We fought communism why cant we fight muslism?

[airgun hunter]

A long time ago when the American people thought for themselves. We fought communism. We did not round up all the communists and shoot them. We fought communism with words. We fought the IDEA of communism because it was a threat to us as a nation. So after reading about what happened on the military base in Texas. Where the gunman gave copies of the koran before he went on his shooting rampage. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572305,00.html) There's also word going around he screamed "allah barakbar" right before opening fire.(Looking for confirmation) Now as me and my dad discussed these events we asked why can we not fight muslism as we fought communism. We need to study what we did back then, and fight the Idea of muslism with words. That is not to say if it is neccessary for us to go to war we should sit back and talk with the terrorists.

Some may say well thats a violation of the 1st amendment. My reply is no it is not it is our first amendment right to speak out against a group of people who are rewarded for killing "infidels". Some may also say that every religon has its wackos. My reply is go through airport security. the main reason it is such a pain to go through is because of muslims. There are not many Chrstian, Budhist, or Hindu terrorist groups, and of those groups even fewer have actually attacked anyone. Muslims believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife for killing infidels, and they still practice that belief. They don't just practice it in there countries either they are coming over here to America, and practicing it as well. We can either fight them over there or figh them in our streets.

[Tominator]

A VERY small percentage of Military personnel are Muslim, yet the last two attacks on our troops BY our troops were both done by Muslims....

[bulldogdad]

Airgun you are on the beginnings of an idea that has been studied since the deadly grip of communism was identified. Click on the link below I think it will provide you with some useful information in the continuing formation of your idea.
I must remember in MY ANGER not to condem innocent muslims for the evil commited by radical Islamists. Your statement about Christians, Budists and Hindu groups is not true. 1992-1995 the wholesale slaughter of Muslim Serbs by supposedly "Christian" Serbs during the war in Bosnia. The fact is all religions get hijacked by extremists with evil agenda's. The same is true right now.
I am not beyond putting a bullet through the forhead of an evil person for mortal protection. However, it is not right to vilify the innocents of any religion.

Internet Archive: Free Download: Islam and communism : a conference sponsored by the Institute for the Study of the USSR at the Carnegie International Center, New York City, June 25, 1960

[fishnhuntfreak]

the difference between communism and Muslim is that communism is a political idea, a social movement. Muslim on the other hand is a religion practiced by over a billion people almost a quarter of the worlds population. to fight the Muslim religion just because they are Muslim is just crazy that would be genocide.

[easymoney]

And not to forget that barry, has been cowtowing to all muslim nations, bring this nation down to their level instead of the other way round...

[swampy tim]

Airgun, I would add that when other-than-Islamo-terrorists faiths commit crime and terrorism, they are rejected by their core faith. What won the cold war was a US policy of peace through strength, championed by Ronald Reagan. S/T

[BelchFire]

Reading your title and lead post made me realize the answer to your question. I'm not sure Muslism is an accepted term. I think the appropriate term would be Islam. Now, ask the same question again. "We fought Communism, why can't we fight Islam?" Communism is a principle; Muslims are a group of people; Islam is a religion. And therein lies the problem; see it? You'd be fighting a religion, not a principle. It would suddenly become a holy war that would entice every Muslim, every where to join in. And then you'd have the largest group of enemies that you'd ever had. In history. Ever.

I'm not saying we don't need to do it, but it's not all of Islam that's the problem. Only the radical faction.

Islam ....... a religion of peace .......

[castor]

If you're serious about finding a solution, look at what the west is doing to cause the problem? It has been a thousand years since Islamic troops occupied parts of Europe. They have never occupied America. Nor do Islamic warships patrol western waters or assist in the overthrow of western governments.

[easymoney]

well castor, they are among us and don't need any warships,
watch this CNN video report posted on youtube...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do0ryiU8y28

[castor]

Hi EM.

Nobody is innocent. I believe that if they had occupied us and patrolled our waters as long as the west has done it to them, we'd be hammering them too. Maybe they'd get it together if we left Islam alone to consolidate the way the world did to North America in the 19th Century?

[acousticmood]

Originally Posted by castor

If you're serious about finding a solution, look at what the west is doing to cause the problem? It has been a thousand years since Islamic troops occupied parts of Europe. They have never occupied America. Nor do Islamic warships patrol western waters or assist in the overthrow of western governments.

Oh come on. How about the millions of muslims that are now free because of the US?

