I have not resorted to insults appropriate to the nature of the language I have read. It is true I often strike people as arrogant - because I am an A type personality and I do have a strong communications style. When I am in no doubt about something critical, I do not express myself conditionally. But I am not reading any conditional language in the condemnations of Islam here. I am reading "they are all our enemies and they all must do this or that or I will go on hating them" or even using my ammunition on them. Why are you defending that? Why are you critical of facing it in the way it should be faced? Whatever else can be said, such views are factually wrong (they cannot be otherwise given the gigantic body of denominations included in so many places) and they represent a clear and present danger to the cause of defending the world political-economic system. I really do not know a single person who participates in policy debates (and people disagree with me often) who disagrees on this point. Why should I sound anything but condesending about a view that is really not rational and which is not willing to be persuaded by rational argument? It is not my intention to sound that way, but communication is dynamic - a lot of what you hear you bring to the table - and if I am not insecure about what I say I fear you will tend to regard it as condesencing - no matter if I wished to sound that way or no. Propose some middle ground. Propose something that does not include universal condemnation of Islam - which is not US policy - and which permits us to address how to defeat our real enemies - who admittedly would like to claim Islamic justification. I will consider it. Just do not propose making he pool of enemies on the order of 2 billion people. Not practical. Not necessary. Not wise.

For starters, an historical exegis on Shiite attitudes towards Jews and Judaism, and what this branch of the alleged religion of peace thinks should be done: http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14070 swhitebull - ok so this attitude includes all of the Shiites in Iran, We can add Hizbollah, maybe the iraqi Shiites if they adhere to the Iranian line, and the east Arabian peninsular Shiites as well. So how many does that add up to? Regardless of whether TRUE Islam is a religion of peace or not, the REALITY is that there are MILLIONS of adherents of this faith that USE the tenets of the Quran and the Hadith to justify violence and hatred. THAT is the reality, NOT that those teachings arent really part of core beliefs. What one believes is more important than the reality - it has become the reality.

How do you win “hearts and minds”? Whose hearts and minds? The “99% peaceful” muslims? How do you do that? If, as you allege, the majority of muslims are peaceful and opposed to terrorism, what do you change in their hearts, in their minds? Or do you mean the “1%” who perform violence in the name of their god? How do you change those hearts and minds? What do you or I have to counter-offer a man or woman who has been promised eternity in paradise, and can’t wait to start the trip? I have never said I “hate” innocent muslims, and it is preposterous and disingenuous of you say that I have. I do hold islam in general guilty of doing little to combat, eliminate, discourage, or otherwise deal with the cancer that commits crime in their god’s name. You are obviously an experienced and important person. You speak of secret missions, secret conversations, important decision making colleagues, policy makers soliciting your opinion, etc. You should listen to man on the street. If islam will not, or cannot, clean the terrorists from its midst, others will. Today’s muslim children must be isolated from those who do preach hatred and violence in god’s name, and only today’s muslim parents can. Today’s terrorism was produced over decades by hate filled men. Tomorrow’s terrorism is being taught right now by hate filled men preaching in god’s name. The only people that can change that are the people that supply the students and/or allow the hatred to be preached. muslims! What would a “super spy” suggest has more appeal to a ten year old being promised eternity in paradise in return for the sacrifice of his life? A lollipop? A pony? Many believe, and you deny, “peaceful muslims” are passive supporters of terrorism. Unfortunately, lack of pro-active behavior by muslims against terrorism supports this perception. I would like to believe it untrue, but am hesitant to witness another atrocity whilst waiting for demonstrable proof. So continue your “I know more than you do, I know people you don’t know” attitude, but what it shakes down to is: very few people believe you.

"I have not resorted to insults appropriate to the nature of the language I have read." What does that mean? You think you're being polite?

Sid, I said what I intended to say, and I will not be-labor the points I made. Others here will determine for themselves if they feel you have behaved in this fashion or not, so it is pointless wasting time over yours, mine, or others definition of what exactly is arrogant behavior, etc. I again repeat what I have stated earlier...I beleive that there is a demonstrated significant percentage of Muslims, especially in the Mid-East, that contribute to the problems of the cause of Islamic terrorism by either their passive behavior towards, or tacic encouragement/acknowledgment of the methods/ideas of the extremists towards both other Muslim groups and much of the non-Muslim world. If I am incorrect, then please, show exactly where I am wrong in my above statement. Note I did not say 'all Muslims'. Note I did not even refer to the group I describe above as 'the enemy'. I do not consider this group as an 'enemy' in the sense that war need be made upon them, but neither will I consider them as my 'friend' -- a 'friend' would not turn a blind eye towards these things. NewGuy

