Article on the roots of militant Islam

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by OPM

The thing is, pulling our support from Israel may create a situation that encourages the great majority of the Muslim population to actively support the militant factions.

Well, I'm not suggesting just pulling the rug out from under Israel. The result might be a bloodbath involving Arab chemical weapons and Israeli nuclear weapons.

What I am suggesting is something like the episode "A Piece of the Action" on Star Trek. (To the uninitiated, the Enterprise encountered a planet of warring factions directly copied from the 1920s Chicago mob gangland wars, and Kirk imposed a peace to be enforced by the "feds" -- the Federation.)

The key tactics are to convince the parties that you're serious (you will kill to keep the peace, and will use overwhelming force), and fair (you devise a solution that gives something to everyone, and you're not tilting the table toward one side). You also segregate the parties, so the solution doesn't depend on their getting along for the peace to be kept.

Then you make a few examples to make the point. If some Israelis violate a border and commit an illegal killing, you extradite the individuals and try them in a U.N. court of law. You do the same thing for Muslim militants. Pretty soon people get the message that the borders are real, U.S.-imposed justice is real, and the cycle of violence and revenge between Muslims and Israelis can end.

Probably the hardest part of this is figuring out the borders and the right of access across borders by religious pilgrims. By a cruel historical joke, some of the holiest Jewish and Muslim places are in the same city (Jerusalem) and sometimes the same spot. While I wish both religions wouldn't be so obsessive about particular patches of dirt, the fact is that they are this way -- this is the underlying source of the conflict. So any U.S.-imposed solution needs to be very careful about borders and right of access. Fortunately, a lot of experts have thought long about this, so there's no shortage of draft proposals.

By the way, probably the key reason a peace has to be imposed by the U.S. goes beyond the historical inability of the Muslims and Israelis to achieve a lasting peace themselves. I really believe that to some degree the parties can't agree to a peace. Each side has too many radical elements to allow a moderate government to agree to a peace directly with enemy, as opposed to a peace imposed from above (from the U.S. or U.N.). As bad as Sharon is, for example, he's constantly being undermined by ultra-right Israelis who would toss him out of power or assassinate him if he got in bed with the Arabs. So what is needed is a strong-arm approach -- a real commitment by the U.S. to force a peace. That commitment by the U.S. (and U.N.) gives cover to both sides.

Everyone thinks we have to be nice, to get on the good side of these people. Nothing major ever got done by nice people arriving hat in hand. Big balls win wars and keep the peace.

[Darth Tater]

Problem with a US 'imposed' peace goes to the real reason they don't like us. The Muslim would see this as us making them a client state, something that cannot be tolerated. They have assasinated their own caliphs for less.

While they may not have the ability to confront us directly on the battlefield, 9-11 shows there are other means available to them.

According to Moslem teachings, the Qu'raan predates man, it was written in Arabic -- the language of God and its best comparison in Christianity is Christ.

[redman]

Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan

My point is that the creation and history of Israel on holy Islamic land is a massive, overwhelming insult to all Muslims -- and there are over one billions Muslims in the world.

You mean like building the Dome of the Rock dead center upon where the Holiest of the Holies was in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem? Please don't preach about the innocence and the simplicity of the problem there whilst attacking Jews/Israeli's only.

The problem rests with the fact that not a single predominantly Islamic nation on earth has become Islamic by peaceful means. The very name "Islam" means submission to Allah. Is it any wonder why that same religion supports so-called "holy war"?

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by OPM

Problem with a US 'imposed' peace goes to the real reason they don't like us. The Muslim would see this as us making them a client state, something that cannot be tolerated.

Then call it a U.N.-imposed peace. The Arab governments are members of the U.N. and thus in theory support its resolutions. (In fact the U.N. is largely sympathetic to Arab concerns, but gets blocked by the U.S. in making much noise about it in the form of official resolutions.)

A properly devised peace could be declared as a U.N. resolution, supervised by U.N. troops under U.S. battlefield command.

[redman]

Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan

The key tactics are to convince the parties that you're serious (you will kill to keep the peace, and will use overwhelming force), and fair (you devise a solution that gives something to everyone, and you're not tilting the table toward one side). You also segregate the parties, so the solution doesn't depend on their getting along for the peace to be kept.

