Why not war against Islam?

[Dayan81]

Go back further to invasion of Spain by the burgeoning Islamic empire..

The Christians removed the Moors from Iberia. They also removed the Ottomans from Europe. There was no need to conquer Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Iraq, and Arabia.

Perhaps the Brits & French felt the need to relive the Crusades..and then some?

 

[Virus]

The Christians removed the Moors from Iberia. They also removed the Ottomans from Europe. There was no need to conquer Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Iraq, and Arabia.

Perhaps the Brits & French felt the need to relive the Crusades..and then some?

The Ottoman Empire joined Germany and went to war with Britain and France.

Funny how Turkish imperialism and occupation for 600 years is completely blameless for their situation but four decades of benign rule by the British and French is responsible for all their problems.

 

[Craig4]

The Christians removed the Moors from Iberia. They also removed the Ottomans from Europe. There was no need to conquer Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Iraq, and Arabia.

Perhaps the Brits & French felt the need to relive the Crusades..and then some?

You may recall that the Ottoman Empire joined the Germans and the Austro Hungarian Empire in WWI against the UK, France and Russia.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Of course all of this is semantics.
Look at all the problems the west currently has trying to stabilize two countries with local regimes that (in theory) should have their own armies and that were installed at least partially to remove horrible dicatorships, with as positive side effect that these regimes now do what they are told by the west.
Now imagine trying to attack every single muslim country in the world.
At the same time.
And then occupying these countries and forcefully converting well over a billion people away from the religion they've been holding for over a thousand years.

Even IF every other non-muslim country in the world would throw their full weight behind it, its utterly impractical and would totally destroy the world economy and then *still* fail.

And like I said, this is utterly ignoring the fact that such an action would be a humanitarian horror only equalled by what nazi germany tried to do.
Its bold rethorics by stupid politicians and people, either way as its equally impossible for all muslims in the world to try and conquer the massive non-muslim majority.

 

[Virus]

Of course all of this is semantics.
Look at all the problems the west currently has trying to stabilize two countries with local regimes that (in theory) should have their own armies and that were installed at least partially to remove horrible dicatorships, with as positive side effect that these regimes now do what they are told by the west.
Now imagine trying to attack every single muslim country in the world.
At the same time.
And then occupying these countries and forcefully converting well over a billion people away from the religion they've been holding for over a thousand years.

Britain ruled a quarter of the globe for 200 years. So not impossible. Except for the converting people part, which would be counter-productive.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I'm an atheist.

Why on earth can one NEVER talk about Islam without some people IMMEDIATELY coming out of the wodds shouting "CHRISTIANS DID BAD STUFF TOO! LOOK WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS! CRUSADES WERE EEEEEEEEVIL CHRISTIAN PLOTS TO GRAB LAND AND KILL MUSLIMS!" and try to derail the conversation?

4 pages, seriously you guys.

Seriously.

The point is that you cannot equate a religion with what some of its adherents do, have done, or want to do. All large religions even Buddhism has had violent madmen committing crimes in their name.

Its vices and virtues untold, Christianity has left its violent phase behind, and so has the mainstay of Islam. By equating the vast majority of Muslims with the archaic and aggressive groups, you make it hard for people to distinguish, and you make it much harder for moderate Muslims to distance themselves from the terrorists, because you are really asking them to swear off their religion.

So the basic answer to your basic question is: We cannot wage war against Islam, because Islam is not the problem. Certain Muslims are the problem.

Hans

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Britain ruled a quarter of the globe for 200 years. So not impossible. Except for the converting people part, which would be counter-productive.

Britain ruled by using existing rulers and using superior technology and lack of communication so that the millions of subjects did not *know* that there were only a few hundred thousand soldiers, while also being unfamiliar with any bad sentiment at the british isles.

Also one main factor to their success was their near total willingness to leave the religion of their subjects utterly untouched. AFAIK only suttee was something they actively repressed.

The superior technology is no longer present, resistance fighters DO know wether their actions affect the homefront and in this case the occupation would be specifically TO attack a massive and popular religion, which is exactly what any succesful empire avoids.

 

[Sunstealer]

The superior technology is no longer present, resistance fighters DO know wether their actions affect the homefront and in this case the occupation would be specifically TO attack a massive and popular religion, which is exactly what any succesful empire avoids.

Oh the superior technology exists, however, no one is willing to use it. Give me access to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons with full command over NATO with all NATO countries geared towards war production along with conscript armies and I could dominate the muslim world in 5-10 years and change their culture over the next 50.

China and Russia might be a bit peeved mind you and hundreds of millions would die, but it's possible to be done. Possible, but extremely unlikely. Also completely unjustifiable.

One of the reasons for the change of culture and success of Japan and Germany was the complete and utter destruction of those countries in WW2 which allowed long term occupation and rebuilding. However, it's impossible to justify total war against a country/state that is no threat to your own. e.g. Iraq.

