Is America at war with radical Islam?

[JockPieandBeans]

How many of 'em want to kill everyone to get all of it.

If you conducted a poll they would probably not admit to it. So the answer will always remain unknown.

At this moment in time, enough of them to be causing havoc and carrying out atrocities in 26 Countries worldwide.

Add in the ' Active ' and ' Passive ' Sympathisers and the numbers will probably be quite staggering.

[Publicus]

How many of 'em want to kill everyone to get all of it.

If you conducted a poll they would probably not admit to it. So the answer will always remain unknown.

At this moment in time, enough of them to be causing havoc and carrying out atrocities in 26 Countries worldwide.

Add in the ' Active ' and ' Passive ' Sympathisers and the numbers will probably be quite staggering.

Perhaps or perhaps not, the point of the question being it's significantly a matter of opinion and one's overall impression and belief.

There are data some of which I have cited with more or less success in various posts because the data are often ephemeral, inconsistent for the obvious reasons you point out.

The actual mortal danger is to get into a literal clash of civilizations because such a global conflagration is eminently avoidable and in fact requires us to go out of our way to cause or to engage in.

[JockPieandBeans]

How many of 'em want to kill everyone to get all of it.

If you conducted a poll they would probably not admit to it. So the answer will always remain unknown.

At this moment in time, enough of them to be causing havoc and carrying out atrocities in 26 Countries worldwide.

Add in the ' Active ' and ' Passive ' Sympathisers and the numbers will probably be quite staggering.

Perhaps or perhaps not, the point of the question being it's significantly a matter of opinion and one's overall impression and belief.

There are data some of which I have cited with more or less success in various posts because the data are often ephemeral, inconsistent for the obvious reasons you point out.

The actual mortal danger is to get into a literal clash of civilizations because such a global conflagration is eminently avoidable and in fact requires us to go out of our way to cause or to engage in.

The mortal danger that you refer to is being dished out only one way.

It is also occurring with alarmingly more frequency.

I do not think that I need to point out that the Countries where this mortal danger is occurring in the West. It would seem to me that it would be rather foolish not to engage with it. The appeasement, ignore, deny and deflect have certainly not worked. Therefore does not leave a lot of options on the table.

For something to be avoided, would require all parties involved to subscribe to the theory that :

1. Avoidance is achievable.

2. Avoidance is desirable.

3. A satisfactory outcome is achievable that all parties can subscribe to.

Now, putting aside any biased notions, that you may, or may not have.

Can you really see avoidance as an outcome ?

[boomerangutang]

I question polls taken in Middle Eastern countries. For starters, it's plain that people can't speak their minds. It's not much different than N.Korea, where everyone is required to revere the Kim family - under pain of severe penalty. How different is that than Muslims being required to only say glowing things about their sect religion - under pain of severe punishment. Comparatively, males have it a bit better than females, in the sense that males can venture a comment which may differ a slight bit from what's required. But females, ever-dominated and belittled, aren't allowed to deviate from prescribed ways of being. I wouldn't doubt females have their private thoughts, and things they whisper to each other, when no males are listening, but to speak their true minds to a pollster - no way, Jose.

[Ulysses G.]

I question polls taken in Middle Eastern countries. For starters, it's plain that people can't speak their minds.

Exactly what I was thinking. I strongly suspect that a lot more support radical Islam than just the ones that admit it.

[spidermike007]

How many of 'em want to kill everyone to get all of it.

There is no doubt there are a lot of kids who just like the lifestyle. Why not? You can kill, maim, kidnap, steal, and rape at will. I would think that would appeal to a lot of desperate young men, who have never felt that kind of ruthless power. It is a license to kill, with the seeming blessing of a prophet, if you are a ridiculously stupid, ignorant, gullible, and violent man.

The thing that is increasingly apparent, is the unwillingness to speak out against these super freaks. The Ayatollah in Iran made a statement that the US is inciting violence against Muslims. But, did he once mention the absolute foolishness of the super freaks? No. And many others do not either.

I am starting to feel there is a certain amount of guilt inherent in not speaking out. Guilty by association. A bit like the average German citizen during WWII. Sounds harsh, but unless there is universal condemnation and a total can complete lack of acceptance on the part of the gang rapist, murdering fools, who is to stop them from inflicting the kind of pain, suffering, and terror on humanity they are now engaged in?

