Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.