DescentBB

I found this particularly relevant, especially in the aftermath of the <locked> topic in the NHB.

"Muslims worldwide are the main perpetrators of terrorism, a humiliating and painful truth that must be acknowledged...

Most perpetrators of suicide operations in buses, schools and residential buildings around the world for the past 10 years have been Muslims,â?

A good editorial today along the same lines in the NY Post.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedc ... /28066.htm

Ten bucks says this thread gets locked down in the next 24 hours.

An attack on children is an attack on all of humanity.....

....And what will terror's apologists say when the killers come for their own children?

That has to be the one of the most sensationalized articles I have ever read.

Sensationalized or not, GET IT INTO YOUR HEAD! We have to face up to the fact that terrorists are not like us. You cannot walk up to a man who has been taught all his life that to die killing westerners is the highest form of death you can achieve and ask him to "please put down the detonator." It just doesn't work. You have to shoot the guy down if you're going to stop him from killing others. Sound cold-blooded? So is the terrorist.

Gooberman wrote:That has to be the one of the most sensationalized articles I have ever read.

Wake up, it's an op/ed piece.

Could it be that in the last half century or more the vast bulk of unjust land siezures, murderous ethnic cleansing and humiliating occupations have been directed against muslims leaving them looking for ways to strike out against their oppressors?
Maybe this is just the latest swing of the pendulum in the Crusades.

Where did I say it wasn't D?

You can write an opinion editorial without being such a drama queen. I can give you my opinion that cordless mice are better, or I could say,

â??What would you do if your mouse's cord SRANGLED your child?â?

Ford, you'll have to find a better rationalization than that to explain away their justification for targeting innocent children (or at the least back it up with specifics). In this instance defending such barbarity--or even trying to find a reason for it--is misguided. You don't reason with or appease such dark hearts; you cut them out. What we're witnessing in just the last week (two downed airliners, two bombed busses, one bombed subway, 12 kidnapped Nepalese murdered, hundreds of children shot down mercilessly) is a preview to our future if we fail to do so.

Hard to believe I aggree with bash.

So when do you guys suggest we turn the mid-east to glass?

Avder must have a thing against straw-men, because every time I see him he's attacking one.

I remember when you were a nice, sensible person, Lothar. It's a shame you've become so extreme right wing.

Avder wrote:I remember when you were a nice, sensible person, Lothar. It's a shame you've become so extreme right wing.

Isn't that the same thing?

bash wrote:... hundreds of children shot down mercilessly....

I recall that there were only 9 or 10 muslims among those terrorists in Russia, the rest were Chechen or from a neighboring province. That's only about one third of the terrorists in that instance.

The Chechens are Muslim. You may be confusing reports that only a percentage were Arab Muslims.

I see. That makes more sense now.

Avder: When you ask when we're going to start making "nuke them" comments, and I say that's a straw man, you take that as evidence that I'm extreme?

"Extreme" would be if I said "hell yeah, let's nuke 'em!" "Extreme" would be if the straw-men you keep setting up actually represented me. But I continually deny the straw-men you set up, and you see me as extreme? The fact that I think your "nuke" comment is bull should be evidence that I'm *not* extreme. Maybe your method of detecting extremism needs revised.

On topic: I said a while back that until we face up to the fact that the problem is Islamic Extremism -- not simply "terrorism" -- we're going to have problems. And until the rest of the world -- especially Islamic moderates -- realize this and decide to do something about it, we're going to have problems. People tried to paint me as some sort of racist anti-Muslim over this point, rather than paying attention to what I actually said. So, here it is again. This time, listen.

Simply put, right now there are a number of leading Islamic voices that are encouraging senseless violence -- in particular, killing civilians, including children and the elderly, in order to hurt the "Great Satan" (the US), "Zionists" (Israel), and various other nations. When we ignore the fact that the terrorists we're dealing with are almost all Muslim, we ignore one of the most important aspects of the war on terror. Muslims *must* get moderate leaders -- people who say things like "we can live with people of other religions without forcing them to convert" and "we don't have to kill the Jews" -- as their major voices. We must encourage those who treat Islam as a "religion of peace" to make their views heard, and we must work to counter the voices of those who treat it as a "religion of beheadings". It's not the Presbyterians or Buddhists who are out there slaughtering innocents, it's Muslims, which means the key to stopping the slaughter is having Muslim leaders convince their people to stop engaging in terrorism.