>>If you want to learn what I call "combat psychology" go to prison. I am quite serious. Go and live in a prison. Go unarmed among the population, and learn how to seek out and confront trouble, and its ringleaders, unarmed, and using the tools of your mind as your main battery. If you live, and if you get to the point you can say to me "There is going to be a riot at 2 p.m. The staff and guards have abandoned the prison. I can go stop it alone" I will be impressed and say you have graduated. Until you have a clue what I am talking about, stop pretending you understand what psychological warfare is about. Just believe someone who knows: hate is a trap, and it ensnares you more than anyone else<< Unfortunately, I likely won't spend time in your prison "combat psychology" class, so I'll have to draw upon my experiences and perceptions of the real world. Experience tells me all the words in the speeches in all the world won't stop a 5.56mm round from putting your brains on the pavement. So, flowery language aside, you can greet people on Freaky Friday walking out of the weekly hate sermon at the mosque and tell them that you're an American and that the screaming imam they just listened to is not a Muslim and does not follow Islam, then shoot everyone who gets mad at you for offending them, or you can shoot the imam and see who gets mad about you "making war on Islam." Or, you can assume that they have a rational basis for hating you, and shoot yourself.

When I was in Saudi Arabia - guess what? I (a male) was pursued by male Saudis I worked with, male Saudi shop owners, and male Saudis on the street. Homosexuality is universal there - and will be in any society that represses sexuality and suppresses male/female relationships outside of the family. (And, by the way, I have nothing against homosexuals or the Saudis.)

Hi all. I remember reading in a couple of different books how whole tribes of Afgans,Devout muslims all, painted their nails,and wore lipstick and grabbed the arses of passing western journalists and SF troops. Just a passing comment. hi to AK Elbandeedo Jay Apple Newguy regards and respect Tommy

This is a hard bitten USMC idea - borne of experience in little wars only historians and Marines tend to study. You have one thing right: it is not the peaceful ones one wishes to persuade. But you seem to have missed the corellary idea: if you adopt incorrect policy you might change the peaceful ones minds - into not being peaceful. This is what usually happens - bad policy gives all (fill in the blank, in this case Muslims) no real options - and makes their situation intolerable and unfair - so eventually you turn them into the enemies you wrongly thought they were in the first place. Correct policy is a two edged sword - involving both carrot and stick. You make the price for being a real enemy (the kind that fights and materially aids those who fight) very high and, at least as important, very sure and swift. At the same time, you reward those who do not fight, in particular in terms of respect, honor, fair consideration and treatment, and sometimes more tangible things. If you are wise and clever, this not only includes the true innocents, but the real bad guys willing to defect. [These latter are the ones who get tangible rewards. It is cheaper than feeding the fire of hatred.] So learned the Marines in a century of minor wars. I can say the idea worked when I tried it in VC country. Do not doubt that people are human, after all. Good psychology works.

Too bad. It is not my idea. And it is official US policy as well. Not supporting it is pretty unpatriotic given there is a war on. I am not sure why you don't think USMC doctrine is correct? I am not sure why you think I don't know any Muslims, nor read and listen to Muslims I do not know? But I fear the war will last longer than it need do if more people would adopt the attitude of our President and myself and the Marines and, well, almost every academic and soldier I know. But assume for the moment the administration is wrong, the Marines are wrong, I am wrong, and everyone I know is wrong. What is the impact of assuming most or almost all Muslims are enemies on the outcome of the war? One might propose, if one believed such a thing, some kind of pogrom I suppose. But history suggests that the one way to make a religion grow is to surpress it. And agreeing with OBL his view of Islam represents "the truth" may cut the legs out from under other Islamic leaders, including those who condemn him, giving him and his allies much more power than they started with. I do not see where you are going to go that makes things better? I do not see how you can get there without making assumptions that will be very hard on the real innocent Muslims either - however few they may be? And I have a suggestion as well: if you are right - if a majority of Muslims really support the radicals - why are they not very much better funded and supported by the 35 states officially self described as Islamic? Why is not the enemy able to mount out significant attacks every few days - or at least every few weeks? The record suggests both a marginal enemy and a poorly organized one. It has been official US policy to drive that enemy from the only country openly to support it (Afghanistan) into semi-isolation in remote places with poor communications. I suggest that policy, if one may quibble about details, has a sound strategic foundation.