Another culturally corrupt backwater with a militant Junta trying to get it's collective Shite together...let 'em have at it...we can't be the world's policeman and moral authority...that is best served by being an example for these uncivil backwaters to aspire to...but we're dropping the ball on that front too with the amount of arbitrary authority, corruption and malfeasance we tolerate in our own "juntas".

Great Bill Whittle quote.

Thank God America can still produce MEN like him.

Wimps, make note.

Wouldn't it be nice for the media and progressives to be more "outraged" about the victims of Islam. To shift their focus away from the evil, white, colonial, capitalist, male, Christian oppressors (personified by GWBush and Harper)long enough to glance around to look for other possible menaces.

Thos red zones sound an awful lot like the near- thousand 'NO-go' zones in France, the Netherlands, England.... and the growing handful in the US. And let's not forget in the futures of the about 100 other countries muslims are migrating to in large numbers.

And with a hillary or obama in the White House? Kiss the West goodbye. By the time we could force them out of office, things will be Much worse.

And the kinsellouts and warmans will cheer.

When the Taliban tore down the Buddhist statue in Afghanistan a few years back, it should have been obvious to everybody that the jihad is not just about the Jews and Crusaders.

The jihadis actions suggest that their time has finally come and are pressing their domination through violent means all over the world.

That includes Kosovo, BTW. Serbia was the only ‘group' in that area to resist the Nazis in WWII and the bird on Kosovo's new flag bears a striking resemblance to the Albanian Waffen SS (just google it).

"Bill, if more than three people in your life are utter, total assholes, then maybe it's you."

Purple Dinosaur

You are bang on, I tis usually stated that the porblem is Israel and American support of, or Western meddling in the region....

The flipside is that there is an ideological underpinning to radical Islam, one of expansion and prosletyzing, by force.

Most telling quotes

"Soldiers can provide security," said Veerachai, who heads military operations in Rae Poh's Narathiwat province. "But men in uniform can't do much to win the trust of the people, especially when the other side is relying on religious leaders for its political work."

and

""We thought we had a good relationship with the local Muslims here, but they don't trust us and they are scared of the insurgents," the colonel said."

As usual, I'll disagree. It isn't 'Islam' or 'Muslims' per se that is the problem. It's tribalism.

Yes, Islam IS a tribal social, economic and political ideology. That means that economic, social, political decisions are located within kin groups. Loyalty is not to Ideas, or Truth or Reason; it's to The Family. That's where your safety, security exists; in The Family.

The tactic, however, is not to 'kill all Muslims' or confine them to prisons or outlaw the religion, but to remove the infrastructure of tribalism. When you do that, and enable the development of a civic social and political and economic mode - which operates without consideration for The Family and operates with openness to all - then, the religious concepts within Islam will FOLLOW that basic, deep structural change.

You can't change societies or people from the Top Down. Canada, for example, isn't bilingual, no matter how much time, effort, money and repression has been allocated to that agenda. People change, but the changes emerge from deep structural causes within the society - and these are never 'ideas' but are economic.

Set you free - the 'fact' that the Kosovo flag and the Albanian Waffen has a similar image doesn't mean a similar agenda.

ET, is it at all safe to say that sharia law is the backbone of the tribalism?

ET: Zimbabwe seems to have changed quite a bit, starting at the top.

keep calling them insurgents, that sure identifies the problem - islam. if more than three people in your life are assholes and you know it, you are sane.

When did "forewarned is forearmed" become redundant?

ET, I always enjoy your commentary and agree with most of your analysis. Tribalism does have all of the problems you mention and they are big problems that hold back their peoples development. I agree that Islam is tribal and shares those big problems. Understanding and breaking up tribalism is a worthy effort. I think, though, that Islam has another and more menacing dimension to it beyond tribalism.

Defeating the violent and shrewd Islamic "colonialism" in the West will be more involved and difficult. They are well financed and manipulated by powerful elites from the ME. Islam in the West, as represented by their rarely challenged leadership, is a threat to our fundamental beliefs and freedoms.

In contrast, most other tribal communities are not nearly the worldwide organized threat that Islam has become. Even when these other tribal communities emigrate to the West they are mostly a threat to their own ghetto communities and a drain on our social systems.

In general there needs to be more stringent immigration policies and welfare reform. Reconsidering multiculturalism in a non PC manner needs to happen. A renewed commitment to common Canadian goals like free speech, gender equality, equal application of laws, separation of church and state also needs to happen. But Islam and its specific threats will need to be addressed as a unique problem that happens to overlap the other issues.

ET:

OK, then, how do the goals of the Kosovar people differ from the jihadist expansionsist in other parts of the world?

I would venture to say that if you looked at every current conflict in the world right now, an overwhelming majority would involve some form of jihadism, ie, using the Sword of God to attain domination through violent means.

As long as the example of Muhammad is out there, a certain segment (5%?) will believe it is their calling to emulate the actions of a seventh-century warrior.

Although most people will agree it is a small minority among the larger tribal population, that small minority's viewpoints cannot be allowed to succeed.

Right now, it's the battleground of ideas that has to be won by people who value freedom and understanding the purveyors of the philosophy of submission (literal translation of Islam) is a good starting point.

You can argue that this is simply a problem of tribalism rather than one of a militant imperialist ideology, but this "tribalism" is comprised of all different ethnic groups and colours who share the same goal of dominating the world through violence and force.

As others have already stated the facts put to lie the never ending mantra that the problem is the existence of Israel and American support of Israel. The problem, which will never go away on its own, is the virulent and deadly ideology of radical Islam. As long as the world persists in denial it will continue to spread.

LynnH,

You are bang on. Tribalism is part of the problem. There is a larger issue in the Islamic world and that is that they cannot stand any other religion or culture on the same planet as they are.

There is diffusion as as well where within their own cults and tribes there is much violent hatred envy and who knows what else.

Islam may be tribal culture/religion, but they are the most disgusting tribes I have ever heard of where hey subjugate their women like cattle and teach their children to hate.

That is a sick sick sick population and the only way to deal with them is by denying them entry to our civilized society and killing them in great numbers when the start their bullshit.

We are providing them with new habitat and wealth to use against us. They may be violent lunatics, but our leaders are stupid naive idiots as are many on the Left of the political spectrum.

And to ET ... how to do suggest breaking down the tribalism that exists in the Islamic world,

By suggesting the nuclear family is a bit vulnerable and lonely but still great?

The extended family is nothing but a pain in the ass?

That single parenthood has it's charm?

That it's cool to be a loner?

That a community of like minded is bad and is a detriment to the idea multiculturalism?

That having so many kids is bad for the environment?

I don't see how you can talk that very old very entrenched culture to change much to please us. Hell, we can't even get our more lucid society to realized how stupid and stifled our own society has become.

Please explain?

"War on Terror"

People still use this phrase? Amazing. I thought we covered this: we don't declare war on abstract nouns. There is no war, only invasion, occupation, and rendition.

Yes, ET, tribalism is the "root cause" but we need to consider the effect. IMO, Islamofascists use their religion/tribe as an excuse for wanton destruction and death. Are you saying Thailand has now become, or is/was tribal? I think it's about fascist infiltration (hijacking) of Islam. I also believe there is a difference between religious and political Islam, in a way like there's a difference between religion and the "corporate church." Of course, the striking difference is that the corporate church does not condone violence; unfortunately we do get some "yeah, but" arguments when some nutbar shoots down an abortion doctor, but I digress.

Unfortunately, instead of recognizing this, religious Islam has allowed itself to be co-opted by their fascists, and has resorted to the angry, blame someone else bleat (West, modernity, climate criminals, Dubya, take your pick, the goalposts are always moving).