It's up to the moderate voices in Islam to step up and be heard -- to step up and say "we condemn the slaughter of children in Russia" and "we condemn suicide bombings in Israel" and "we condemn those who fly planes into the World Trade Center" and "we must live at peace with our neighbors". If this happens, there is hope for peace for the next generation. But if the voices of Bin Laden and Arafat and CAIR and Edward Said retain the power they currently have, there will be no peace. But, if the moderate voices don't step up, then the only way peace will be achieved is for the radical voices to be eliminated, and that will be messy.

This isn't something I hope will happen -- I don't want the US military, or anyone else, to go kill all the Islamic extremists. I don't want to live through war in order to gain peace. But it's what will realistically happen if moderate Muslims don't step up and take back their religion from the wackjobs. Peace for the next generation on this planet depends on sane Islamic leadership. I'd like it to arise naturally -- with sane people stepping up and saying "hey, these wackjobs have made our religion into something abominable, and we want it back!" But if it doesn't, I guarantee, the rest of the world will eventually wake up and the war on terror will get a lot messier.

There are really only 2 ways peace will be achieved -- through moderate Muslims making themselves the "voice of Islam", or through the US Army (and others) making moderate Muslims the "voice of Islam" by taking out the extremists. I hope it's the first option, but I understand the world well enough that I expect the second option to play a big part. That's not what I want -- but that's the way it is.

The significant aspect of WarAdvocat's linked article is finally we're hearing some lone voices in the Islamic wilderness calling a spade a spade and demanding that Muslims confront their new image, re-examine the course they are setting for their religion and act now to stop themselves from be herded toward a global holy war. It's sorta a private reformation that we can only impose our opinions so far. The way we can assist is in what we're doing in the ME; in establishing at least one democratic beacon in the hope that self-empowerment will catch fire across the region and in doing what we can to broker a lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The important thing, imo, is to remain engaged and supportive toward the voices of moderation but to also remain united, vigilant and resolved that there will be NO reward for terrorism.

It's the very first time I've seen any kind of admission from Muslim sources that there could be a Muslim problem that is leading to so much terrorism in the world.

I was a bit suprised (pleasantly) to see some very insightful thinking (on the part of Lothar, bash and others), but I freely admit that I posted this in as inflammatory a manner as I could in order to get some entertainment during the hurricane Thanks for looking beyond my anthill-stirring tactics and making it worthwhile as well as entertaining.

I certainly agree that Muslims, viewed as a body, are not evil people. I know many Muslims, whom I deal with in the course of my day to day business, and the worst of them is no more evil than your average Frenchman. That is to say, there are cultural differences, but common interests usually exceed points of difference.

I think most, if not all of the Muslims I know would express utter horror at the thought that Muslims are being "herded toward a global holy war." And I know many of them are here in the United States as a result of fleeing extremist fundamentalist Muslim regimes.

Lothar wrote:Peace for the next generation on this planet depends on sane Islamic leadership. I'd like it to arise naturally -- with sane people stepping up and saying "hey, these wackjobs have made our religion into something abominable, and we want it back!" But if it doesn't, I guarantee, the rest of the world will eventually wake up and the war on terror will get a lot messier.

I think in the wake of the Chechan atrocity that just transpired, the Russian Bear has been awakened.

Given how the cold war changed the world as a direct result of the interaction of the United States and the USSR, I think it's safe to say that the war on Terror is gonna get a lot messier. Putin isn't going to be screwing around anymore.

Ford Prefect wrote:Could it be that in the last half century or more the vast bulk of unjust land siezures, murderous ethnic cleansing and humiliating occupations have been directed against muslims leaving them looking for ways to strike out against their oppressors?
Maybe this is just the latest swing of the pendulum in the Crusades.

