Article

2004-09-01 Afghanistan/South Asia

Hundreds of protesters attack mosque in Nepal to protest deaths of 12 in Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by 3dc 2004-09-01 01:24|| || Front Page|| [11135 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Huh. Wonder why they thought there was a connection.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-09-01 7:54:48 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-09-01 7:54:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Nepalese Muslim groups have condemned the killings saying the "inhuman act is against Islam".
By thier silence, the Islamic groups of Nepal and elsewhere allow this stuff to happen, and when it get's out of control, they don't see they are just as responsible as the idiot's who did this.

Posted by plainslow 2004-09-01 8:15:19 AM|| 2004-09-01 8:15:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Send in the Gurkhas, for crying out loud.

Posted by Chuck Simmins 2004-09-01 9:08:00 AM|| [http://blog.simmins.org] 2004-09-01 9:08:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Blowback's a bitch.

Posted by Ptah 2004-09-01 9:08:59 AM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-09-01 9:08:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Plainslow: âthey don't see they are just as responsible as the idiot's who did thisâ

No, they arenât âjust as responsibleâ. The terrorists who did it are bloody murders. The Muslims who donât speak out are in denial that their religion encourages and harbors bloody murders. Or in some communities they may be Muslims who fear to speak out because they are intimidated by those who do support bloody murders. Or they are members of Muslim communities that neither encourage nor condone violence toward non-Muslims and feel no connection with or responsibility for the sects that do support terrorism.

Muslims who donât speak out against terrorists are somewhat to blame for the poor global reputation of Islam just as those on Rantburg who fail to condemn extreme statements such as those by Plainslow are responsible for pushing moderate Muslims toward radicals.

Posted by Anonymous5032 2004-09-01 9:14:17 AM|| 2004-09-01 9:14:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 I'm sure every harsh comment on Rantburg creates another jihadi. The actual contents of the Quran aren't nearly as important as rude comments on the Internet.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-09-01 9:39:07 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-09-01 9:39:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Anon5032-What extreme statement did plainslow make?

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-01 9:40:47 AM|| 2004-09-01 9:40:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Jules: âWhat extreme statement did plainslow make?â

Plainslow: âthey don't see they are just as responsible as the idiot's who did thisâ

This statement is similar to the moral equivalence that the LLLâs use to blame the US for all deaths in Iraq. Or those who compare the abuse at Abu Ghraib with the torture perpetrated by Saddam.

Yes, people who fail to speak out against evil are contributing to evil. That does not make them equally evil.

I know nothing about the Nepalese Muslim groups. If they only spoke out against terrorism after they felt the blow back from the Iraq murders then the Nepalese Muslim groups do bear some very small responsibility. But they arenât âjust as responsibleâ. And if extremists in Nepal commit terrorism on Nepalese Muslims, those extremists will be evil. And if posters on Rantburg fail to speak out against that evil then to a very very small degree they are responsible for that evil.

I believe we are at war with radical Islam but I donât want my âsideâ to use LLL tactics.

Posted by Anonymous5032 2004-09-01 10:16:35 AM|| 2004-09-01 10:16:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Peaceful Muslims need to take note. The worldâs patience is wearing really, really thin. I donât condone violence like this. But do Muslims really believe this wonât be the global outcome if they just sit back quietly and allow such horrors to be committed in the name of their religion?

Posted by B 2004-09-01 10:25:36 AM|| 2004-09-01 10:25:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Anon5032-Point taken-don't confuse murder with abetting. Got it.

BUT how long do you think the worldwide Muslim community will be able to claim violence is not promoted by Islam? It's the most macabre display of the King's New Clothes I've ever seen, and rantburgers, among others, aren't buying because the evidence is to the contrary. In Palestine, suicide bombings are cheered. In NYC, the murders of 3000 people are cheered. In Iraq, mutilation of American civilian contractor corpses are cheered. Year after year after year, violence is done in the name of Islam-Muslims talk about it, read about it, see it covered on TV...is it really a very small responsibility on their part for the thousands that have died in the name of their religion? Anyone on this site-what would you say is the proportion of Muslims worldwide, from those in positions of power covered daily on the media, as well as from everyday Joes, who demand their religion stop using violence to promote itself?

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-01 10:48:13 AM|| 2004-09-01 10:48:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Anyone on this site-what would you say is the proportion of Muslims worldwide, from those in positions of power covered daily on the media, as well as from everyday Joes, who demand their religion stop using violence to promote itself?