You "blame America first" folks only see a very narrow view and drive me nuts. Its like this guy who shot up the soldiers and Ft. Hood. I don't give a sh#t why or what his reasons were - that is unjustified evil and there is no explanation that can be given other than that.

America has not been perfect but we are clearly head and shoulders above these "victims" that you would advocate for who kill and mame innocents as a stated policy!

[acousticmood]

Originally Posted by castor

Hi EM.

Nobody is innocent. I believe that if they had occupied us and patrolled our waters as long as the west has done it to them, we'd be hammering them too. Maybe they'd get it together if we left Islam alone to consolidate the way the world did to North America in the 19th Century?

Ok Castor - define "them". You use a very broad brush to provide an entire class of victims of American actions. Be more specific. What do you know about the history of the area? Where in your equation is the benefactors of the American actions?

Don't just drink the koolaid - study and come to a defensible position. I guess I'm calling you out (in the nicest board approved kind of way).

[castor]

What benefactors? The primary benefactor of western actions is the west. We haven't been operating in the Gulf since before WW2 for the benefit of the Arab. We've done it for our own business interests.

Western power (not just US) has kept authoritarian regimes in power in the Gulf for generations. Doing so has kept real democratic values with truly effective political opposition parties from becoming effective. If Muslims affected the same amount of distortion of political change on the Christian west as the west has done to them we would be up in arms - and rightly so.

Finally, the notion that we have 'helped all them'? When the west is involved in yet another Vietnam-type war where all the locals want us to leave, who are we helping? How would you feel if there was a US Civil War and a foreign nation intervened to help the side they favoured? Would you think of it as fair if you were on the other side? Many historians think the west has held back the freedom and interests of Islam.

IMO most of these answers can be better understood by placing ourselves in their positions and asking how we would like to be treated - I believe in the Golden Rule. I don't think anybody here would be happy if Islam intervened in our internal business then claimed we should be grateful. 'Specially not if it was my family members killed at a roadblock by some poor, dumb scared Islamic infantryman 10,000 miles from home.

[castor]

Originally Posted by acousticmood

Its like this guy who shot up the soldiers and Ft. Hood. I don't give a sh#t why or what his reasons were - that is unjustified evil and there is no explanation that can be given other than that.

America has not been perfect but we are clearly head and shoulders above these "victims" that you would advocate for who kill and mame innocents as a stated policy!

1. Agreed about the Fort Hood guy. Two wrongs do not make a right.

2. (1) Who are westerners to complain about killing innocents? It isn't even our countries?

(2) All sides kill innocents. There were constant reports during the worst of the Iraq war about occupied homes being bombed or shelled because it was reported that an insurgent had run inside. In many cases the guy had run right out the back door. In others it was his own home. No western nation calls in air support to bomb civilian homes when there is a barricaded suspect. Why do it in someone else's country? Combat ops had been declared over.

(3) It was constantly reported that midnight busts would fail to find the man that troops had a warrant for so they would just round up all Arab males. Again, is that the example we are there to enforce? Is that freedom, liberty and the rule of law?

(4) Guerrilla warfare is a fair response for a poor 3rd World nation occupied by western powers. Nobody objected when the Afghans did it to the Soviet army in the 1980's. China did it under the communists and won. So did America against Britain. Read about the atrocities committed by revolutionary Americans in the late 1700's both to the Brit army and to fellow colonists? All's fair in love and war, and guerrilla warfare is the only possible game for small occupied nations. What would we do if we were occupied? Wouldn't you fight back?

If we look at the whole struggle from an objective historical perspective there is no honour in what the west is doing. We don't like what they are doing to each other, but tough luck. They've been doing it for 5,000 years, and we cannot win if our definition of "winning" is to make them be like us. It would be nice if we could change them, but IMO all we accomplish is killing more of them and us. IMO it has been time to go home for a while now.

[easymoney]

American intervention is reactionary... Name one aggressive first attack instigated by the USA, that was not in response to foreign aggression...

[castor]

Originally Posted by easymoney

American intervention is reactionary... Name one aggressive first attack instigated by the USA, that was not in response to foreign aggression...

IMO you are stretching the point by insisting on an "aggressive first attack instigated by the USA" as a moral precondition to hostilities. Interference short of attack can justify hostilities. The west interfered with Islam in ways that would have resulted in instant retaliation had it been done to a western nation.