The Muslim faith started up during the fall of the Roman Empire. Most of the Middle East was already Christian. Then the Muslims decided that it was there's for the taking and slaughtered all the Christians they came accross in there quest for the Middle East. The Crusades started with a cry for help from the arch bishop of constantanople to the christians in the north to help defend constantanople from them.
If you are going to refer to history for your argument then get it right.

Well, considering that the terrorists are fighting a war against all humanity, and there probably isn't upwards of 10 million of them, and there probably IS upward of 6 billion of us, this war *shouldn't* be too terribly hard (finding the terrorists to remove is going to be the hardest part).

There are days when I think we can beat them and days when I think the only solution is to wipe out the entire human race, its depressing.

The extremeists and the terrorists could not survive without widespread support from the population, I fear that the moderates we want to take over are more rare then we would expect. There is in islam a control, it controls their lives in as many ways as possible. Can we break that control and tell them to live their own lives? Would they even know what it means to have liberty and freedom? Would they care?

A) Where did I get it wrong? By the Crusades I am refering to the muslim/christian conflict centered around the "Holy Land" where some times the muslim world held sway and some times the christian, depending on who was enjoying military success at that time. If I am using the term more figuratively than literaly, tough. It is my right as a poster.
B)Identifing the root causes of a conflict in which one of the sides has no military options and has resorted to terrorism is NOT a justification for such acts of barbarism. It is just recognizing the causes. There is a difference between a REASON for something happening and an EXCUSE for it.

Lothar, you sound as if the Islam has always been a problem to you. As if they always have brought forth terrorists and extremists.

I say it is only a recent development, and I ask the question: why?

Your story about moderate voices in the islamic world that should step up is basically saying nothing, zilch, nada. It is an empty statement. What needs to happen is the following (and I can't believe you didn't realise this): politics and religion must be separated. Currently, those who hold political power in islamic countries are religious leaders also. This separation is a fact in all western countries, and is crucial for the development of islamic countries.

This is a very slow and stagnating process. If the US wants to burn it's fingers by trying to speed it up, be my guest. I don't think it can be sped up by force (military) though, because the first reaction will always be hostile and an upholding of "their" ways as a defence system against the intruders.

It's a complicated problem and I'm sorry to say I have no solution. Nor do I think the US will ever have a solution of it's own that could solve the problem satisfactorily.

There was one small ray of sunshine, of hope this week.
It came from France, where a controversial law forbidding the wearing of openly religious objects in public schools took effect Thursday 3rd. September. This included the wearing of headscarves by Muslim girls.
2 French journalists who had been taken captive by Islamic militants in Iraq were to be executed if France didnâ??t repeal this controversial law.
A massive civil disobedience campaigner had been planned by the large Muslim community existing in France, to protest enactment this law.
But this time the extremists had miscalculated. Muslims girls all over France, as a sign of national solidarity showed up for school sans headscarves.
So what was intended to polarize the division between Muslims and non-Muslims even further, instead brought them together.
A small victory for moderates and moderation.

As for this thread I look forward to reading what the more left-wing non-extremist humanists have to say on the subject. Will they counsel appeasement, that the authorities enter into dialogue with the perpetrators? That they give in to their demands? What???
All that has been heard from that front until now has been cheap inane sniping from one, and droll inaccurate historical allusions from another.
No substance whatsoever.

My own sentiments are echoed by Bash:
You don't reason with or appease such dark hearts; you cut them out.
Though I would add: You salt the earth in the hope that they don't arise again!

Tricord wrote:This is a very slow and stagnating process. If the US wants to burn it's fingers by trying to speed it up, be my guest. I don't think it can be sped up by force (military) though, because the first reaction will always be hostile and an upholding of "their" ways as a defence system against the intruders.

It's a complicated problem and I'm sorry to say I have no solution. Nor do I think the US will ever have a solution of it's own that could solve the problem satisfactorily.

So, you think we should sit around on our rear ends and take the punches terrorists throw at us while hoping that they'll sort out their own problems? Sorry, I don't think that's such a good idea. It's BECAUSE the terrorists think that's what we will do that they are doing this in the first place! If they thought we'd bomb the heck out of them in retaliation for any attacks, do you think they'd be as guns-ho about orchestrating attacks on us?