Less than one percent.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-09-01 10:51:22 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-09-01 10:51:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Remember, those who are not Moslems in Nepal are Buddhists, who have more of a claim to "religion of peace".

You think what might happen here in the US if there is another terrorist attack?

Posted by BigEd 2004-09-01 10:52:40 AM|| 2004-09-01 10:52:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 jules 187. Very well put.

Posted by plainslow 2004-09-01 11:02:37 AM|| 2004-09-01 11:02:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 "The militants said the 12 Nepalis had been killed because they "came from their country to fight the Muslims and to serve the Jews and the Christians".

The Jews and the Christians-the Jews and the Christians-the Jews and the Christians-the Jews and the Christians-the Jews and the Christians-the Jews and the Christians-the Jews and the Christians-the Jews and the Christians-the Jews and the Christians.

This is what it's about for them. The Islmofacists think like this, and that's why there's no reasoning with them. Sometimes I think the majority of the rest don't know what to think, and sometimes I think their religion teaches them to take a back seat. Who knows. Interesting though, that it's not even a question for the Nepalese to take revenge and damage a mosque. I think the terrorists were stupid to start attacking third-world countries with their idiocy. Guess they want to start a world war, or some such thing.

Posted by ex-lib 2004-09-01 11:50:24 AM|| 2004-09-01 11:50:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Jules: âBUT how long do you think the worldwide Muslim community will be able to claim violence is not promoted by Islam?â

I expect the worldwide Muslim community to continue to claim that Islam does not promote violence and I expect Bush to continue referring to Islam as the RoP. Condemning Islam isnât going to make radicals into moderates or turn moderate Muslims into Christians. Instead of condemning all Islam I believe the better strategy is to treat radical Islam as a deviant form of Islam that must be eradicated.

Islam is an aggressive religion. Even the milder forms are intolerant. The more extreme forms promote violence. The US must exert strong pressure to change Islamic society. It is happening. TV, movies, music, and the Internet are having a major impact. With the US to force open the societies and with time, I believe globalization will modernize the Muslim countries.

Schools in the ME and in Pakistan are revising textbooks and removing the more blatant incitements to hatred of non-Muslims. Madrassas that teach terrorism are being closed. Governments are cracking down on the most extreme clerics.

Unfortunately we may not have time. If we are unable to change the Islamic world the US will likely lose a city to a nuclear terrorist attack in the next decade. The probable US response is total war in which hundreds of millions of Muslims die. If moderate Muslims donât speak out against terrorism and fight the extremists in their societies, extremists and moderates alike will die.

Here in the US, if we are to avoid total war, we have to see Muslims as individuals, not as faceless terrorists. The West should support the moderates against the radicals. Burning mosques wonât do it. (Refusing to give into terror, refusing to accept Sharia Law, strongly encouraging integration into host countries, and encouraging moderates to denounce violence should help stop the radicals.)

As for the Palestiniansâ¦they may be a lost cause. Terrorism may be too strongly rooted in the culture to salvage most of the populace.

In Iraq, the moderates are fighting a civil war. Some Iraqis cheer the murder of US citizens. Others denounce attacks on our troops and join the IP. Many Iraqis are disgusted by the hostage takers. We need to treat our enemies as enemies and not treat potential friends as enemies.

Iâm not ready to write-off 1.3 billion Muslims.

Posted by Anonymous5032 2004-09-01 1:22:59 PM|| 2004-09-01 1:22:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Islam is a Religion of Peace that supports and promotes its own Cult of Death. Fine, support the moderates. But make it clear that they need to take down their own David Koresh characters before they burn down the house.

Posted by lex 2004-09-01 1:25:33 PM|| 2004-09-01 1:25:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 what would you say is the proportion of Muslims worldwide, from those in positions of power covered daily on the media, as well as from everyday Joes, who demand their religion stop using violence to promote itself?

most of them probably wouldnt phrase it that way, but Id say at least 80% oppose using violence for the general promotion of Islam. If you however were to ask how many were opposed to the use of terrorism for specific political causes they believe in, youd get a far lower number, probably well under than 50%.

Whats more important to are those, who whether out of principle or only out of their own personal or local self interest actively fight against terrorism and terrorists.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-01 1:41:16 PM|| 2004-09-01 1:41:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Word. Refusal to condemn terror is what sets apart the muslim pathology. Arafat gave the world hijackings and unannounced, mass killings of random civilians as a political tactic. Only suicide bombers are condemned by the muslims will we know they're cleaning up their own house.

