How to end Mid-Eastern wars and make Arabs our allies

Originally posted by SLAYER69
"How to end Mid-Eastern wars and make Arabs our allies"


Two words.

Bomb Israel

Well I waited long enough...
Here's my real response. It seems so simple BOMB them [Iran, Israel] pick your favorite. The truth of the matter is that I would love to see regime changes in both. We have ARAB allies. "Arabs" come from Saudi ARABIA. Officially they are the home of "ARABS"


Now if the topic was how to end the mid-east wars and start to develop better relations with Islam then I think you would have a better understanding of the situation. The US hasn't been the best friend to Islam but we haven't been the perceived Demon they make us out to be either.

Waging wars on Iraq and helping the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan remove the Taliban from power were "politically and Strategically" motivated campaigns. Even helping overthrow the Iranian "elected" Government during the Cold War was not meant to slam Islamic beliefs. [Western/US Perspective]

Many of the people in the region/world see them as the US attacking another "Muslim" country. Unfortunately I believe that many of my countrymen and many around the world apparently have not learned the subtle differences between the "Islamic states, countries or even groups"

[shia and Sunni] or [Arab and Persian] or what it means to be Semitic and how that plays into the current situation between [Jew and Muslim] for example. I would say between [Jew and Arab] but they have more in common than a Jew and a Persian. hmmmmm...

Some are pro democracy or pro monarchy while others like here in the west want nothing to do with either and prefer a religious/spiritual leader.
Here is where it gets sticky IMO.

I don't think we need "Allies" in the Middle East! We need to respect their culture and beliefs. That's all they really want IMHO. RESPECT.


[edit on 11-2-2010 by SLAYER69]

The muslim world may want respect, but they will not get it simply by demanding it.

Still, it is the overarching concept of Jihad has to be eliminated from the system. There can be no peace between the muslim and non-muslim world until Jihad is discredited as a method of spreading the Islamic system.

I do not think this will happen because it is the example of Mohammed. A devout muslim strives to live life as the "prophet" did. Well, we know how that turned out. Any individual following this path will end up in Jihad.

I mused several years ago that America may be the crucible Islam must pass through before emerging into the world a religion more amenable to the sustenance of the human soul. Should Islam fail this test, it will decline and slip into the halls of history...another religious system that perpetuated itself instead of the souls it was to sustain.

Of late, my opinion has shifted to "Islam is beyond rescue".

And beside, what is there in Islamic culture that is to be respected?

Originally posted by SyphonX


Don't invade Mid-Eastern countries and slaughter thousands of people.

??
Is this a sufficient proposal to your query?

[edit on 11-2-2010 by SyphonX]

Sounds pretty damn good to me, what do we have to gain there anyway?

Why is America an ally of Israel anyway? Is it because our politicians fear the immense potential of the media? Does that sound like a good reason to never speak negatively about them, or is it the Moussad?

reply to post by SLAYER69


That is a lucid, well thought out response. I often agree with your opinion Slayer, keep up the good work my friend.

reply to post by budaruskie


One of the thousands of Mohammed's (Moroccan, in this case) Muslim descendants lived with me--actually his bed was about 3 feet from mine--for over a year.

He's now fiercely anti-Muslim. He's fiercer about it than I am. I don't remember how much of the Koran he had memorized.

It's shocking to me that anyone believes the ROP noises hereon. Mystifyingly shocking.

reply to post by budaruskie


One of the world's leading experts on Islam was on C2C a few years ago. I forget his name.

He was having lunch with one of his leading Muslim sources. He asked this leading Imam what percentage of Muslims around the world generally were in support of the radical Jihadi's. By support he meant--actively aiding them, funding them, providing safe houses or being in religious philosophical sympathy and support of them.

He asked the Imam

5%?

The Imam said no.

He asked 10%?

The Imam said No. 70%

The world expert was shocked and did not believe this single source though this source had been quite reliable in the past on many things.