Examples in the Gulf region include: Delivery of nerve gas by Donald Rumsfeld to Saddam Hussein. The Flight 655 shoot down of a peaceful Iranian passenger jet. The cruise missile destruction of a drug factory during Clinton's blue-dress controversy. During the Gulf War the US promised as a condition of the alliance being formed that all US troops and equipment would be removed from Islam afterward, then breached that promise. The entire western Gulf foreign policy from WW2 on consisted of interference in the Gulf that no American would tolerate at home.

Your turn. Name one state that was proven to have participated in the 9-11 attack on the US? Except the Saudis of course, who get a free pass because they are business partners with US "interests". All that Afghanistan did was let Al Qaida train there. If letting AQ train in Afghanistan justifies an attack, why isn't it a hostile act to supply Iraq with nerve gas for use on Iran?

For anybody in the west to claim that we are the undeserving victim is just political rhetoric. Look at the title of the thread? It singles out a religion that comprises about 1/3 of all people on earth instead of recognizing that this is a petrol-politics political problem. Over 75,000,000 died in WW1 and WW2, both of which started in Christian Europe. Does that make all Christians evil killers?

[easymoney]

This is getting way off topic, and as has been seen in past days, the aggression is now appearing on our shores.
IMHO, we should have not gone into the middle east in the first place. That being said, interfering in 10 century religious fanatics civil disputes will be non ending battle. See the Russians and the Israelis for a good idewa of what happens.
These are now barry's wars which he campaigned on ending and by bringing home the troops by the end of the year. So much for reality.
And the endless list of aggressions by islamic terrorists is too long to list here.

[airgun hunter]

Actually yes islam probably would have been a better term to use. So I better clarify what i am saying.

I'm not talking about fighting all the principles of Islam i'm talking about fighting the principles of islam that seperate it from other religons. For example suicide bombers are told if they blow themselves up they will recieve a reward in heaven. I'm not talking about fighting the islamic belief that Jesus was not the savior of the world. I'm talking about fighting the principles that make Islam such a violent religion. Source (The Koran violence)

"And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbeliever." Verse 2.191

I know when Christian terrorists commit acts of crime overall it is frowned upon by the religon. As seen in the verse above that comes from the Koran Islam condones acts of violence.

When a Muslim kills an "infidel" they are rewarded in some form. Also most of the terrorists attacks are done by muslim extremists. Thats why I said the majority of security problems we face in airports come from muslims. I know there are wackos in all religions, but islam condones violence whereas Christianity does not. Need proof look at the 10 commandments

I'm not that familar with the hindu or budhist religon so I can't comment on that anyone else have a source?

So to recap we can fight the principles of Islam that deal with violence, and not target the entire religion. Islam condones violence, and the majority of terrorist attacks are done by muslims.

[castor]

I am not in the least convinced that true Islam approves of violence like you quote. I have Islamic friends whose lives are a testament to peace and human respect, and who believe the same about peace as most Christians. Look at our Bible? The apostle Paul drew his sword and cut off the ear of a soldier when Jesus was arrested in the garden at Gethsemane at Easter. God told the people of Israel to go into the promised land and kill everybody. David slew Goliath. God drowned every animal and person in the world except Noah and his family. Able slew Cain. All religions have references to violence including the Christian Bible, and the Bible does not say that all violence is wrong. Ecclesiastes 3:3 says there is a time for everything including war, peace, killing and dying. Nobody killed with more science and enthusiasm in the 20th Century than Christians. IMO the answer is political, not religious, which means it is economic. Wars are based on economics, not faith. Faith gets blamed when sides split down religious lines because of economic histories.

The greatest problem in the world is poverty. Western policies in the Gulf have reinforced it. All of the hatred that people in the Gulf feel towards the west is not justified, but some is. Our governments have propped up their dictators to support western oil business and low oil prices. Western support of authoritarian governments has allowed old regimes to become entrenched instead of having the constant election of new groups with new ideas like happens in the west. Western governments seeking stability support corrupt regimes that keep the Third World poor. So some in the Third world don’t like us. Seems to me like a not-unreasonable way for them to feel?

Another issue of course is that they are just plain different from us. But they are not as different as many people make out. Take for instance the issue of Muslims being willing to sacrifice themselves for their causes and comrades. We do the same thing. We stopped bragging about it when war became so unpopular during the Vietnam era. We started saying that our job was not to die for our country but make our enemy die for his, but that is just more rhetoric. Prior to the Vietnam years we were told it was our job to die for our countries if necessary. Simple. It wasn’t until Vietnam that we started getting bullshitted about it. So now what do we do? We call them cowards for doing it. It doesn’t make much sense to me but we do it. We still call our guys heroes for falling on a grenade for their buddies, but we call the enemy fanatics for coming to the same end slightly differently. They do it differently because they are different. Fancy that, eh?