Posted by lex 2004-09-01 1:45:50 PM|| 2004-09-01 1:45:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Anon5032-Respectfully, this sounds like the approach we have been using (unsuccessfully) for some time.

But let's say we try your ideas. If they are to work, let's hash out JUST HOW? ...treat radical Islam as a deviant form of Islam that must be eradicated (who defines radical Islam-the West or Islam, and how will you ever get Muslims to agree to the eradication of radical Islam-what is the actual plan of action?)...The US must exert strong pressure to change Islamic society (like, for example, through the kind of sanctions our 'allies' bypassed in Oil for Food?, or another idea)...it is happening...TV, movies, music, and the Internet are having a major impact (like in France and the Netherlands, both of which have had mighty integration efforts and access to information and yet have hordes of Angry Muslim men raping teenage girls for skirts too short or "dishonorable dating". The Muslims there do NOT WANT to integrate)...

I think using the same soft-hearted tactics which are met with savage results is suicidal. Your argument looks an awful lot like what is being proposed for Sudan--the West talks talks talks, the Islamicists murder murder murder-UNTIL AN ENTIRE GROUP OF PEOPLE IS DEAD.

If the West doesn't firmly address the problems in Islam, over time which group of people do you think will be dead? Not 1.3 billion Muslims. You ready to line up in the "Death to the West" extermination line?

I don't intend to be flippant, Anon5032, but we are past this approach now. I am not interested in understanding Muslims' plight because they distract us with it while they murder non-Muslims and Muslims alike; I am not interested in pleading with them for why I am justified to live on this earth alongside them-I need no religion's permission.

B's comment #9 is about where I stand on Islam.

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-01 2:59:17 PM|| 2004-09-01 2:59:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 I am not interested in pleading with them for why I am justified to live on this earth alongside them.

Game. Set. Match.

Posted by BH 2004-09-01 3:14:48 PM|| 2004-09-01 3:14:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 I am not interested in pleading with them for why I am justified to live on this earth alongside them
I believe jules ought to laydown one of them TM things on that one.

Posted by Shipman 2004-09-01 3:21:21 PM|| 2004-09-01 3:21:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 But let's say we try your ideas. If they are to work, let's hash out JUST HOW? ...treat radical Islam as a deviant form of Islam that must be eradicated (who defines radical Islam-the West or Islam,

Id trust Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes to do so, myself. Its not that hard really.

and how will you ever get Muslims to agree to the eradication of radical Islam-what is the actual plan of action?)

It varies from country to country, and includes killing and imprisoning the violent radicals, pressing for change in educational systems, empowering women, and occasionally knocking off a govt.

...The US must exert strong pressure to change Islamic society (like, for example, through the kind of sanctions our 'allies' bypassed in Oil for Food?, or another idea)

Other ideas

...it is happening...TV, movies, music, and the Internet are having a major impact (like in France and the Netherlands, both of which have had mighty integration efforts and access to information and yet have hordes of Angry Muslim men raping teenage girls for skirts too short or "dishonorable dating". The Muslims there do NOT WANT to integrate)...

My sense is the US does a much better job of integrating muslim immigrants than France - though even there there are groups of muslims who do want to integrate.

I think using the same soft-hearted tactics which are met with savage results is suicidal.
I think the admin has made major gains and will continue to do so.

Your argument looks an awful lot like what is being proposed for Sudan--the West talks talks talks, the Islamicists murder murder murder-UNTIL AN ENTIRE GROUP OF PEOPLE IS DEAD.

the group currently victimized there are muslims. Murdered by Islamists. Thats the whole point Islamists != all muslims

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-01 3:27:23 PM|| 2004-09-01 3:27:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 LH-OK you chose Pipes or Lewis; the 15 other members in the committee to decide each chose someone else. Resolution?

Of course I agree with you that "Islamicists" don't equal all Muslims, but where are the ones brave enough to defy accusations of heresy by calling their "brethren" radicals or murderers?

Ship, BH-thanks. Feeling a little peppy today :)

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-01 3:34:12 PM|| 2004-09-01 3:34:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 where - there are tens of thousands in Iraq who defy the murderers everyday, whether by serving in the Iraqi forces, participating in the Iraqi govt, or working with coalition forces. Ditto in Afghanistan. There are algerians who have waged a knockdown dragout civil war with the murderers. There are police and intelligence forces and their political backers from Morocco to Turkey to Jordan to Indonesia.