[spidermike007]

I question polls taken in Middle Eastern countries. For starters, it's plain that people can't speak their minds. It's not much different than N.Korea, where everyone is required to revere the Kim family - under pain of severe penalty. How different is that than Muslims being required to only say glowing things about their sect religion - under pain of severe punishment. Comparatively, males have it a bit better than females, in the sense that males can venture a comment which may differ a slight bit from what's required. But females, ever-dominated and belittled, aren't allowed to deviate from prescribed ways of being. I wouldn't doubt females have their private thoughts, and things they whisper to each other, when no males are listening, but to speak their true minds to a pollster - no way, Jose.

I hope what you are guessing is true. The surveys we have been seeing are very alarming otherwise. It is hard for me to believe that even the middle of the road Muslims feel the way they express themselves in these surveys. If that is the case, we are headed toward a worldwide religious war against Islam. I would hate to see that happen.

[JockPieandBeans]

And the hits just keep on coming.

Jihadist militants from Islamic State (IS) have burned to death 45 people in the western Iraqi town of al-Baghdadi, the local police chief says.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31502863

Meanwhile over in Africa.

Nigeria attacks kill dozens as Boko Haram releases video

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-31509022

Now who really believes that this Religion of Peace, Love and Tolerance really wants to live side by side with any other Religion ?

[Steely Dan]

Here is an excellent article which spells out exactly what ISIS are. In a nutshell they are Islamic purists, not even the Saudis use the Koran as an all encompassing manual in the way ISIS do. So much for them having nothing to do with Islam, as some Western leaders have claimed. One ISIS supporter quipped that Obama claiming they had nothing to do with Islam was like being lectured about personal hygiene by a pig covered in excrement.

The article is long but truly outstanding.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

[Publicus]

How many of 'em want to kill everyone to get all of it.

If you conducted a poll they would probably not admit to it. So the answer will always remain unknown.

At this moment in time, enough of them to be causing havoc and carrying out atrocities in 26 Countries worldwide.

Add in the ' Active ' and ' Passive ' Sympathisers and the numbers will probably be quite staggering.

Perhaps or perhaps not, the point of the question being it's significantly a matter of opinion and one's overall impression and belief.

There are data some of which I have cited with more or less success in various posts because the data are often ephemeral, inconsistent for the obvious reasons you point out.

The actual mortal danger is to get into a literal clash of civilizations because such a global conflagration is eminently avoidable and in fact requires us to go out of our way to cause or to engage in.

The mortal danger that you refer to is being dished out only one way.

It is also occurring with alarmingly more frequency.

I do not think that I need to point out that the Countries where this mortal danger is occurring in the West. It would seem to me that it would be rather foolish not to engage with it. The appeasement, ignore, deny and deflect have certainly not worked. Therefore does not leave a lot of options on the table.

For something to be avoided, would require all parties involved to subscribe to the theory that :

1. Avoidance is achievable.

2. Avoidance is desirable.

3. A satisfactory outcome is achievable that all parties can subscribe to.

Now, putting aside any biased notions, that you may, or may not have.

Can you really see avoidance as an outcome ?

The general population of the West and the general population of the Muslim world would have to go out of their way to have a clash of civilizations. That's because the general populations are concerned with everyday material things and with everyday life. Neither general population wants a war of religion, or a clash of civilizations, and/or exclusive and unique global dominance in the name of either deity.

In the meantime, no one is appeasing the jihadists, no one is ignoring them, no one is denying these ruthless murderers exist and are actively organized, no one is trying to deflect anything. Certainly no one I know or that I know of.

It's the militants on each side who want the fight, which means from here we have to neutralize the enemy over there while restraining the imprudent among us lest the avoidable gets out of hand to become the unavoidable.

[Publicus]

How many of 'em want to kill everyone to get all of it.

There is no doubt there are a lot of kids who just like the lifestyle. Why not? You can kill, maim, kidnap, steal, and rape at will. I would think that would appeal to a lot of desperate young men, who have never felt that kind of ruthless power. It is a license to kill, with the seeming blessing of a prophet, if you are a ridiculously stupid, ignorant, gullible, and violent man.

The thing that is increasingly apparent, is the unwillingness to speak out against these super freaks. The Ayatollah in Iran made a statement that the US is inciting violence against Muslims. But, did he once mention the absolute foolishness of the super freaks? No. And many others do not either.