[airgun hunter]

Yes all religions have references to killing people, but we are not talking about past tense. Nowadays the majority of the Christian community frowns upon killing.

However, there is apparently a large portion of the Islamic community that supports terrorists, and view them as martyrs. Don't take my word for it just go back, and watch the news.

Also Castor I would appreciate it if you would start a new thread to discuss the "How its all the westerns worlds fault", and quit hijacking this thread. I understand how these things come up in these type of topics, but your posts are going to start up another thread. So please remember to stay on topic.

[castor]

AH,

Radicals are not the majority anywhere. I don't think the majority of Muslims agree with the killing.

The topic as I read it is addressing the issue of warring ideologies using words, not killing, and I am weighing in with my opinion. You state that, "We need to study what we did back then, and fight the Idea of muslism with words...." IMO there is no "idea of Muslim". There is no religious uprising of all (or most) Muslims against the world. There are definable economic reasons for the war and those have to be resolved. In essence I am agreeing with you. I am adding my specific ideas to your general position. You might not agree with my specifics, but I am still on topic.

Second, I don't think I will get a valid, objective or fair idea of what is happening through US media. Their agenda is selling airtime, which means they go for drama, pizzazz and bloodshed along with whatever appeals fastest to the lowest common denominator. I'd rather smarten up than dumb down.

Thirdly, I do not say it is all the west's fault. I say it is the fault of all sides. All sides must contribute to any resolution. Again, this is essentially what your first post is saying - that we should talk it out.

Hate to disagree with your saying I am disagreeing, but I think I am agreeing. Just not in a way you agree with.

[FoCoHugh]

The apostle Paul drew his sword and cut off the ear of a soldier when Jesus was arrested in the garden at Gethsemane at Easter.

For the record it was Peter on Good Friday. Your point is not less though.

I just don't buy it. Islam teaches to kill those who don't convert to it. Christianity doesn't. Jesus corrected Peter's sword to the ear actions. The Koran advocates it.

Different issue.

Also, the poverty issues is weak at best. Islamic nations are very wealthy. I don't know if you noticed, but a large portion of the oil revenues are received by Islamic nations. Just a thought.

I don't like the fact that we invaded Iraq. I wish we had not done so. Reagan shut up Khadaffi (spelling?) with two warheads on one day. I think we could have done the same if needed. The war was unnecessary. Arab cultures don't view the concepts of defeat and victory the same way The West does. Either way, I think some apologies and some thanks need to be given on both sides.

But, to ignore a persons Islamic faith in the name of acceptance is naive IMO. Profiling is OK, really. Take it from a Right Wing Religious guy. It happens everyday.

[castor]

Of course - Peter. I think I said Paul didn't I? Duhhhhh, dumb. Thanks.

Originally Posted by FoCoHugh

I just don't buy it. Islam teaches to kill those who don't convert to it. Christianity doesn't. Jesus corrected Peter's sword to the ear actions. The Koran advocates it.

Also, the poverty issues is weak at best. Islamic nations are very wealthy. I don't know if you noticed, but a large portion of the oil revenues are received by Islamic nations. Just a thought.

I understand the way you feel. My doctor is Muslim. I asked him about the Koran advocating death to all infidels. He says BS. That line is a form of extremism fomented by radicals and fringe elements but not supported by the silent majority of Muslims. Don't forget, the world Muslim population is huge and covers much of the world. So do the problems with Islamo-fascism. Both the Philippines and China have had armed interventions versus Muslim extremists this year.

I equate the argument to comparing mainstream Christianity to KKK extremism. The KKK claims Scriptural support for its extremist views and some KKKers have cited the Bible. Nonetheless few Christians would agree that David Duke and the KKK represent Western values. What is the real truth? I do not even pretend to know. I suspect that there are places in Saudi Arabia where an infidel will be killed if he is caught trespassing by certain clerics and sects. However I do not accept that this same ruthlessness translates into all Muslims supporting international terrorism.

As for wealth, I think you err if you confuse gross national product with the wealth of the people. Third World wealthy leaders rule over cesspools of poverty and disease. Look at UAE, whose websites brag about half-billion dollar private yachts and sterling silver automobiles? That is exactly the kind of thing I meant when I wrote that western support has permitted authoritarian governments to hold power over poverty stricken people. Now those people are demanding power and their governments divert blame by pointing to us. Never mind that all we did was support those governments, the governments and the agitators blame the outsiders.