Why is it an empty statement Tri? The truth is that a massive cultural (not political or religious) revolution has to take place before change can take place within the Islamic world. This can only come about by moderates changing the culture from within.

One of the reasons i believe we have terrorists is because moderates are making a stance within Islamic cultures. I believe the massive influx of westerners as tourists, the information age (puke) and the travel habits of muslims themselves have been having an influence that the hardliners can't accept. It's a direct threat to hundreds of years of a male dominated theocracy, and i think they're very slowly loosing out.

The problem for them got even more complicated for when they went and started pissing the US off, the emblem of the evil western culture that was making their youth wear jeans and surf the internet. The US responded because it was attacked just like anyone else would, apart from the French.

BTW religion and politics do not need to be seperated to have a very successful democracy. I know of one country where it works pretty fine.

Stryker wrote:So, you think we should sit around on our rear ends and take the punches terrorists throw at us while hoping that they'll sort out their own problems? Sorry, I don't think that's such a good idea. It's BECAUSE the terrorists think that's what we will do that they are doing this in the first place! If they thought we'd bomb the heck out of them in retaliation for any attacks, do you think they'd be as guns-ho about orchestrating attacks on us?

I'd expected something like that.

I have nothing against securing the homeland and protecting american civilians against terrorist attacks.

That does not include sending in the military and take control of an islamic country.

Protect yourselves, don't harm others in doing so.

FC, I'll wait for other reactions as well before replying to that. Do note that in the country you are referring to, religion is separated from politics by definition. There may be influences, but those are inherent to persons, not to the system.

BTW there is currently a trial ongoing in Vancouver B.C. where the accused are said to have place two bombs on board two aircraft several years ago. One exploded in Narita airport killing a couple of baggage handlers and one exploded aboard an Air India jet over the Atlantic ocean killing more than 300 people.
The accused are Sikh, a Hindu sect sect fighting for an independant homeland in the Punjab state of India. This is clearly terroism by non muslims.
And how about the Troubles in Ireland. Lots of bombs and machine gunning of pubs in the last 30 years there including the placing of two bombs in a Liverpool (England) shopping mall timed so that the first one drove the frightened shoppers into the path of the second one.
Muslim extremeism is a problem of course but it is not the root cause of all terrorism or there would not be terroist acts by non muslims. The root cause is an unresolvable conflict in which one side lacks military options but feels it must strike at it's "oppressors".
No easy solution there including nuking some real estate that may or may not contain the terrorists. The next guys to set off a bomb in NYC might currently be living in South Africa or Germany. Nuking their families is not going to stop them from striking at their perceived enemies but rather encourage them. This leaves gathering up all the people in any nation you can subjugate whose religion you don't like in camps and eliminating them. Kind of like someone else's "Final Solution". Now there is something to be proud of advocating.

I have to agree that most of the terrorism that's been going on has been perpetrated by Muslims.

However, I don't necessarily agree that taking over countries is the way to get rid of them. We have yet to knock down and major terrorist network after taking over Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe I'm missing some kind of significant victories?

Having said that, I think the pen is going to be mightier than the sword here. Like ford said, there are causes for their anger--these are not excuses, but they do show roots for hatred. I am not pro-terrorist nor sympathetic to them. However I think the gung-ho warmongers need to stop and think about a three fold approach:

1) Preventative measures & diplomacy: such as not calling other countries evil and escalating things. This is to prevent a new crop of terrorists rather to convert existing.