Im not going to sit behind a computer terminal and call for muslims to make statements with words, when there are thousands of muslims paying with BLOOD in the war on the salafi-jihadi menace. If you learn anything from RB,from the detailed reports on Pakistan, Turkey, Iraq, Indonesia, North Africa, etc, all the joking references to truncheons and mustachios and coppers, you should learn that this is above all a civil war WITHIN Islam, one fought PRINCIPALLY on the ground by muslims on BOTH sides.

Im not to concerned about a single bright line definition of "radical Islam" Theres a range. We're better off if those willing to use genocidal violence against jews, christians, and nonradical muslims are killed. We are also better off if anyone who wants a sharia state loses power, EVEN if they are not interested in genocidal violence. WE are even more better off if islam goes beyond relative indifference to a sharia state, and actually sheds such features as oppression of women. With each broadening of what we want to achieve we lose allies - but not all must be achieved at once, and the goal is not the same everywhere. In Iraq Id like to see an almost secular state - in KSA id be content (for now) with a complete turning away from support for AQ, and from education for AQ ideology. KSA isnt Iraq, and goals that make sense in one place dont in the other. A position thats intensely fundamentalist by Iraqi (or Turkish, or Indonesian) standards looks positively modernist in the magic kingdom, or in the Pashtun parts of Afghanistan.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-01 3:49:14 PM|| 2004-09-01 3:49:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 You know, if Muslims hadn't attacked the US they wouldn't be in this problem. These stupid Islamonazis have picked a fight significantly out of their weight class. It was their bad timing not to have a Bill Clinton or John Kerry to say "no mas" and make speeches. They declared holy war when America was led by a man who recognized it as such. They call the armies of the West crusaders, but there would have been no crusaders if the armies of Islam hadn't overrun the heartland of Christianity. The armies of the West today aren't there to conquer land and establish empires. They are there simply to make sure that the armies of Islam LEAVE US THE F**K ALONE!

Posted by Random thoughts 2004-09-01 3:53:16 PM|| 2004-09-01 3:53:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 In the spirit of an off-the-cuff comment, why don't we see how long a list of Muslim leaders we can come up with who denounce as evil and against Islam acts of violence and bigotry:
1.) Terrorist acts (we'll need a definition-LH, maybe you can get the ball rolling on that)
2.) Executions for heresy/apostasy
3.) Honor killings
3.) Wife beatings
4.) Rape and other sex crimes (Infibulation/clitoredectomies, etc.)
5.) ?????

This list should probably have some positives too:

Moderate Islam supports:
1.) Religious diversity and freedom
2.) Racial equality
3.) Equal rights under the law for women and men(divorce, property, child custody, freedom of employment, freedom of speech)

OK-Two possible Muslim candidates for the list, both of whom have been featured on this site-sorry their names escape me-the Canadian Muslim woman who wrote abook with a title like What is Wrong with Islam; the Somali lady featured on the site yesterday. Maybe we can get them to start off this list of moderates willing to avow these statements publicly, as Muslims.

Also should probably start a pool on how high the number will get. I'm betting out of 1.3 B Muslims, maybe 100.

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-01 4:00:01 PM|| 2004-09-01 4:00:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Lh - Ya have to watch those relativist notions. The Caliphate types don't share your tolerance or adjusted response from locale to locale.

Rt - nicely put... but since they won't then we can't leave THEM alone. They take the paths of least resistance, for the most part. When they finally do mount another direct attack with multiple deaths on Americans, especially if it's clearly another Us vs Them attack within the US, I hope the gloves come off in all venues.

Posted by .com 2004-09-01 4:00:27 PM|| 2004-09-01 4:00:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 where - there are tens of thousands in Iraq who defy the murderers everyday, whether by serving in the Iraqi forces, participating in the Iraqi govt, or working with coalition forces. Ditto in Afghanistan. There are algerians who have waged a knockdown dragout civil war with the murderers. There are police and intelligence forces and their political backers from Morocco to Turkey to Jordan to Indonesia. Straight question-are the people you list fighting against radical Islam or simply against aggression?

