weren't there now, the more militant sects of islam would not be trying to seize control or manipluate the oil producers to compromise the US economy? We've already seen how they treat even their own people, and profit is not always as good a motivator when twisted religious dogma rears its ugly face (meaning, we can't buy-off all the "dirty" muslims, the terrorists). All these peace activists think that if we pull out of Iraq and let the muslims take care of their own problems, they'll still be able to fuel up their SUVs for under $2 a gallon. Sorry, but, we don't get enough crude from the Atlantic to meet our demands. And since no one wants us drilling in your precious Alaska, we're gonna be dependent on those arabs to feed our economy. So as long as they are going to allow themselves to be manipulated by islam and AREN'T doing anything sufficient enough to bring down the radicals, this IS cause for concern for the American economy. If OBL was as bent as you suggest at disrupting our economy, surely he was smart enough to see he could have done so by crippling our oil supply. But of course, he didn't want to upset his "muslim brothers", did he? Pardon me for seeing something you chose not to..
 
Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus    RE:Respect?   9/22/2004 9:41:01 PM
---If we didn't behave so badly we would still have Islamic posters like Ilpers--- i have a list of 3000 people i'd like to bring back. somehow, i don't think i'll get what i want by behaving for muslims. i know you're not a terrorist sympathizer, can't you see that there's no genocidal murders here?
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE: Fighting AQ or fighting Islamdom   9/23/2004 6:06:59 AM
Wow. What a long post. I will respond to the beginning before I forget it. I am a Reaganite. I think Reagan was a great president and I think he significantly reformed several kinds of policies. We went from the Carter era "there can never be a good economic situation again" to a very different view. We, against all reasonable hope, ended the nuclear arms race and initiated a build down. As Reagan did it, we decided to abolish SAC, stop designing nuclear weapons (because we didn't need another generation of them), and stopped making nuclear fuels (well we set in motion the stopping, which took a few years to implement). We won the Cold War. We initiated BMD research in a serious way (something I had advocated for 17 years before the "star wars speech" with little effect before Reagan made the decsion). This was done for moral reasons: I was disappointed Reagan made no technical judgement: he said "I don't know if it is possible or not, but we must try because it is the right thing to do." Exactly why you think Reaganites are so bad is not clear? Real Reaganites do NOT advocate making plutonium (the world has thousands of tons of the stuff) or tritium (there is no need at all for hydrogen bombs even if we need nuclear weapons in some sense). Real Reaganites focus on defense over nuclear threats. I think you have mistaken some radical right wingers for Reaganites, who are moderates. Reagan spoke Spanish, and he was personal friends outside his culture and nation. He (and we who supported him) are also multi-cultural, in theory, or like me, in practice. He saw the world as a cooperative place, and so do I. Do not be deluded by those who use the word Americans too narrowly: real Americans are pluralists, and classical liberals, and not in the least interested in empire.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE: Fighting AQ or fighting Islamdom   9/23/2004 6:13:12 AM
I do not understand your discussion of my definition of civilization. But yes, I do exclude organizations which believe that attacks such as we have witnessed are appropriate political or military tactics. That is not civilized behavior, and in a very literal sense: 20% of the office space of Manhattan was destroyed in a single blow: surely that is hard on a city! No, that is not acceptable behavior. In different contexts, I have argued that putting nuclear weapons on cities is also not civilized, and the word I used to describe it, regardless of motive, was "terrorism." Surprisingly I was backed by the USAF founded think tank RAND, and two high ranking Reagan administration officials (which is why policy changed). The USA formally decided not to engage in a policy of terrorism, in any circumstances, because it is not in the interests of civilization itself, and we are a part of that civilization. I expect any organization that wants to be part of the modern world to come to terms with the view that mass murder of civilians and mass destruction of economically significant infrastructure is unacceptable political behavior. If you have a different view - one that says such behavior is indeed acceptable - please articulate it and why it is civilized?