I am arguing that 99% of all war is economic at root. Somebody wants what somebody else has, or somebody is withholding what someone needs. Take the Irish Troubles for example. Because the Protestants attack the Catholics and visa versa it looks like they are fighting over faith, but they are not. The economy got divided down religious lines when the Protestant Brits took over Ireland and refused to admit the native Catholic Irish into the economy, other than as cheap labour. Religion was a means of identifying who was on the other side, but nobody would have kept fighting if everybody had enough to eat (to put it simply).

Cheers!

[BelchFire]

Originally Posted by FoCoHugh

For the record it was Peter on Good Friday. Your point is not less though.

I just don't buy it. Islam teaches to kill those who don't convert to it. Christianity doesn't. Jesus corrected Peter's sword to the ear actions. The Koran advocates it.

Different issue.

Thanks, Hugh, you beat me to it. Comments like this incense me. Peter may have taken a sword to protect his teacher, but the teacher "taught" Peter better than that. And then went on to correct Peter for it. It was not an act born of Christianity, but rather born of humanity.

The huge difference in this argument is that radical Muslims will tell you that they are expected to kill all infidels. NO Christian group will tell you that. Further, when someone claiming Christianity crosses a line between legal and illegal (usually as an individual), it's the CHRISTIANS who stand up to object first (to wit: David Koresh, et al.) Show me where the majority Muslims are working to correct these most atrocious acts perpetrated on behalf of Islam.

[airgun hunter]

Islam condones acts of violence you don't have to take my word for it just look at these quotes from the koran.

"Fight against them until there is no more disorder and Allah’s supremacy is established. If they desist, let there be no hostility except against the oppressors."

"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you ..."

"Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of Allah; whether they die or conquer, We shall richly reward them."

"Their real wish is to see that you become a disbeliever, as they themselves have disbelieved, so that you may become exactly like them. So you should not take friends from their ranks unless they immigrate in the way of Allah; and if they do not, seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take any of them as protectors or helpers."

(Source The Koran violence) There's more, but I think thats enough to make my point.

Belch you hit the nail on the head

It's this principle that is in the Koran that i'm talking about fighting. We are not fighting the whole teaching of islam. What we are fightings deals with the fact that Islam teaches violence. No matter what they say its in there holy book.

You can fight a principle of a religion without fighting the entire religion. It's called having a theological debate.

Yes, some of your points are valid arguments just make sure this thread stays on topic because we can have a whole another discussion on what your saying about the west.

[Common Sense]

Remember the thread a month ago or so "Some Good News". The poster was happy that one of Madoff's cronies drowned and because grandma said it was okay he was praying that all the other bastards die. I didn't think that sounded to Christian, but most posters felt it was okay to ask our Christian God to kill our enemies.


Having said that, I feel every Muslim who is not a citizen should be shipped home immediately.

[bulldogdad]

Until there are more McDonalds selling Mcfalafels and Kentucky Frieds selling 12 piece lamb buckets than Mosques in middle east countries people will not have a reason to root out the extremists. And yes these piece of crap Monarchies have got to go. Most humans once they have freedom and creature comforts will not like getting their 1080p 52inch lcd's destoryed by a homicide bomber or a laser guided cruise missle exploding in Al-Qaeda's hidout next door. Wal-mart, cheap labor (LABOUR for castor) and HD Broadband should help seal the deal.

Also the Islamic community, Muslim families, groups, organizations and institutions have got to throw out the Uncle "nutjob" Muhammed's in their midsts.

I love all the biblical and religious quotes. Like a bad episode of the West Wing.LOL.

[swampy tim]

airgun, I would suggest that we didn't fight communism with words at all but with actions. That is what the arms race was about. Who had the superior technology and motivation to use it. Words from Ronald Reagan were backed up with a show of force. It was the threat of the "star wars" system and the investment in it that caused the economic and ultimately the fail of the formal communism in the USSR. Clearly words have had no effect on China, North Korea and the Islamo-facists. Most of the world only responds to force, to engage in discussions or empty threats only telegraphs weakness, to those who would do us harm. Now what actions do you think are we prepared to take to protect ourselves from islamo-terrorist? S/T

[Glass eye]

I know this would never happen, but I think that if all muslim's captured for acts of terrorism were given organ transplants from a pig, and those that died in the act of terrorism were buried with a pig, than they would not be so willing to die for allah.

[bulldogdad]

ummmm so much talk about meat. I'm craving a shredded pork falafel. Can someone pass the mint yogurt sauce.