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-01 4:09:31 PM|| 2004-09-01 4:09:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Lh - Ya have to watch those relativist notions. The Caliphate types don't share your tolerance or adjusted response from locale to locale.

its not "relativism" dot com - it aint that Sadr is a fundamentalist idiot from a "Western patriarchal perspective" but a "true hero" from "the viewpoint of the oppressed, or similar bullshit. Its just strategy and realism - our pal Sistani wants (for the sake of arguement, though i think its correct) a state where Islam is the law of the land, where selling booze is illegal, where inheritance and divorce are under Sharia except for registered non-muslims(and woe to you if you WERE a muslim and claim to no longer be one). BUT he would allow different forms of Islam, the practice of non-muslim religions, a more or less free press, and would have the laws be passed by elected politicians, not by a body of mullahs with a formal role in govt. If this were proposed in Turkey say it would be a MAJOR step backward, to be opposed with all energy. In Iran it would be a step forward, albeit an inadequate one. In KSA it would be an almost unimaginable leap forward, would it not be, dot com?? In Iraq it may be something we have to settle for, or maybe not if all goes well.

Its no more relativism than realizing you fight differently in the mountains than you do on the beaches.

As for our enemies not making fine distinctions, that is their weakness. Thats why they keep blowing networks, and making needless enemies.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-01 4:34:31 PM|| 2004-09-01 4:34:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Jules: In your question, you use the verb "demand they stop using violence to promote itself". I really hate to parse, but I'll summarize all in the end.

1. I'm an average Joe Moroccan Muslim and violence perpetrated by Muslims takes place in a non-majority Muslim country, eg the Madrid bombings, which was pretty much perpetrated by Moroccans. I sigh, I shake my head, I'm embarassed. This is sick, this is bad. If I'm especially energetic, I might even write a letter to a newspaper expressing regret and demand in it that all Muslims need to follow the precepts of Islam, which, of course, prohibits the killing of innocents. That's the extent of my action. But get disgusted enough to tell the worshipers at my mosque that we all ought to go down to the Ministry of Religious Affairs and demand the minister to demand all Muslims stop violence? No. Not because I am the type of person who promotes violence, but I don't want to stick up my head and have to explain my actions to the Ministry of Interior security apparatus.

2. I'm average Joe Moroccan and there's a bomb or hostage-taking incident in Chechnya. Well, what do you expect? These folks are being wiped out by the Russians, so they are only reacting as one would normally react. The Muslims in Chechnya who support union with Russia are for the most part collaborators. If Russia granted independence, and real Chechens were given legit power, the problem would go away. Demand violence be stopped in this context? No. Prefer? Yes, but only if I know Russia will make major concessions to separatists.

3) Joe Moroccan reacting to bombings of planes involving non-Muslims, eg in Russia last week? Well, what do you expect? It's bad, yes, innocents died, but nothing will be solved unless Chechnya is granted independence. Demand an end to this violence? No. Prefer? Yes. Being blown away in the sky is so bad PR. Couldn't a more discreet way be found?

4) Joe Moroccan reacting to any violence involving Israel, US, or their lackeys? Demand an end to this violence? Never. Prefer? No. Nothing personal against Americans, but since its govt. put these folks in harm's way, there are no innocents for those sucking on Uncle Sam's nipple.

I choose Morocco since I know the place and people best, but pretty much you can stick in any Arab/ME/Asian Muslim-majority country.

Posted by chicago mike 2004-09-01 4:41:27 PM|| 2004-09-01 4:41:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Straight question-are the people you list fighting against radical Islam or simply against aggression

academic at this point - was the Yugoslav resistance fighting fascism or fighting aggression? Was Solidarnosk fighting Communism, or fighting for the rights of Polish workers? In either case its silly to go up to Yugoslavs partizans, and ask them to denounce fascism, or to discourse on antisemitism in their national literature, when theyre busy fighting Germans.

Musharaf and the secular/moderate elite in Pakistan (for example) are fighting for their survival - I dont care whether this is motivated by an innner struggle about the nature of Islam, or just a desire not to be pushed around by a Saudi weirdo and an Egyptian doctor and not to have the country ruled by illiterates from the mountains.

Civil wars arent that neat.

We fought the American Civil War to end slavery/and/or restore the union. A buncha guys in West Virginia fought just cause they didnt like being told what to do by the legislature in Richmond - they didnt give a damn about slavery and probably coulda supported disunion if theyd gotten a better deal in Virginia. You take allies where you find them, and you DONT hold them to litmus tests.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-01 4:42:07 PM|| 2004-09-01 4:42:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 You said-you use the verb "demand they stop using violence to promote itself".