2)Using Muslim leaders to fight Muslim terrorists. Last check we have over 1 billion muslim people. I think we risk pissing them all off in our efforts. We must be very careful to prevent WW3. I think this is a realistic concern, especialy as the decades pass and more countries go nuclear. If anyone has credibility and has the ability to sway people, it's muslim leaders. This is where GW can't help you. He can tear up countries but this is not how you win the hearts and minds of people. I think only the muslim leaders can do this. We have to encourage their condemnations, potentionally reward them (though that could be dangerous bias)

3) Searching and striking major terrorist networks, rather than unspecific "terrorist harboring nations." Although I have been seen as an anti war poster, I am not against finding those that did terorrist attacks and bringing them to justice. I don't see how taking out countries, while killing thousands of innocents who will then hate you really fixes our problem of terrorism. The only reasonable argument for the war in Iraq is to save the Iraqis from Hussain, but even that is still a gamble on whether they can achieve democracy. I can't think of really any major terrorist victories in Iraq, though we've picked off some henchmen that will likely be replaceed by equivelants. We need to hit the actual terrorists, that's where our tens of billions should go. Spend it on intelligence, spend it on defending our actual mainland, spend it on hitting the actual terrorists.

Point #2 is what pertains to this thread most. It is an extremely important point we're discussing and I think of all the points, it has the most power and likelyhood of success. The problem with killing an Islamic terrorist is that they wanted to die for their cause. They are going to heaven. So when a terrorist sees his brother killed, he isn't necessarily scared away. He sees that his brother is now in heaven because of his fight in the holy war. Not much of a deterrant. But if we have muslims around the world--and I mean every muslim country possible--their leaders, their, clerics, one by one, if we can have a day where they all denounce the terrorists together maybe the cry for peace will be heard. Maybe the existing terrorists won't be, but maybe we can stop the next generation from becoming them.

Problem is, we've hurt our friendships in the past few years with our allies. We need to mend those friendships and push as hard as we can for muslim condemnations. I didn't agree with every point in the article, and certainly the thread title is a silly generalization (keyword: all) but the idea of curing our problem *from the inside* is a great one.

Ford Perfect, You tried to use the Crusades as a justifying point for the Muslims being all pissed off at the Christians. I merly pointed out there is no justification for them in that and for you to read some history books before quoting history. If you want to use history to justify what they are doing use the fall of the Ottiman Empire as an example. They got screwed by many nations and the treaties still exist in writing to back up the argument. It's not that I disagree with your point of view in general, you just dont know history very well and therefore should quote it or use it as a reference when its used a$$ backwards.

Cuda68-2 wrote:Ford Perfect, You tried to use the Crusades as a justifying point for the Muslims being all pissed off at the Christians. I merly pointed out there is no justification for them in that and for you to read some history books before quoting history. If you want to use history to justify what they are doing use the fall of the Ottiman Empire as an example. They got screwed by many nations and the treaties still exist in writing to back up the argument. It's not that I disagree with your point of view in general, you just dont know history very well and therefore should quote it or use it as a reference when its used a$$ backwards.

Actually, Ford said it was "in the last half century or more." He was referring to recent history, not ancient history. Recent history is what tends to stir people up.

edit: Thanks Cuda, understood.

Yea, your right. Which is why he should have used the Ottiman Empire as a reference instead of the Crusades. I see the Crusades brought up constantly as if the Christians where trying to destroy the Muslims for no reason, so I jumped on it. It was during the late 1800's that America, Great Britian and others decided the Ottiman Empire had to go. So they brokered deals with the Palistinians to overthrow the Ottiman empire in return for land and financial support. Somehow the Jews ended up with what the Palistinians where supposed to get, and boy oh boy where the Palstinians pissed off, and there Muslim brothers jumped on board to back them up and poop hit the fan for the next 100 years untill today. This is also where it is commonly believed that oil is the motive behind all this. This all took place before/during and after WW1 when mechinized tanks and such where seen as real value to end the war - and who sat on great oil fields - the Ottiman Empire.

Why must we stop WW3? I hope it is a bad and discusting war. If WW3 does come, we must do everything in our power to keep it going for as long as possible, to make it as messy as possible so nobody will ever forget it. If it comes I hope it is so long and brutal that when it is finally over nobody can declare they won and people would rather die then start fighting again.

Uh Krom that has been tried before. It was called "The War to End All Wars". Otherwise known as WW1.

Cuda: I might even link the destruction and dismantlement of the Ottoman Empire as just one more chapter of the Crusades. I can make connections like that if I want to you know. This is an internet forum.