So he went home and immediately contacted

TWELVE (12) other leading Muslim Imams, scholars and political leaders around the world and asked them the same question.

EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM SAID

70 PERCENT WERE IN SUPPORT OF THE JIHADI's.

Even 10% of a billion people is a LOT.

70% is incredible.

Angry, well funded, self-righteously arrogant etc. and blood thirsty.

Perhaps you could choose which side of your neck they sliced from.

reply to post by mike_trivisonno


Actually, the Koran was changed several times, IIRC.

And even some Muslim scholars admit it.

IIRC, Most rank and file are not even that literate . . . they accept what they are told about the Koran and memorize it somewhat mindlessly.

It's an incredible system of control and tyranny.

reply to post by BO XIAN


I appreciate your feedback. I would like to ask again though, what can be done to make peace? You seem to be a self-proclaimed expert (I'm actually not second guessing that) but is annihilation the only answer?

Oh yeah before I forget, why weren't they killing westerners until recently, crusades notwithstanding?

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by BO XIAN

 

Oh yeah before I forget, why weren't they killing westerners until recently, crusades notwithstanding?

Maybe you didn't hear about these guys: Barbary corsairs. The Religion of Peace really didn't have a peaceful period in their existence.

reply to post by novacs4me


Barbary Corsairs, really? Okay maybe you forgot about the Carribean Buccaneers too. Pirates are motivated by economics, not religion. Not that it makes me an expert but one of my favorite college classes was believe it or not, on pirates and smugglers. Simply fascinating! By the way, no vaccs for me either, at least we agree on that

[edit on 2/13/2010 by budaruskie]

[edit on 2/13/2010 by budaruskie]

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by novacs4me

 

Barbary Corsairs, really? Okay maybe you forgot about the Carribean Buccaneers too.

[edit on 2/13/2010 by budaruskie]

Hon, you are the one who claimed a peaceful period for Arabs. I made no such claims for any other people group.

Hon, you are the one who claimed a peaceful period for Arabs. I made no such claims for any other people group.

When did I do that? All I've said is that I don't believe that all billion of them are rapists and murderers bent on world domination.

[edit on 2/13/2010 by budaruskie]

Originally posted by budaruskie

Hon, you are the one who claimed a peaceful period for Arabs. I made no such claims for any other people group.

When did I do that? All I've said is that I don't believe that all billion of them are rapists and murderers bent on world domination.

[edit on 2/13/2010 by budaruskie]

O.K., here is what you said: "Oh yeah before I forget, why weren't they killing westerners until recently, crusades notwithstanding?"

I interpreted this as saying Arabs were peaceful people from the time of the crusades until very recently. Did I misunderstand you?

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
The muslim world may want respect, but they will not get it simply by demanding it.

Still, it is the overarching concept of Jihad has to be eliminated from the system. There can be no peace between the muslim and non-muslim world until Jihad is discredited as a method of spreading the Islamic system.

There's a few types of Jihad. I know here in the west we focus on the "Holy War" definition. Mainly because the west/US has been mostly involved in conflicts with the Islamic cultures. But there are many versions of Jihad that are crucial to their religion. Jihad of the self, Jihad of the mouth or the tongue, jihad of the Hand. I think there is even a chicken wing or leg or something like that in there.

I do not think this will happen because it is the example of Mohammed. A devout muslim strives to live life as the "prophet" did. Well, we know how that turned out. Any individual following this path will end up in Jihad.

Again there are many versions of Jihad. Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to defend the heinous actions that have been carried out in the name of Allah under the pretense of Jihad-ism. But here in lies the tiniest kernel of ignorance that grows and expands culminating in misunderstanding each other which breeds conflict.

Here in the west we go to work, then get involved in politics and if we choose to we worship the God of our own understanding when we have time. Many Islamic countries take Religion far too seriously IMHO. Instead of it being a personal journey of enlightenment. It becomes an everyday event. It penetrates all aspects of life. [Both good and Bad]

I think the US Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they came up with the whole "Separation of Church and State".

