OT: Al Ahram

[Phoenix-D]

Minor problem with that position, Possum. Namely the lowest estimate I've seen puts the Muslim population at 1.6 million..US citizens.

Going to be breaking out the concentrations camps anytime soon?

[Possum]

Low blow, Phoenix. That's a personal insult, and I object.

I did not, and will not ever, suggest any such thing.

[Phoenix-D]

You start insuinating that every Muslim is the enemy and I'll start pointing out the ad absurdem consequences of that. I don't think you would, but there are those who would, and they use statements very similar to yours.

Your statement was insulting to pretty much every non-insane Muslim on the face of the planet, by the way. Adds up to several hundred million people.

[AMF]

My point is less highfalutin': every single bit of offical national strategy document, military policy document, or any other formal position by the US (and coalition powers involved in the GWOT) states that it is official policy to promote relations with muslims, yes, moderate muslims, and that it is necessary to do so if this "long war" is ever going to suceed. That's what I mean when I say, formally, that the people of the mideast or muslims in general are not, in any way shape or form, considered "the enemy" - becuase it is our (US) national military policy.

However, there are two other important points to be made:

First, yes, there are moderate (and secular)muslims. I live in a moderate muslim country, filled with moderate muslims who drink beer and do all sorts of other things that fundamentalist muslims don't. I think they drive as bad as anyone from Boston, but that's not a reason to hate them, or declare them the enemy. In fact, empowering moderate muslims, and gaining their friendship and assistance, are the only way to win this war. If suddenly tomorrow all the muslims in the world decided they didn't want to cooperate with the US, then our war effort would grind to a halt overnight. And so when people start implying or outright saying that "all muslims are our enemy" then it makes my job, and the job of every service-member out here, that much more difficult and dangerous. We're trying to win this war, and find OBL, and declaring war on an entire religion is not the way to do that.

Second, one fights wars against people NOT regions. So, to state that "IMO, the entire middle east outside of Israel and possibly Turkey are our de facto enemies, regardless of the diplomatic niceties." is just nonesensical to me.
How much do you know about Turkey by the way? They are exactly the sort of Muslims that I'm talking about when I say moderate (and very much secular).

In fact, I think you're also conflating people and geography and religion. One does not equal the other.

Note the following (from wikipedia)"There are estimated to be 1.4 billion adherents, making Islam the second-largest religion in the world...Today, Muslims may be found throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia. The majority of Muslims are not Arabs; only 20 percent of Muslims originate from Arab countries. Islam is the second largest religion in the United Kingdom, and many other European countries, including France, which has the largest Muslim population in Western Europe. If current trends continue it will soon become the second-largest religion in the United States."

EDIT: deleted constipated and duplicate writing, added last line of thinking

[dogscoff]

I think AMF has said it all about right in his post.

There is a disturbing tendency about at the moment to lump all Muslims together into one group, which is both absurd and dangerous. I mean take Christianity as an example: From afternoon tea with the Church of England vicar to the intense African evangelical denominations to the Roman Catholics to the Greek orthodox to the Amish to the fundamentalist "Intelligent Design" crowd... Now try to appreciate that a similar diversity exists in Islam and you reaise that you simply cannot treat it as a single entity.

Phoenix' "concentration camp" remark was maybe a bit below the belt in this case, but I honestly feel that is the way things are heading. If a newspaper from 2016 were to drop out of a temporal rift and into my lap I would not be at all surprised to read about large numbers of Muslims (or 'islamic-looking' people) being rounded up indiscriminately in the US, UK and other Western countries for deportations, interrogation or worse. People seem to have forgotten the lessons of the holocaust and all the other genocides and massacres that have brought about human rights legislation and the rules of war and so on.
Day after day I am sickened again and again as I hear people talk about human rights as though they are some kind of obstacle to (rather than the cornerstones of) justice and security and what they think of as their 'way of life'. It seems they are more than happy to write off people they have never met or known as someone less than human, someone who doesn't deserve due process and dignity. They will cheerfully allow atrocities be carried out in their name, as long they are free to look the other way and ignore the pain and anguish being generated and the hatred being stored up for the future.

To do away with human rights is to dehumanise people, and from there it is a short step to demonisation, I don't have to tell anyone here what comes next. However the people likely to read this and understand it are in the minority. It looks more and more as though the majority will have to learn all those lessons again, the hard way.

Ignorance will beget ignorance, hate will beget hate, violence will beget violence. None of those things will help us. Things will get a lot worse before they get better.

[Possum]

Phoenix-D said:
You start insuinating that every Muslim is the enemy and I'll start pointing out the ad absurdem consequences of that. I don't think you would, but there are those who would, and they use statements very similar to yours.

Your statement was insulting to pretty much every non-insane Muslim on the face of the planet, by the way. Adds up to several hundred million people.

