It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Is there a point of no return between the Islamic world and the West...

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 12:42 AM
and have we reached it?

I have begun to genuinely believe we have reached a point between the western world and the Islamic world where the animosity runs so deep and the visions of the world are so different, that maybe the only way forward becomes for the destruction of one way of life so the other may prevail.

For the larger part, I think the conflict is one that has been picked by the west, by the corporations, governments, and collaborators who for the interest of resources and wealth undermined the people of the region, who fomented radicalism, and have been at the root of instability that has led to the indignation of people throughout the Muslim world, and most especially the middle east, but at some point, the question of conflict goes beyond fault.

Justified or not, those portions of the world are becoming more radicalized each and every day, not just the potential, but the realization of attacks have occurred with greater frequency, and they will continue. Some would argue this is because of the presence of western forces in their area, which surely agitates many, but I wonder if leaving would change anything either.

The people who were killed, and who lost family members on both sides, they will not want to forgive. In honesty, given all that has been done, would a withdrawal from that part of the world change anything? Perhaps in several generations, but with all the harm that has been done, I wonder if the reprieve would just lead to a counter offensive.

In the old days, I think the world was a bigger place in terms of transportation as well as ideas. You could live and let live, because it was halfway around the world, and people could disagree and get along. But now, where you legitimately have the power for a few people to destroy the world, can you accept that risk?

It is terrible and inhumane to imagine the sort of war it would take to end such a conflict, but as I wrap my head around the question, I legitimately wonder if it can be avoided, or if it can only be merely delayed. I think of how I would feel if what happened to places like Iraq and Afghanistan happened to places like Arizona and Pennsylvania, places I've lived, and realize that while I might forgive, I know too many would not. And I understand that.

Furthermore, I realize that for the many terrible corruptions that exist in the west, of the shady dealings of power brokers in government and financial sectors, and even accepting they deserve the greatest share of blame for this animosity, if the alternative was living under the rules that Islam proposes, I'd rather fight to the last for myself or see the destruction of that world altogether.

I'm not a religious person by nature, and I enjoy thinking how I want. I imagine many people here feel likewise, and the world that has been pushed into conflict with our own is radically different. We trained jihadists around the world, the American government, and we funded radical Islam both directly and indirectly through our spending, and whatever comes, we cannot shirk responsibility. But, given all the mistakes made, I think again that the only options available become terrible to countenance.

But when you ask the question honestly, and consider all the lives that will be lost, and consider the quality of lives remaining in terms of human liberty, is inaction to contain this part of the world now going to lead to the destruction of not just our lives but our very way of life in the not too distant future?

I want to believe that people are more rational than that, but when you have an ideology that celebrates death in many meaningful ways, when you have people who have been pushed to their limits, and they have nothing left to lose and have access in some cases to very modern technology, I wonder if we fool ourselves into thinking there is a choice.

I'm sure that many people will find this post distasteful, but I do not say it with hate or malice, but only with the reflection of how I would feel, and how I see people being pushed (or manipulated) into a fight from which there just won't be time to back down. And if it comes to a total war, which I start to believe it will, I don't think the west can afford to imagine the solution is as simple as regime change.

A war hasn't been fought by the west that involved destruction of the will to resist since probably WWII, and at a minimum this would require that to have any chance of success, if the goal is to stop what will become a more viscious cycle each passing year. I fully agree with those who say we might have avoided it had we never got involved, but as you can't go back, I ask you to consider how we really should go forward?

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 01:01 AM
In my opinion, the modern world is in no way prepared for the reality of 'total war' as everyone knew it in World War I and World War II. I certainly think you are right in the OP about this being a clash of civilizations, and it sure is. That is a more accurate description than strictly religion, but either way...

I agree with almost everything except the idea that we'll see fighting to the destruction of one side or the other. That is where the modern world being so much softer comes in. Even in the Middle East. I sure didn't see any epic fight put up by Iraq or Afghanistan. They threw down their guns...ran like hell....and came back to play hit and run among civilians for years afterward.

