The Muslim Quandry...

[Cinci4RP]

How can I convince someone that agrees with most of RP's issues, except unilateral withdrawl from the Muslim world.

This individual assertains (and I agree) that Muslims will never stop jihad, they are fighting the war they are commanded by the Koran to undertake. To wit, that all infidels have three options, convert, subjugate, or die.

I might also add that this particular person would be completely fine with withdrawing to a defensive posture in Israel.

Personally I feel that there is a very valid arguement that the U.S. withdrawing from Iraq and backing off Iran would be seen by the Muslim powers as a sign of weakness.

Thoughts?

[Man from La Mancha]

Well lets see for the last several hundreds of years they have been killing each other off and not bothering anybody else except when some jerk comes on their territory. And figuring the USA has 10,000 nukes that could wipe them off the face of the earth if they tried to nuke us, why are Americans such pitiful weak ass cry babies?


.

[bbachtung]

First, if the Koran commanded an OFFENSIVE jihad against the U.S., then why weren't there Muslims attacking us in 1850? 1875? 1900? 1925? 1945? The reason is that we were (generally) not messing with them (although by 1945 we were beginning to meddle in partitioning the Middle East).

Second, even IF there was an OFFENSIVE jihad against the U.S. they would be able to kill far fewer Americans if the American soldiers in Iraq were not in Iraq (or elsewhere in the Middle East) because they do not have an air force, navy, or airlines. They love having Americans in the Middle East because they don't have to try to travel to America to attack and kill Americans.

If Ron Paul had his way, we would be ready for their attacks because pilots would be armed (if the individual airline chose to allow it), average Americans would be armed when they travel (because we would have nationwide recognition -- via full faith and credit -- of concealed handgun permits), and the military would be ready to strike (via elite units like the Navy SEALs, Army Rangers, etc.) at any terrorist camp anywhere in the world on a moment's notice with surgical attacks that would hunt down the terrorists and kill and / or capture them.

It was over a month before we had boots on the ground in Afghanistan -- the careerist bureaucrats at the Pentagon were so focused on yesterday's wars / battles / tactics that they did not have a plan to send in our special forces to locate and kill bin Laden and company. Bush wasted over a month building a "coalition" to retaliate for the worst terrorist attack on American soil. Ron Paul would not ask the U.N. or NATO or anyone else for permission to punish those who harmed us, and he also wouldn't waste our brave troops occupying and nation-building while allowing terrorists to slip away. Justice would be swift and certain.

We would be seen as far from weak; by refusing to change tactics, we are seen as dinosaurs and are playing into the terrorists' plans.

[rational thinker]

This individual assertains (and I agree) that Muslims will never stop jihad, they are fighting the war they are commanded by the Koran to undertake. To wit, that all infidels have three options, convert, subjugate, or die.
This is totally distorted. You're wrong here. Those verses of the Koran are taken out of context. I could do the same thing with the Bible and make all Christians look like they are in a war against all infidels. I can't believe you still listen to the propaganda the media spits out about religions, while holding a double standard in which you don't believe anything they say about libertarians or Ron Paul for that matter.

[fortilite]

Radical Islam was created because of Britain, France, the USSR, and The USA. We imperialized and pawned them and radical Islam was a backlash. Is it too late? No. But we are still feeding the fires of radical Islam. Pulling back will suffocate a lot of it.

Also if we cut down on immigration from those nations they will have a harder time building enclaves in our nation.

[Pii]

How can I convince someone that agrees with most of RP's issues, except unilateral withdrawl from the Muslim world.

This individual assertains (and I agree) that Muslims will never stop jihad, they are fighting the war they are commanded by the Koran to undertake. To wit, that all infidels have three options, convert, subjugate, or die.

I might also add that this particular person would be completely fine with withdrawing to a defensive posture in Israel.

Personally I feel that there is a very valid arguement that the U.S. withdrawing from Iraq and backing off Iran would be seen by the Muslim powers as a sign of weakness.

Thoughts?

Prior to the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, Reagan, and everyone else, was committed to maintaining a presence in that part of the world. After the bombing, Reagan decided to withdraw the troops, and conceded that we in the West simply don't understand the mindset of the Muslim world. The circumstances forced him to change his mind, and as a result, his policies.

Similarly, Ron Paul has noted that for over 20 years, the Ayatollah Khomeini was trying to whip the Iranians up into a frenzy against the United States, and its people, and for over 20 years, he was unable to do so. Why has Bin Laden succeeded when Khomeini failed? The difference is our presence in Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere, since the conclusion of the first Gulf War.