Tricord wrote: This separation is a fact in all western countries, and is crucial for the development of islamic countries.

Yes that would be the ideal solution.
But whoâ??s going to bell the cat?
You said yourself this would be a slow and stagnating process, and that you could see no clear solution to the dilemma. You are right on that score there is no foreseeable way of accomplishing this. Therefore your statement is as empty as the one you accuse Lothar of making! You might as well have said that you wished to stop Global Heating by eliminating all CO2 emissions.How?
If the US and others are forced into a position where they have to react to events, then itâ??s because they canâ??t be seen by their own people, as well as by the terrorist as being impassive and complacent. If that means that they are going to get their fingers burned they can just hope that they are able to do greater damage to their enemies.
No IMHO, the thesis to encourage and support moderate elements in the Islamic world is the only way to avoid escalating violence and bloodshed. But the future looks bleak now that the beasts have discovered that they can gain attention by going for soft targets.

1)I have nothing against securing the homeland and protecting American civilians against terrorist attacks.
2) That does not include sending in the military and take control of an Islamic country.
3) Protect yourselves, don't harm others in doing so.

As to number two, lets take the case of Afghanistan.
Here you had a country that was not just harbouring your enemies, but also taking an active part in their training and recruiting. A country whose leadership was part and parcel of al Quadas operations. Wouldnâ??t you say that they constituted a legitimate target for invasion. You may also say that the US arenâ??t in control of the country, that they have their own army and civil administration. But lets be honest the US is in de facto control.
As for number three, I got to believe that you did not meant to write that the way it came out.
I mean how are you to protect yourself without harming others? Rubber bullets!

Arol: it's good to hear about that particular display in France.

Pierre wrote:moderate voices in the islamic world that should step up is ... an empty statement.

FC addressed this very well: it's *exactly* the way culture change comes about. It can either come from within (moderate voices stepping up) or from without (extremist voices being destroyed by the US, Russia, etc.) It's better when it comes from within -- it's better when the moderates step up on their own and say "hey, this isn't what our religion should be doing!" Kudos to those who have stepped up.

Pierre wrote:politics and religion must be separated.

Politics and extremism must be separated. It doesn't particularly matter that religious leaders also hold political power. What matters is that, in this case, the religious leaders who hold political power are extremists.

This takes us back to the 2 possibilities: either they get replaced by moderates from the inside, or they get wiped out by missiles from the outside. Chances are, there will be some of both -- the Taliban and Saddam got wiped out from the outside. Syria shows some signs of changing from the inside. Will Iran, the Saudis, and others do the same? That's the question the Muslim world is currently faced with -- do the moderates step up and lead a popular culture change, or do the extremists stay in power and eventually get dealt with through military means?

Ford wrote:Muslim extremeism is a problem of course but it is not the root cause of all terrorism or there would not be terroist acts by non muslims.

I would've added Tim McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski to the list you gave of non-Muslim terrorists.

Of course not all terrorists are Muslims, and Islamic extremism isn't the root cause of all terrorism. But it *is* the root cause of most terrorism in the world today, and it's the root cause of most of the terrorism our country has dealings with, and it's because of the nature of the "unresolveable conflict where one side lacks military options": the very existance of western culture and the state of Israel is offensive to Islamic extremists. We do things like letting women show their ankles in public, work, live without a man in charge, etc. and that really bugs them. To them, the fact that our culture exists and thrives is a challenge to their very religion -- they're sure that Allah would have wiped us and Israel out, so as long as we exist their worldview suffers. Their confidence lies in a belief that Allah will help them overcome the infidels (us), which means that as long as they continue to lose to Israel and as long as our culture continues to influence theirs, they're completely panicked.

Let me say that again: Our very existance, and the existance of Israel, offends Islamic extremists. The particular belief they have is that "infidels" like us and Israel will be destroyed by Allah, so as long as we remain, we're a slap in the face of their religion. Of course, Islamic moderates don't have the same belief -- like I said before, they're not the problem. But to the extremists, we're like... proof there's something wrong with their beliefs... so they're going to keep coming after us, and they're going to keep pretending that it's OK to go after civilian targets. This is why moderates need to step up -- they need to convince the mainstream and the few wackjobs who can be changed that killing civilians is not OK and that you can still believe in Allah even if the US and Israel continue to exist.

