Quote:
Originally posted by crash9
Yes - With the non-Moslem world or non-Moslem opponents, there can be only one solution - a cease fire until Moslems can gain more power. It is an eternal war until the end of days. Peace can only come if the Islamic side wins. The two civilizations can only have periods of cease-fires. And this idea of cease-fire is based on a very important historical precedent, which, incidentally, Yasser Arafat referred to when he spoke in Johannesburg after he signed the Oslo agreement with Israel.
Whatever the prophet is supposed have done becomes a precedent. What Arafat said was, "Remember the story of Hudaybiya." The prophet had made an agreement there with the tribe of Kuraish for 10 years. But then he trained 10,000 soldiers and within two years marched on their city of Mecca.
The terrorists come from the most fundamental of the four schools of Islam called Hanbali, mainly coming out of Saudi Arabia. They don’t even try to interpret the Koran, but take it literally. Like our own fundamentalist Christians only seem to take literally those parts of the Bible that fit their own prejudices or practice, not everything, so it is with these terrorists.
There are various perspectives in Islam with different interpretations over the centuries. There were good people that were very enlightened in Islam that tried to understand things differently. They even brought traditions from the mouth of the prophet that women and children should not be killed in war.These more liberal streams do exist, but there is one thing that is very important for us to remember. The Hanbali school of law is extremely strict, and today this is the school that is behind most of the terrorist powers. Even if we talk about the existence of other schools of Islamic law, when we're talking about fighting against the Jews, or fighting against the Christian world led by America, it is the Hanbali school of law that is being followed. To the terrorists, because the western civilization is so driven by materialism, it is not only been seen as a religious opponent, but as a dam stopping Islam from achieving the final goal for which it was created.
Islam was created to be the army of God, the army of Allah. Every single Moslem is a soldier in this army. Every single Moslem that dies in fighting for the spread of Islam is a shaheed (martyr) no matter how he dies, because this is an eternal war between the two civilizations. It's not a war that stops. This was is there because it was created by Allah. Islam must be the ruler. Not that much different than what many fundamentalist Christians feel.
If we just exterminate the Hanbali’s it would be like them just exterminating the Baptists and Pentecostals, or did “koop” mean 25% of the world’s population? Might not be the answer. Still in the Sudan that’s what they’re up too – why aren’t we talking about that and just Iraq?
|
Exactly. What you are seeing is a resurgence of fascism all over the world. Fundmentalist Islam and German Nazism are almost identical concepts. The Islamic concept of "jihad" is almost identical to the nazi concept of "kampf", so also is the theory of endless war the same, anti-Semitism, and a lot of other components. The stupidist thing we can do is become more like them. We are not only playing into their hands, we also losing the abilitiy to be a power of example of freedom and peaceful democracy.
Jefferson wanted America's foreign policy to forever be "the gloved hand over the mailed fist". Both he and Washington warned the generations to avoid wars of conquest and foriegn entanglement. Bush should have listened. What we should be doing is treating the people of these countries with respect and fairness, while at the same time designing our military forces so they can act against the more radical elements when needed. Instead of wars of occupation, we should simply define a provable threat and use our armies to totally smash the threat, and then get the hell out. If it is a situation that requires occupation, it should only be done through the United Nations, so the world, not the Americans, is seen as the occupying power in the eyes of those being occupied. Iraq was not a provable threat, and the UN did not feel compelled to act against them at the time, so they should have been left alone. Afganistan, on the other hand was a provable threat, and we acted correctly. In fact, if Bush had simply sent the army into Bagdad, smashed Hussein and walked out, I doubt if by now anyone would care. Its the fascist style disinformation, the endless-1984-war-is-peace arguments and the Hitler-style invasion and occupation that has made this a disaster.
it would also help if instead of carrying out Hitler-style invasions and occupations, proving we are what the Wahhabists say we are, we instead cleaned up our own backyard there first. Remember "freeing" Kuwait? What a bunch of propaganda bull$hit. They have one of the most repressive dictatorships on the planet. Our "ally" Saudi Arabia? All the oil wealth we send them every day doesn't even reach the common people, many who live in slums and can't find a job, as the Saud family rips off every dime. The Israelis? They haven't complied with UN resolutions in 40 years and we're not invading them. We keep paying for the same mistakes. We lost Iran because we installed an unelected dictator who called himself a "shah", who used brutal police state tactics to control the country. When he got kicked out, so did we, and we got kicked out by their version of bin Laden. Iraq, once it is stablized enough to get the oil flowing, will become just like Kuwait, we "freed it" and after the oil starts pumping, we don't give a $hit who takes over. Sooner or later the populations of these countries are going to do the same thing the Iranians did.