How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sharia?

[seneca_roman]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

So we should just take the French approach? Grovel and hope they won't hurt us?

The Pope may have stumbled on a way:

He inadvertently called (or so he says) Islam a violent religion. The next move is up to them: Will they vehemently deny they are violent or will they act with violence?

If they say they are peacefull, it seems they will have to look inward to see if they really are. Maybe this will cause some of their leaders to speak out and renounce the terrorists elements.

Or, if they are violent, it will make it more difficult for other nations to stand aside and let the USA carry the load alone.

As I see it, the Pope's calling them out may be one of the few approaches to set the path to resolution, whether it being them cleaning up their own house, or a more united effort to quell it by non muslims nations via a broader war.

Of course, the Pope may have just blundered, but anyone who has the skills to make it to that level usually doesn't blunder unless of course he is elected by the public.

Seneca

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. "

Lucius Annaeus Seneca

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from seneca_roman:

The Pope may have stumbled on a way:

He inadvertently called (or so he says) Islam a violent religion. The next move is up to them: Will they vehemently deny they are violent or will they act with violence?

If they say they are peacefull, it seems they will have to look inward to see if they really are. Maybe this will cause some of their leaders to speak out and renounce the terrorists elements.

Or, if they are violent, it will make it more difficult for other nations to stand aside and let the USA carry the load alone.

As I see it, the Pope's calling them out may be one of the few approaches to set the path to resolution, whether it being them cleaning up their own house, or a more united effort to quell it by non muslims nations via a broader war.

Of course, the Pope may have just blundered, but anyone who has the skills to make it to that level usually doesn't blunder unless of course he is elected by the public.

Seneca

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. "

Lucius Annaeus Seneca

If only you were right. But the Pope has been running around like Trent Lott apologizing to anyone who will listen. He has inadvertently given legitimacy to their claim that any comments on islam must be approved ahead of time by their spokesmen.

One beneficial development is that a few commentators have noticed the irony of their reacting with deadly vioence to criticism that they are a violent relgiion.

 

[traderob]

Curtis
You said you travel a fair bit. Have you listened much to Tv broadcast from Islamic countries. Far, far more radical than the watered down version we get in the West.
I used to listen to Pakistan National TV when i was in Thailand. Suicide attackers who crossed the Indian border and killed blindly were always referred to as Islamic martyrs. And this while officially (i.e in the UN) Pakistan was claiming it was doing all it could to stop these militants crossing the border.

The only reason it got toned down was because after 9/11 Pakistan became afraid the USA was going to bomb its nuclear plants.

 

[tradermaji]

Quote from roberk:

Curtis
You said you travel a fair bit. Have you listened much to Tv broadcast from Islamic countries. Far, far more radical than the watered down version we get in the West.
I used to listen to Pakistan National TV when i was in Thailand. Suicide attackers who crossed the Indian border and killed blindly were always referred to as Islamic martyrs. And this while officially (i.e in the UN) Pakistan was claiming it was doing all it could to stop these militants crossing the border.

The only reason it got toned down was because after 9/11 Pakistan became afraid the USA was going to bomb its nuclear plants.

The saudi sponsored madrassas in pakistan are a breeding ground of hatred for everything non extreme muslim. Perhaps we should annihilate those hate breeding institutions... not by bombing them but making the saudis force the pakistanis to get rid of these madrassas and replace them with educational institutions where the kids get proper education and not classes on hatred.

 

[2cents]

Quote from Pabst:

.....although Muslim immigrants to the U.S are perhaps better assimilated than anywhere else on the planet, one can’t ignore the words attributed to Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) founder Omar M. Ahmad by the San Ramon Valley Herald on July 4, 1988,

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

Portentous declarations, indeed, particularly when coming from the chairman of one of the nation’s most influential Islamic civic organizations. Nevertheless, while we do battle with “radical” Muslim “extremists” abroad, and prepare to do the same at home, we continue to completely ignore the tangential threat imposed by their “moderate” confidantes.


http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5854

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sharia?

answer is, you don't... sharia is as much of a problem as the old testament etc... you just let (help?) the secular-minded Arabs (and Indonesians, Malays etc) deal with it... instead of plotting against them as America has done for the last 60 years, to protect some special interests there and there...