Phoenix, let me quote you from the forum rules, section 3

"If you post in this forum, we expect you to contribute positively to a conversation. If you disagree with someone, great, explain your point of view, have an open discussion. Please do not disparage the other person. Personal attacks are unacceptable. They just lower the brow of all involved. If you don't like someone, talk about it on ICQ, MSN, AIM, YIM, your journal, or your blogger, but not here. People who bait or bash members or mods may be banned without notice.

Flaming, humiliating, ridiculing, or belittling other members will not be tolerated. This includes blatant disrespect of others whether it is through negative language or general attitude. We see no difference between straight out calling someone stupid and using creative language and attitude to imply that person is stupid."

I have quoted the whole first 2 paragraphs, rather than a snippet, so nobody can say that I was quoting out of context.

Now, can you honestly claim that your reply does not violate this section?

No, you cannot. It was a gratuitous personal attack, made solely because you did not like the opinion I was expressing.

[Phoenix-D]

Not really. It logically follows from your statement that there are no moderate Muslims and that all Muslims are the enemy (though I see I misread *that* part a little, which I do apologize for).

More to the point, when I said concentration camps I was thinking more to the effect of the Japanease internment camps during WW2, which I should have made clear. If you substitude "Japanease" for "Muslim" the logic is identical.

[Possum]

AMF said:
My point is less highfalutin': every single bit of offical national strategy document, military policy document, or any other formal position by the US (and coalition powers involved in the GWOT) states that it is official policy to promote relations with muslims, yes, moderate muslims, and that it is necessary to do so if this "long war" is ever going to suceed. That's what I mean when I say, formally, that the people of the mideast or muslims in general are not, in any way shape or form, considered "the enemy" - becuase it is our (US) national military policy.

I never mentioned national policy, bro. I was just expressing my personal opinion, nothing more or less.

AMF said:
However, there are two other important points to be made:

First, yes, there are moderate (and secular)muslims. I live in a moderate muslim country, filled with moderate muslims who drink beer and do all sorts of other things that fundamentalist muslims don't. I think they drive as bad as anyone from Boston, but that's not a reason to hate them, or declare them the enemy. In fact, empowering moderate muslims, and gaining their friendship and assistance, are the only way to win this war. If suddenly tomorrow all the muslims in the world decided they didn't want to cooperate with the US, then our war effort would grind to a halt overnight. And so when people start implying or outright saying that "all muslims are our enemy" then it makes my job, and the job of every service-member out here, that much more difficult and dangerous. We're trying to win this war, and find OBL, and declaring war on an entire religion is not the way to do that.

Second, one fights wars against people NOT regions. So, to state that "IMO, the entire middle east outside of Israel and possibly Turkey are our de facto enemies, regardless of the diplomatic niceties." is just nonesensical to me.
How much do you know about Turkey by the way? They are exactly the sort of Muslims that I'm talking about when I say moderate (and very much secular).

The first paragraph above is just a statement of your personal opinion. That's fine, and I respect your opinions, just please respect my right to disagree with them.

Now you ask me how much I know about Turkey. Well, anyone with half a brain could write you an essay from online sources, or just cut & paste one, but let me see how well I can answer your question just off the top of my head.

About the pre-modern turkish state, I know very little, except that they were in large part some of the nomadic tribes that came to europe with Temujin (Genghis Khan). Oh yes, and they sacked Constantinople in the mid 16th century, after which they pressed on and laid siege to Vienna. Unsuccessfully, or we would live in a very different world.

The modern Turkish state was founded in 1922, (1923 maybe?), by Mustapha Kemal, after he and some of his fellow "colonels" staged a coup that toppled the old hereditary ruler.

This was the same Mustapha Kemal that defeated the british (or rather the largely colonial force under british command) at Gallipoli. It should be understood that Kemal was a truly brilliant man, and easily comparable to George Washington.

The modern turkish constitution states that Turkey is and shall always remain a secular state, and expressly forbids the establishment of any religious or theological government.

Three times in the history of modern Turkey, the turkish military has intervened to prevent a religious government from taking power, or to eject one already in control. Some observers feel that a fourth occasion may occur in the very near future, as Turkey's current government is decidedly non-secular, and the military has been sending warning messages for years now. This crisis has been 4 years in the building, but comes to a head now because the Chief of Staff of the turkish army has just retired, and his replacement has already shown less patience with the current government.

On the economic front, Turkey was badly hurt by Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1991. The single biggest cause of this was the loss of oil pipeline payments from the Iraqis. This and the general loss of Iraqi trade had a cascading effect that was felt throughout the Turkish economy. My friend Khan, who today is (like me) a waiter in San Diego, was in 1991 the owner of a thriving rug import/export business in Turkey with 12 employees.

AMF, was that enough to dispel your assumption (suspicion, maybe?) that if I disagree with you, I must be doing so through ignorance?

I said "possibly Turkey" in my earlier post because the existence of the current religious government clearly shows that there is popular support for that government.

AMF said:
In fact, I think you're also conflating people and geography and religion. One does not equal the other.

Note the following (from wikipedia)"There are estimated to be 1.4 billion adherents, making Islam the second-largest religion in the world...Today, Muslims may be found throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia. The majority of Muslims are not Arabs; only 20 percent of Muslims originate from Arab countries. Islam is the second largest religion in the United Kingdom, and many other European countries, including France, which has the largest Muslim population in Western Europe. If current trends continue it will soon become the second-largest religion in the United States."

EDIT: deleted constipated and duplicate writing, added last line of thinking

Umm, no comment.

Folks, all I'm trying to do here is have a calm, civilised discussion. I have no problem with others attacking my ideas, but I do object to those who have launched attacks on me, simply because they don't like my opinions.

[Possum]

Phoenix, you seem to be more interested in fighting than discussing, so I'm not going to respond to your sallies any further.

Thank you, kind sir, and have a nice day

[AMF]

Possum,

I think you're reading too much into what I'm saying - and I do think we're having a civil discussion.

You stated that the people of the middle east are our enemies.

This is a very easy point to refute, if one stays away from the theoretical and merely (simply) looks at national policy. ALL I am saying is that the US government, and all other governments involved in the Global War on Terror, have clearly stated that the war is against terrorists, and most certainly NOT ALL the people of the middle east.

I then went on to say that "empowering moderate muslims, and gaining their friendship and assistance, are the only way to win this war. If suddenly tomorrow all the muslims in the world decided they didn't want to cooperate with the US, then our war effort would grind to a halt overnight"

This is an empirical fact, that any basic ops analysis will show. For example, almost all of our bases in the middle east are in muslim countries (the only exception I can think of off the top of my head is Diego Garcia, which is actually very far away, as are our european bases). If we suddenly decided that all muslims were our enemies, then all our bases here would be unusable the next day. I can show this relatively easily if you want me to, based on the fact that local support and friendly governments, and co-located facilities in the region, are all vital to the operation of our bases. And without our bases we couldn't supply our forces, carry out missions, and so forth. I have a hard time seeing how this is a controversial supposition.

So, in one sense, yes it is my personal opinion. But it is analogous to me saying that it is my opinion that oxygen is necessary for most life on earth to survive. It's really just a fact of life that we rely upon friendly muslims to conduct most (almost all) of this war. Without their help, we'd be sunk.

And, I really don't see how I was disrespecting your opinion at all. But I'm eager to learn (and change my habits) if you'll point it out to me. It's not my intention to "diss" people, because once "dissed" there is no chance to change their minds. So I try not to do that.

Re: Turkey, you stated that perhaps turkey was our enemy. But everything you stated about Turkish history supports my contention that it is a secular state (suspicion re relgiious govt, military being very secular, Ataturk's reforms, etc). I'm not sure what the disagreement here is.

As an aside, Turkey is a great place. I've been there three times in the last six months, it's where I vacation usually. People are great, highly secular, very low crime, great beaches (many of them topless, woop!), and just overall extremely friendly, and extremely wary of religion and religious violence. They're proud, but secular and moderate. That's why I say they're exactly the model for the moderate muslim state. I think we're saying the same thing in re: Turkey.

Now, in regards to your statement that "AMF, was that enough to dispel your assumption (suspicion, maybe?) that if I disagree with you, I must be doing so through ignorance?"

If I implied that by virtue of you disagreeing with me that you are ignorant, that wasn't my intention. Again, I try not to 'diss' or insult people, becuase once it gets to that point, no one will ever change their minds. So, sorry if I came across like that.

RE:"Folks, all I'm trying to do here is have a calm, civilised discussion. I have no problem with others attacking my ideas, but I do object to those who have launched attacks on me, simply because they don't like my opinions."

Again, I don't see how that really happened, but if you feel that way, I guess it must have.

In any case, I do think we're having a civil discussion. If we all agreed it would be boring.

And I think that I have put forth pretty strong arguments against declaring all muslims our enemies. Others have put forth other, different arguments that I feel are just as powerful.

I really don't see that anyone has crossed a line, and certainly there's been no forum rules violations. People have merely disagreed with you, and deeduced logically from statements that you made, which is pretty typical in a debate. If you don't want people to disagree with you, or draw conclusions from what you post, then I would suggest you avoid starting threads that will engender debates.

I don't see how there's been any name calling, but if you can point some out I'm eager to be corrected in that beleif.

EDITs: corrected misspellings, a few clarifications, etc