I'm no expert on Thailand, but I have trouble reconciling the idea that Islamofascism violence has a tribal base there. Again, I'm no expert.

Why is it these government morons always default to Totenkopf mode? "If one soldier dies we will kill ten villagers!!!" That's working well, eh?

The USSR took that to the ultimate in Afghanistan, for every soldier we kill ten villages with nerve gas and saturation bombing. Worked well... for our side.

God forbid the stupid bastards should look at what the AMERICANS are doing in Iraq. Which really IS working. First time in history a major power has been successful at choking off a local terror campaign without de-populating the locality.

Lots of you guys come on here saying "Its Islam!" If it -is- Islam the only solution is to eradicate the religion and its adherents. History teaches us that doesn't work, and Thailand is yet another example. The progress made in Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't be possible.

The Americans, in typical fashion, have decided that it -isn't- Islam, its a few jerks in a general population of good people. Sorting out the jerks and shooting them is the name of the game.

The Americans are winning that game with truth, justice and freedom. They tell people the truth about what they're doing, they make it obvious that they are behaving in a just and equitable fashion with the locals, and leave people the hell alone to get on with life in the first real freedom most of them have ever experienced.

Result? Victory.

The problem we have here is we don't shoot the jerks when we find them. We have the 'catch and release' program, which boils down to "If you kill one person we will give you a stern talking to then let you go, so you can kill ten more."

It is not very complex in principle.

The focus on taking out leaders of headchoppers IED and bomb jacket trainers will yield best results.

That seems to be happening with the help of intel from those who are tired of terror rule and want to be free to live more normal lives. = tg

"If someone is coming toward me in an alley, knife drawn, I do not give a damn why their socio-economic status may have had an influence in coloring their worldview regarding income redistribution. To take such a position rather than preparing to defend yourself is suicide" - Bill Whittle

How true.

It is the Islamic ideology in its present and historical form which is absolutely unacceptable to rational and reasonable people and must not be tolerated, or appeased.

Otherwise, what are we doing other than tolerating our own demise?

To reframe the situation lets compare it to sports. Their team is the Islamic Ummah with Mohammad as the coach. Their team wasn't doing well for a while. Fascist, bankrupt Islam lie dormant. And the once rabid fans became shamed and embarrassed.

However, now triumphant Islam is on the rise again, powered by oil, immigration and a return to the pure, fascist Islamic ideology, with special consideration given to emulating the coach in every way.

Events, either real or miscontrued are being seen as success.

Even the most moderate fan and member feels pride brimming in their chest. Because, quite possibly, the big game can be won. Not just in the far future, but soon.

As much as blood tribalism plays a part in Islam, what many don't understand is the super tribe - the Ummah - is what Mohammad stitched together with his revelations, coupled with extortion and violence. The ideology was and is based on supremacism, totalitarian control over every aspect of life and military aggression in order to grow through forced conversion and piracy. And then, later institutionalized into law to keep strict, unquestionable order in the Islamic empire.

As long as the foundationally violent ideology remains intact. As long as western leaders and populations avoid dealing with the ideology. There will be no peace.

Afterall, according to their team, our land is dar al Harb - the house of war - the place of conquest, to be subjugated.

Well, that's really great and everything Irwin, but what's the answer? As we can plainly see, fire and the sword is an abysmal failure throughout history. If we go that route we not only fail, we become evil in the process.

What you got?

Irwin, your absurd analogy falls woefully short, since Mohammad is not the coach. Here's my fix:

The radical clerics are the coaches, and they are telling their "players" what old coach Mo wanted and would have done. Doesn't matter to the new coaches that they have no clue what the old coach really wanted, and it doesn't matter that the game has changed significantly since Mo had the headset on. It also doesn't matter that one of their opponents (The Christians) also tried this tactic in games 500 years ago and lost badly because of it.

The only way out of this problem would be for all the players to stand up and demand some new coaches.

There, fixed. You won't agree, because you are convinced Islam is evil, and nothing will change your mind.

So as not to offend anyone here, I will stick to a little relevant humor today.

You Might Be Taliban if.....
You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to beer.
You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes.
You have more wives than teeth.
You wipe your ass with your bare left hand, but consider bacon "unclean."
You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.
You can't think of anyone you HAVEN'T declared Jihad against.
You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.
You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.
You've have uttered the phrase, "I love what you've done with your cave".

I guess one could look back in history to find similar situations and their outcomes. Communism, Nazism and Fascism for instance. How did those get suppressed? A combination of military force and helping the reformers. But welcoming them into your country and watching their tribal/cultural/religious leadership attempt to reshape our institutions into something closer to their homeland's ideals isn't a winning strategy, IMHO.

Are Islamists inherently evil? I have no clue.

I do know from empirical evidence that their ideology is, and as practiced, a threat to the west.

I get the feeling that a lot of the opinions here are just more of the sugar coated, it's just a few 'bad apples' type.

That may may be so, but the reality is that the vast majority of muslims tacitly support the actions of the few by their conspicuous silence.

Coerced or otherwise, it still amounts to a free pass for the more aggressive adherents of Islam to hold sway.

It may just come down to this. while you hold your beliefs that it is just a handful of extremists that drive the agenda, it still does not disguise the fact that you will be fighting the millions of foot soldiers who rightly or wrongly have bought into said agenda.

We will have to fight, now or later, and the sooner you get that settled into your mindset, the better off we will be..

War on Terror"

"People still use this phrase? Amazing. I thought we covered this: we don't declare war on abstract nouns. There is no war, only invasion, occupation, and rendition"

One would hope there is a [sarcasm] tag attached to this..

Kursk, what verse in the Koran dictates that you burn in hell if you fly an airplane into an office tower? Or if you blow a pregnant woman to smitherines on a bus? Or decapitate a schoolgirl? Or shoot toddlers?

I don't know of any. And there's the problem, right there.

"Doesn't matter to the new coaches that they have no clue what the old coach really wanted, and it doesn't matter that the game has changed significantly since Mo had the headset on"

Yukon Gold,

If you are to present a counter argument, you might at least begin with facts and knowledge. Your description above proves you have neither.

Phantom,

Here's what I have cobbled together so far:

The exposure and factual criticism of the Islamic ideology and history, so that not just those in the west (especially, our leaders) will become knowledgeable, but Muslims will as well. This is especially important at the University level, which is being undermined in many cases by Saudi grants, and through the fiction and whitewashing of Edward Said, John Esposito, etc.

Laws inacted to repel and punish those acting on the most disgusting commands and incitements of the ideology, including shariah. This combined with reaffirmation and celebration of the superiority of our own culture and values - and the rejection of multiculturalism.

A moratorium on Muslim immigration and strict deportation of illegals and undesirables.

Monitoring and prosecuting Imams who preach hate. And closing down mosques where people congregate to listen to them.

To demand the Islamic world accept Universal Human Rights, not their own perverse, Islamic Human Rights, accepted at Cairo in '91. Perhaps, as you suggest (ET), this could be leveraged through trade.

To deal with the ideology in places of war and rebuilding, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, the same way the US dealt with and eliminated Shintoiism in education, law and government after the fall of Japan.

Support for real reformers, such as Muslims against shariah, and their bid to edit out the vile verses in the Quran, as well as the rejection of the Hadith, Sira and the emmulation of Mohammad.

Exposure, prosecution and rejection of tax exempt status of Islamist organisations, such as CAIR, MAS, etc., who are purposefully undermining and subverting our laws and culture to their own collective end.

For the longer term - a concerted and immediate effort to find a viable alternative to oil.

"One would hope there is a [sarcasm] tag attached to this.."

Wasn't that interesting? It seemed for a few moments that he'd actually said something, instead of just playing with words. I suspect this kind of thing really impresses the girls at undergraduate parties.

Shaken,

I don't think they had airplanes in Mohammad's day. However, how about this stuff all based on the Quran:

The Washington Post, May 21, 2006, published excerpts of these textbooks in an article "This is a Saudi textbook (after the intolerance was removed)":

4TH GRADE: "True belief means ... that you hate the polytheists and infidels."

5TH GRADE: "It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in Allah and His Prophet."

8TH GRADE: "The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus."

9TH GRADE: "It is part of Allah's wisdom that the struggle between the Muslim and the Jews should continue until the Hour [of Judgment]."

11TH GRADE: "Do not yield to Christians and Jews on a narrow road out of honor and respect."

Remember, these are the textbooks being taught here, "After the intolerance was removed."

Qur'an 9:5 "When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive [enslave them], beleaguer them [torture them], and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war. But if they relent, [and become Muslims by...] performing their devotional obligations and paying the zakat tax, then open the way. Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

This verse abrogates 124 lesser (or more civilized) verses in the Quran.

Bukhari:V9B84N59 "Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah." Whoever says this will save his property and his life from me.'"

Age or sex is not mentioned when it comes to killing infidels. However, they liked the financial and sexual benefits of not killing infidel women and girls.

"When you (Muslims) encounter infidels (non-Muslims), behead them." (Quran 47:4) "I (Allah) will terrorize the hearts of the infidels (non-Muslims). Behead them and cut all their finger-tips because they did not believe in Allah and his messenger (Muhammad). If anyone does not believe in Allah and his messenger, Allah has severe punishment." (Quran 8:12,13)

Irwin Daisy, very well said. Unfortunately, I don't see any of it being put into effect. Not one. PCism has it's roots dug in too deep. maybe another 911 will change our collective mindset...maybe.

otter, no sharia law is simply an expression of tribalism; it's the legal means to keep the population tribal. But, there's also an 'economic' means; and a 'political' means. And an 'educational' means.

ward - zimbabwe is a dictatorial rule; it is actually removing the social infrastructure from a civic to a primitive tribal mode. That's untenable, because the population base is too large for tribalism. So, the societal 'well-being' is collapsing. It can't last.

Lynn H - the Islamic countries in the ME have become fascist, since WWII, with the discovery of oil, which they could not themselves access or process (not having the technology)but which enriched and entrenched the tribal dictatorship. This enriched tribal dictatorship, coupled with an explosive increase in population, as well as urbanization - has led to islamic fascism.

I repeat here my suggestions of 'what to do'.

My solutions are first, to enable and encourage modern economic connections and trade agreements - as is happening in the UAE (Dubai) which understands very well that it can't remain tribal and must modernize.
Second, to articulate that these trade connections include our expectation of due process and human rights in the workplace.
Third, to enable and encourage electronic informational connections.
And fourth, to dismantle multiculturalism in the West and insist on assimilation.

Irwin Daisy's suggestions pertain only to the fourth item on my list - the dismantling of multiculturalism in the West. This fourth area is important - and it includes the rejection of Sharia Law in the West, the prosecution of imams preaching hate (this is, in Canada, indictable under Sections 318, 319 of the Criminal Code). My suggestions do NOT include a moratorium on Muslim immigration - that would only increase the isolation and focus on differences.

The solution to this problem is to also focus on the first three items, which will DIFFUSE its tribal integrity by opening it up, as a system, to other connections and interactions.

DIFFUSE tribalism as an economic mode by establishing economic connections to corporations in the West. Diffuse it economically by opening their markets to goods of the West.
Difficuse it politically by requiring that these economic trade agreements follow due process. Diffuse it politically by openly commenting against human rights abuses and comments about the need for democracy.
Diffuse it informationally by electronic communication systems. This is vital.

That's how to deal with it; it will collapse from the inside-out, because as a social-economic and political system, Islamic tribalism WON'T WORK in a modern industrial and high population mode.

ET, I think your economic solutions are good but you lost me on the immigration part. Given a choice, I think Canada should take in smaller numbers from the Muslim pool and larger numbers from non-Muslim pools. Based on the crime in Toronto, maybe immigration from the Caribbean should be decreased as well. There are lots of other immigrants that are more compatible with classic Canadian values of freedom, democracy, peace. Focus on immigrants that have a history of being hard-working and law abiding. Once their home countries/religions have reformed then I can see welcoming them but not before. Sure, encourage assimilation of current immigrants from these problem areas. But why import more immigrants from these obvious problem areas now?

LynnH, couple years ago (I moved) I had a next door neighbor on one side who was in Das Afrika Corps. Old bastard had two ships shot out from under him fighting with Rommel in the Mediterranean. We called him El Alamain Al. Very nice guy, nice wife. Didn't like Lancasters. Or Spitfires.

On the -other- side the neighbor was The Major. Canadian ARMY, thank you very much, joined up right at the end of WWII and stayed Reg Force until the 1970's when he left and took up teaching. Very nice guy.

They've been living in the same houses on the same street since the late 1950's when the houses were built.

Canada is renowned the world over for having this kind of cats-and-dogs neighborhood situation. We didn't get that way by keeping strangers out of our country and not tolerating other people's customs.

Of course we also didn't get that way by uncritically accepting every dirtbag from every two bit shitehole in the world either.

We used to know what the happy medium was, and we used to have government officials who would more-or-less adhere to it.

Unfortunately we've allowed our government to be taken over by people who HATE our way of life, and their insane policies reflect that. As I see it this is the mistake which is currently in the process of being fixed. The sooner fixed the sooner all these problems settle down.

Funny, Irwin, you posit an anology based on your interpretation of what is happening in the Muslim world. None of it is based on anything other than your feelings. You then discard my interpretation, calling it baseless and without knowledge. You present nothing to counter it.

Who's ducking who?

You hate Islam -- we get it. You insist that Islam is an evil religion and part of a larger evil culture.

I don't accept that. I do accept that radical clerics are shaping Islam into something that has to be dealt with.

Frankly, Irwin, you're a fanatic. You post daily passages from the Quran that shows the barbarity of Islam. I could do the same with the the book of my own religion. You'll counter with nuance and intent, but that goes back to what and how we were taught the New Testament.

Exactly the same scenario as Islam. To twist a phrase, it's the teachers, stupid. Always has been. Change them, change the culture.

Phantom, I understand what you are getting at and agree but I too am concerned about the way the current immigration practices have unfolded. To be clear, I am not anti-immigration just anti-indiscriminate immigration. Immigrants that have the best chance of having a positive economic and social impact on Canada should be welcomed. Applicants from areas that stone people, engage in honor killings or have high rates of lawlessness should raise a red flag that these immigrants are less likely to be compatible. I am in favor of applying greater risk assessment on a macro level during the immigration process.

The Tai people are some of the most genuinely friendly people you will meet on planet earth. Do yourself a favor and visit Thailand and enjoy their hospitality at a reasonable cost.
Malaysians are not evil peoples themselves, they simply come from a backward tribal mentality only recently, where Islam has found a host body to infect itself as it will in any poor disenfranchised developing economy or culture. They themselves freely joke that they have no “real” history prior to their independence from colonialism almost 60 years ago and were before then not much more than a collection of fishing communities and jungle villages.
The distinction between attitudes of the two countries is striking; the overwhelming causes of the unbalanced societies are religion and ideology borne by religion.
Islam fights on all its borders and within all of its host countries communities! The demand is obedience and enslavement to its ideas and ideals; the punishment is by blood and by death.

"As we can plainly see, fire and the sword is an abysmal failure throughout history"

What an absolute piece of BS.

We took out Hitler and Tojo with fire and sword. The Romans ruled with the sword, the British Empire with it's Naval power, the Spaniards before that. You just need commitment, something the west lacks.

ET, you are wrong, tribalism has nothing to do with Islam. Many of their more barbaric customs may be derived from tribalism, but it is a cult, nothing more, nothing less. Unlike many other religious cults ie; Christianity, Bhuddism etc., rewards are offered only in the after-life, death for the cause is glorified, submission of it's enemies, in Islam's case, everyone else, is the end game.

We are kafirs, infidels, fit only to be subjugated to the will of Allah. That is what they believe.

As a friend of mine once said to me,"You cannot trust them! They will be your friends and your neighbours, and then without warning they are your enemies and they will kill you!" But what would he know it's not as if it didn't happen in his country, oh wait, http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Muslims+attack+christians+Nigeria&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Unless Western society learns to fight back, with brutality, without conscience, until we recognize that the most dangerous threat to our civil society is Islam, not just radical Islam, but all of Islam, then western society is doomed.

Islam’s birthplace was a tribal incubator and it feeds on the poor & tribal societies remaining globally for it’s spread and support in numbers. It’s gains it’s momentum though the hatred of the west in these underdeveloped and backward societies so it should also come at no surprise that it easily finds the penal institutions a willing host for it’s infectious hate.

greg, sorry, but you haven't convinced me I'm wrong. Do you know why? Because you haven't provided any evidence both for its not being a tribal socioeconomic and political mode, and, for its being a cult.

No, their 'more barbaric customs' aren't derived from tribalism; their basic customs are derived from tribalism. I suspect that you don't have any knowledge of or understanding of tribalism as a valid, yes valid, socioeconomic and political mode of organization. I suggest you do a bit of research.

I also think you don't have any knowledge or or understanding of 'cult'. I suggest you do a bit of research on the term. Neither Christianity nor Buddhism fit the definition of a 'cult'. Do some research.

Actually, I'd suggest a bit of history to add to your studies. The Romans didn't 'rule with the sword'; they ruled by providing a stable, productive economic infrastructure - of regular clean water supplies, safe roads and markets for the production and transport of goods and services, a coin system for fiscal stability, a common rule of law, and tolerance for local religious ideologies.

Do you know what is the most dangerous threat to our society? Ignorance. Ignorance on our part and ignorance on the part of other ideologies.

SNIP
Does anyone beside me detect a pattern here? You know, my Dad told me once, "Bill, if more than three people in your life are utter, total assholes, then maybe it's you." - Bill Whittle, Strength
SNIP

The pattern seems to be that Muslims are utterly unable to live/coexist with ANY other creed and are therefore by definition the a**holes of the world. Heck, they can't even coexist with themselves. Why would we ever (the non muslim world), and I mean ever, want, try or even waste time appeasing them? If history is any guide, they only quiesce when utterly defeated and contained. Unfortunately, the profit motive is the undoing of the West. If ALL non-muslim nations ceased trading with them, you know, no phones, planes, food or other technology and infrastructure, their societies would collapse from within in short order. As I said, profit will always drive some non-muslim nation to trade with them and therefore we are forced to use military response, else a total embargo would work. As to Kosovo, I fear that we in the west should never have recognized the right to independence for a muslim group within a sovereign nation, this is going to devolve into the second (or third or fourth) Balkan war and there will be ethnic cleansing as never seen before. I think Bush, the state department and any future president along with much of the EU are going to regret that short sighted move. For once, I think Putin has made a correct assesment of the situation, not that he will engage Russian troops (at least for now).

Terrapod

Ralph Nader is running. One of his criticisms of McCain was that his frozen fries were, well, frozen. Oh, wait, the other McCain.

Yes, he says McCain is for perpetual war. He didn't mention the enemy, that which has been waging war against everyone else for 1400 years.

I’m getting a bit of a chuckle reading these well cultivated explanations of Islam, causes and effects, and I can’t help but think that “be ever hearing but never perceiving, ever seeing but never understanding”. Does it even matter if Islam is a form of tribalism or a perverted world view? Islam is and people are being killed because of it. There are three alternatives we face, allow the slaughter to continue, eliminate Islam as a viable world view or intercede with some form of action that will if nothing else stop the killing. I would opt for the elimination of Islam as viable world view but that will take at least several generations and I doubt that we have the determination to carry the battle for that long. A much more expedient way would be to let the mosques know that our culture is dominate and will not be undermined. Any Muslim, leader or lay, will invoke the wrath of this society if he/she refuses to integrate into civilization. Then make it abundantly clear that anyone who engages in or encourages violent Jihad will spend eternity with a pig’s head resting on his chest. Muslims who have engaged in violent Jihad will then have their grave desecrated by disinterring the body and placing a pig’s head on the chest of the body before reburial. Any Imam who encourages violent Jihad will receive similar treatment as will the members of any mosque that allows such teaching to take place.

Yukon Gold,

I have stated what I believe many times here. But, I suppose for your consideration, I'll do it again.

The Islamic ideology is foundationally violent based on its trilogy - The Qu'ran, Hadith (actions and sayings of Mohammad) and Sira (Bio of Mohammad). It is noted for its commands and rewards for violence, actions which are required in order for one to be considered a pious and 'good' Muslim. It requires that its adherents emmulate the Islamic prophet - who, according to their own texts, is a singularly horrible human being, by any civilized and rational person's standards. The entire ideology is also institutionalized into law, most of which is based on Mohammad's actions and sayings contained in the Hadith and Sira. In fact the five pillars of Islam come from the trilogy, not just the Quran. As well, to be understood, the Quran has little context without the Hadith and Sira.

Now, my problem is with the ideology. The Muslim people, particularly women, are the first victims of the ideology. The majority of Muslims, thankfully, do not do all, or even much of what their religion requires of them. Many, as with any other religion, are nominal Muslims, born into it. And I'd like to believe many would leave, if given the opportunity to do so without being sentenced to death (Iran just wrote the death sentence for apostacy into the law of their land).

I consider myself informed, not an expert. However, I have been studying Islam since the mid 90's.

Your equivocation of Islam with Christianity also tells me that you know nothing about Islam. This is not meant as an insult, just a fact. For me, a false, irrelevant and aggravating deflection. Regardless of what people have done under the banner, violence is not foundational to Christianity, based on the NT, or Christ's life example.

You say, "You hate Islam -- we get it."

I don't like the ideology, right.

"You insist that Islam is an evil religion and part of a larger evil culture."

I have never said this. I talk about the ideology, its incitement to hate and violence and examples of these actions.

"I don't accept that. I do accept that radical clerics are shaping Islam into something that has to be dealt with."

Really? Then, prove it. The parroted refrain that "Islam is a great religion that has been hijacked" is as much nonsense as, "Islam is a religion of peace." Neither are historically true, or accurate in the slightest.

"Frankly, Irwin, you're a fanatic."

Well, thanks. I'm doing my part in attempting to inform people about an increasingly vital subject that is difficult for many to understand, let alone talk about.

"greg, sorry, but you haven't convinced me I'm wrong. Do you know why? Because you haven't provided any evidence both for its not being a tribal socioeconomic and political mode, and, for its being a cult."

All religions are cults. The proof of a cult is in its being. A belief system based on faith, no proof, just faith.

"I suspect that you don't have any knowledge of or understanding of tribalism as a valid, yes valid, socioeconomic and political mode of organization."

Tribalism is nothing more than submission of the weak to the stong. Weak leaders along with weak tribes submit to the will of stronger leaders and stronger tribes. There is nothing valid in a system that uses force as it's only method of control.

"Actually, I'd suggest a bit of history to add to your studies. The Romans didn't 'rule with the sword'; they ruled by providing a stable, productive economic infrastructure - of regular clean water supplies, safe roads and markets for the production and transport of goods and services, a coin system for fiscal stability, a common rule of law, and tolerance for local religious ideologies."

Now who needs a history lesson? The Romans ruled with force, deadly force.
The emperor Claudius (41-54 AD) ordered the suppression of the druids, the Celtic priests. Native deities were amalgamated with Roman counterparts, and emperor worship was encouraged. Germanic tribes were suppressed with force. The Jews suffered the same fate. Yes, of course the Roman empire prospered, and their contributions were many, but to imply that they were a benevolent society is ludicrous. They ruled through force and the threat of force. Google Roman Suppression of (fill in the blank). I would also suggest that you read Westermann's "The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity".

I also think you don't have any knowledge or or understanding of 'cult'. I suggest you do a bit of research on the term. Neither Christianity nor Buddhism fit the definition of a 'cult'. Do some research.

Sorry ET you are wrong again. They are both cults. That they have lasted this long is irrelevant . The old adage "what is the difference between a religion and a cult? answer Two hundred years." is applicable to all religions, all cults.

Joe @5;21

Thanks for this very concise description of the argument and it's choices for correction of the problem.

I feel a little sad to read peoples demands to give Islam in it's larger manifestation a continual pass.
Just a few bad apples etc., hijacking rebels blather.

Irwin know his facts while Yukon demonstrates a wishful ignorance.

ET, we always disagree but let me ask you, what trade are we in the west to work out together with Islam? Islam creates and manufactures almost nothing and we can only eat so many dates. We already buy all the oil they can pump so how would this trade thing work?

no, greg - that's not a definition of a cult, ie, 'The proof of a cult is in its being. A belief system based on faith, no proof, just faith".

After all, your definition of a cult says nothing about the particular beliefs and behaviour of its members, nothing about its origin, nothing about its membership, but is reduced to anything which is believed in as a matter of faith. That's false; look up the definition of 'cult'. YOU have made up your own definition of 'cult'; it has no validity.

I believe that a cure for cancer will someday be derived; is that a cult or a hypothesis?
I believe that socialism as a mode of organization is dysfunctional. Is that a cult or a hypothesis?
I believe that no-one, absolutely no-one can think without accepting some axioms as true, based on faith. That's not my hypothesis, but is as old as Aristotle.

I completely disagree with you that religion is a cult. That includes Christianity and Buddhism. Your 'old adages' are pure nonsense.

Tribalism has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with weak vs strong. In fact, tribalism, as an organizational mode of society, works to protect the whole community. Tribalism, about which you obviously know nothing, is about kinship loyalties and obligations. Do some research and stop spouting nonsense.

I repeat my analysis of the Romans; they did not rule by force but by economic enabling. No governance can last for long if its population are so hostile that they must be kept 'in line' by force; such a need for control and repression will destroy the state.

Blackbird - the focus is not on agricultural production but on attracting foreign investment and trade agreements to develop industrial production of telecommunications, electronics, etc. The UAE is extremely focused on this agenda; they know the oil won't last.

Saudi Arabia, which has based so much of its past few decades on that oil, is realizing that 'the boom' can't last; it has to educate its youth; it joined the WTO and is focusing on six cities as centres for education, telecommunication devt and developing service industries.

Iran is in serious trouble because of its almost complete reliance on oil (85%); its paucity of middle class businesses; it will have to deal with this.

So-ANY population in the world can, in this modern era, move into being an active and strong participant in the global economy. Not all envts are capable of agriculture; that includes most of the land base of Canada. However, you can still build industrial plants, manufacturing plants, engage in electronics, telecommunications and etc.

It requires an educated population, a civic mode of governance that enables a middle class focused on self-improvement. And, trade connections with other nations.

"I completely disagree with you that religion is a cult. That includes Christianity and Buddhism. Your 'old adages' are pure nonsense."
cult (n.) A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
cult (n.) A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
cult (n.) The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
tribalism (n.) The organization, culture, or beliefs of a tribe.
tribalism (n.) A strong feeling of identity with and loyalty to one's tribe or group.
"Do some research and stop spouting nonsense."
Do some research yourself on your benevolent tribalism. I suggest you start here with this name "Mukhtaran Mai" and spare me your sanctimonious drivel. Just because it is your 'opinion' does not make it so.

Your analysis of the Roman Empire is seriously flawed. In fact it seems you have swallowed the myth of Roman benevolence hook, line and sinker. They were slave owners. They made sport of their enemies. Gladiator games, etc. They conquered by force and ruled by fear. It is you who are ignorant of the history of Rome.

Do some research yourself!

Yukon, you may not like it, it may make you uncomfortable, but Irwin's facts about Islam, the Koran, Hadiths, etc are just that - facts.

I don't like the ideology of Islam. That does not mean that I hate Muslims. I do not like the ideology of communism. That does not mean that I hate mainland Chinese or Cubans or ex-Soviets.

The more people (Muslim and non-Muslim) that know what Irwin knows about Islam, the better.

From what I have read about historical Islam and what I can see today, Islam does not want "an educated population, a civic mode of governance that enables a middle class focused on self-improvement. And, trade connections with other nations." Islam sees its prophet Mohammed as the "seal of the prophets" and anyone who does not agree with this is an infidel. The very existence of Christians and Jews reminds Islamic adherants that their prophet stole from the Old and New Testament and the Talmud. Christians and Jews did not recognize Mohammed as the seal of the prophets and that is why they are dispised. All the trade and goodwill and granting statehood will not make non-Muslims any less dhimmi infidels.

I do not want to live under sharia law. I don't imagine that the Christian Serbs wanted to live as dhimmis when the Ottoman Turks rolled. in. The non-Muslims in Thailand probably aren't too happy about the "insurgents" in their neighbourhoods.

Oh by the way I believe the best examples of Tribalism can be found in the history of Liberia, Uganda and Rwanda. Such peaceful societies! Not! Kenya is currently suffering under the plague of tribalism!

ET

Once, in my youth, I thought much like you. Then I lived as an infidel in a variety of Muslim lands.

You are much too optimistic.

greg - I continue to disagree with you.

Make up your mind; which of the three definitions of 'cult' do you accept? The first is the only valid one with reference to a group and its beliefs and behaviour, and still, is inadequate.

The other two are so general as to be useless. After all, these two would mean that, as you believe, a religion is a cult. Why then, have a separate word? Why does the word 'cult' exist, when, to you, it means 'religion'?

The two 'definitions' of 'tribalism' are not definitions. You can't define something by referring to it (a tribe is a tribe).

As for the Roman Republic and its systems of laws, governance and economic infrastructure - I suggest you read Cicero. All societies of the time owned slaves. And 'made sport' of their enemies. No, they didn't rule by fear. No society can last as long as Rome did, and expand as it did, by fear.

No, there's no 'best examples' of tribalism. Tribalism was THE basic mode of societal organization in the non-industrial peasant agricultural world. You obviously don't understand what tribalism means.

The states that you mention (Rwanda, etc) are dysfunctional states that disabled their old tribal mode without establishing a civic mode.

ex-liberal - I disagree with your conclusion. The Islamic states have no choice; they must move out of tribalism and into a civic mode. They are already doing it (as I've mentioned, see Dubai). It is not an easy task; it can't be done in a day or a month. You don't change the basic organizational mode that has existed for centuries like you do a light bulb.

JET - I understand what it's like living in the Muslim lands - especially some years ago. But they have no choice; they cannot remain embedded in tribalism which is only functional in smaller populations, in rural populations, in non-industrial populations. Their populations are now too large; they have urbanized and their economy has industrialized. They have no choice; they must empower their citizens to operate as a middle class. Right now, they are fighting to retain tribalism, but it won't last. Democracy and a civic mode aren't choices.

Irwin Daisy, sorry I took so long to get back to you, I had to eat an amazingly indigestible dinner at Montana's. Eew.

At any rate, your response to my question "What have you got?" was quite good. Reasoned. Well thought out.

Unfortunately it all boils down to: "Your beliefs are bad. You're not allowed to believe that anymore. We're prepared to insist." I know what I'd say to the guy who came and told me that. It'd start with "Go pound salt" and head downhill from there. I see no reason to expect Muslims to be any different, do you?

I'm sure you are entirely correct in your reading of the Koran et al. You analysis seems quite complete and quite well supported. Frankly, I don't think much of Islam myself. I don't like how they treat their women, and they have a lot of stupid ideas about things.

But, and this is the rubber meeting the road now, ultimately what you and I think about Islam is absolutely irrelevant. In a free country, in which everyone is equal before God and the law, nobody cares what we think. They are FREE, they don't have to care.

It is this freedom that is winning in Iraq, this equality, this justice. We win by being who we are, not by bashing other people into line.

Just something to cogitate upon.

ET
I was speaking of the 'philosophy' that lies beneath a veneer of hospitality. The veneer is becoming progressively thinner - especially where the priests can 'defend' their followers and their 'philosophy' by pleading victim hood as is done in North America and other lands undergoing invasion.

The problem lies in a priesthood that, quite characteristically, defends its privilege by any means and at any cost to others, including the faithful. A priesthood that can be entered by simple declaration of membership: Very attractive to the bully and the opportunist as opposed to the philosopher.

The needs of the followers are met only to the extent they continue to provide bodies for manipulation in the interests of the ‘cause’. There is little hope there will be any sort of accommodation of the economic or social needs of the people because it is not to the advantage of the manipulators. And as to moderates – individually there may be some – but the training begins at birth and is effectively uncurable.

Still you have not read Hoffer?

"Why then, have a separate word?" In a word legitimacy. We also have two words for killing someone. Murder and Homicide. The end result is the same.

"As for the Roman Republic and its systems of laws, governance and economic infrastructure - I suggest you read Cicero. All societies of the time owned slaves. And 'made sport' of their enemies. No, they didn't rule by fear. No society can last as long as Rome did, and expand as it did, by fear."
"And made sport of their enemies" Many did but the Romans turned it into a fine art, name one other society that imposed crucifiction as a punishment for treason?

Many societies, not all, of that period may have owned slaves but Rome was dependant on slavery for it's very existance. Without slavery Romans would have had to stay at home.
Spartacus led an army of seventy thousand slaves. After his defeat of Spartacus, Crassus had six thousand crucified along the Appian Way. I know you must be familiar with this, yet you continue to insist that the Romans were peaceful rulers. They were barbarians, they ruled by fear both at home and in the territories they conquered!

"I suggest you read Cicero"
Cicero must have thanked the Greeks for his fine education.

ET: I agree with you 90% of the time. This time though, by brushing the issue off as "tribal" (again), I think you are showing your own "ignorance". (let's not forget you chided someone earlier for being ignorant)

The tribe is "ISLAM". It is global. You seem stuck in an anthropological view that is valid in historic terms, but not nearly as much so in post-modern terms. There are many examples historically where dogma (religion) transcended the tribe in the past, and that is much more so today. I don’t believe that your views make for good prediction as much as they work for historic analysis.

Second, you have no appreciation for the psychological grip that religious belief can have on the individual. It takes the individual and makes him into a corporate being attached to a larger structure. The crusades, for example, weren't staffed by only one tribe. The tribe was Christianity and it brought together many lesser "tribes" to fight side by side.

Islam is incredibly powerful in this way because it can transcend tribal culture and bind all Muslims to one global tribe based on faith. (actually 2)

You show no appreciation for this fact. Those like myself, who were once dogmatic in their religion, then became agnostic or atheist, have incredible respect, and fear, for the power of religion. I suggest you apply psychology to your analysis as well because it is as valid as any anthropological/economic analysis.

Here's my view then: Islam is a religion with a barbaric doctrine. It is barbaric in every sense, especially in its foundational documents. Muslims, if they are secular or "soft" Muslims, are no threat because they don't adhere to the foundational doctrine of Islam. But, if they hold fundamental beliefs, they become part of the global tribe of barbarians because they take Mohammad as their example, just like devout Christians take Jesus as their example. One though, was a pacifist; the other a mentally ill, murderous, hyper-chauvinist.

That's why Muslims from every corner of the world are showing up in every Jihad. It's global ET ... it has moved far beyond local tribe. Sure, it exploits local tribal grievance, but the force behind it is global ... it is global faith ... it is the concept of Ummah that binds Muslim fascists.

I think your view, therefore, is "stuck" in a narrow conceptual framework. Your analysis of the Roman empire demonstrates this. A military historian would never agree with you ... yet that historian is as knowledgeable as you. And, if you want to argue history, I'll take you on any day as my knowledge stretches into hundreds of books read over a lifetime and that includes the Roman period.

I suggest that your view describes wonderfully the pressures, economics, and cultural realities that come to bare on a society, but your view fails in taking into account the individual characters, the military strategies/technology, the religions, and even fate, which all have enormous effects on history.

Change one queen, and a 100 years of history can be altered. Replace one Roman general, and Africa remains outside the empire. Put to sea one month sooner, and you change Japanese history forever. Replace a warrior cult with a pacifist revolution, and an entire continent is changed. Tribalism is not static ET and it is not everything.

My “knowledge” tells me that your views, although very accurate to a degree, are too narrow and don't allow for other complexities and realities. In this case, you seem to have no appreciation for the power of religion over tribes and corporate mentality. You seem to have no appreciation for the power of faith to transcend tribalism and move millions of individuals into corporate behavior worldwide.

Religion changed Europe. It converted barbarians as fast as they could arrive wave after wave. It made them "voluntary" servants of Rome before they had any economic reasons for being so, and it transcended tribalism. That was long ago, imagine the power of such in the post-modern era.

Well put Paul2. In the past I have likened ET's fixation on socio-economic tribalism as the driving force in Islam to CO2 being the driving force in "climate change". Not to diminish socio-economic tribalism but rather to put in proper perspective. Tribalism is but one element of many and I hesitate to even imagine it as being the prime element. History is littered with tribal economies being changed by the underlying philosophy of the people. One people will flounder while another people will prosper in identical situations. What made the difference? The underlying philosophy.

Greg, you are wrong about Rome. Sure it had its cruel side but it lasted as long as it did, some 1,500 years not through violence but through its offering of Roman citizenship to conquered peoples. An empire does not develop the still amazing architecture, civil laws, engineering, baths, roads and consumer goods in a truly massive empire through constant internal warfare. The city of Rome had over a million citizens, imagine the logistics to maintain it. Though it was estimated 1 in 4 were slaves in the city of Rome this was normal for the times.

No one said Rome was a peaceful ruler but their rule of the carrot and stick made them one of the most powerful, prosperous and economically strong empires ever. Still had the best military ever seen for hundreds of years.

Yes Dave, I know it offered citizenship to those it conquered. The rest it enslaved.
It maintained a road system that had no equals, the better to maintain it's control over it's conquered territories.
Rome had millions of slaves. The great Horace maintained that even a gentleman of modest means must have at least ten slaves, the same number as Horace owned. Both you and ET subscibe to the same fallacy that because Rome lasted longer than most empires, that it must have been a benevolent society! You will both please note that the decline of the Roman Empire accelerated with the introduction of Christianity into Roman society. Although many in the Christian cult owned slaves, the concept was at odds with their beliefs and many Christian leaders discouraged the practice as it was at odds with the Christian psyche. Also the high cost of slaves and the decline of the Roman economy further encouraged Rome to find a more suitable method to maintain its society. In other words it was cheaper to pay a man a wage than it was to enslave him.
Slavery was replaced with feudalism in Europe, although this system was little different than slavery. A serf owed his loyalty to his lord. The lord was his master. A serf might work for his Lord his entire life with no chance or hope of improving his lot in life.
By the way your ratio of four to one is in error. It may have been correct for a static period of time, but the ratio fluctuated with the times and at times was a s great as one to one. As late as 70 B.C., there were only about 500,000 citizens and about the same number of slaves and freemen in Rome, according to the Roman census. Forty years later the number of Roman citizens increased to about four million. Most, it is thought, to be living in the provinces.
This is an interesting paper on slavery that you may care to brouse.
http://www.ditext.com/moral/slavery.html

By the way do you both not realize that Rome mastered the art of propaganda. History is most often written by the victors and what better way to excuse your own barbarity than to point to the barbarity of others and say "Look at their evil, ours is insignificant in comparison!"

"Now it's time to drink! Time to smite the earth with happy, dancing feet and pile the gods' tables high with Salian feasts, my friends! Until now, we weren't allowed to bring out the good wine our ancestors had stored up - as long as that demented queen was plotting ruin and death for the Capitol and for the Empire, along with her sick flock of eunuchs, helplessly drunk but hoping for something positive. But she sobered up when she saw exactly one ship make it back from the fires; and Caesar gave her wine-logged brain a textbook lesson in terror..."

Now who do you suppose Horace was talking about here? The noble Mark Anthony traitor to Rome? or the barbarian Queen Cleopatra? Much better the rebellion of a foreign born Queen than the treachery of a son of Rome.

Did you know that Hadrian's Wall was nothing more than a propaganda tool? The Romans didn't fight from defensive positions. Their army was fluid and mobile. They marched.
You both point to the longevity of thee Roman empire as a sign of it's morality. What muddled mush. Rome was in an almost constant state of war or rebellion throughout its entire history.
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/romans.html
Now if you don't mind it is after one my time. If you wish to carry on this discussion, please e-mail at ggrandy@telus.net. I trust it will not be abused. Goodnight Dave and ET

Actually Dave, Romes strong period was a lot less than 1500 years. The Gauls sacked Rome in 387BC and the visigoths in 410AD, the vandals in 455AD. In all Romes period of imperialism was more like six hundred years not the fifteen hundred you so erroneously claim. For most of it's fifteen hundred year history Rome fought one enemy or another, many of these battles were fought on the Italian penninsula. In fact after the death of Constantine and it's division by his sons into three parts, Rome was engaged in internal stuggle after internal struggle. So much for the great empire.

paul2 - No, I disagree with you. I don't analyze historical events as due to 'efficient causes' which are the zone of individuals and ideology, but as due to material and formal causes - and final, which are the zone of deep economic, population size, environmental infrastructures.

There's no need to count the number of books both you and I have read; I'm sure they are equal, and hardly the point.

I am aware of the psychological pull of an ideology, but, that ideology will lose its members as the deep infrastructure weakens.

Again, the deep infrastructure, which you ignore, consists of: population size, envt carrying capacity of that population to keep that population healthy, economic capacity to extract sustenance from that envt; technological capacity to carry out a successful economy; political capacity to enable the economy.

Without this basic infrastructure, no ideology can last - and the ideology itself is embedded within it.

Phantom,

"But, and this is the rubber meeting the road now, ultimately what you and I think about Islam is absolutely irrelevant. In a free country, in which everyone is equal before God and the law, nobody cares what we think. They are FREE, they don't have to care."

Thanks for your comments. I, unfortunately, agree with the above statement. How unfortunate that it takes so much tragedy, and will probably take more in order to come to a practical resolve about what to do.

I do stand by my opinion, in terms of what to do. Although it will probably evolve, it seems practical to me. Furthermore, I'd like to believe, regardless of foreign relations and what the world might think, a governments first priority is to enforce rule of law and protect its own citizens.

As for success in Iraq and Afghanistan, in my opinion, because they are not dealing with the ideology at the education, justice and government levels, these countries will deteriorate into Islamofascism once they are on their own.

Check how the US dealt with Shintoiism after the fall of Japan.

ET,

It seems that most don't agree with you on this topic. You accuse others of being "cloud dwellers" for their utopian ideas. In this case it seems that you are the one not dealing with reality. Your analysis, in my opinion, may be correct to a degree, but its secondary at best.

Your evidence in expounding upon the success of places like Dubai and the Emirates is not sound. Their endevours are simply making money for the elites. And once again, its just another method of establishing ideological supremacy - the tallest buildings, the most lavish hotels, etc. That's all.

On the other hand, Ataturk's reforms in Turkey are being turned back. Malaysia, once a so-called shining example that Islam can adjust, is becoming more Islamist. Buddhist countries like Thailand are at war with the Islamists to the south. And so on. These are far more important examples.

Your insistence that the problem is tribal rather than ideological, disregards Pakistan and India. Here you have exactly the same people, genetically, yet Pakistan is inferior in every way to India. In fact, the wealthiest person in India creates more revenue in a year than the entire GDP of Pakistan.

This cannot be blamed primarily on tribalism. The difference is that Pakistan is Islamic. It is the ideology which has frozen their culture, industry and economy in the stone age and savagery.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the ideology vis a vis your theory is the inherent fear it instills. In an Islamic country, no Muslim wants to be called a "bad" Muslim, or worse, a "hypocrite" (check Mohammad's 'revelations' on hypocrites). Worse still, is to be accused of being an apostate, falsely or not, and having to face a physical death penalty, as well as a spiritual one.

It is much easier and safer to go along with the fanatics. They, after all, are emulating Mohammad and following the commands in the trilogy and shariah to a 't.'

You don't seem to understand this and you provide no evidence or proof of your position. While myself and others have provided plenty of proof to the contrary.

I think Churchill's observation is correct, "Islam is to man what hydrophobia is to dogs."

Plenty of others have made similar observations throughout history.

The song, as they say, remains the same.

irwin daisy - we've been over this before. I profoundly disagree with you.

No ideology can exist 'as itself'. Yet, your focus only on ideology assumes just that. No idea, no thought, no set of ideas, can exist as itself, without vanishing into thin air, unless those ideas are rooted in reality. Reality is economic - how does a people live from birth to death, from this to the next generation?

You refer to a statement: "in which everyone is equal before God and the law, nobody cares what we think. They are FREE, they don't have to care."

I disagree with this statement. We have to care about what we each think - but this is we have to HEAR them, and debate and discuss with them. Not agree with them. Why? Because we are a common humanity. Because our morality must be common.

Iraq and Afghanistan ARE dealing with the ideology, both within the educational, but more importantly, from the ground up. From the economic and political infrastructure, permitting the development of a more complete participation by the citizen in the economy and the political authority. That will change the ideology, which is always the last to change.

What the heck does it matter that 'genetically' the people of Pakistan and India are the same? Pakistan is organized tribally. I've said many times, that Islam is a TRIBAL social, economic and political mode of organization that was reified by calling that mode a religion. So? It will still have to change - from the bottom up. Economically.

Agreed, an ideology defined as a religion rules by fear. It was the same in the West, where anyone outside of the Catholic view was defined as a heretic. But, in disagreement with your view, my view is that an ideology cannot exist on its own - ie, only as a set of ideas. It must be rooted in a particular economic and political mode.
When this basic mode changes - those ideas must change. That will happen.

You ignore any and all evidence of change in the Islamic world - look how you are denigrating Dubai with its movement into the capitalist world economy.
You pnly recently began to acknowledge the movements for reform in Islam; before, you absolutely refused its possibility! These movements are real and growing.

The ME states are protected by oil, but even they are having to acknowledge that it won't last; they have to change.

So, I totally disagree with you and your focus on the Evil Ideology. I maintain that the original ideology was developed as a nativist reaction to the expanding settlements of the Byzantine empire. Its militant expansion was halted by the West and it effectively went into quiescent for a few centuries. Then, with the WWars, the region, based in primitive sustenance agriculture, moved into industrialism. BUT, the organizational mode remained tribal. This led to fascism. This is what we are fighting - fascism.

The ideology of Islam, functional only in a tribal system, will have to change; it has no choice. You can't be industrial AND tribal.

So- as usual, we'll have to agree to disagree.

ET,

"No ideology can exist 'as itself'. Yet, your focus only on ideology assumes just that. No idea, no thought, no set of ideas, can exist as itself, without vanishing into thin air, unless those ideas are rooted in reality. Reality is economic - how does a people live from birth to death, from this to the next generation?"

Your right. Islam has existed for 1350 years and is stronger now than it has been for the past 200 years.

"What the heck does it matter that 'genetically' the people of Pakistan and India are the same? Pakistan is organized tribally. I've said many times, that Islam is a TRIBAL social, economic and political mode of organization that was reified by calling that mode a religion. So?"

So? It is the ideology of Islam that keeps Pakistan frozen in a tribal, often savage and non-productive mode. Not vice-versa.
Are you so arrogant that you would disagree with this? Are you so condescending (and perhaps worse) that you would believe India is capable of great political, economic and social strides and Pakistan is not? India, afterall, is tribal as well. I'm shocked by your statement.

"It must be rooted in a particular economic and political mode."

It is. Shariah covers both politics, justice and economics. What do you think the spread of Islamic banking is all about?

"You ignore any and all evidence of change in the Islamic world - look how you are denigrating Dubai with its movement into the capitalist world economy."

Actually no. You are ignoring the greater contrary evidence that I presented. Dubai is hardly worth mentioning for the reasons stated and does not hold water as evidence supporting your POV versus mine.

"I maintain that the original ideology was developed as a nativist reaction to the expanding settlements of the Byzantine empire."

This assertion has been proven rubbish. Once again, support your claim with evidence. There is no evidence of this claim in the Islamic trilogy, or any other historical account. There was no Byzantine incursion into Arabia. There were only Arab and Jewish tribes which Mohammad eliminated, or subjugated.

Besides, what would the Byzantines want with desert?

Yes, Islam was halted. It is a horrible ideology that suppresses, if not kills human life and endevour. It is a backward, bankrupt ideology. However, it is back again, supported by trillions of dollars in oil, immigration and western welfare.

Based on the Marrion Webster definition of fascism, the Islamic ideology meets and surpasses every point. From its inception.

ET: Like I stand by my point, that your analysis works for the most part, especially when long term trends are considered, but that very same analysis does not account for everything, nor does it predict accurately in every case ... it is lacking. Yes, you can point out that barbarian invasions were most often a result of barbarians having outgrown their region ... but that doesn't work in each case, like the case of the Huns who invaded for fun … nothing more. When the fun was over, and their horses had eaten all the grass, they went back home.

As well, your analysis woefully ignores fate, individual characters, and the ideologies involved. Roman armies often invaded simply so that the general involved and sponsoring family could gain leverage and prestige back home … nothing more. Often invaded regions ended up being a drain economically, not a bonus. Nevertheless, many factors come together in complex combinations to create results completely apart from economy, or tribe, or agriculture, etc. Sometimes the simple personality of one character … say Napoleon, can cause sweeping events that temporarily halt most other more natural processes such as agriculture, economy, and tribe.

To clarify; I made the comment about my “books” simply as a response to suggesting someone else should do some reading before they comment. Of course, reading is important, but reading can also focus knowledge too narrowly if it isn’t broad enough. My reading tends to be narrow as a result, focused on armed conflict more than economics and agriculture, etc.

Cheers!

ps: I think that your analysis works over time, but it ignores elements that can effect populations over the shorter time period; anywhere from 1 to say 50 years. Economics and demographics will always push history in a specific direction ... but don't always effect the short term.

Does that make sense?

paul2 - I acknowledge and agree with your comments about fate/chance - which is valid, and also, the individual agendas etc. I think these can affect but not deeply affect the long term.

For example, Napoleon wouldn't have been listened to or followed, as an individual, if what he was attempting to do, wasn't a reorganization of the French political and economic infrastructure.

Ideology is never a 'root cause'; it's an articulation of a deeper process, and often, that articulation is not even an accurate representation of that deeper process.

Thanks for your comments - I do acknowledge them as valid causes, but I consider them 'efficient' rather than material/formal.

Without trying to get personal here I sometimes wonder it ET ever gets tired of the colour of the walls of the mental bax she has built for herself or if her arms ever get tired from being restrained in the mental straight jacket she has forced upon herself?

It would seem that she is fixated upon the idea that mankind is victim of his circumstance and never the cause of his circumstance. Her insistance that no ideology can exist beyond present circumstance seems odd coming from a person who deals in ideas.

From my observation circumstance is driven by ideology. If for no other reason that each ideology creates an environment in which it can exist. Protestant Christianity tends to produce democracy, Catholic Christianity tends to create feudalism. Islam tends to create petty dictatorships. Secular humanism tends to create tyrants. Why? Because each ideology is creating an environment in which it can exist and thrive.

If we were somehow able to bring about the changes that ET advocates in an Islamic society the changes would be very short lived. Islamic ideology would soon regain primacy and the petty dictatorships would return within the generation.

Joe says . . .

** Islam tends to create petty dictatorships. Secular humanism tends to create tyrants. Why? Because each ideology is creating an environment in which it can exist and thrive. * *

All humanity tends to do this. The OsamaIsamlists are the worst group today, but history is full of others who have done similar and fallen into the dusts of time.

Today on a smaller but similar model we have the Anglican Church splitting apart on the question of same sex marriage.

How mature is that? Not much hope for humanity if a church breaks apart on the gay question. Wiser leaders would never let it fester to that level.

Much better to tolerate the gays and agree to discourage the *gay-group-think*. Breaking off only creates Gay chapters of the Anglican Church.

Clearly stepping backwards. New divisions and new boundaries solve nothing. = TG

Joe,

Although I might challenge you on some of your definitions, an altogether great post.

ET believes in miracles more than any religious person I have known. And then there's the built in condescension reserved for those with many letters following their name.

"I do acknowledge them as valid causes, but I consider them 'efficient' rather than material/formal." - ET

Her arguments rely completely on historical materialism, disregarding the complexities of belief that have always driven mankind.

She also disregards factual history. Many post opinions supported by historical fact, while she makes assertions supported by her repetitive assertions.

You are quite right about Iraq and Afghanistan. The world might be wise to study the US dealings with Shintoiism after the fall of Japan.

Democratic Islamism is still Islamism. The next generation will still be taught to hate and kill. And shariah will still be their form of jurisprudence. Then, eventually, they won't bother voting anymore.