People are not motivated to conduct suicide bombings simply because we are free and prosperous. It is retaliation to the presence of an occupying force (or the perception of one) that incites hatred, and spawns action.

[Kregener]

All of the Muslim world could band together and could not defeat the U.S.A.

Facts are strange and quirky that way.

[Malum Prohibitum]

Perhaps you can refer him to how Jefferson dealt with the Barbary Pirates, who were also muslim and 'commanded by allah to destroy infidels'. When the pirates became a menace, he sent the Navy and Marines, tore up their bases of operations, and came home. There was no attempt at occupation, the founders would have seen that as insane.

I think that Paul has said repeatedly that he believes that we have an interest in defending ourselves, and included in that is our trade routes and ships. This means when faced with aggression, we either defend ourselves or retaliate. What we DONT need to be doing is whacking everyone with the freedom stick to try to change entire cultures to our way of thinking.

This kind of 'preemptive' thinking is the same crap that people use to justify the drug war. It just doesnt work. Reward our friends with trade, and punish offenders with precise and crushing force. It doesnt take long when you do that before your friends love you and your enemies just leave you alone.

[DragonTattooz]

This kind of 'preemptive' thinking is the same crap that people use to justify the drug war. It just doesnt work. Reward our friends with trade, and punish offenders with precise and crushing force. It doesnt take long when you do that before your friends love you and your enemies just leave you alone.

These words should be written in stone somewhere...:cool:

[Andrew-Austin]

How can I convince someone that agrees with most of RP's issues, except unilateral withdrawl from the Muslim world.

This individual assertains (and I agree) that Muslims will never stop jihad, they are fighting the war they are commanded by the Koran to undertake. To wit, that all infidels have three options, convert, subjugate, or die.



Ummm.. No.... I suggest you research Islam more before making such radical assertions. It is a misconception that the Koran condones war/violence, not a fact.



Personally I feel that there is a very valid arguement that the U.S. withdrawing from Iraq and backing off Iran would be seen by the Muslim powers as a sign of weakness. Unfortunately I'm to lazy to write you an essay.







-






Your completely misinterpreting the Islamic world as a whole, you are giving more credence to the few radicals that there are. How would you feel if someone from another country stated that Bill O'Reilly was an accurate representitive of Christian beliefs/ideas. Its kind of like that.

If we were to hyper-analyze your notions about the muslim world, we would find that there is no quandry -- (just mass ignorance from both the US and middleeastern populations, and considerable government corruption)

[Cinci4RP]

Is have any of you lived in Israel for any length of time?

[Malum Prohibitum]

Considering we are discussing the Muslim threat to the U.S., and not the Muslim threat to Israel, Im unsure if your question is even relevant to the topic. If you are trying to convince someone to come to RP whose first loyalty is to Israel, well,... he's probably a lost cause.

When we aren't doing stuff to piss off the whole muslim world, they very quickly go back to fighting amongst themselves. They tried to attack Israel once and got their asses handed to them. They wont try again.

[Corydoras]

Muslims will never stop jihad, they are fighting the war they are commanded by the Koran to undertake. To wit, that all infidels have three options, convert, subjugate, or die.

ASSUMING that this analysis is true, what exactly are they going to do to the U.S. about it? They have failed to convert the U.S. and they have not got the ability to send their militaries to invade us. There isn't anything they can do to us.

Even ASSUME that they will stage terrorist attacks on us now and then. They're not going to win. They aren't going to subjugate or convert the UK, which has a proportionately much larger and rather more poorly assimilated Muslim population; and they're not going to do it to us.

What, exactly, would they try to do and how would it succeed? It won't.

[Cinci4RP]

Considering we are discussing the Muslim threat to the U.S., and not the Muslim threat to Israel, Im unsure if your question is even relevant to the topic. If you are trying to convince someone to come to RP whose first loyalty is to Israel, well,... he's probably a lost cause.

When we aren't doing stuff to piss off the whole muslim world, they very quickly go back to fighting amongst themselves. They tried to attack Israel once and got their asses handed to them. They wont try again.

In my first post I referenced this individual's approval to defensive posture in Israel.

As far as first loyalty to Israel, wwll, this individual has repeated that the Gospels are "to the Jew first"

And, yes in the 6 day war Israel did kick some butt, but the lands that they won have been systematically taken back over by this imaginary country of palistine.
You don't see Italy handing over any lands back to Austria, do you?

