I agree. There's a great line from a movie, think it was a historical drama about Attila the Hun, "There's my pretext!"
I think it's really about what it always has been, statism and control. In the 30's the enemy was nationalist statism, during the cold war it was globalist statism, now it's religious statism. What is the stated goal of the radical islamists after all? A world-wide wahabist caliphate under sharia law. It can probably be argued that sharia is even more restrictive of personal liberty than fascism or communism.
No doubt.
You are avoiding one of my points marshaul. Do you agree or not that, if not for us "not minding our own business," today most of the world, and probably America, would be either fascist or communist?
No, I do not agree with this. Communism failed of its own accord, as it was doomed to.
As for European fascism, I have little problem with our military response. First of all, we were attacked and declared war upon by sovereign entities. This, secondly, gave us specific strategic objectives which, once obtained, allowed for an end to the war.
Minding our own business doesn't mean we have to allow aggression, unprovoked or otherwise.
Keep in mind, I have never had a problem with killing Osama bin Laden and his cronies. I simply maintain that, firstly, many of the points made in his declaration of war are understandable and, if not justified, an expected result of our past meddling where we had no reason to be meddling. Secondly, that the overboard response to 9/11 -- using it as an excuse to further our campaign of Endless Global War -- furthers the self-fulfilling prophecy of continuous overseas intervention.
Are we antagonizing them "over there?" Yeah, probably. Is that a good thing? Possibly. Better to be antagonizing them over there, then them antagonizing us over here, which they have been completely unsuccessful in doing ever since we started antagonizing them over there.
Better still to never have antagonized them in the first place, if, as I argue, this would have left no truly motivating force sufficient to encourage sufficient numbers of them to antagonize us.
Now please, don't you or anyone else interpret this as condoning the assault on our rights in the name of fighting terror. I agree with the mission, but not the execution, at least not domestically. However, if we did all of a sudden start "minding our own business," pulled every US soldier out of every foreign base, recalled every plane, every missile, every naval vessel, what do you think would happen? Honestly now.
Honestly, I think nothing would happen. What the hell does a base in Germany dissuade? The US will never be a weak nation. We possess 300 million of the most well-armed citizens in the world. And we have never had a problem mobilizing a military of the utmost technical advancement, even in the period when we didn't maintain a large standing army (the Germans were never more than a few years ahead of us, which didn't ensure victory in the end, despite their having mobilized and invested in military technical advancement more and earlier than we did).
Do you think al Qaida, et al, would then agree to a truce or treaty as they claim?
That's quite likely actually. Because then they could focus on creating their caliphate unmolested, starting with Iraq and/or Afghanistan. Back to the Taliban, or worse. Then Iran, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, etc etc. Indonesia, Pakistan, east Africa. Without our intervention, you'd see hardline wahabist sharia regimes slowly take over the Muslim nations.
And so what? Do you really think the socio-political philosophy of Sharia is capable of being successful if left to its own devices? Why do you credit it so much? The only time in Muslim history when Muslim nations had anything resembling longstanding and large-scale success was a period characterized by its liberal (you know how i mean that) attitudes to everything from commerce to religious freedom to intellectual endeavors to
women's rights (!).
It is, in some ways, a fundamental tenant of liberalism that free markets and free minds are the best and only way to foster an advanced, prosperous nation. And so far history has proven us right. The progress made by liberal nations since the conceptualization of liberalism far outpaces the contribution of every nation throughout the entirety of history combined, including that made by Muslims, Communists, and Fascists.
Liberalism works. In fact, in a world where one must compete with liberalism, liberalism is the
only thing that works, that
can work.
Sharia would fail for the same reason communism failed. It does not, cannot, work.
How bout Israel? Do you really think Israel would survive more than a few years if surrouned by even more hostile governments, and abandoned by us? They'd probably make Mecca & Medina glow in the dark before their last gasp, but hey from the islamists perspective they'd just be making martyrs.
Not my problem. The Israelites have since the beginning played an equal part in the escalation of hostilities. I honestly am far beyond giving a **** what any of those people do to each other. Both sides have committed aggression since the beginning.
Personally, I think us withdrawing support from Israel would, while leaving Israel with the incredible military strength they've built up (enough to defend themselves for some time), discourage their arrogant and provocative behavior, which would do more for peace in the region than just about anything else possibly could.
Folks over there (on both sides) don't have to pass down stories of past wrongs, because the see new ones all the time.
Furthermore, no amount of suicide bombings justify aggressive expansion (complete with displacement of residents), which only serves to provide a time-tested and guaranteed motivation (and justification) for violent conflict.
Suffice it so say, their problems are their own, and of their own making.
And then what? How bout France for starters? They're already having issues with their large Muslim population wanting to initiate sharia law, just for the other Muslims of course. England, Russia, Turkey. Would probably take them decades, but they're a patient lot.
Have you been to France? England? Spain?
Well, I have. I lived in the UK for a year. As ridiculous as their society and government is, they are far from slipping into Sharia. Yes, Muslims and Arabs do get far more consideration from the state than I would grant them. However, they remain a political minority in each of those governments, and what consideration they have been granted has been offered them, not forced via democratic means. European governance tends to be bad, but it is well-established, and the kind of bad which is not easily displaced by something brought by immigrants, especially those demanding Sharia.
And once the entire eastern hemisphere was one Islamic Caliphate, do you honestly think they wouldn't turn their attention on us? We'd make it real easy too, just minding our own business letting them choose the time and place of the opening volley.
You realize you're well into fantasy-land now, right? See above.
As I said before, I don't think this is really about religion, and I do not think all Muslims are "________." But I do have my doubts about Islam. It's the only practiced religion in the world that has been spread by force since day one. Do you deny this historical fact? Christianity at least waited until its adherents wielded some actual power before we started killing, and we have almost universally renounced that now. I don't see Islam even considering that.
I agree with all this. Personally, I find Islam abhorrent, possibly the worst of any religion (not to discount my dislike for Western religions, especially a few examples of self-proclaimed "Christians" here in the US).
But our response plays right into their mythology. The Quran advocates tolerance and peace with those who offer respect and peace to Islam (although, as with Christianity, some may ignore this when it isn't convenient for their political aims). It quite specifically proscribes aggression:
And fight in the cause of God those who fight against you, and do not commit aggression. Indeed God does not love those who are aggressors
(2:190)
It also advocates jihad against those who aggress against Islam first, and does so on no uncertain terms:
And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in Allah;
but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
(2:191–93)
So, Muslims are instructed to kill or covert infidels, but
only if those infidels have attacked or oppressed the practice of Islam. If the infidels cease their oppression of the practice of Islam, and/or their aggression, then Muslims are not to continue to fight them.
Obviously, our actions make it pretty easy for people like bin Laden to claim divine mandate.
The thing is, Muhammad's geopolitical policy is essentially that of non-aggressionism, which is what we should practice -- although not because the Quran says so, but rather because I say so
p), and so does the bible (for those who believe in that) and so did Thomas Jefferson (and others), i.e. because
our traditions indicate it, as does common sense.
Were we to do so, people like bin Laden would have little to fall back on other than their overt political aims. It would be much harder to convince the devout were we not playing into the ideological hands of Muslim extremists with political agendas.
Furthermore, I believe that, in the long run, the way to defeat Sharia is through the liberal tradition. The free exchange of culture and ideas will do more to defeat Sharia than any war ever could.
It remains to be seen whether the current uprisings in the middle east will bring about secular democracies or more Sharia. Probably, a little of both.