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE: Fighting AQ or fighting Islamdom   9/23/2004 6:27:13 AM
It is true that this thread has people who are hostile towards Muslims in general. But even here they are a minority. They are even an outlaw minority in the sense they are breaking the rules of the board and if they were not members of SYSOPS or close friends of same they would not be allowed to post such opinions. Take the same posts and replace the word "muslims" with "jews" and see what would happen? This is somewhat amazing - given it opposes official US policy these same writers otherwise support - and that it is obviously counterproductive in terms of having a chance to end the war in their lifetimes. But these views are ultimatly not going to stand up in the light of both events and logic. Our national leaders know it is unwise to attempt to actually wipe out 1 to 2 billion people, and won't ever consider it, no matter what party is in power. The views of people convinced this is a good idea are so radical they could not be elected if their views were presented as policy. And even on this board there are many moderates who do distinguish between Muslims and radical Islamic terrorists. If we who speak for US policy and reason are any good, perhaps one day we will persuade the radicals to support the war on terror, and start riciduling the enemy as he diserves - apostate in the terms even of the religion he claims to honor. I have yet to meet a student (even a critical one) of Islam who doubts Muhammad himself would condem OBL et al, if only he could be summoned to a hearing. The Imam of New Jersey was actually correct when he shouted, at the memorial service for 911 victims, "the perpetrators of this crime are no believers in God!" Perhaps one day those who are saying Islam itself is the problem will notice that most victims of Islamic terror are Muslims. Being a cleric who dedicated his life to the Holy Koran will not save one from them. AQ is unpopular in Iraq - and was unpopular in Afghanistan - because of the violence it brought to Muslims. In many ways, it is hard to be as victimized in a distant place as it is to be victimized in the place these guys rule, or even visit in numbers. All the strategypage debaters are educated and articulate and sometimes susceptable to facts and reason. A Jeffersonian approach is the wisest. [If you doubt the wisdom of the people in any matter, don't take the power to decide from them - educate their discretion.]
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:economics: the next oil crisis   9/23/2004 6:48:43 AM
Dogtag: I am puzzled by your post? It does contain concerns I agree with, but you seem to think I do not? It also contains some confusion, but surely all of us are confused in greater or lesser degree in this unprecedented situation. Perhaps I should drop back ten yards and explain some things you may not realize I understand. I do not see Islamic society or political institutions as ideal, or even as very well suited to the modern era. That is, as a general statement, I see Islamic societies as substantially dysfunctional. [I see Hispanic societies in the same way, and I see non-Islamic African societies in the same way, only worse than either Hispanic or Islamic ones are, so it is not something I say exclusively about Islam.] I do not regard it as ideal that so much of the world's oil is controlled by unstable and disfunctional regimes. But I do not regard it as entirely the fault of the people who live today in those lands either. In the case of the Mideast (probably a bad term but you know what it means) oil countries, they long lived in the shadow of the Ottomans, the British, and to a lesser extent, the French and Russians. [See The Great Game, the original one, not the new one]. We certainly cannot claim to have (before the present era) done much to promote freedom for these peoples, and we certainly have made deals with despotic regimes for geopolitical reasons which we knew would tend to keep them in power. We restored independence to Kuwait - but not freedom - because Kuwaitis are not free - and we failed to make restoration of sovereignty conditional on democratic reforms. In this context, I think it is a bit much to expect some people who don't even vote to have the political power to reform their societies. In this context, what the despots do is certainly, and always, a concern. And I am willing to include on the list of dictators those who are (or have been) allied with us - not just those who happen to be enemies at the moment. Mubaric is not much less of a dictor than Saddam, he just does not kill as many people. I do not think that it is wrong to have a position in this vital area of the world. I do not think it is wrong to try to change regimes either. Au contraire I advocate trying to persuade regimes to reform and, in extream cases, forcing them to do so. I am not willing to let the oil stop flowing. On the other hand, I completely disagree that OBL does not attack oil supply because his friends run the oil countries. In fact, he does seem to target oil facilities when it suits him, to the extent he can. It is clear he is an actual enemy of the Saudi regime, and several of the Gulf regimes. He has been in conflict with Iran, but also seems to cut deals at times (including now, interestingly). But I do not see these political entities as friends and allies of each other, except tactically. OBL killed his radical partner, and he is a threat to all Islamic regimes, more so than to any other. I do not see OBL as very clever or great a strategist. If you and I and all my critics on this board got together - and wanted to -we could come up with a much more effective campaign than he has with his resources.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Respect?   9/23/2004 6:52:54 AM