 

[inflector]

If you truly believe we are likely "to lose some significant cities here in the US before we resolve this situation," then your foreign policy proposals are terribly off-skew.

You're basically saying, "yeah, we're going to lose some major cities, and millions of dead Americans, not to mention the economic devastation this will reap on the US and, by extension, the civilized world. So let's cut aid to Israel, help Arabs in a way that bypasses their governments (and oh, we still have to figure out how), and maybe things will be okay."

If we followed my foreign policy suggestions then perhaps we wouldn't lose any cities. Unfortunately our government will continue to act irrationally and inconsistently thus making us the obvious targets for radical idiots. At some point this will cost us quite a bit.

I think we will lose some cities precisely because too many Americans think we should shoot first and ask questions later. This strategy only works when you can be assured of killing and destroying your enemy. Hell, we can't even stop terrorists in Iraq. How the hell are we going to stop them here where security is far more lax?

Do you really think our helping Israel improves our safety? Is it a morally tenable position?

Do you really think that acting like a good neighbor makes it more likely we will be attacked? Will having a consistent foreign policy harm us?

Now what exactly is your solution? Do you think we should bomb Iran? Should we imprison all muslims? Should we intern them in camps like we did the Japanese in WWII?

I'm not a pacifist, I'm a pragmatist. I believe we should do something which is likely to work. I'm not against war when necessary as it certainly was against Hitler. I'd even be in favor of telling Iran that if they used a nuclear weapon against another country (whether Israel or Kuwait) they would be attacked.

I also think it is stupid to ignore our own contribution to the current problems, stupid to act inconsistently, and stupid to add fuel to the fire our enemies wish to stoke.

- Curtis

 

[bali_survivor]

Quote from Hombre:
(reply to inflictor / Curtis Faith)
If you really belive that muslims are not more dangerous then anybody else, you are fast asleep .

Curtis has his head stuck so far up his arse that he is spewing nonsense.

ANYONE who has ever lived in a Muslim dominated country like Indonesia, southern part of the Philippines, southern Thailand, nothern Malaysia, Muslim parts of Russia, Afghanistan etc will tell you that Muslims have only one goal: dominate the world and death to all non-believers.

Religion of peace? My arse!

What the pope stated about the Muslims was totally correct, we need to look only at the reaction of them.

IMHO he should never have apologized, neither was there a need for it because one does not need to apologize for a FACT.

This is the same as killing the messenger because you do not like the message. That does not make the message less valid / true.

There is a time for diplomatic solutions and there is a time for other measures.

If the west does not take a stand now then the west will perish. Do not think that the Chinese will take this nonsense.

There was a time the west knocked the Muslims back out of Europe and broke up the Ottoman empire, but now they are at it again. The west better wake up to this menace!


Maria

 

[Optionpro007]

Short and to the point.

Quote from bali_survivor:

Curtis has his head stuck so far up his arse that he is spewing nonsense.

ANYONE who has ever lived in a Muslim dominated country like Indonesia, southern part of the Philippines, southern Thailand, nothern Malaysia, Muslim parts of Russia, Afghanistan etc will tell you that Muslims have only one goal: dominate the world and death to all non-believers.

Religion of peace? My arse!

What the pope stated about the Muslims was totally correct, we need to look only at the reaction of them.

IMHO he should never have apologized, neither was there a need for it because one does not need to apologize for a FACT.

This is the same as killing the messenger because you do not like the message. That does not make the message less valid / true.

There is a time for diplomatic solutions and there is a time for other measures.

If the west does not take a stand now then the west will perish. Do not think that the Chinese will take this nonsense.

There was a time the west knocked the Muslims back out of Europe and broke up the Ottoman empire, but now they are at it again. The west better wake up to this menace!


