Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Perhaps not, but it has the potential to be. The terrorists/"Fascists are the problem, it shouldn't matter if they are Muslim or Atheistic or Communists or whatever. Adding anything simply singles out a particular group, and encourages certain elements to extend the term "Islamic" to all of Islam.
Originally posted by Himo
Because there's nothing openly condemning making depictions of holy prophets in the Bible.
you miss the point...the quran forbids the depiction of ANY prophet...not just muslim prophets...if muslims so devoutly follow their religion then why dont they react to any depiction of a prophet?
The truth is a Majority of Islam does support Al Quada
seriously though....going back to this point
i think the US administration would actually prefer a rise in support for al qaeda to the extent where entire nations support them actively
this is because in terms of conventional war....nations are far easier to defeat than small displaced groups
in that context the US could simply withdraw any troops and then let rip with the biggest weapons they have
Originally posted by jaden101
seriously though....going back to this pointi think the US administration would actually prefer a rise in support for al qaeda to the extent where entire nations support them actively
this is because in terms of conventional war....nations are far easier to defeat than small displaced groups
in that context the US could simply withdraw any troops and then let rip with the biggest weapons they have
Which would make me question the US administration even more were they to openly declare such a hope. Though to be fair, it probably wouldn't work. It is the rather popularised image that all the trouble in Iraq is being caused by foreign fighters when this is, in fact, not the case. The vast number of insurgents are, apparently, Iraqi born and bred. Their numbers are drawn from former regime supporters, soldiers, Sunni and Shi'ite Militias - They fought Iraq as a nation, and all it did was drive huge numbers of opponents underground.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Which would make me question the US administration even more were they to openly declare such a hope. Though to be fair, it probably wouldn't work. It is the rather popularised image that all the trouble in Iraq is being caused by foreign fighters when this is, in fact, not the case. The vast number of insurgents are, apparently, Iraqi born and bred. Their numbers are drawn from former regime supporters, soldiers, Sunni and Shi'ite Militias - They fought Iraq as a nation, and all it did was drive huge numbers of opponents underground.
they didn't fight Iraq as a nation though...if they did if would be very unlikely they would be in Iraq now...they would simply flatten the country as much as possible before going in with complete disregard for accurate strikes
Originally posted by jaden101
they didn't fight Iraq as a nation though...if they did if would be very unlikely they would be in Iraq now...they would simply flatten the country as much as possible before going in with complete disregard for accurate strikes
So what you saying is... that if every person (or the vast majority of people) in a nation were terrorists... they could just kill them all. Unlike Iraq where they fought the machinery of the nation (army, government) and not the nation itself (the people.) Winning in the first scenario would be... well, one of the saddest victories ever.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
So what you saying is... that if every person (or the vast majority of people) in a nation were terrorists... they could just kill them all. Unlike Iraq where they fought the machinery of the nation (army, government) and not the nation itself (the people.) Winning in the first scenario would be... well, one of the saddest victories ever.
indeed it would be a terrible thing but from the viewpoint of the US administration it would be an easier war to fight
then again that goes by the assumption that they are dealing with an ideology that is similar to National socialism or communism where it can be battered into oblivion by economic or military means
unfortunately i think extremist islamic views are much harder to defeat
so realistically there are only 2 options
defeat the ideology...or wipe out everyone who follows that ideology
thats the only 2 ways to win the "war on terror"
and seeing as its abndantly clear that the US and the UK are completely ****ing up the attempt to defeat the ideology that doesnt really leave much room for other options
Originally posted by jaden101
and seeing as its abndantly clear that the US and the UK are completely ****ing up the attempt to defeat the ideology that doesnt really leave much room for other options
True, but I would say it is equally due to the way they are trying to defeat the ideology - that is in far to conventional terms. While it certainly seems their is room for military actions in such a battle, it has to be carried out on more levels then that. It might be sounding cliched -but the battle for the minds and hearts of the prospective person who might become a terrorist is, I dare say, of equal importance to killing an existing terrorist. Little is achieved in defeating the concept of "terror" if in the process you anger a lot of people and send them down the path of terrorism. A nasty cycle.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
True, but I would say it is equally due to the way they are trying to defeat the ideology - that is in far to conventional terms. While it certainly seems their is room for military actions in such a battle, it has to be carried out on more levels then that. It might be sounding cliched -but the battle for the minds and hearts of the prospective person who might become a terrorist is, I dare say, of equal importance to killing an existing terrorist. Little is achieved in defeating the concept of "terror" if in the process you anger a lot of people and send them down the path of terrorism. A nasty cycle.
indeed...hence i say they're making a rather large **** up of it
this is probably down to massive misunderstanding of Islam from the western perspective
it also doesn't help that our "allies" that are islamic countries...egypt, saudi arabia, pakistan seem to be extremely passive in their help with regards to "hearts and minds" and it is their understanding and diplomacy that is most needed
at least it seems that way from a UK perspective because very little is shown by the media of these countries calling for condemnation of terrorism
perhaps using this method would help prevent UK nationals of Pakistani (or wherever) heritage from committing acts like those of 7/7...if they saw that leaders from the countries of their ancestry condemned the terrorism
Originally posted by jaden101
seriously though....going back to this pointi think the US administration would actually prefer a rise in support for al qaeda to the extent where entire nations support them actively
this is because in terms of conventional war....nations are far easier to defeat than small displaced groups
in that context the US could simply withdraw any troops and then let rip with the biggest weapons they have