I said what...is the proportion of Muslims worldwide...who demand their religion stop using violence to promote itself?

Re parsing, singular versus plural, and clarity-What I was trying to communicate was that the religion is promoting itself through violent actions of believers. I could have been clearer. Sorry.

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-01 4:56:50 PM|| 2004-09-01 4:56:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Lh - About 18-20 months ago I recall I posted that we should envision for Iraq nothing less than what we enjoyed in the US. Why is less acceptable? Why waste one American life for less? Blah, blah, blah. It's clear now, in hindsight, I was off the deep end. Wotta maroon.

Obviously, the sights have been lowered considerably with comments such as what Sistani "would allow..." - that brings on arrythmia for me.

Go for it. Take what you can get. I have given up wishing for anything in particular, with one exception. Every time we fuck up, and I believe there have been 3 major fuckups thus far (will list below), I lose more interest in Iraq's future and see it merely for a killing ground vis a vis the flypaper zone. Goals have been watered down to something just this side of half-assed religious state. So be it. I have, as I said, mostly given up and now nominally accept that Arabs are unworthy of a bona-fide representative Republic. They seem unable to grasp even the simplest aspect for they are incapable of risking the bird in hand. Lousy gamblers and lousier as allies.

FuckUps, according to me:
1) Sunni Triangle not pacified with overwhelming force in War. I won't go into the Turkey debacle again, no doubt you recall my thoughts on that, just that we did not even make a halfway attempt to pacify it. It has served in every capacity since as a source of death and unrest throughout the country. From this nest has sprung a full 90% of the grief that Iraq has repaid us with.

2. Fallujah / Ramadi et al - Allowed idiotic political rescue of a major subset of the Sunni Triangle asshats to recover, recoup, and resume activities in #1.

3. Najaf. Talked to death. I believe we blinked.

I'll close with my one single miserly remaining hope: The Kurds are not shackled to the Arabs. Partition them off NOW.

I don't really care anymore, as I said above, what shape or flavor or spin is finally applied and what percent of pregnant Iraq turs out to be. You guys can turn lemons into lemonade - a skill I don't possess - so more power to you. Best of luck to you and our military. Plz don't bother getting worked up and post a bunch for me to respond to - I'm in and out all day.

Posted by .com 2004-09-01 5:05:17 PM|| 2004-09-01 5:05:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 #5 Muslims who donât speak out against terrorists are somewhat to blame for the poor global reputation of Islam just as those on Rantburg who fail to condemn extreme statements such as those by Plainslow are responsible for pushing moderate Muslims toward radicals.

A5032, I'm obliged to take issue with this analysis. If attempts to defeat Islamist terrorism "are responsible for pushing moderate Muslims toward radicals" then they are nothing but undeclared radicals posing as moderates.

The blatant evil that radical Islam and terrorism in general represent cannot be countenanced. Just as all that is necessary for evil to succeed, is for good people to do nothing, so is silence consent. The thundering silence of Islam on the issue of terrorism is and should deservingly be its downfall.

At this point I've got to call a spade a spade. A majority of terrorism comes from either totalitarian or theocratic states, or both, as the case may be. Viz Iraq, allowing Sistani to promote what's essentially yet another theocracy is more than unacceptable, it's plainly stupid. They will breed up more terrorists who will go on to kill more Americans. The sooner that Islamism is recognized as, and openly declared to be a political agenda and not a religion, the better off all of us are going to be. It must be regarded as an enemy of world peace and nothing less. Those who cannot bring themselves to denounce it should rightfully be lumped in with those who support it.

I'm not going to try and rehash what jules has been saying so well. While there is a difference between murder and the abetting of it, both remain punishable offenses and require vigorous intervention or deterrance. The longer Islam remains mute in regards to terrorism, the more its continued existence is called into question. Again, silence is consent.

Posted by Zenster 2004-09-01 5:23:39 PM|| 2004-09-01 5:23:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 LH & CM-Well, we disagree. I have a different view of what constitutes a moderate 21st century religion. Perhaps nothing in the versions of Islam you could support aversely affects you personally. That can be persuasive.

LH-Hopefully Israel will stronger, safer, and more secure in our lives and will be accepted by the entire Muslim world as worthy of existence on this planet.

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-01 5:25:28 PM|| 2004-09-01 5:25:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Jules: âthis sounds like the approach we have been usingâ

(Many comments since my last visit. I agree with LiberalHawkâs responses.)

Yes, use US military, economic, and political force to crack open closed societies. Let Western capitalism and culture modernize the societies from within. The strategy has the added advantage of knocking out tyrants such as Saddam and forcing countries such as Saudi Arabia to curtail funding for terrorism.

If the US is successful in establishing a prosperous democracy in Iraq, then great. If not, we tried and Saddam is still gone and ME governments know the US means business and US troops are positioned to influence events in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria.

I donât like seeing US blood and treasure spent in the ME. However, I believe US soldiers in Iraq are saving US lives at home with their sacrifices.

We are at war and there is no guarantee the US will be successful.

Jules: âwho defines radical Islam-the West or Islam, and how will you ever get Muslims to agree to the eradication of radical Islam-what is the actual plan of action?â

The US government defines terrorist groups and the people who fund them. The US uses its military, economic, and political power to eradicate those groups. In Pakistan it seems like a game of whack-a-mole but slowly progress is being made.

Jules: âlike in France and the Netherlands, both of which have had mighty integration efforts and access to information and yet have hordes of Angry Muslim men raping teenage girls for skirts too short or "dishonorable dating". The Muslims there do NOT WANT to integrateâ

Each nation has complex social dynamics. The Islamic religious war will play out differently in each country. France has also been playing its own power games in the ME.

I donât pretend to know how this will all come out. I believe the world is undergoing a massive economic and cultural globalization that will take decades to sort out. The process is painful and disruptive. Most of the world sees this globalization as US imperialism. In the US we experience globalization as massive immigration, cheap Chinese products, outsourcing of jobs to India, Japanese anime, and Islamic terrorists.

Jules: âI don't intend to be flippant, Anon5032, but we are past this approach now. I am not interested in understanding Muslims' plight because they distract us with it while they murder non-Muslims and Muslims alike; I am not interested in pleading with them for why I am justified to live on this earth alongside them-I need no religion's permission.â

Iâm not advocating a soft approach. Iâm suggesting using all methods short of total war to change Islam. As a strategy I advocate divide and conquer, try to separate the moderates who may become friends from the radicals who will always be enemies.

Jules: âB's comment #9 is about where I stand on Islam.â

I also support Bâs comment. My paragraph on total war is a warning to any moderate Muslim who reads this thread. The US will not lose this war. The question is how many Muslims end up dying. The more the US is attacked, the more the war escalates, and the more Muslims die.

Posted by Anonymous5032 2004-09-01 6:08:18 PM|| 2004-09-01 6:08:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 {Snap Fingers} Hot Dogs!
{Snap Fingers} Marshmallows!

Posted by BigEd 2004-09-01 7:23:50 PM|| 2004-09-01 7:23:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 "...was the Yugoslav resistance fighting fascism or fighting aggression? Was Solidarnosk fighting Communism, or fighting for the rights of Polish workers? "

Which ones are the coalition-
the fascists/communists
or
a resistance/labor rights fighting force?

"I dont care whether this is motivated by an innner struggle about the nature of Islam, or just a desire not to be pushed around by a Saudi weirdo and an Egyptian doctor and not to have the country ruled by illiterates from the mountains. "

I do.

Posted by jules 2 2004-09-01 7:31:46 PM|| 2004-09-01 7:31:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Anonymous5032, LH and .com

I pretty much agree with .com... but first what was one of the big failures in the Vietnam war?

I say it was screwing around making lemonade. Making lemonade cost the economy too damn much in balnance of payments, outflow of capital, everything. Remember Time is Money and we are all victims of time. The longer it takes the more a rich country becomes poor. When we entered Vietnam were were very very rich. When we exited we soon had Carters disasterous %27 interest rates and a recession that eroded the country's totally dominate world economic position. We can't afford to pussyfoot about playing with snakes and scorpions.

So in that viewpoint you have these options:

1) surrender to the Dhimmitude
2) win a lengthly limited war but end up so eroded in captital and debt that someday you surrender to somebody.... Vietnam showed us how that works.
3) remove the problem like Alexander the Great by cutting the Gordian Knot with a sharp sword. It could be Total War it could be something else but it needs to cut the knot.

So, Anonymous5032 & LH did I miss an option that you see and I don't? If not, which option do you think we should select and why?

Posted by 3dc 2004-09-01 8:59:16 PM|| 2004-09-01 8:59:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 Zenester: âIf attempts to defeat Islamist terrorism "are responsible for pushing moderate Muslims toward radicals" then they are nothing but undeclared radicals posing as moderates. â

Iâm all in favor of actions to defeat Islamic terrorism. I favored action in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Muslims will always get riled up when non-Muslims attack Muslims. Deposing the Taliban and Saddam were worth it. I hope moderate Muslims will eventually support those actions. (Some already do.)

Iâm not in favor of burning down a Nepalese mosque because of actions taken by Islamic terrorists. I believe a moderate Muslim would reasonably conclude from that action that all Islam is under attack.

Iâm also in favor of some tit-for-tat. If radical Muslims target Americans, then find something they care about and target it. (For example, Israel knocking down the family house of terrorists.) But the punishment should be directed only at those supporting terrorists. Were mullahs at the Nepalese mosque preaching hatred, recruiting fighters, or gathering funds to support terrorists? If they were then make those facts public and burn the place down.

Zenester: âThe sooner that Islamism is recognized as, and openly declared to be a political agenda and not a religion, the better off all of us are going to be.â

I agree. But at this stage I donât believe Islamism is all of Islam. I still have hopes that the radical Muslims can be separated and eradicated. If they canât then the conflict will escalate into total war.

Jules: âSo, Anonymous5032 & LH did I miss an option that you see and I don't? If not, which option do you think we should select and why?â

If by option 3, you mean an immediate escalation to total war in which the US nukes all the main Islamic population centers (Might as well nuke North Korea while were at it.) then I believe such an action would destroy the US as a nation.

If by option 3, you donât mean total war but mean instead other aggressive actions I might support you depending on the suggestion. (Given that terrorism seems to run in certain families, I might support a mafia-like approach of targeting the families of terrorists.)

My choice is to continue with the Iraq strategy. Spend hundreds or thousands of US lives and hundreds of billions to remake the ME. Be willing and prepared to attack Iran and Syria. Force Islamic society to change. (I disagree with your analogy to Vietnam. Nor do I believe the Iraq effort will bankrupt the US or weaken our forces.)

Posted by Anonymous5032 2004-09-02 1:04:16 AM|| 2004-09-02 1:04:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#41 Question: Why DON'T "moderate" muslims redeem their religion and moral stance by condemning, preventing, or working to undermine, the works of their murderous brethen?
Hypothesis: Islam, by definition of retribution, allows any variety of atrocity against nonbelievers attacking Islam. "Moderate" muslims aren't any more, or less, "Islamic" than their murderous counterpart Islamists. Moderates might not agree with religious extremists, but they're still muslims. There is a definite tribal ethos to Islam--all for one, and one for all. Moderates might not care for the methods of the extremists, but can see that the atrocities are committed in the defense of "Islam."
Setting up a secular state in Iraq, among Arabs, is a violation of Islam in the eyes of many muslims.

I believe Islam is the enemy. I do hope for the advent of a secular, moderate, Islam, but until then, Islam is still the enemy.

I think Plainslow's original statement left much to question, but here's the science:
http://www.nepalnews.com.np/contents/englishweekly/telegraph/2003/feb/feb05/national.htm
Specifically: "The Hindu-Muslim clash in Nepalganj in 1997 is an example â a mishandling of a Muslim by a Hindu was interpreted as an attack against group identity. Backed up by the Muslims across the border with India, the Nepali Musalmans attacked Hindu homes and businesses, while the Shiva Sena promptly acted and attacked their "opponents" in order to protect their own Hindu identity."

Posted by Asedwich 2004-09-02 2:03:24 AM|| 2004-09-02 2:03:24 AM|| Front Page Top

21:54 Anonymous6412
16:15 lex
08:58 Phil Fraering
03:22 Sock Puppet of Doom
03:04 tibor
02:03 Asedwich
01:11 Old Patriot
01:04 Anonymous5032
00:25 Mike Sylwester
00:23 .com
00:07 .com
00:03 Dar
00:00 Classical_Liberal
23:53 muck4doo
23:49 OldSpook
23:45 OldSpook
23:42 Brett_the_Quarkian
23:41 .com
23:40 muck4doo
23:39 .com
23:38 anymouse
23:38 Brett_the_Quarkian
23:32 Brett_the_Quarkian
23:29 jn1