Then you make a few examples to make the point. If some Israelis violate a border and commit an illegal killing, you extradite the individuals and try them in a U.N. court of law. You do the same thing for Muslim militants. Pretty soon people get the message that the borders are real, U.S.-imposed justice is real, and the cycle of violence and revenge between Muslims and Israelis can end.

Other than the fact that your scenario would involve us, or another outsider, enforcing the rules, how is the scenario you outline any different from what the Israeli's currently do?

Sorry, but this won't work based upon history. How exactly is that overwhelming force going to work against suicide bombers? Shall we flog their scattered remains?

[Darth Tater]

A UN-enforce peace might work as long as the Moslem's dominante the UN. That is quite possible, so I'm not being facetious.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by redman

Other than the fact that your scenario would involve us, or another outsider, enforcing the rules, how is the scenario you outline any different from what the Israeli's currently do?

Sorry, but this won't work based upon history. How exactly is that overwhelming force going to work against suicide bombers? Shall we flog their scattered remains?

Last time I checked, Israel hasn't lived within its U.N.-sanctioned borders since 1948. Since the 1967 war, it has illegally held massive occupied territory -- West Bank, Gaza strip, Golan Heights. The Israeli government officially sanctions the settlement of these areas by Israeli citizens, making any theoretical retreat impractical, and causing daily friction in the territories between Palestinians and Israelis.

If Israel ever demonstrated it could live within U.N.-sanctioned borders, there might not be suicide bombings. Similarly, if the Arab states would stop their occasional military (mis)adventures against Israel, Israel could stop claiming it needs a "security zone" (the territories). All this is possible via a U.N.-defined set of borders that would be enforced by U.N. military forces.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by OPM

A UN-enforce peace might work as long as the Moslem's dominante the UN. That is quite possible, so I'm not being facetious.

Despite the number of Islamic states, they haven't gotten anywhere with the U.N. except to make speeches and throw up resolutions that get vetoed by the U.S.

The U.S. still retains its U.N. security council veto power in this scenerio. We would simply be taking a leadership position on this issue, instead of a defensive position. We could still continue to veto U.N. resolutions that we saw as being dangerous or unbalanced.

[Darth Tater]

Unless peace is on their terms, the Moslem will not agree to peace because that is not peace. I don't really know what the extreme-right Jews want except to destroy the Dome of the Rock and rebuild the temple.

[redman]

Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan

Last time I checked, Israel hasn't lived within its U.N.-sanctioned borders since 1948. Since the 1967 war, it has illegally held massive occupied territory -- West Bank, Gaza strip, Golan Heights. The Israeli government officially sanctions the settlement of these areas by Israeli citizens, making any theoretical retreat impractical, and causing daily friction in the territories between Palestinians and Israelis.

If Israel ever demonstrated it could live within U.N.-sanctioned borders, there might not be suicide bombings. Similarly, if the Arab states would stop their occasional military (mis)adventures against Israel, Israel could stop claiming it needs a "security zone" (the territories). All this is possible via a U.N.-defined set of borders that would be enforced by U.N. military forces.

I totally disagree with both of your premises.

First, the attacks against Israel wouldn't stop because those who support them work towards one goal and one goal only - the destruction of Israel. They've been explicit about it. And that means that even to the extent that they say that Israel's surrender of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the PA would stop bombing, they don't mean it. Instead, they'd make that a stepping stone for more attacks against a then-weakened Israel.

Second, the U.N. is a paper tiger, or more appropriately, a paper poodle. If you think Americans cringe at the thought of their troops getting killed overseas, we have nothing on the UN. Case in point, take a look at what happened in Rwanda. Tens of thousands of refugees encamped with the UN forces instead of fleeing across the Rwandan borders to safety. Despite this fact, and despite the certainty of the UN commander who indicated in a written report to his superiors that if the UN left those people would be slaughtered, they were ordered out of the area when the UN thought that it was too risky for the peace keepers to remain.

Excuse me? Too dangerous for peacekeepers? Isn't that why they're freaking there to begin with?