The Quandry is how do I go about converting a Zionist? They have made the statement that the USA is the only ally the Israel has, and is quite reluctant to support someone that would have the US leave entirely.

[Jason T]

The Koran does not promote Jihad. There are vital steps to life laid out in the Koran.

Five Islamic pillars:
1) Shahadah: Declare your God is Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger.
2) Salah: Pray towards Mecca five times a day.
3) Zakah: Be charitable towards the less fortunate.
4) Sawm: Fasting during Ramadan.
5) Hajj: Pilgrimage to Mecca.

The Koran is poetic, so it's vague and open to different interpretations. This is why different Islamic factions have such differing views at the religion. The only major school of Islam which widely promotes Jihad is Shia. While many Sunni factions speak of Jihad, it is not in the mainstream Sunni interpretation.

The very reason why the US funded Osama to help Afghans fight the Soviets was because his interpretation of the Koran and Jihad was very effective at radicalizing the Afghans to fight.

The fact the Ayatollah preached of Jihad is another reason why the US backed Iraq wasn't able to beat Iran in the Iran-Iraq war; the Iranians were too united and motivated to lose. If the US went to war with Iran, they would be even more united and motivated to win, so that's why people who study the region wouldn't think that's a good idea, nuclear weapon or not.

But the Europe/US is also to blame for the radicalization of Iran. Iran was on the path to westernization before World War I and close to ties to many European nations. However, when WWI broke out and the Ottoman (Turkish) empire allied with Germany due to their economic partnership with the country, England feared that Iran would join the Axis powers (even though they were business partners with people on both sides) and intervened.

This is was the start to Iran being a puppet state of England and later on the US. The fact they turned it into a puppet state is why the Ayatollah was able to come to power, because otherwise, the people of Iran wouldn't have accepted such a radical leader.

[RonPaulalways]

The middle east was largely secular for most of the 20th century.

In Iran there was a secular prime minister who nationalized Iran's oil. This resulted in a British/American coup to install the Shah with the support of the mullahs. The socialists and secular nationalists were killed off and the mullah's, who were in alliance with the Shah, gained strength.

In Iraq secularists were in power until 2003.

In Syria secularists are still in power.

In Palestine secularists were in power until the late 90's when Israel destroyed all of Fatah's infrastructre and gave Hamas a chance to rise. Israel supported Islamic Hamas in the 80's to create a counter force to secular Fatah.

In the rest of the Arab countries, secular nationalism was very strong (in Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, etc), and the Muslim Brotherhood was supported by western intelligence as a counter to this in order to weaken pan-Arabism.

In Afghanistan, secular socialists were in power until the late 80's, when finally they were toppled by the religious fanatics funded by the US.

In short, the middle east's natural inclination is secular, nationalism and modernism, but the west's foreign policy prevents that, by design.

[RonPaulalways]

You can point your friend to specific US actions to let it sink in:

Operation Ajax in the 50's brought down the secular nationalist government of Mossadeq in Iran by funding mullahs and monarchists and set the stage for the Islamic revolution of 1979.

Operation Cyclone in the 80's brought down the secular communist government of Afghanistan by funneling $3-20 billion to the Islamic mujahadeen through the Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI, and set the stage for 911.

[Cinci4RP]

The middle east was largely secular for most of the 20th century.

In Iran there was a secular prime minister who nationalized Iran's oil. This resulted in a British/American coup to install the Shah with the support of the mullahs. The socialists and secular nationalists were killed off and the mullah's, who were in alliance with the Shah, gained strength.

In Iraq secularists were in power until 2003.

In Syria secularists are still in power.

In Palestine secularists were in power until the late 90's when Israel destroyed all of Fatah's infrastructre and gave Hamas a chance to rise. Israel supported Islamic Hamas in the 80's to create a counter force to secular Fatah.

In the rest of the Arab countries, secular nationalism was very strong (in Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, etc), and the Muslim Brotherhood was supported by western intelligence as a counter to this in order to weaken pan-Arabism.

In Afghanistan, secular socialists were in power until the late 80's, when finally they were toppled by the religious fanatics funded by the US.

In short, the middle east's natural inclination is secular, nationalism and modernism, but the west's foreign policy prevents that, by design.

This is the best most succinct answer you could have given. She is converted now, FYI.

[Corydoras]

Glad to hear she has been persuaded!

To the list of secular-leaning Muslim-majority countries one could add: Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan. Arguably Turkey as well.