What will happen when it's MANY nations all fighting at once in the way the world hasn't seen since 1945 and we MAY be headed for again, soon? I believe people will be outright horrified VERY quickly when they realize the history books REALLY WEREN'T making anything up about how bad it gets....and how badly it all must end. Then we see the war end short of any true "end" as you might suggest there. Just my opinion.....

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 01:08 AM
I agree with your thought that we wouldn't want a total war. But if an invasion of a place like Iran led to multiple strikes against western civilians, I think the attitude would change quickly at least here in America. I don't really call them terrorist attacks because if such a war happened, the truth is a whole nation does get dragged into it, and I think we've been anaesthetized from the consequences of our government's actions for a long time in this and other countries.

Like you said, it might spiral out of control very quickly. And frankly, if it does, I wouldn't be surprised to see Israel use its arsenal to conduct their own permanent solution. It is an irony that I am sure many notice that Israel considers draconian solutions such as the ones that led to its own creation as acceptable policy, but not surprising as the ideological foundations of a state based on race is no different than their own fascist attackers.

And should Israel, with its own militant religionism pass also, then it might be looked at in the end as an opposing but similar variant of thinking to the sort of radical Islam that so threatens it now.

As far as whether or not a war would be fought to the end, I imagine it could play out over a series of wars, but with each passing one, the stakes get larger and the fighting bloodier (like how some see WWII as the continuation of WWI, broken apart by a truce), until eventually people demand an end. I don't know where the tipping point is for the west, but I find myself believing with all the radical revolutions happening in Muslim nations that they have reached their own.
edit on 26-2-2012 by cassandranova because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 01:28 AM
reply to post by cassandranova

i suggest you watch this movie Iranium so you can understand what Iran is all about. You can see it for free at this


posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 11:10 AM
I might take a look at that. I understand that there are ulterior motives behind engagement with Iran, and I also accept the vast majority of people everywhere probably are content to live and let live.

But my question is do you reach a point where enough of the people, and more specifically, enough of the leadership of groups, becomes so antagonistic that conflict becomes inevitable.

More concretely, if 95% of a people are cool, but 5% are raging lunatics, and you predict it is very likely that 5% will have disproportionate influence politically (which given the general apathy toward politics as a universal trait) or access to military or other resources for systematic violence, at what point does containment or avoidance become a losing option?

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 11:26 AM
The killing can stop, as soon as you get rid of all the extremists. The problem is certain mentally deranged people on both sides have these grand delusions of conquering the world, eliminate the people who want to go murdering everyone else who believes different than they do and you fix part of the problem. The other part of the problem is certain people feel like they are "Divinely Entitled" by God to do whatever they want and treat everyone else like garbage. Eliminate those 2 problems and you made a huge step towards solving the issue.

It's looking to me like certain people are trying to bring back the good old days where it's ok to go conquering other lands and taking booty, and raping and pillaging and being lawless while forcing other people to conform to your religious beliefs and bringing a return to legalized slavery.
edit on 28-2-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 10:47 AM
Islam could genuinely end up overrunning the planet. It seriously might happen. I've spoken to friends in the past about finding a mosque, and depending on how much money they want, starting to pay the jizya, because I can see the way the wind is blowing, but I do not want to convert.

That might sound shocking, but I honestly think that the sort of cultural Marxism that has saturated Western society, is our biggest problem. Muslims are becoming free to impose their own cultural standards in every Western country they enter, and nobody opposes it. You're considered a bigot if you say anything about it whatsoever. If that goes on for long enough, it's only going to lead to one conclusion; enforced Sharia law for everyone, whether you like it or not.

Seeing the entire planet under Islamic rule is both the opposite of what I want, and what I think humanity genuinely deserves; I've come to view Islam as probably the single most degraded religious system in existence, and as such, the least deserving of global hegemony. If Islam does end up swallowing the planet, it will be primarily due to raw aggression and violence, and not because, as they claim, it is the will of God.

Whether we like it or not, however, I think we have to start to consider that it is becoming a serious possibility.