Oh and by the way, every single one of those thousands of men, women and children were slaughtered by machete wielding tribesmen the moment the UN forces pulled out of there.

In other words, spare me this dreamy, pie in the sky, internationalist, UN-saves-the-day stuff. It's a myth. And it's an example of what happens when you try to run things by committee when decisive action is what's needed. The UN can't lead, it can only follow.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by redman

spare me this dreamy, pie in the sky, internationalist, UN-saves-the-day stuff. It's a myth. And it's an example of what happens when you try to run things by committee when decisive action is what's needed.

Hey, this thread is starting to sound like "How long have you been beating your wife?"

I originally proposed a U.S.-based initiative, then was b!tch-slapped for that. Then I proposed a U.N. resolution with U.N. troops under U.S. battlefield command. Now I'm getting slapped with the U.N. noodle. Crikers.

All right, let me re-spin this another time. How about a U.N. resolution with U.S. troops deputized as a U.N. command force? That's a new animal, but what I mean is, the U.N.'s resolution is what is being enforced, but recognizing the need for local and immediate military authority, the U.N. requests the assistance of the U.S. military command as its agent. The U.S. forces are still under the direct command of the U.S. president, but are authorized to act only within the guidelines set forth by the U.N. resolution (i.e., enforcing borders, extraditing violators of the U.N. resolution).

Any *other* actions by the U.S. military in the middle east must be carried out by a different command force. The U.N./U.S. "special forces" are authorized to act only as enforcers of the U.N. resolution. But within the boundaries of the resolution's mandate, the forces are free to determine their actions, and are licensed to use all lethal force necessary.

[Glenn X]

Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan

In my view, there are really only two primary reasons for our escalating war with Islamic followers:

1. Our need for Middle East oil

2. Our unilateral support for Israel

Take away these factors, and we could easily leave the Middle East alone. Both sides could live in separate worlds in peace, each thinking the other side was hopelessly barbaric, but not feeling the need to go to war over those opinions.

Yeah, I guess those four airplanes that were turned into giant missiles against American targets on Sept. 11th have nothing whatsoever to do with "our escalating war with Islamic followers," eh? BTW, it's not so much "Islamic followers" in toto that we're at war with (as there are already a good many Muslims who happily live and work in this country, and don't go around blowing sh*t up), but rather Osama Bin Laden and the rest of his neo-fascist pals.

We can't play the ol' isolationist game here, relegating Bin Laden and the rest of his fanatical ilk to "a timeout in the corner." We're at war here. A war that they declared on us. And this is not a war that can be won through impassioned diplomacy and measured attrition. Unlike, oh say, the Soviets, our enemies today are utterly unreasonable. They do not recognize our right to exist. They don't even acknowledge the sanctity of their own lives, willfully killing themselves in order to wipe us out and ensure themselves a one-way ticket to their paradise. There is no middle ground here. People like Bin Laden and his followers can't be bargained with. They can't be talked into a ceasefire. They won't stop. Ever. Not until they've eliminated us all. Our only alternative is to hunt them down. Hunt them all down and eliminate them first.

In my estimation, anything less than this is muddy-headed, paralytic moral relativism.

[Darth Tater]

<ASK,

About the B-Slapping, I hope you were not refering to me. I thought it was an interesting plan but don't believe it will work so I simply pointed to why I believe that.>

Now, are there solutions? One is reminiscent of a certain 'final-solution' and I believe that strategy was already addressed. We could submit ourselves to the 'will of Allah' but unless all our material blessings flow to them, we must not be submitting (also, this is counter to human nature). We could marginalize the region and ignore it but that may just cause certain factions to find other reasons to hate us. Or, we could figure out a way to destroy or modify Islam so it is submissive to western culture. We could also combine some of these strategies.

According to their world-view, they did not declare war on us, we declared war on them and that is why isolationism may not work (also, some may find the results to sickening). Also, I hate to break it to you, but it is the whole of Islamic followers that are the problem here (that is, in their current state). Of course, the lack of disdain in the Moslem world for a blasphemer like Kaddafi(sp) while declaring a fatwa against Rushdie may indicate a crack in their armour, a disengenous move on their part.