It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Muslim World War or Muslim Civil War?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
It seems to me that the world is headed in one of two directions, a Muslim World War OR a Civil War among the Muslims between the extremists and the "sane" ones.

We are not the only people fighting the Extremists, so are Russia and I only see it expanding further in the future. There are already problems in Europe, Asia, India, Africa all with Muslim Extremists.

I am not in any way saying that ALL Muslims are "crazed killers" far from it, but I am begining to think the only the more rational ones are going to stop a full world war with their religion is to take it back from the crazies.

Any thoughts on the subject?



[edit on 14-1-2005 by Amuk]




posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I can see a civil war in the muslim community i.e fighting between the extremists and the normal muslims. Muslims who back the west will probably start to become targets of the extremists, which will blow the middle east apart and chaos will probably fall. Thats my view.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I agree, the question will be whether 'sane' Muslims will side with the extremists or the rest of the world in the coming years.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Honestly, I think that we need to concentrate on ourselves for while. I know that's not really on topic.

The thing is, is we will probably not understand what is going on, and I think Islam is a bit too big to be cut into only two sides.

Hell, if just the Christians in America got in a big fight there would be at least 4+ groups. They might band together for a purpose, but once done they would fight each other again.

No good either way.

It seems about time for a major war or a major withdraw. I choose the latter.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Muslims who back the west will probably start to become targets of the extremists,


This is already happening.

The rulers in a lot of the countries rule by the grace of the Clerics and can not openly oppose them without becoming a target themselves. I see no other way out.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

It seems about time for a major war or a major withdraw. I choose the latter.


I am not even talking about us here, but the Religion itself on the world stage. As I mentioned we aren't the only ones with problems with them and IMO the ones that suffer the most are the poor Muslims who are facing High unemployment, sexual repression, and being fed a constant barrage of its all the Jews/Americas fault to keep their anger pointed out ward instead of in.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Good post on a good topic.


Peace-niks will have a hard time with this concept, but we're not going to be able to give up on war as long as others reserve that option.

somebody made comment about what if it was the Christians. Well, most of that took place about a thousand years ago - which is where the muslim seem to be stuck right now. Their societies are mostly tribal or fuedal. Large numbers of citizens (including women) are excluded from positions of power. And they claim that their religion drives them to confront everyone that is not them.

Doesn't leave too many choices - sadly the same ones we've faced before when it was the communists that claimed the right to dominate the world with their tyranny. BTW, before anyone bothers to post some BS about the U.S. trying to dominate the world, trying to set up free, democratic nations where there were none before around the world hardly constitutes empire building.

So, the choices left to us seem to be fight them or try to keep them at bay until they can make up the 1,000 years socially. Of course, if they want to fight each other, it at least keeps us from having to spill our own blood.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
As I mentioned we aren't the only ones with problems with them and IMO the ones that suffer the most are the poor Muslims who are facing High unemployment, sexual repression, and being fed a constant barrage of its all the Jews/Americas fault to keep their anger pointed out ward instead of in.

This is one reason why it will not be a Muslim civil war. Another reason is the Muslim tendency to resist integration into western society. They may live among us, work with us, but at the end of the day they don't socialize with us. They keep to themselves, and that breeds suspicion and mistrust on both sides.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Another reason is the Muslim tendency to resist integration into western society. They may live among us, work with us, but at the end of the day they don't socialize with us.


I cant really debate this. The Muslims I know personally are mostly Black Muslims although I know a few others (Arab) slightly and chat with several others over the net.

They seem friendly enough and seem to want peace and don't support their more "wilder eyed" brethren.

The cracks are showing between those that want to come into the 20th century and those that fight tooth and nail to keep their people ignorant 12 century tribesman who stone women, keep slaves, etc. We are watching them trying to catch up with a thousand years of advancement and it will have to be done over the dead bodies of some of the Hard-Liners.

I would love to hear from others on this

[edit on 14-1-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   
I don't know why it is the recourse to oppresion is to get involved. Last time that happened to us, we booted them with some help. France did not do it for us.

Aid is a bad game to get in militarily.

1) It shows our property. Sad to say, but anyone we protect is not our equal but our underling. Taking responcibility for other countries end in serious problems (Israel).
2) It puts you on a side in situations we normally not equiped to handle or understand.
3) It rarely works, and when it does it's rare it's stayed ok.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
It seems to me that the world is headed in one of two directions, a Muslim World War OR a Civil War among the Muslims between the extremists and the "sane" one

Any thoughts on the subject?



[edit on 14-1-2005 by Amuk]


I've heard the administration/regime....repeat and insist...
the "coalition of the willing" is at War:: against Terrorists!
not Islam or Muslims.

If/When the zealots are forced or directed to make Religion THE cause...
those moderate peaceful masses will join in the fatwa & jihad against western civilization.

Whats this 21st century theme?
The Amish and other communities co-exist & flourish within the USA,
these communities are also socially & governmental wise, considered
'backward' and 'archaic' by the modern american standards...
Are these people next in line for a 'modernization & enlightenment' ?

...---...---...
Bread & Circus adventure



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I don't know why it is the recourse to oppresion is to get involved.


Me neither. I am not saying it is up to us to get involved or even if its a good idea. I have stated several times that I don't believe in interfering in other countries internal affairs and still believe it.

My question is merely if this will stay a sporadic clash of cultures or spread to world warfare. This is not just about the USA. There are clashes in several countries, Russia, Sudan, India, ect.

My question is not about Americas war with the Muslim extremists but rather about the extremists seeming war with the world and whither THEY (Muslims) will police themselves or continue to straddle the fence.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
I've heard the administration/regime....repeat and insist...
the "coalition of the willing" is at War:: against Terrorists!
not Islam or Muslims.