Maria

 

[Hombre]

Quote from inflector:



It's very easy for a cleric, mullah, or other political leader to talk about doing something as there is little consequence for that talk personally. The worst it might do is cause Isreal to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. That would be a significant political win for anyone espousing strong action against Israel. So of course, they talk tough and about annihilation Isreal, that doesn't mean they would do it.




They know they cannot beat us militarily but if they had a nuclear weapon they also know we would be very unlikely to attack them like we did Iraq.


My proposal for a foreign policy is this:

1) We help other countries (including Arab countries) using our wealth in ways that make a difference and work. Since we have seen that subsidies promote corruption and don't solve problems I am specifically not proposing that we increase subsidies for corrupt regimes. There are many problems that are tractable with money and expertise that can be applied while bypassing corruption but that is a discussion for another topic.

2) We stop all foreign aid to Isreal. They don't need the help and it makes us look like we are taking sides.

3) We treat other countries consistently irrespective of the power bases in our own country.

4) We realize that we are not going to prevent nuclear destruction by legislating against it just like making guns illegal doesn't prevent criminals from using them. These countries have too much wealth and intellectual pride not to pursue this course. To expect otherwise will only make things worse.

- Curtis

1) This can't be done. Every government is corrupted, especially US government. Every foreign aid is tied to a business contract for us companies who then contribute to the campaign of those who are in charge of approving foreign aid.

2) You will have to stop aid to everyone in the middle east because it might make us look like we are taking sides.

3)See 1)

4) Threat of complete annihilation worked pretty good with USSR and will work for others too.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from inflector:

If we followed my foreign policy suggestions then perhaps we wouldn't lose any cities. Unfortunately our government will continue to act irrationally and inconsistently thus making us the obvious targets for radical idiots. At some point this will cost us quite a bit.

I think we will lose some cities precisely because too many Americans think we should shoot first and ask questions later. This strategy only works when you can be assured of killing and destroying your enemy. Hell, we can't even stop terrorists in Iraq. How the hell are we going to stop them here where security is far more lax?

Do you really think our helping Israel improves our safety? Is it a morally tenable position?

Do you really think that acting like a good neighbor makes it more likely we will be attacked? Will having a consistent foreign policy harm us?

It is clear that you believe that if we do a 180 - abandon Israel, help the Arab street (in a way yet to be determined that bypasses their corrupt gorvenments), be "consistent" in our foreign policy with friends and foe alike (which makes no sense whatsoever, BTW) - we may be able to prevent being attacked.

Get this through your head: NOTHING THE US DOES WILL DETER THE ISLAMIC FANATICS FROM TRYING TO DESTROY US. Get it? Short of all of us converting to Islam, our women wearing veils, and sharia becoming the law of the land here, we are ALWAYS going to be a target. Good grief, they've even said so time and time again. Don't you believe them?!?

Now what exactly is your solution? Do you think we should bomb Iran? Should we imprison all muslims? Should we intern them in camps like we did the Japanese in WWII?

If diplomacy does not work, yes, we should bomb Iran and do whatever is necessary to prevent them from getting nukes. As chaotic as such action will be, I'd rather live with high gas prices and the scorn of hypocrites like the Europeans and the Arabs - who will castigate us publicly but revel in the fact that we just saved their ass privately - than to see any of our cities nuked.

I'm not a pacifist, I'm a pragmatist. I believe we should do something which is likely to work. I'm not against war when necessary as it certainly was against Hitler. I'd even be in favor of telling Iran that if they used a nuclear weapon against another country (whether Israel or Kuwait) they would be attacked.

Then you're not a pragmatist. Mutual Assured Destruction worked against the Soviets, who, as Sting reminded us, "loved their children too" and were not willing to risk their destruction for the sake of ours.

MAD cannot work against these religious fanatics, who are more than willing to end their own lives in order to usher in the next Prophet and caliphate.

I also think it is stupid to ignore our own contribution to the current problems, stupid to act inconsistently, and stupid to add fuel to the fire our enemies wish to stoke.

- Curtis

I think it is stupid to to assign all blame to us, stupid to believe we are dealing with rational people, and stupid to ignore the threat at hand.