Ford wrote:No easy solution there including nuking some real estate that may or may not contain the terrorists.

But then, nobody here has advocated such a solution. You're back to the straw-man I was dissing Avder for putting forth. Please reread my last post.

Birdseye wrote:We have yet to knock down and major terrorist network

- 75% of AQ's leadership has been captured or killed, and most of their Afghanistan training camps are gone. I'd say that's "knocked down".
- Saddam is no longer funding $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Not exactly a "network", but definitely a major contributor.
- The black-market nuclear network out of Pakistan (AQ Khan, I believe) has been shut down.

Now, that's nowhere near the whole solution -- like Bush said, the WoT can't be won in 4 years (NOTE: for those of you who missed the context of his "can't be won" statement, he was answering a question about whether or not it can be won in the next 4 years. He then goes on to outline what can be done in the next 4 years, and explains how it can be won long-term.) But it's not "nothing" either. And it's certainly a far cry from the situation that existed for far too long, when terrorists would attack and we'd make a half-hearted effort to catch one or two of them.

Birdseye wrote: 1) Preventative measures & diplomacy: such as not calling other countries evil...
2)Using Muslim leaders to fight Muslim terrorists...
3) Searching and striking major terrorist networks, rather than unspecific "terrorist harboring nations."

Mostly agreed, though you're still INTENTIONALLY misinterpreting Bush's "axis of evil" statement. Also, be careful that you don't take #1 too far to the extreme -- while you shouldn't call governments "evil" on a whim, you shouldn't shy away from saying it when it needs said, and in the case of Iran, Iraq, and NK it needed said. The only modification I'd suggest is that Bush should've said "the Iranian, Iraqi, and North Korean GOVERNMENTS are an axis of evil" -- he made it clear he was talking about governments in the sentence before, but this would have prevented you and the rest of the world from being able to ignore the context and say he was talking about nations rather than governments.

Also, #3 is going to include both terrorist networks AND terrorist-harboring governments, and furthermore, it's going to include wackjob governments that might not be specifically terrorist-harboring but do encourage them. From a military strategy standpoint, that's the only reasonable way to do it -- take out the terrorists, as well as the structures that support them and the groups that encourage them.

Each of these is going to be an important step in the war on terror. I'd love for #2 to work alone, but I know it won't. #3 is going to happen. What I'm saying in this thread, though, is that those who can make #2 happen need to step up and do what they can -- because the culture change in the Islamic world can happen either mostly from the inside (#2) or mostly from the outside (#3), and we probably all agree that mostly-from-the-inside is a better way to do it. I'd much rather have a couple of countries invaded, and most having moderate leadership arise on their own, than World War III.

As always a well though out and well stated reply Lothar.
I do however take exception to placing Saddam Hussein amoung the ranks of religeous extremists.

"Chances are, there will be some of both -- the Taliban and Saddam got wiped out from the outside."

Saddam was many bad things but his regime was basicly secular as his power base was amoung the Sunni and Christian minority. While he was in power Christians in Iraq were protected from Sharia laws and alcohol could be purchased openly.
Not that he was worth saving or anything but a Muslim extremist he was not.

When I wrote my post, I did have mostly religious leaders in mind, but most of it still applies to those who are "cultural Muslims" or "secular Muslims" like Saddam (who certainly wasn't the same type of extremist as Bin Laden or the Taliban, though he did support extremists of that type.) Granted, in that case, it's not the existance of the US that bugs the cultural extremists so much as the fact that our culture continues to export things they don't want in their culture.

When I say we need "moderate Muslim leaders" I don't just mean religiously moderate leaders, but politically moderate leaders as well. Iraq is going to have a Muslim leader, as are most of the other ME countries not named Israel -- and whether "cultural" or "devout religious", the leaders that arise need to be moderate if there's going to be peace.