But does it stay that way when the Clerics call for Jihad? My point is not that every Muslim is a terrorist but that it seems that MANY Clerics would like to see it that way AND there are many people on THIS side that would like to paint them as such.

If the Christians did not condemn its members that were today still burning witches and keeping slaves how many would argue that the church was not at least PART of the problem?




If/When the zealots are forced or directed to make Religion THE cause...
those moderate peaceful masses will join in the fatwa & jihad against western civilization.



Are the not being directed to RIGHT NOW by the more extreme Clerics? And I am not talking about a handful of cults but MAINSTREAM Clerics?



Whats this 21st century theme?
The Amish and other communities co-exist & flourish within the USA,
these communities are also socially & governmental wise, considered
'backward' and 'archaic' by the modern american standards...
Are these people next in line for a 'modernization & enlightenment' ?


Now I forget.

Tell me which of these Amish groups blow up malls, stone women, keep slaves, etc? To compare the two is ridiculous.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   

THANKS
amuk



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
We are not the only people fighting the Extremists, so are Russia and I only see it expanding further in the future. There are already problems in Europe, Asia, India, Africa all with Muslim Extremists.
[edit on 14-1-2005 by Amuk]




That statement suggests to me that the american policy on Iraq is not extremist in itself when in fact it is. Inciting war on another nation is extremist. Nice twist of current events. This is a perfect example of how people are manipulated into believing the righteousness of one particular side in a conflict. It is highly effective yet so subtle.




[edit on 15-1-2005 by stokes]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by stokes


That statement suggests to me that the american policy on Iraq is not extremist in itself when in fact it is. Inciting war on another nation is extremist. Nice twist of current events. This is a perfect example of how people are manipulated into believing the righteousness of one particular side in a conflict. It is highly effective yet so subtle.


[edit on 15-1-2005 by stokes]



While you seek to pin the problems we have with muslim extremists on the Bush administration, it's without a doubt, an easily disproved argument. While i don't agree with many of Bush's policies, he most definitely did not uncover a new enemy. Muslim extremists have a history of going violently against anyone they don't agree with; and before you say "the US acts equally violent towards it's adversaries", i'd point you to the well documented Cold War. By our own government's design, we side stepped a war that would have caused millions of deaths using peace.

The division within the Islamic faith is what makes it so hard to understand. Within the leadership, there exists polar opposites. Those who seek peace, and those who would have absolution through the death of those they deem "infidels". I believe in certain sects, jihad was declared on the allies from world war II that helped bring to life an Israeli state. This isn't a new problem, and Amuk is right; Russians and various other eastern European countries have been dealing with the extreme muslim threat long before world war II. This is not going away anytime soon.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by stokes

That statement suggests to me that the American policy on Iraq is not extremist in itself when in fact it is. Inciting war on another nation is extremist. Nice twist of current events. This is a perfect example of how people are manipulated into believing the righteousness of one particular side in a conflict. It is highly effective yet so subtle.


Let me repeat this slowly for you.

I am not talking about Iraq. I am not talking about the righteousness of the Iraqi war. Where have I stated we should invade Iraq? If we pull out of Iraq will the slavery in the Sudan stop? Will the stoning of rape victims stop?

Quit trying to change the subject.

I am talking about the relationship of the Muslim world to the world in general and among themselves, also about the future of the relationship among the parties.

You can talk around the subject all you want but until they quit APPEARING to support filmed beheadings, stoning of rape victims, slavery, killing school children, etc the world will look upon them as savages and treat them accordingly.

The flip side of this is NOT ONE MUSLIM I have ever talked to supported these things.

But where is the Muslim outcry against these things? And if they DID raise a fuss over it would it lead to a Muslim Civil War?

[edit on 15-1-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by goregrinder

Originally posted by stokes


That statement suggests to me that the american policy on Iraq is not extremist in itself when in fact it is. Inciting war on another nation is extremist. Nice twist of current events. This is a perfect example of how people are manipulated into believing the righteousness of one particular side in a conflict. It is highly effective yet so subtle.


[edit on 15-1-2005 by stokes]



While you seek to pin the problems we have with muslim extremists on the Bush administration, it's without a doubt, an easily disproved argument.


I was not suggesting that Muslim Extremists started or are the result of the Bush Administration, merely pointing out that particularly in Iraq I consider the US as extremists contrary to Amuk's statement "We are not the only people fighting the Extremists, ..." I am not defending the actions of Muslim Extremists.

The flip side of this, is an American influenced World War or another American Civil War just as realistic?




[edit on 15-1-2005 by stokes]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Al Qaeda has repeatedly stated that they wish to unite Muslims in a jihad against non-Muslims.

Basically, it's Charles Manson's "helter skelter" strategy applied to Islam.

Whether you are a tatooed red-blooded Amurican who loves God, Mom and Apple Pie or an ululating Islamic fanatic, if you are looking for a "showdown" between Muslims and "infidels", then you are an ally of Al Qaeda.

Be careful who you sleep with.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by stokes
contrary to Amuk's statement "We are not the only people fighting the Extremists, ..."


So the USA is the ONLY people in the entire world fighting Muslim extremists? Again where did I justify the Iraqi war or even mention it?





The flip side of this, is an American influenced World War or another American Civil War just as realistic?


I dont know start a thread about it and we can discuss it there . How many times do I have to repeat that this is NOT ABOUT THE USA AND IRAQ.

Its about the Muslims and the rest of the world



[edit on 15-1-2005 by Amuk]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join