I am starting to feel there is a certain amount of guilt inherent in not speaking out. Guilty by association. A bit like the average German citizen during WWII. Sounds harsh, but unless there is universal condemnation and a total can complete lack of acceptance on the part of the gang rapist, murdering fools, who is to stop them from inflicting the kind of pain, suffering, and terror on humanity they are now engaged in?

The vast majority of us in the West have for a long time known and recognized that Muslim leaders of majority Muslim nations need to speak up and out against Islamic extremism.

The Muslim regional organizations need to do this too. It is true however that none of us is even remotely satisfied or encouraged by the fact so few speak out so seldom if and when anyone does step forward or to speak out against the fanatic jihadists.

The common ground of peace and prosperity is held by the mass of the Muslim population around the globe and the mass of Western peoples in their countries and continents. Neither population has war on the brain.

The jihadists are indeed the aggressors and the West is their (present) target and focus and the West but the United States especially are responding as in the instance of IS among other such groups and organizations.

Western culture includes openly critiquing and criticizing leaders and others, whereas Islamic culture does not have any such custom, value, tradition. The few Muslim figures that do speak up and out is thus unusual and yes this is frustrating to us over here. Most of the West adheres to the principle that silence equals consent and so we draw our conclusions about Muslims globally.

We need to keep the pressure on these Muslim elites around the globe to speak out and to speak out consistently, forcefully, each and every time. Short of that, it remains crucial to recognize the commonalities of peace and prosperity among the general populations of each religion and civilization, the West and the Muslim world.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Publicus

[JockPieandBeans]

The general population of the West and the general population of the Muslim world would have to go out of their way to have a clash of civilizations. That's because the general populations are concerned with everyday material things and with everyday life. Neither general population wants a war of religion, or a clash of civilizations, and/or exclusive and unique global dominance in the name of either deity.

In the meantime, no one is appeasing the jihadists, no one is ignoring them, no one is denying these ruthless murderers exist and are actively organized, no one is trying to deflect anything. Certainly no one I know or that I know of.

It's the militants on each side who want the fight, which means from here we have to neutralize the enemy over there while restraining the imprudent among us lest the avoidable gets out of hand to become the unavoidable.

Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts that societies will ' Have to go out of their way to have a clash of Civilisations '? I have to disagree with you. It seems to me that elements of the Muslim Community is bringing that clash closer and closer. I hardly need to remind you of what is happening on an almost daily basis.

I also believe that you are wrong with your assumption on general populations. I will give you just 2 examples.

1. From what I see, read and hear. The general population ( UK ) is sick and tired of the antics of certain sections of the Muslim Community. Harsh as this may sound, and I will say it again, there are decent Muslims in the UK, but their lack of action is working against them.

2. When and if, push comes to shove. Who do you think the Muslim population is going to align themselves to ? It certainly will not be white Westerners.

You have taken a very short term view. Of course no-one is trying to appease the Jihadist's. It is too late for that. The appeasement started decades ago. That would be the time when anyone who dared speak out were immediately branded racists, bigots and Islamaphobes. Anyone who knows anything about Muslim Culture knows that give them an inch and they will push, push and keep on pushing, they will still not be satisfied with a mile.

But the West is ignoring it. They refuse to call it for what it is. We have had all sorts of excuses. Lone Wolves, nothing to do with Islam etc. To defeat something you have to acknowledge and define what it is and then work out a plan to defeat it.

Which bring me nicely onto your cunning plan of sorting it out over there, whilst restraining them over here. Can you not see the flaw in your plan ? I will not spell it out for you, but in simple terms, the more we do over there, the more they will do over here. A single point of fire in this issue is simply not going to work.

I will refer to my post 303

For something to be avoided, would require all parties involved to subscribe to the theory that :

1. Avoidance is achievable.

2. Avoidance is desirable.

3. A satisfactory outcome is achievable that all parties can subscribe to.

I will ask you again. Do you really think avoidance is on the cards ?

[Publicus]

The general population of the West and the general population of the Muslim world would have to go out of their way to have a clash of civilizations. That's because the general populations are concerned with everyday material things and with everyday life. Neither general population wants a war of religion, or a clash of civilizations, and/or exclusive and unique global dominance in the name of either deity.

In the meantime, no one is appeasing the jihadists, no one is ignoring them, no one is denying these ruthless murderers exist and are actively organized, no one is trying to deflect anything. Certainly no one I know or that I know of.