Is that a version of Western Liberalism?




[edit on 13-2-2010 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by novacs4me


Ohh I see. Well then let me clarify. What I meant to say is that there doesn't seem to be many historical instances of Muslims perpetrating terror attacks on the West, in particular the Western Hemisphere, until very recently. Sure, there was a hijacking here, a kidnapping there, maybe a bomb or two but there are many more cases of non-Muslims doing the same in the same time period. If Islam has always preached that the infadel must be eliminated at all cost and all Muslims (or say 70%) have been living by that creed, then we should have been having suicide bombs and 9/11 style attacks all along at at a much higher frequency.
What I'm getting at is I support Ron Paul's observation on the matter. What motivates these people is not Islam, it is occupation of their land and our inability to allow them to decide for themselves what they want. Why spread democracy when we don't have, never did have, never intended to have, and never want a democracy in our own country?

reply to post by budaruskie
I guess you weren't aware of the invasion of Spain by the Moors beginning in the 8th century A.D. This was no small skirmish. The battle to overtake Europe and bring it under control of Islam went on for hundreds of years. If you are interested, you might start by picking up a book about the history of Spain.

reply to post by SLAYER69


As an outsider, one can only look on in bewilderment as the Camp of Islam continues to operate under a paradigm long since discredited by enlightened peoples. A muslim may jihad inside their heads all they desire and may even find solace such exercises.

What we non-muslims are rightly concerned with is the violent jihad that seeks to convert or kill us. That is the jihad that must be renounce. Sadly, the example of Mohammed and the incredibly violent manner in which he spread Islam in Arabia is emulated to this day. Examples can be found planet-wide.

The Umma is commanded to jihad or to support those who engage in jihad through the zakat. Many in the West think that zakat is the same as giving to the poor. It is better understood as donating to the jihad.

If we understood and clearly stated that we are weary of the non-stop Jihad and that we understand its motivations and its structure, muslims would be more like to calm down for a while. But unless Islam goes through a reformation, we will be the target of Jihad.

Islam is more than a religious system, it is an all-encompasing tyrannical form of social control that has usurped the garb of religion and wielded it to deadly ends.

reply to post by novacs4me


Allright, not going to argue withe Moor invasion of Spain, it obviously happened. But can we not just acknowledge that the Moors didn't have to go very far since Spain is damn near throwing distance from Africa? Furthermore, that was in the 8th century and it is now the 21st century which kind of lends credence to my observation that it has beeen rather infrequent, wouldn't you say?

You could impress me with some instances of Islam attacking someone in the Western Hemisphere. I'm sure it has happened somewhere other than the world trade center and I'm also sure you'd be the right person to find it. Really, they should be at war on all fronts against 90% of the world's nations right, for centuries, right. Historical attacks should be widely known and easily accessible.

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by novacs4me

 

Ohh I see. Well then let me clarify. What I meant to say is that there doesn't seem to be many historical instances of Muslims perpetrating terror attacks on the West, in particular the Western Hemisphere, until very recently. Sure, there was a hijacking here, a kidnapping there, maybe a bomb or two but there are many more cases of non-Muslims doing the same in the same time period. If Islam has always preached that the infadel must be eliminated at all cost and all Muslims (or say 70%) have been living by that creed, then we should have been having suicide bombs and 9/11 style attacks all along at at a much higher frequency.
What I'm getting at is I support Ron Paul's observation on the matter. What motivates these people is not Islam, it is occupation of their land and our inability to allow them to decide for themselves what they want. Why spread democracy when we don't have, never did have, never intended to have, and never want a democracy in our own country?

They are not terrorists. The are muslims spreading Islam through violent and non violent jihad. Mohammed spread Islam through Arabia through violent jihad, slaughtering and looting his way into the history books. Jihad has been central to the spread of Islam ever since.

It is only recently that we have been deceived into calling jihad "terrorism".