My point wasn't to endorse a religion, it was to make a suggestion to the OP's reading list, especially in light of the thread's title.
i don't care for the romance of a religion 500 years ago, when times were different, and people could create a utopia sitting in their ivory tower's. i care for today, and moving forward. that's the difference between theory and real world application.
And there wouldn't be much of a today without bringing Hellenic ideas and lost texts into the Middle Ages, reinvigorating the study of medicine, astronomy and philosophy, in particular the conflict between science and religion which influenced Maimonides and St. Thomas Aquinas who both had a significant effect on what we might consider Western culture and philosophers and theologians since. Who are you to talk of "real world applications" when you say the best commentary on Islam you've ever read is a letter to Ben Afleck? Or to talk of "romancing a religion" when I post a link to one of Islam's earliest and best known critics. You've made no effort to bother to read what I posted, or understand what I wrote, because if you did you would understand that it's people with anti-intellectual populism not unlike your own that persecuted intellectuals like Avicenna and brought Islamic society into the dark ages.
The most effective way to curb Muslim militarism may be the most outlandish but one Mideasterners understand. As Sweet Lou pointed out, "ruthless" almost always defeats "peaceful." Ergo, we simply announce that, if moderate Muslims allow extremist Muslims to commit terrorist acts, such as blowing up a jetliner, we will follow it up with a terrorist act like blowing up the Dome of the Rock (which allows the Israelis to rebuild their temple). Once moderate Muslims understand that Western losses affect them directly, they will begin to turn over information that prevents terrorist attacks and/or actively pursue tactics that will lead to peaceful solutions. Of course, the only fly in the ointment, is our spineless president. He would never follow through on a "red line." That said, I personally do not want to see our troops in the Mideast unless invited and supported with long-term bases and monetary incentives to the U.S.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. Can you suggest a better way to provide incentive for moderate Muslims, if they truly are peace-seeking moderates, to help throttle extremist Muslims? I would be happy to go with a better solution.
How about banish all of the people who think that more killing is a solution for all the killing to an island where they can fight it out amongst themselves.
Come now, G-R. I asked for a realistic, workable solution that would be more effective than mine. True, there would be a lot of upset Muslims but no more so than those in the West who were upset by 9-11. However, unlike 9-11, there would be considerably less loss of life since no one lives or works in shrines like Dome of the Rock. Also, none of the shrines would have to be sacrificed if the moderate Muslims immediately jumped on the bandwagon to work with the West to eliminate the extremist Muslims.
I think it is outlandish to think one should bomb other Muslims because of the actions of some Muslims. I understand what you are trying to say, and it is not that dissimilar from what happened to, e.g., Germany when everyone got bombed because of the actions of the Nazis, but when the enemy is not restricted to one geographical area, it is much harder to deal with it - and I don't agree with punishing innocent people in a completely different place for the actions of extremists. It's not like all Muslims are the enemy - but I do agree with you that it's a cop-out if Muslims say "ISIS/Al Qaeda/Boko Haram are not Muslims" - yes, they are. It's hard to think of a way to get other Muslims to come to their senses and really confront their own theologically, rather than making half-assed statements. I have no good solution, but I think bombing people in completely different places to punish everyone for the actions of a few is not a good solution. The other problem with the suggestion is that you might actually make moderate Muslims into extremist Muslims with an action like that.
Holy **** dude, you sound like Dr. Evil in Austin Powers. There's no way you aren't trolling. Blowing up the Dome of the Rock essentially tells every Muslim on earth (of which there are billions) "We think so little of your faith that we will blow up your holiest sites. Now get in line." Such an action would be unilaterally condemned worldwide and it is neither a diplomatic nor Christian response to militant Islam.
I agree with you. However, that is precisely why a credible threat of this nature would stimulate the moderate Arabs into action against their extremist brethren. Ideally, a live and let live solution, whether tacit or overt, could be achieved.
Then provide a credible solution that would work as effectively. IMO Around the World is correct in his supposition that moderate Muslims would be forced into the extremist camp. That is the gamble. However, at least the loss of life would be minimized because relatively few people would be in the mosque(s) chosen for destruction. However, on the other side of the gamble is a truce, perhaps uneasy, but a truce. The U.S. could then leave the Middle East to its own devices as long as they know they lose precious shrines if they break that truce.
Disagree. What I propose is Old Testament law (an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth). It is not to my liking, but Jewish law in many ways is compatible with Sharia law. Both Jews and Christians outgrew this Old Testament philosophy, but Muslims have not. If one is to be realistic, one must follow courses that can and will be understood by the other side, even when that course would be anathema to the modern world.
No, that's too far. Complete economic sanctions -- and no military alliances -- such as the US already weaning off from M.E. oil dependence, is the best way to go. We'll see if the so called moderates can remain peaceful when the money coming in slows down.
I wouldn't make him out to be a St. Francis of Assisi. I am definitely not advocating anti=intellectualism. my point is, preaching is pointless if it can't be applied. you can write the most beautiful prose, but if it's not applicable to your current environment, it's science fiction and nothing more. sophisticated commentary on any issue is important to progress, but in this case i feel disregards the simplicity of what will make a mark. the beauty of this letter was it's innocent source, the simplicity of it, yet how accurately it depicted the main problem facing a very troubled religion today. a religion that has not been able to adapt to the 21st century. the questioning, and further pressuring, of moderates who essentially enable the extremists to get away with what they do. and american military invention does add fuel to their fire. complete isolation is the ONLY way to go, but it seems the american govt doesn't have the balls to do that. obama, really, hasn't shown the balls to do anything except help out the lazy.
Your economic theory is logical but not realistic. The world doesn't work that way anymore. Greedy bankers, governments et al can divert monies and goods to disguise their "compliance" with sanctions. Look how European countries dance around sanctions meant to provide disincentives to the Russians and Iranians. No, the time is right to announce a new "act for act" policy, follow through if need be and hope we can keep the "tit for tats" to a minimum. This will allow us to dial back on the personal spying and other intrusions on our personal privacy, and the Arabs can settle their own affairs without involving us. Even so, IMO we need to upgrade our support to Israel and do everything we can to keep Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.
By the way, ATW, have you noticed how silent the Muslim posters have become when confronted with the use of Muslim logic and tactics in the same way Muslims attack the West? Perhaps we should begin beheading all the prisoners, whether here or abroad, after any useful information is extracted though legal interrogation. (Okay, the last paragraph is me being facetious, but I still wonder about the effect on the average ISIS soldier.)
