Iraq KIA

[WmRoy]

Sorry Nabob............. here we have a topic which we disagree on...........

[nabob]

Not a problem, WmRoy. Sometimes a historical perspective provides good insight into present conditions, sometimes it doesn't. No big deal.

[powderman]

nabob. At least we agree on something, that islam is like a rabid dog. Now, repeat after me, their mosques are their lairs where hatred and death are taught, their mosques are their lairs, where hatred and death are taught. Say it, you know you want to. POWDERMAN. 

[nabob]

Actually, I said radical Islam is a rabid dog.

I know many Muslims, both here and in the Middle East. They are not all radicalized. The radical ones are our enemy. The ones that do not wish to kill us are not.

We don't have to fight them all, just the ones that want us dead. There are 1 billion Muslims out there. Not all of them are our enemy. The ones that are seem to be a growing faction and our job is to figure out how to get the OTHER Muslims to go after them. Only a real fool wants a war  with one billion Muslims if it is not necessary. If all one does is look at the national news, then I could see how one could arrive at the conclusion that they are all radicalized. This is not so. We are going to need the help of other Muslims if we are to confront radical Islam.

That means perhaps cozying up to Syria and Saudi Arabia to defang Iran. It means finding the common ground necessary to alert other nations to the danger of radical Islam and getting their help instead of alienating them by a "go it alone" strategy. There is a lot we can do to get other Muslims to confront the poison in their midst because it is just as much a danger to them as it is to us.

But we won't get there by viewing every single Muslim as our enemy. Only our enemies are our enemies, to put it simply. That's not every Muslim in the world.

[powderman]

nabob. The only difference in the radicals and the rest is that the so called peaceful ones aren't killing folks yet, and they all study from satans handbook, the koran. You seem to forget that several of the Godless ones on 9-11-01 had lived in the United States for several year, their neighbors suspected nothing. A couple of them even had American girlfriends who also suspected nothing. I don't trust them, any of them. POWDERMAN. 

[nabob]

Who said anything about trust? However, I judge people on their actions, not my suspicions nor their thoughts.

I forget nothing about 9/11. However, what I learned was to study the enemy, not let my emotions decide my judgments. Apparently, you think every single Muslim is out to kill us. You've made this judgment by thoroughly investigating the religion as it manifests itself in various nations, met with Muslim imams and scholars, read the gamut of Muslim literature and opinion, right? Surely you aren't just basing this on what you see on the nightly news, right?

The lesson I took from 9/11 was that I had to know my enemy better. That meant figuring out just who was my enemy and who wasn't, whom I could maybe work with to combat my enemy and who might side with him, which methods might work and which ones probably won't. I also learned the lesson of Iraq, which was that unless we can work WITH other people, we are not going to win. Going it alone is not the answer, much as it seemed to be in 2001. I don't think you've learned that lesson yet, despite the 1000's of American dead in a war we cannot win.

The sacrifice our soldiers have made in Iraq sort of demands that we make certain that we only fight whom we must and only when we must. I would have hoped that you might have at least learned that lesson but perhaps not. Maybe it will take another couple thousand American dead and a few hundred billion more dollars spent before it sinks into people that while it is emotionally satisfying to vent one's hatred on a public board, that isn't the same as a game plan.

Killing all the Muslims in the world won't get your family members back from them. Or are you going to kill them as well? I think your emotional involvement is driving your assessment, not an evaluation of facts. Consequently, I view your posts as just ranting to vent off steam. I doubt very seriously that you've spent any time learning about the enemy. Heck, in another thread, you admitted you don't read the links provided even when they AGREE with your viewpoint. How can anyone believe that you somehow bothered to evaluate any evidence that doesn't accord with your viewpoint when you don't bother to even read stuff that agrees with you?

Lay it out for us, powderman. What do you think needs to be done? It is easy to just breathe some fire on a discussion board but a bit harder to support a plan of action. What's yours? You say every Muslim is our enemy. OK, what do you plan to do about it?