It's the militants on each side who want the fight, which means from here we have to neutralize the enemy over there while restraining the imprudent among us lest the avoidable gets out of hand to become the unavoidable.

Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts that societies will ' Have to go out of their way to have a clash of Civilisations '? I have to disagree with you. It seems to me that elements of the Muslim Community is bringing that clash closer and closer. I hardly need to remind you of what is happening on an almost daily basis.

I also believe that you are wrong with your assumption on general populations. I will give you just 2 examples.

1. From what I see, read and hear. The general population ( UK ) is sick and tired of the antics of certain sections of the Muslim Community. Harsh as this may sound, and I will say it again, there are decent Muslims in the UK, but their lack of action is working against them.

2. When and if, push comes to shove. Who do you think the Muslim population is going to align themselves to ? It certainly will not be white Westerners.

You have taken a very short term view. Of course no-one is trying to appease the Jihadist's. It is too late for that. The appeasement started decades ago. That would be the time when anyone who dared speak out were immediately branded racists, bigots and Islamaphobes. Anyone who knows anything about Muslim Culture knows that give them an inch and they will push, push and keep on pushing, they will still not be satisfied with a mile.

But the West is ignoring it. They refuse to call it for what it is. We have had all sorts of excuses. Lone Wolves, nothing to do with Islam etc. To defeat something you have to acknowledge and define what it is and then work out a plan to defeat it.

Which bring me nicely onto your cunning plan of sorting it out over there, whilst restraining them over here. Can you not see the flaw in your plan ? I will not spell it out for you, but in simple terms, the more we do over there, the more they will do over here. A single point of fire in this issue is simply not going to work.

I will refer to my post 303

For something to be avoided, would require all parties involved to subscribe to the theory that :

1. Avoidance is achievable.

2. Avoidance is desirable.

3. A satisfactory outcome is achievable that all parties can subscribe to.

I will ask you again. Do you really think avoidance is on the cards ?

Okay so you disagree and I accept disagreement, divergence...the only issue that might exist in the matter of Islam and more specifically radical Islam concerns what the consequence or impact of your contrary views might be, as marginal to the larger society as they are.

I presented the overall general picture and you rejected it, which means that from my perspective as but one who has lived among Muslims, there is a conscious creating and causing of troubles, problems, conflicts. That is, a broad and sweeping guilt is assigned to all Muslims for the malevolent acts of a tiny percentage of Muslims.

The tiny percentage of the general population in each the Muslim and the Western worlds are the ones who want the conflagration, the realization of the apocalypse or armageddon itself....the clash of civilizations in the early 21st century. That attitude in Western society and civilization expresses a fatalistic view that because it is so intensely and destructively forward, it needs to be corralled, contained, like communism during the Cold War.

It needs to be said that the two examples presented in the post are vague and nebulous. I regret that the first example is entirely unclear to me in all respects, and in the second a hypothetical is presented which is not necessarily an invariable nor is it an inevitability, and that the hypothetical sounds too much like a programmatic or dogmatic approach is all the more unnerving.

Mainstream society in the USA barely notices Muslim-Americans due to the tiny percentage of the Muslim population in a geographically vast land, where as continental Europe is no more expansive than are the British Isles, so given the percentage of Muslims over there is greater it thereby constitutes a segment of the population far larger than in the US.

I reiterate that the global population respectively of Muslims and of the West have and focus on everyday concerns and everyday life. Neither general population thinks or conceives of a global scale clash of civilizations. It is only the tiny percentage in each world that want the conflagration and are determined to have it. This is evident as they invariably present the dark side of religion, society, culture, history...not to mention the future if there is one.

[JockPieandBeans]

The general population of the West and the general population of the Muslim world would have to go out of their way to have a clash of civilizations. That's because the general populations are concerned with everyday material things and with everyday life. Neither general population wants a war of religion, or a clash of civilizations, and/or exclusive and unique global dominance in the name of either deity.

In the meantime, no one is appeasing the jihadists, no one is ignoring them, no one is denying these ruthless murderers exist and are actively organized, no one is trying to deflect anything. Certainly no one I know or that I know of.

It's the militants on each side who want the fight, which means from here we have to neutralize the enemy over there while restraining the imprudent among us lest the avoidable gets out of hand to become the unavoidable.

Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts that societies will ' Have to go out of their way to have a clash of Civilisations '? I have to disagree with you. It seems to me that elements of the Muslim Community is bringing that clash closer and closer. I hardly need to remind you of what is happening on an almost daily basis.

I also believe that you are wrong with your assumption on general populations. I will give you just 2 examples.

1. From what I see, read and hear. The general population ( UK ) is sick and tired of the antics of certain sections of the Muslim Community. Harsh as this may sound, and I will say it again, there are decent Muslims in the UK, but their lack of action is working against them.

2. When and if, push comes to shove. Who do you think the Muslim population is going to align themselves to ? It certainly will not be white Westerners.

You have taken a very short term view. Of course no-one is trying to appease the Jihadist's. It is too late for that. The appeasement started decades ago. That would be the time when anyone who dared speak out were immediately branded racists, bigots and Islamaphobes. Anyone who knows anything about Muslim Culture knows that give them an inch and they will push, push and keep on pushing, they will still not be satisfied with a mile.

But the West is ignoring it. They refuse to call it for what it is. We have had all sorts of excuses. Lone Wolves, nothing to do with Islam etc. To defeat something you have to acknowledge and define what it is and then work out a plan to defeat it.

Which bring me nicely onto your cunning plan of sorting it out over there, whilst restraining them over here. Can you not see the flaw in your plan ? I will not spell it out for you, but in simple terms, the more we do over there, the more they will do over here. A single point of fire in this issue is simply not going to work.

I will refer to my post 303

For something to be avoided, would require all parties involved to subscribe to the theory that :

1. Avoidance is achievable.

2. Avoidance is desirable.

3. A satisfactory outcome is achievable that all parties can subscribe to.

I will ask you again. Do you really think avoidance is on the cards ?

Okay so you disagree and I accept disagreement, divergence...the only issue that might exist in the matter of Islam and more specifically radical Islam concerns what the consequence or impact of your contrary views might be, as marginal to the larger society as they are.

I presented the overall general picture and you rejected it, which means that from my perspective as but one who has lived among Muslims, there is a conscious creating and causing of troubles, problems, conflicts. That is, a broad and sweeping guilt is assigned to all Muslims for the malevolent acts of a tiny percentage of Muslims.

The tiny percentage of the general population in each the Muslim and the Western worlds are the ones who want the conflagration, the realization of the apocalypse or armageddon itself....the clash of civilizations in the early 21st century. That attitude in Western society and civilization expresses a fatalistic view that because it is so intensely and destructively forward, it needs to be corralled, contained, like communism during the Cold War.

It needs to be said that the two examples presented in the post are vague and nebulous. I regret that the first example is entirely unclear to me in all respects, and in the second a hypothetical is presented which is not necessarily an invariable nor is it an inevitability, and that the hypothetical sounds too much like a programmatic or dogmatic approach is all the more unnerving.

Mainstream society in the USA barely notices Muslim-Americans due to the tiny percentage of the Muslim population in a geographically vast land, where as continental Europe is no more expansive than are the British Isles, so given the percentage of Muslims over there is greater it thereby constitutes a segment of the population far larger than in the US.

I reiterate that the global population respectively of Muslims and of the West have and focus on everyday concerns and everyday life. Neither general population thinks or conceives of a global scale clash of civilizations. It is only the tiny percentage in each world that want the conflagration and are determined to have it. This is evident as they invariably present the dark side of religion, society, culture, history...not to mention the future if there is one.

Disagreement and divergence leads to healthy debate. Nothing wrong with that. I am well aware of what the ramifications of my views are. Unfortunately these are not my views alone.

You presented who's overall picture ? Yours ? Yes there is guilt being assigned to all Muslims due to the actions of a small % of Muslims. I have already acknowledged that fact. It may not be right, but that is what happens when the hypocrisy of mass worldwide rallies over cartoons happens and nothing happens over the atrocities that are happening worldwide. Just for the avoidance of any doubt, these atrocities are being carried out in the name of Mohammed and Islam.

Vague and nebulous ? No, they are straight to the point. Trying reading them again. If you are familiar with the KISS it principle, try applying it.

Do not try and compare the US and Europe over problems concerning Muslims. Apples and Pears. I have already posted on here the reasons that the US does not have the same problems. Just to highlight 2 reasons. % of Muslims and the % of Americans who carry and use guns. Cowards nearly always go for soft targets.

Having said all that, you have still failed to answer if you think avoidance is on the cards. I wonder why that would be ?