There will be no more dancing, no more singing, no more theatre, no more art ... No more happiness, no more spirituality. Only Allah, Allah, Allah...
edit on 5-3-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:24 PM
Is there a point of no return between the Islamic world and the West?

Muslims are like other people living in the society.

The only difference is that Islam will not be giving up to Zionism.

You better put it this way :

Is there a point of no return between the Islamic world and the Zionism?

Yes , there has always been a point.

Muslims stand for equality and don't give up to superiority and racism.

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 01:09 AM
reply to post by cassandranova

Well you have to thank the West and US for getting involved in their (Muslim) conflicts directly or in directly. You guys have just awoken a sleeping beast. You step foot in one Muslim country after another and have incidents like the burning of their Koran and the killing of civilians...what more can be expected. You just have to face facts and put the blame solely on yourselves. For me...the three Abrahamic religion is destroying the world and everyone in it.
The only solution is for " Mister Big Head " ET to make an appearance to tell everyone that they are the " Gods " and everyone should just stop fighting. Other than that no hope. Just look at Israel and her end to fighting and that is just regional. We are talking global here.

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 01:33 AM
reply to post by hmdphantom

That's a very optimistic view of Islam. Considering how they treat their women, equality might not be the first word I would have chosen for how they look at human beings.

Islam belives in long as you follow their rules.

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 01:39 AM
reply to post by slanteye

I think if you think killing someone for burning a copy of a book, any book, of any religion, is warranted, you need a serious mental examination and so do your beliefs.

As I said in my initial post, I fully believe the west has played the role of provocateurs and I'm not claiming that anyone else should take blame for fomenting the animosity. I just think it might be so bad at this point, that big nasty solutions are the only ones that would change anything. It doesn't necessarily make them moral; just effective.

As for killing civilians, I think the nature of these wars, peacekeeping missions, and what not create these situations. You have occupying forces, repressed people, and frankly, I bet the resistance has no problem hiding amongst friendly civilians. So, when someone flips, that doesn't surprise me.

The truth is a war hasn't been fought by the west to win since WWII, because you can't win a war by beating a military. You have to dominate and destroy the other side's will to resist, and the post-WWII idea that you can win a war through regime change alone, a petty coup, is probably responsible for all these splendid little wars, to use the Victorian term.

Winning a war in Afghanistan would probably take genocide. It's why going there was stupid, staying there was stupid, and being there is stupid. We aren't going to do what it takes to win (and for the record, I don't think we should and we shouldn't be there in any case, now or going into the future) so all we're doing is creating more future animosity, and a situation where it ends with just the living and the dead.

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 01:41 AM
I probably come off as seeming cranky, but I'm not. I hate war. I don't think we should fight them.

But if you're going to really fight a war, be honest about what it means. This antiseptic version of war that we've created is half the problem, and the belief that these are successful, useful, or appropriate, are why the west in general and America in particular get into messes.

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 02:16 AM
March 2003 was when it occurred.
After we, as a western world committed that heinous criminal act I believe we sealed our relationship with the Islamic world.

Not because of all the suffering, carnage, pain, death and destruction we inflicted on the Islamic world, but because we are still there, still doing it and its plain for all to see we did it out of greed.

Its no wonder they hate us, its no wonder they want to cut our heads off, its no wonder they want to hide bombs under the dirt and wait for us to 'patrol'..

we will get our come up'ins.. mark my words.
We've been sowing the seeds of suffering, carnage, pain, death and destruction now for almost 10 years.
that means, a young child who was 10 or 11 when we started is now 20, 21. He's spent majority of his life living under the threat of western warriors murdering him and his family. He's seen his friends killed, his family tortured, his home destroyed and his country demolished.. I wouldn’t be worrying about some 50yr old has-been who's living in a crap hole house or cave.. Id be worried of the smart, driven, sharp looking man who is so set on seeking revenge he's preparing for years and years of infiltration as a western stooge until he gets his moment.

we brought this on ourselves.
Never forget it.

edit on 14-3-2012 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)

top topics


log in