 

[citizenzen]

Give me access to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons with full command over NATO with all NATO countries geared towards war production along with conscript armies and I could dominate the muslim world in 5-10 years and change their culture over the next 50.

We already proved that our army can dominate. That's the easy part.

But I'm doubtful that we can change the culture.

We've been in Afghanistan for ten years and Iraq for about eight. How much have we changed those cultures?

Does anyone really want to continue spending trillions of dollars and losing soldiers in an effort to effect cultural change?

In my lifetime, China went from a nation of hard-core, culture revolutionary commies, to a nation that is poised to become the next capitalist superpower, embracing far more freedom and openness than anyone would have imagined 50 years ago.

Nobody had to invade, dominate and occupy them for that change to happen.

 

[Sunstealer]

We already proved that our army can dominate. That's the easy part.

But I'm doubtful that we can change the culture.

We've been in Afghanistan for ten years and Iraq for about eight. How much have we changed those cultures?.

Not by much, we'd need to be there 50 years plus.

Does anyone really want to continue spending trillions of dollars and losing soldiers in an effort to effect cultural change?

Not really - it's a waste all round.

In my lifetime, China went from a nation of hard-core, culture revolutionary commies, to a nation that is poised to become the next capitalist superpower, embracing far more freedom and openness than anyone would have imagined 50 years ago.

Nobody had to invade, dominate and occupy them for that change to happen.

I agree - these forays into Iraq and Afghanistan are pretty much fruitless.

I don't think we are at war with Islam in general, we are at war with a radicalised version (Salafism). This is spread and financed from Saudi Arabia (and Pakistan). This is one of the reasons why I'm pro-nuclear power - it means we don't have to fund those that wish to destroy our way of life.

 

[I Ratant]

....

So the basic answer to your basic question is: We cannot wage war against Islam, because Islam is not the problem. Certain Muslims are the problem.

Hans

.
Even to other Muslims. Most often, to other Muslims.

 

[I Ratant]

...

Nobody had to invade, dominate and occupy them for that change to happen.

.
All it took was for western companies to ask "Hey, with all your available labor, can you guys do this for us cheaper than our domestic work forces?"
.
Turns out they can.
Those perks that come along with capitalism are quite seductive.

 

[tsig]

You may recall that the Ottoman Empire joined the Germans and the Austro Hungarian Empire in WWI against the UK, France and Russia.

No it all started when the Romans raped the Sabine wimen.

 

[tsig]

The point is that you cannot equate a religion with what some of its adherents do, have done, or want to do. All large religions even Buddhism has had violent madmen committing crimes in their name.

Its vices and virtues untold, Christianity has left its violent phase behind, and so has the mainstay of Islam. By equating the vast majority of Muslims with the archaic and aggressive groups, you make it hard for people to distinguish, and you make it much harder for moderate Muslims to distance themselves from the terrorists, because you are really asking them to swear off their religion.

So the basic answer to your basic question is: We cannot wage war against Islam, because Islam is not the problem. Certain Muslims are the problem.

Hans

Because we know that no true Muslim would do violence.

 

[A'isha]

Because we know that no true Muslim would do violence.

Plenty of people who are pretty sure that they're "true Muslims" commit violence (not limited to just al-Qaeda, either). Plenty of people who are pretty sure that they're "true Muslims" would never do such a thing (I should know, I'm related by blood to some of them).

When you decide you're going to attack "Islam", who are you attacking?

 

[I Ratant]

I would assault the basic tenets... that some supernatural thing (bad tenet #1) reveals (bad tenet #2) "truth" (b.t.3) to certain individuals over time (b.t.4).. and yet never reveals a consistent line of "truth".
The same tactic against all revealed religions.. demonstrate the human (lunatic) sources for all of them, from Abraham to David Koresh.

 

[citizenzen]

When you decide you're going to attack "Islam", who are you attacking?

Exactly.

It would be as illogical as having a war on men, as we seem to be behind the vast number of violent acts committed worldwide.

Why stop with a specific religion?

Just get rid of the men.

 

[bikerdruid]

Exactly.

It would be as illogical as having a war on men, as we seem to be behind the vast number of violent acts committed worldwide.

Why stop with a specific religion?

Just get rid of the men.

there's the ticket!

 

[citizenzen]

there's the ticket!

Oh, you can keep a few around for harvesting sperm.

But really, if some people are advocating war against 1/5th of the population, why not advocate war against 1/2th the population and really solve the problem?

Our Norwegian terrorist wasn't a Muslim.

But he was a man.

Let's really get serious against violence and go after the root of the problem.

 

[FireGarden]

Because we know that no true Muslim would do violence.

I really don't see how this comment is a response to MRC_Hans.