[victorcharlie]

I honestly don't believe that all Muslims are our enemies.......

What I really don't understand is why the mainstream of Islam won't step up to censure the radical cleric's and their members.

We really need to hear from those Muslims who oppose the Gihad..........

[powderman]

nabob. Our enemy is islam and those who believe the garbage that goes along with it. We have no muslim friends, only those who tolerate us. I rarely click on ANY links, I've gotten too many viruses that way. It wouldn't bother me if every muslim in the free world was deported to the Godless nation of their choice. All civilian Americans would live with the Godless ones at their own risk. We paid to remove so called Americans from lebanon. They went there on their own, heck with them. As far as I'm concerned they deserve what they get. After all of the Godless ones are in a muslim country of their choice, arm them well. They will kill each other, like they are doing now. If we needed to strike, there would be no innocents there. Had we done fallujah properly we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we now do. We should have completely, and utterly destroyed the entire city, leaving not even one wall standing. Then the ground troops should have gone in and shot all of the survivors. Until we are ready to do that, we cannot win against them. POWDERMAN. 

[nabob]

Those who tolerate us are people who are not trying to kill us, so your assertion that all of Islam is our enemy is disproven by your own words.

I take it from your last post you don't really have a plan, right? Deportation can deal with the Muslims here. That won't make it safe for us outside the borders of our nation. It also won't make us, really, within. What happens when Muslims start recruiting disaffected Americans? What if, for example, someone declares himself to be a Lebanese Christian and is really a terrorist? He wouldn't be deported. It is extremely easy to circumvent any scheme relying on declared religious affiliation for the basis of deportation.

As for hard war, by destroying whole cities such as Fallujah, I disagree. Killing every resident, men, women and children - you think that is an answer? All that would do is breed more combatants across the Muslim world, turning those that tolerate us into our enemies. As Iraq has shown, it is pretty easy to make war with nothing more than a few explosives and a detonator. They've shown that asymmetrical warfare can eventually make us tired of having to deal with the mess and cost us enough to make us go home. Shock and awe doesn't work, so don't expect that anyone is going to be cowed by an example such as Fallujah. Destroy Fallujah and car bombs start going off in Pakistan, taking out Musharref. Or the President of Indonesia. Or any number of Muslim nations. All you do by destroying Fallujah in such a way as you describe is to turn every hand against us. Not even Europe would support us after that. That's what you want? Us to go it alone against the world? That's no plan.

Destroying Fallujah completely would not be like Japan. There, the enemy was contained. In this war, the enemy is potentially spread out amongst all Muslim nations, from Morocco to Indonesia. The revulsion attendant with destroying an entire city would lose us any support we had in the Muslim world including those that presently tolerate us. At that point, we'd get what I think you want - a war of all Muslims against the United States since even our own potential Christian allies would not support us after such an action. 

Well, our soldiers deserve a better game plan than one that would result in global conflict when it is unnecessary. I don't know about others but I'm not ready to spend American blood in a war that doesn't have to be. This war is one that our military cannot win by itself, as Iraq has amply shown. We can defeat any army but we are not facing an army but an idea. We need non-radicalized Muslims to go after their own. We need other nations such as Europe to help us track terrorists. We need to start rooting out the madrassas where this stuff is taught. This is a war that needs to be fought on many levels, and praying at the altar of simple solutions, such as destroying Fallujah, won't do anything except make it certain that more American lives will be lost needlessly.

I think that after Iraq, we owe our troops better.

[powderman]

nabob. The ones who tolerate us do so because at this point they either need us, or they aren't strong enough to kill us. Other than Israel, we have no friends in that entire region. Your vote is wasted with the libertarian party, the dumcraps would welcome you. Gotta go to work. POWDERMAN. 

[nabob]

The ones that tolerate us because they need us are not our enemy. Once again, your assertion that all Muslims are our enemy is disproven by your own words. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. For now.

We don't have "friends" as a nation. We have strategic interests. We have allies who share our goals, usually for reasons of their own. Are you suggesting that we not find those allies in the area and work with them because you want to go it alone?

Don't our soldiers, who would have to do the bleeding and dying, deserve a better answer than that? Aren't we obligated to do whatever we can with whomever we can find to help us so that the job they might face is as small as possible?

Why do you insist on viewing this as "all of them" against the US? That kind of thinking will only result in the maximum number of our soldiers killed. Why are you so eager to see that?

[powderman]

nabob. You win. ALL muslims are our cherished friends, and islam is a religion of peace. Happy now??? POWDERMAN. 

[nabob]

That's the problem with trying to discuss this issue with you, powderman. For you, it is either all one way or all the other way.

Not all Muslims are our allies, but some are, at least for now. Bush seems to think so, since he is working with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and Indonesia and Yemen and many others. Why my stating this obvious fact makes me some sort of a Democrat is unclear to me unless you think Bush is also a Democrat in disguise. In any event, Bush has recognized that not all Muslims are radicalized and those that are not are often willing to work with us because radical Islam is a threat to everyone.

This doesn't mean that all Muslims are our friends, either. Even the Muslims we are working with on this issue could, if pushed, decide to stop working with us. That's why it is important to ensure that we consider very carefully our actions - we need allies in the Muslim world to defeat radical Islam.

Yet for you, there is no middle ground. Either all Muslims are our enemies or they are all our friends. Either all are terrorists or all are peaceful. The world is either black or it is white.

Viewing the world in terms of black or white, either for us or against us, is exactly the type of simplistic thinking that got us into Iraq without any sort of a meaningful coalition. I would have thought that the lesson in Iraq might have included the idea that maybe things are a bit more complex than the yes/no, on/off, black/white type of thinking that we've been doing up until now.

Based on your last post, I guess I was wrong.

[powderman]

nabob. I hope you and your peaceful muslim friends have a good life. Islam is a rapid growing cancer that endangers the whole world. Some day you will see that. Have a great life. POWDERMAN. 

[nabob]

I wish that EVERYONE has a peaceful life, powderman. And I'm willing to work with anyone who agrees to help make that happen. I'm not ready to paint the world in the black/white terms you are because doing so is just going to get more people needlessly killed.

And since Bush seems to agree with my assessment, maybe you should spare some of your sarcasm for him?

[nomosendero]

Did someone expect President Bush to say the Muslim religion is a violent religion? Boy, our wonderful media would have had fun with that one. Sadly, the politician in him causes him to make incorrect statements like the Muslim religion is a peaceful religion. I will make no excuses for him, I think it would be better to not comment on their religion than to make these incorrect statements. Privately, there is no way he could believe this & if he does, then I would be as dissapointed with that as I am with him concerning the border.

Now, if Muslims are not violent toward who THEY call "infidels" if the Muslims dominate, then does this mean that missionaries can go
to Saudi Arabia & build a Protestant Church, then go out into the streets & try to convert people? Could they set up a Christian TV
network & not worry about violence? Why were the Muslims burning Christians alive in the Sudan recently? They must have been
dominate, no one could stop them at the time. No, Muslims are violent when they have the power to be violent.

As Powderman, Graybeard & others have said, we will face them sooner or later. To accuse Powderman of being one dimensional
but not the Muslims is good humor at least.

Concerning the original post, it is a tough deal. I too supported the effort going in & we did the original goals, remove Saddam, his
main people, etc. But it is too polital now & too much pandering to the Libs & not enough transfer of power to the locals, but as has been pointed out by Graybeard, this will be hard to do anyway. I have a Son in Boot Camp now, & it is hard for me to tell him some
of the things that I feel about this.

[WylieKy]

The only thing that will -eliminate- the Islamic threat is genocide. Period.  I, for one, am not willing to take that step at this point.  The Bible said "An eye for an eye." not "An eye to defend your eye from some vague, perceived threat posed at some time in the future."  Radical Islam killed 2973 people.  Radical Islam paid for that 10-100x over.  There has not been an attack on American soil in 5 years, and not because we have stopped them, they simply haven't tried.  Occupation will not work.
1. Occupation never works when there is a large racial, religious, or political schism between the occupied and occupying peoples.  Even when it is in their best interests it is "us" and "them."  "Our" road blocks mess up "their" lives.  "Our" soldiers hold and question "their" family.  These are specific and memorable occurrences. "Our" soldiers overthrowing "their" oppressors is a bit more general and difficult to wrap the mind around. If you think this is just a problem in Islam, look at police in urban environments. Older, good Christian people will protect murdering drug slingers because they consider the police to be occupiers. Simple psychology.
2. There is no uniformed opponent.  No one to fight.  In order to suppress the instigators, you must suppress all. For results, See 1.

Solution: Anyone seen the movie "Swordfish?"  Lock down (but not close) our borders.  Provide humanitarian aid. Grant large rewards to informers.  When an attack comes, reply with immediate and overwhelming force, no warning, and with no regard to casualties.  Car bomb in New York? Level a city block in Damascus.  Catholic Church destroyed in L.A.?  Turn every mosque in Baghdad to rubble.  1 of 2 things will happen.  Either the older, more level heads will get these young bucks under control, or they will rise as against us as a people and we will have a uniformed opponent we have a chance to defeat.

Yes, somebody p/$$ed in my Wheaties this morning. 

WylieKy

[Sourdough]

They tolerate us because they need us.  The reason they need us it so they can become strong enough and gather enough of our technology to destroy us when they no longer need us.  I suggest that you read the Qur'an,  and  Ishaq’s Sira, or biography, called Sirat Rasul Allah, provides the lone account of Muhammad’s life and the formation of Islam written within 200 years of the prophet’s death.  Read these and you will understand what we are up against.  You will also understand why there is no such thing as a moderate muslum.

GB has it right, even thou I do not believe even he fully understands the DEPTH of the problem.

Google "The Prophet Of Doom"  where they are refuring to the Prophet Muhammad.  It will open someones eyes.

[nabob]

Just because there are some Muslims that are also one dimensional doesn't mean that powderman's position is not. That is a logical fallacy.

I've read the Koran. I've also read the Bible. I've also engaged in debate Muslims who use the Bible and our own history to show how violent we are. I didn't agree with their assessment, but the fact remains that reading each other's sacred Scripture doesn't give one a full appreciation of the faith.

Either the older, more level heads will get these young bucks under control, or they will rise as against us as a people and we will have a uniformed opponent we have a chance to defeat.

Or, they will do what is proving so successful in Iraq - stay in the shadows, set car bombs, not present a target for us to fight while they cause mayhem and bloodshed. Expecting the enemy to fight on your terms is a sure way to defeat.

This same type of "go it alone", "all of us against all of them" that we tried in Iraq is supposed to now work on a bigger stage? Didn't Iraq teach you guys anything? If we start doing the genocide bit, the rest of the world, including our sometime allies in Europe, aren't going to follow our lead. We'll be right back into the same problem we found ourselves into in Iraq: no support and having to use our own blood and money to fight a lost cause.

THAT'S your supposed solution? More of the same?

Not much of a gameplan.

[WylieKy]

nabob,
I think you may have misunderstood where I am coming from.  I think we need to "Walk softly and carry a big stick."  We need to get out of the Mideast, but not cower in a corner.  The aggressor makes the rules in war, and they are the aggressor.  Dialog does not work because the decision makers and the leaders are not always one in the same.  We, as a country, have to make the cost so heinous that they, as individuals, are not willing to risk our wrath.  We can't plead with them as a people, because they have no cohesive leadership to appeal to. Many if not most of the "terrorists" are not sponsored by any type of government, or even an existing terrorist organization.  They are trained and encouraged by family, friends, and clergy.  Therefore, we must deal with family, friends, and clergy.  If Hassan knows he, his house, and neighborhood may be destroyed with out question, warning, or mercy, he may talk his brother, Azzim, out of strapping up and blowing up Victory Baptist Church instead of encouraging him to become a martyr.  Same with the clerics.  If they knew we would destroy the mosque who bread the murder, then soaked the ground with pig blood, they may not be quite so accommodating to budding terrorists. After all, I've yet to hear about one of the preachers blowing himself up, he usually talks some mixed up teenager into the act.  Lets bring it home to them.

WylieKy

[nomosendero]

Not logical fallacy at all, only pointing out you dwell on Powderman, he is not the issue. It is a bigger fallacy to contend that Muslims are only violent where they are not dominate, as I pointed out & you were unable to comment on.

[nabob]

Not logical fallacy at all, only pointing out you dwell on Powderman, he is not the issue.

Sure he is. So is anyone who wants us to have to go it alone against all of Islam. And that is what his type of thinking will lead to - going it alone. All that will lead to is to get more of our soldiers and citizens killed needlessly. It is a logical fallacy to this extent: the fact that others are one dimensional in their thinking doesn't address HIS argument.

I don't comment on every single statement, nomosendero. This isn't nabob against all comers. Did you somehow believe that I chose not to because I could not? My statement about Islam and its tendency towards violence when they are not dominant was backed up by historical facts. My statement concerned Islam as a whole, not localized conflicts such as the one you mention. There are always flareups of violence but the question I was addressing concerned Islam in general. Furthermore, your statement that they are violent when they are able to be is not exactly backed up by historical events. They were dominant in Spain for about 700 years but were not violent toward the population. Ditto the Balkans, for about 500 years. Ditto Armenia for almost a 1000 years. All these areas saw Islam dominant for quite some time but did not experience the continual violence that your theory would predict. On the whole, considering the last 1300 years, I'd say your theory doesn't stand up to historical analysis. I didn't bother refuting it because you offered it as a statement with no real historical evidence, not because it was somehow unanswerable.

And I'd appreciate it if folks would at least be accurate about my position. I didn't say that Islam tended toward violence ONLY when they are not dominant. I said that they had peaceful relations when they considered themselves in a dominant position and were violent when they were not. That is not meant to be an exclusive statement but rather an explanatory statement for a great majority of their actions historically. Of course they are violent at other times but Islam as a whole tends towards violence most often when it views itself as having to take a subordinate position to another religion.

As a matter of fact, Ibn Jabr, writing during the time of the Crusades, wondered incredulously how any faithful Muslim would allow himself to be governed by a Christian. He stated that it was a religious duty for a Muslim in those circumstances to leave the area so governed so that he could live under Muslim rule. Any that stayed were not, in his opinion, true Muslims. He stated it was a duty for Muslims to resist rule by Christians by any means possible and that only when Muslim rule had been re-established was the right order of the world returned.

If Hassan knows he, his house, and neighborhood may be destroyed with out question, warning, or mercy, he may talk his brother, Azzim, out of strapping up and blowing up Victory Baptist Church instead of encouraging him to become a martyr.

Israel's been trying that approach. Hasn't worked yet. People with nothing left to lose don't much care if you rearrange the rubble of their lives.

Now, going after the clerics is an idea with merit, in my opinion.

[nomosendero]

Nabob, my reasoning is fine, thank you. Yes, if you are submissive to them, they are easier on you. A country like us that believes in freedom & not bowing to them, nope! Spain shows every indication of being willing to bow to them now, so yes if you suck up to them it would be different.Besides Catholics behaved differently in the past than they do now, History does not indicate what the current Muslims will do. So, if these problems are localized, they happen to be in areas where Muslims dominate. If you don't see that, I don't care, but no need to try to tell something is blue when it is red, I won't buy it.

No need to flatter myself, I will just ask again. Just tell me which country dominated by these Muslims such as Saudi Arabia will allow Christians to come in and evangalize, have Christian TV networks, you know move around without persecution the way we let them practice their religion? This is what I was in reference to, so I ask this again instead of flattering myself, I guess.

[nabob]

Actually, your reasoning is not so fine. You have been committing a logical error called "red herring." You can read more about it here.

If you go to this link, you'll see that the red herring fallacy is defined as follows: "A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue." The topic was the flaw in powderman's argument, which I perceive as one-dimensional. By dunning me for not also castigating the Muslim position as similarly flawed, you attempted to show that my position was not tenable. The fact that a second person's position is one-dimensional has really nothing to do with the argument being advanced by the original person, so you are attempting a red herring critique of my argument. Such a critique is a logical fallacy. That would indicate that there is indeed something wrong with your reasoning.

Yes, if you are submissive to them, they are easier on you. A country like us that believes in freedom & not bowing to them, nope! Spain shows every indication of being willing to bow to them now, so yes if you suck up to them it would be different.

Exactly my point. Thank you for granting it to me. When Islam believes itself to be dominating others, it is more peaceful than when the positions are reversed. It tends towards generalized violence when it views itself as subordinate. That is what I've been saying. I'm glad we now agree.

Besides Catholics behaved differently in the past than they do now, History does not indicate what the current Muslims will do.

True enough. History is just that - history. That's why I stated that sometimes a historical perspective provides insight on a current problem, sometimes it doesn't. Of course, you'd have to point out just exactly WHY history wouldn't be a good predictor in this case, showing how patterns of behavior are much different now than they were earlier. Can you do that? Or are you going by a gut instinct?

Just tell me which country dominated by these Muslims such as Saudi Arabia will allow Christians to come in and evangalize, have Christian TV networks, you know move around without persecution the way we let them practice their religion?

None, of course. But religious freedom isn't what we are talking about, is it? We are talking about tendencies toward violence and when and why that happens in Islam.

[powderman]

WYLIEKY. I like the way you think.
NOMOSENDERO. I thank you 2 for helping out, I was beginning to think that I was the only one that could see the truth. POWDERMAN. 

[nomosendero]

Bringing up the Red Herring in this case is the Red Herring, sorry. And your continual fasination with Powderman is in itself a Red Herring, then. And if you look at the original post one could argue that point about both of us to a degree.

I did not make your point, because there can be the dominating force, but at the same time some may decide not to comply. In that case these folks would be killed, plain & simple. While other folks who are merely sheep would be allowed to live so that they could be slaves, simple stuff. I will not be a Sheep, obviously some would as always.

You answered my question, no religious freedom & along with that, much of the Western Culture in general is not tolerated,thanks. But then you say "but religious freedom isn't what we are talking about, is it? We are talking about tendencies toward violence and
when and why that happens in Islam". Well, that IS one of the main why's of their violence & EVERYONE knows that. That is why
you could not set up a Church/evangelism in these areas & WHY some Muslim sects murder members of other sects as happens in Irac. How else could Muslims believe that infidels need to die. Not about religion or religious freedom. Now your argument is absurd
by any reasonable standard & for that reason any further discussion would be fruitless.

Bye now!!
 

[Graybeard]

Some day Nabob EVEN you will wake up and realize that what we've been telling you is right after all. Well OK maybe, then again the muslims might kill you first. It's gonna be us or them one day. It's merely a matter of when. Either we will wipe them out or they will wipe us out. Matters not to them if it takes 10,000 years, they will NEVER EVER stop trying. Folks like you only help their cause by trying to make them seem innocent and assume that only a "few radicals" are at fault, that's simpley NOT the case. Islam is the problem.

[nabob]

nomosendero:

When you said (and I quote): "Yes, if you are submissive to them, they are easier on you.", you gave me my point. Submission is what Islam in general seeks. When they have achieved that, they are a much more peaceful religion than when they are the ones doing the submitting. That's what I've been arguing and that's what you agreed to. I appreciate your acquiescence!

You haven't yet explained how it is exactly that my critique of powderman's argument is somehow lacking because it failed to critique another party's argument. I'd be interested in just how the fact Muslim's might have a one-dimensional viewpoint somehow has anything to do with noting that powderman has one. It would seem to me that his viewpoint can be critiqued fairly based on its own merits. Bringing up the fact that others might also have such a viewpoint changes nothing about the flaw in powderman's, so I think that the red herring critique I've made of your flawed reasoning is pretty apt. Other than assert "you too", you haven't explained just how anything in my argument is similarly flawed. Until you do, I think that it is pretty clear that you don't have much to go on.

Actually, the lack of religious freedom is NOT a prime motivator for violence in Islam. As I've stated, when Islam is dominant, it is not generally violent towards those of different faiths under its authority. Have a look at Spain - 700 years of Muslim rule and no real record of pogroms or violence towards Christians. In fact, European Christians went to Spain to learn the classics and medicine from the Muslims. That's where Thomas Aquinas got his basic education. Spain was not a violent place under the Muslims. Neither were the Balkans. Neither was Armenia. Christianity wasn't fun under any of these regimes but Christians were not threatened as a group. Christians and Jews rose to prominent positions in Muslim society. So your point is not borne out in actual fact through history. Viewing Islam as becoming violent simply because other religions exist is not the issue. That must be coupled with a subordinate position before generalized violence really starts. Islam can and has existed peacefully with other religions as long as it is in the driver's seat and the other religions are subordinated.

So having no historical basis to make your claims, you declare victory and go home? Well, whatever it takes to save face, I guess. Let me know when you have some factual basis for your argument and maybe we WILL have something to talk about.

[nabob]

GB, I think you might misunderstand my position.

I don't think that every Muslim is our enemy. Many are, but not all and not even most. The fact that we work with other Muslim nations proves that. I think we should seek out those that we can work with so we don't have to fight all of them. How is that such a controversial idea? Do people WANT to have global war for some reason? Wouldn't avoiding that be a good thing, if it can be done? And how do we know it cannot be done until we try?

Second, it is not true that "they will never stop trying". At the Battle of Tours, Charles Martel stopped their northern expansion. They then stopped trying for about 700 years. They stopped trying to come across the Balkans for about 500 years. It is not historically accurate to say "they will never stop trying" because it can be shown that they DID stop trying.

No disrespect meant, but I think that folks such as yourself and powderman help the cause of the radical elements within Islam by viewing this issue in such apocalyptic terms. Islam by itself is not the problem. Radical, militant Islam is and THAT can be addressed in part by going after the clerics and madrassas that preach this stuff. Ending the Palestinian issue would go a long way towards that as well.

[nabob]

I'd like to ask a few questions to the folks here on this thread:

1) Has anyone read a history of the religion? Something written by a known scholar, such as Lewis or Geiger, who are experts on Islamic history and culture?

2) Has anyone read a history of the Middle Ages, the last really great time of conflict between Christianity and Islam?

3) Has anyone read the Arab histories of the Crusades, to get the opposing viewpoint?

4) Has anyone read something scholarly that they KNEW was in opposition to their viewpoint, that challenged their perspective on this issue, that they read just for the exposure to a differing point of view?

5) Has anyone read about the history of the Shia/Sunni division in Islam? Again, not just an article in the newspaper but something that really delved into the issue?

6) Has anyone picked up a book discussing the history of the Palestinian conflict from the Palestinian viewpoint?

7) Has anyone picked up a book discussing the history of jihad? Wahhabism? The waxing and waning of miltancy within Islam over the centuries?

What are people reading that is allowing them to conclude that we must kill all Muslims? What are people reading that leads them to the conclusion that Islam cannot live with other religions?  What are people reading that makes them conclude that it is even POSSIBLE to kill all the Muslims? And where does genocide fit in with us as a nation?

Whatever you folks are reading, it surely isn't what I'm reading.