I do see that most people posting here are not genocidal murderers. But a tiny number to use words that - if taken at face value - would mean that. A larger number say things that are not politic if we are to get along with Muslims. And get along we must if we are to win. It is Muslims that are going to provide us with the best information. On 911 there was another target - not hit - in Jordan. Jordanian intel was on to the 911 plot (and told us about it too). They listened to their intel - we did not - and foiled the attack at a resort. Since then Jordanian intel has been the best we have got. In part because they speak Arabic. In part because they can infiltrate Palistinian and related groups. In part because they have a band of people loyal to a political entity which is at odds with the radicals. We need more such allies. Being respectful is the way to get them. Being disrespectful is bad strategy.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    Suppose OW is right?   9/23/2004 7:11:52 AM
After a lifetime of fighting communists, terrorists, pirates, slavers and drug runners, I have a sense of perspective: this present situation is not entirely different from previous ones and it is not the end of the civilized world. This too will come to pass. Forgive me, but I do not see Islamic radicals as very dangerous. For one thing, they are limited in their political appeal. Outside the Muslimic world and communities they have little appeal, unless they play games (as with Terri Nichols, sympathizing with his radicalism). I see communists as much more dangerous, because they can appeal anywhere. Thus, in the Philippines, we have Abu Suyyaf (Muslim), NPA (communist) and a third, minor (also Muslim) organization. Only NPA appeals everywhere. Only NPA ever ruled (and rules today) territory outside the Muslim south. [The largest copper mine in Asia is shut down because it is too dangerous to operate so close to NPA held districts.] I have learned how to go up North on Luzon and not get kidnapped, but it is not an easy thing for a US citizen to do. There is a framework that may end the Islamic insurgency in the Philippines. But there is not very much hope of ending the communist threat. I have a personal friend who was killed at Davao Airport when the agreement not to attack any target in Davao City was broken (by Muslims). But I also know that few people on (mainly Muslim) Mindinao are happy about it. The poor people on Mindinao have a rather close relationship with Baptists, unusual in Roman Catholic Philippines. But real Muslims in many parts of the world know exactly who Christians are, which is why those not totally in poverty send their children to Christian schools (in SE Asia anyway). The Christians, in turn, do not preach religious intolerance, because their schools are mixed, and it would no doubt be bad for business if they had a different policy. The real world is a complex place, and simple assumptions are rarely valid everywhere. But suppose for the sake of argument that OW is correct - that about 3 out of 4 terrorist groups in the world are Islamic? [The US press is notorious for not reporting things of great significance in much of the world, unless it directly affects US people. So I doubt it is reporting everything equally.] But I am assuming the database is representative. So what? What does it mean? What are the impliations for policy? Can we do anything to change it? Do we want to? [Maybe ex communists nostalgic to fight us pretending they are Muslim to join terrorists is a good thing, because these organizations are so inefficient.] Instead of leaving the meaning unstated, say it out loud: what is the significance of this statistic, if it were scientifically established to be correct withing a few points?
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Dumb original topic   9/24/2004 7:33:06 AM
Dozens of posts on this thread demonstrate clearly it was not a dumb original topic. The idea that SOME Americans don't respect Islam - including GRUM/ORCA - could not be clearer. Even when it is pointed out this is an objection to official US policy, and that it is significantly counterproductive, there is little movement away from that position by its advocates. Even if you think ORCA, On Watch and Snow White Bull are correct, you must still think this is a big issue: US policy should presumably then be changed. This is not easy to do, even when there is a clear reason to do so. Pray, however, that they are not right: for if they are all reason for optimism is close to vein. Attempting to surpress a religion is usually counterproductive. And no one ever has attempted to drive the religion out of more than a billion people, or kill them. I certainly hope that the idea of "divide and conquer" can be exploited. Further, we can really use the support of Muslims in this war: they not only are numerous, many speak the languages of the enemy, and many are in places they will see/hear things more useful than most of us will. I treasure Jordanian intelligence. So should all on our side.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics