Iraq in a Civil War? Yes or no?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Are we at war with Islamic Fascism?

For that matter what is Islamic Fascism.

The common perception is a dictatorial regime that uses Islamic law as its basis.

If you ascribe to such an idea should we war with the entire Islamic world. Most Islamic nations use Islamic law as at least part of their legal code. Also most are dictatorial.

If you do not agree with that interpretation to what degree does a nation need to follow such guidelines to be Islamo-Fasicst?

Islamofascism is not to be confused with Islamic dictatorship. It is the perversion of Islam, for the express purpose of forcing the rest of the world to accept the Caliphate and capitulate to the demands of the radical Islamic terrorists. Islamofascists are as "Muslim" as the Ku Klux Klan is "Christian" because they have perverted the religious belief. Islamofascism is this radical perversion of Islam, which aptly describes them, and delineates them from the rest of the Muslim world, and indeed, from even the Islamic Fascist Dictatorships.

 

[IHateGovernment]

So you equate Islamo-fascism with violent Islamic extremists?

 

[Damocles]

Those that wish total domination of their religion under the dictates of a one-world nation ruled by a Caliphate...

I could see how somebody could define it that way.

I'm not saying I personally do, just that I can see where such an idea could come from.

 

[IHateGovernment]

Interesting under such a definition could those who seek such a goal be peaceful because nothing in the definition you provided implies that it must be violent.

 

[Damocles]

Interesting under such a definition could those who seek such a goal be peaceful because nothing in the definition you provided implies that it must be violent.

I guess I should have put in violent as well... The determination of dictatorship implies violence in government. One must do what they say or they will be "not".

 

[IHateGovernment]

Seems like the whole dream of conquering the world many throughtout history have dreamed. Alexander, Chinghis Khan, Hitler. Nothing new here. Hell when I was a kid I thought it would be cool to conquer the world. Apparently these folks haven't matured yet.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So you equate Islamo-fascism with violent Islamic extremists?

No, I equate Islamofascists with what I just articulated. Why do you want to try and twist what I said into something else? Violent Islamic extremists encompass a lot of people for a number of reasons, and not all of them have to do with establishment of a Caliphate and forcing the world to capitulate to the radical 5th Century Muhammad Law.

Let me be more precise. AlQaeda is Islamofascist, as well as a number of other radical Islamic fundamentalist groups. There is nothing we can do to appease these people, there is no negotiation point we can concede to them and hope they will accept it, there is no reasoning or rationalizing with these people, they want all Jews and Infidels dead and gone from their world, period.

Pinehads seem to want to confuse these people with "all Muslims" or "all Muslim nations" and think there is some credible value to their propaganda about western presence on Holy soil. You don't understand that this is what they constantly convey, because this is what encourages other Muslims to join their cause, and dovish imbeciles to think they can appease them. You are being a useful idiot if you accept their propaganda. Their short-term objectives are to eliminate western presence in their Holy lands, then to eliminate Israel, then to establish a Caliphate across the middle east, then to spread their radical Islamic fundamental perversions through Europe, and eventually dominate the world, as they believe the Qaran mandates them to do so.

 

[Damocles]

Seems like the whole dream of conquering the world many throughtout history have dreamed. Alexander, Chinghis Khan, Hitler. Nothing new here. Hell when I was a kid I thought it would be cool to conquer the world. Apparently these folks haven't matured yet.

I would agree with that assessment.

I've always wanted to set up a colony on another planet though rather than be a conqueror of people. I just didn't like people enough.

 

[IHateGovernment]

No, I equate Islamofascists with what I just articulated. Why do you want to try and twist what I said into something else? Violent Islamic extremists encompass a lot of people for a number of reasons, and not all of them have to do with establishment of a Caliphate and forcing the world to capitulate to the radical 5th Century Muhammad Law.

Let me be more precise. AlQaeda is Islamofascist, as well as a number of other radical Islamic fundamentalist groups. There is nothing we can do to appease these people, there is no negotiation point we can concede to them and hope they will accept it, there is no reasoning or rationalizing with these people, they want all Jews and Infidels dead and gone from their world, period.

Ok but you didn't say this initially. My intent is to clarify your position. My earlier post was in response to gaffer who seems to indicate we are more at war with Islam than terror. Obviously your view differs somewhat.

Pinehads seem to want to confuse these people with "all Muslims" or "all Muslim nations" and think there is some credible value to their propaganda about western presence on Holy soil. You don't understand that this is what they constantly convey, because this is what encourages other Muslims to join their cause, and dovish imbeciles to think they can appease them. You are being a useful idiot if you accept their propaganda. Their short-term objectives are to eliminate western presence in their Holy lands, then to eliminate Israel, then to establish a Caliphate across the middle east, then to spread their radical Islamic fundamental perversions through Europe, and eventually dominate the world, as they believe the Qaran mandates them to do so.

Obviously there are many who believe this. What is the point of contention is how many are there and how much of a real threat are they. Personally I do not think they have anything close to the power they need to even control of region of the world let alone threaten the United States. The vision of turbaned Jihadis marching down Pennsylvania avenue in the same fashion the Nazis marched down the Champs Elysees is far fetched.

We must be realistic in our fears of these people. Yes they may kill many people in their terrorist attacks but like all other terrorists they seek power through their attacks and we will not grant it to them.

Another thing that is not in groups like AlQueda's favor are that if they are trying to recruit those who do not believe in the arch goal of creating a world caliphate they run the risk of diluting their base and rendering the "IslamoFascist" goals moot. We can see many times in history that a movement such as this does not survive more than a generation since they require a cult of personality to be cohesive.

Terrorism from these so called Islamo fascists is a problem but it is not a dire one. Comparisons of the threat of them likening them to the Nazi or even the Communist threat are outright silly.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Terrorism from these so called Islamo fascists is a problem but it is not a dire one. Comparisons of the threat of them likening them to the Nazi or even the Communist threat are outright silly.

It is exactly the same thing. In 1935, no one could imagine Hitler and Nazism spreading past the borders of Germany. It is still difficult to imagine storm troopers marching down Pennsylvania Avenue in lock-step, but that is precisely what would have happened, had we not taken action when we did. You don't seem to understand, and perhaps it is spoiled American complacency, but you can't fight aggression after it has taken over. The time to become concerned with them, is not after they obtain nuclear weapons, not after they've terrorized a major American city with nukes or biological weapons! The time to confront them and defeat them, is now. We know their intentions, we know their game plan, we know we can't reason with them on it, so why would we stick our heads in the sand and pretend they aren't of any concern?

The lame ass concerns about us giving them strength by engaging them in a fight, is just plain ignorant of American military might. I can't think of a single example or imagine any scenario, in which an adversary of the US would hope for us to unleash our military might on them, because it would "strengthen" them! Sure, they might blow up a US warship and hope some knee-jerk pseudo-lib will lob a few missiles into a baby formula factory or empty warehouse somewhere, that gets them publicity and helps their cause, but unleashing our military force on them, and relentlessly pursuing them wherever they go, is not the same thing. Trust me, they don't like us fighting them, any more than Democrats like us fighting them!

 

[maineman]

again.... quite simply.... we cannot win this "war" militarily. Period. If we really think that we can coerce muslims into not killing us by killing muslims, then we must be prepared to kill them all.

 

[Damocles]

At some point it becomes too expensive in lives for the side with less power in an unequal war such as this. At that point it becomes unpopular and the street itself will begin to end participation...

It is a longer round about way of getting there, but "killing them all" would not be necessary even if we insist on fighting militarily.

Attempting to pay them off would be equally unsuccessful.

 

[maineman]

At some point it becomes too expensive in lives for the side with less power in an unequal war such as this. At that point it becomes unpopular and the street itself will begin to end participation...

It is a longer round about way of getting there, but "killing them all" would not be necessary even if we insist on fighting militarily.

Attempting to pay them off would be equally unsuccessful.

I think that if the warfare and the opponents were symmetrical, you would have a point....but this is absurdly asymmetrical. I think that when we are using laser guided missiles and they are using exploding goat carcasses...when we are the overwhelming force, but they have the will of the populace...when we are the invaders and they are the invaded...when we have to face the world for our slaughter, and they only have to offer up more willing young men to be slaughtered.... I do not think that the arab street will ever see stopping the conflict with the United States as a better option than ramping it up.

 

[Prakosh]

I think that if the warfare and the opponents were symmetrical, you would have a point....but this is absurdly asymmetrical. I think that when we are using laser guided missiles and they are using exploding goat carcasses...when we are the overwhelming force, but they have the will of the populace...when we are the invaders and they are the invaded...when we have to face the world for our slaughter, and they only have to offer up more willing young men to be slaughtered.... I do not think that the arab street will ever see stopping the conflict with the United States as a better option than ramping it up.

Has Israel been able to control the Palestinian population in their occupied territories???

 

[maineman]

perfect analogy

 

[OrnotBitwise]

At some point it becomes too expensive in lives for the side with less power in an unequal war such as this. At that point it becomes unpopular and the street itself will begin to end participation...

It is a longer round about way of getting there, but "killing them all" would not be necessary even if we insist on fighting militarily.

Attempting to pay them off would be equally unsuccessful.

As maineman and Prakosh have each indicated, I think you underestimate power of resentment.

 

[Damocles]

Has Israel been able to control the Palestinian population in their occupied territories???

How often have they treated it as all-out warfare? Ruthlessness would be necessary to reach the point of which I speak. At some point it would simply be too expensive in lives...

 

[IHateGovernment]

It is exactly the same thing. In 1935, no one could imagine Hitler and Nazism spreading past the borders of Germany. It is still difficult to imagine storm troopers marching down Pennsylvania Avenue in lock-step, but that is precisely what would have happened, had we not taken action when we did. You don't seem to understand, and perhaps it is spoiled American complacency, but you can't fight aggression after it has taken over. The time to become concerned with them, is not after they obtain nuclear weapons, not after they've terrorized a major American city with nukes or biological weapons! The time to confront them and defeat them, is now. We know their intentions, we know their game plan, we know we can't reason with them on it, so why would we stick our heads in the sand and pretend they aren't of any concern?

No where did I say they are a zero threat. Obviously they should be dealt with because they have unlawfully killed people. That is reason enough to deal with them. However the Hitler comparison is not appropriate. Yes it is true Hitler got as far as he did because nothing was done. But Hitler had a greater ability to be a threat than Al Queda or those like them. Hitler controlled a modern and techologically and socially advanced nation. He had industry and the economic might of Germany at his disposal. Comparing them to a small number of power mongers whose only weapon is terrorism is not appropriate. Terrorism is not as powerful a weapon as a strong military or economy. Terrorisms purpose is to facilitate asymetric negotiation in which the weaker side has greater leveredge against a democratic nation that has lost its appetite for more death.

Terrorism cannot wrest away power from a nation or people it can only cause them to surrender it unto them. As long as we resist they cannot possibly succeed. That is the biggest reason the US has not been struck but Spain and Britain have. They see that they have the ability to break the will of the people of that nation. The will of the American people appears to be strong in comparison. The battle against terrorism is waged within the hearts of those it is visited upon. This is why Israel has not been defeated.

At present IslamoFasicsts only have terrorism as their weapon. I am not suggesting a Chamberlainian solution of appeasement where we allow them to build up great power and seize nations one by one. But the IslamoFascists aren't even anywhere close to the equivalent of remilitarizing the Rhineland or seizing the Sudetenland. If they do I will show concern at the level you currently have. But I will be confident then that they can be thwarted as easily as Hitler could have been if the world fought him at that point.

The lame ass concerns about us giving them strength by engaging them in a fight, is just plain ignorant of American military might. I can't think of a single example or imagine any scenario, in which an adversary of the US would hope for us to unleash our military might on them, because it would "strengthen" them! Sure, they might blow up a US warship and hope some knee-jerk pseudo-lib will lob a few missiles into a baby formula factory or empty warehouse somewhere, that gets them publicity and helps their cause, but unleashing our military force on them, and relentlessly pursuing them wherever they go, is not the same thing. Trust me, they don't like us fighting them, any more than Democrats like us fighting them!

While I would never suggest that we do not retaliate when we are attacked I must disagree with the idea that our enemies do not at least in some part want us to attack them. Do you honestly think that Bin Laden believed that in the aftermath of the 911 attacks that their would not be an American military response?

He wanted a fight so that he could begin his jihad against the US. He had been trying to do so for years with the embassy bombings and the cole attack he kept raising the ante until we called. Once again I am not saying we should not have responded as we did but I also think Bin Laden wanted this struggle. To think he thought the US would not retalliate after an attack on our capital is to suggest he is retarded.

 

[Care4all]

He wanted a fight so that he could begin his jihad against the US. He had been trying to do so for years with the embassy bombings and the cole attack he kept raising the ante until we called. Once again I am not saying we should not have responded as we did but I also think Bin Laden wanted this struggle. To think he thought the US would not retalliate after an attack on our capital is to suggest he is retarded.

I agree...plus we have in his words he was hoping for such retalliation, one that would COST US FINANCIALLY....

they are trying to break us financially, because they can not break us through might.

 

[uscitizen]

He wanted a fight so that he could begin his jihad against the US. He had been trying to do so for years with the embassy bombings and the cole attack he kept raising the ante until we called. Once again I am not saying we should not have responded as we did but I also think Bin Laden wanted this struggle. To think he thought the US would not retalliate after an attack on our capital is to suggest he is retarded.

I agree...plus we have in his words he was hoping for such retalliation, one that would COST US FINANCIALLY....

they are trying to break us financially, because they can not break us through might.

It worked for them in Afganistan when we supported the taliban aka freedom fighters. remember that ?