How do we break the cycle of hatred taught by islam?

[CCTAU 3,350]

Can a free society protect itself from islamic governments who refuse to accept non-muslims?

I was raised for JIHAD

[AURaptor 1,126]

[otterinbham 0]

Sure there is. For, right now, they're acting from a position of strength.

Want to change the situation? Change the economics. Figure out how to slash the consumption of oil in this country through better fuel economy or whatever means else required. Develop domestic resources, and to hell with the reindeer and the NIMBY people. Allow gasoline prices to go as high as the oil companies want them to go, because when gasoline hits $4 a gallon, I guarantee you that people won't be driving their Suburbans on unnecessary trips.

Do all that, and the Middle East's economy collapses. Then governments won't have spare bags of cash floating around to pay for race horses or five star hotels, let alone sneaking money to terrorist groups. What's more, the Middle East, in terms of world priorities, will revert back to its normal importance, down there with Surinam or Equitorial Guinea. And, irony of ironies, the economies of the region that will survive will also be the same countries that have emphasized relative moderation and toleration, such as Dubai, Qatar, Tunisia, and the United Arab Emirates. Then we will have achieved our aims without having to fire a shot. Checkmate, Arabs.

In other words, self-sufficiency should be a strategic priority of the United States.

[BZ770 2]

We should start teaching our children at school at an earlier age of the different religions of the world and teach them not to hate them because they are different but embrace their culture.

[LegalEagle 22]

Education is the key. This should be a "one-world" primer developed and presented by the UN. All member states should be required to allow the UN to present the program to it's children at certain ages. If they refuse, then other member states would be required to abide by economic sanctions against said state imposed by the UN.

[BamaGrad03 0]

We should start teaching our children at school at an earlier age of the different religions of the world and teach them not to hate them because they are different but embrace their culture.

So you think the current problem in the middle east...and the fact that most of the people who live there want Americans dead...is because of OUR intolerance?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I think part of the problem is that over the years we've stuck our noses in where they didn't belong...propping up dictator's simply because we deemed them friendly to us in some way (staving off communism's advance, selling us oil at reasonable prices, acting as a counterbalance to a neighboring state we saw as hostile, etc.) When those dictators did what dictators tend to do, which is abuse power and treat their citizens horribly, we end up being blamed for at least part of it. Then there are the ethnic and tribal lines that don't necessarily correspond to the boundaries on a map and you get a big mixed up mess.

That's not to say everytime we've gotten involved somewhere it's been this way, but because of the situations where we've done it that way, when we intervene for all the right reasons we are viewed with suspicion or outright hatred. The bozos in the upper echelons of Al Qaida might "hate us for our freedom", but the average Joe or Achmed on the street hates us because he doesn't believe we get involved to help him or do the right thing. He thinks we get involved to set up power structures that primarily benefit us and he's an after-thought. Then the crazies come in and appeal to his ethnic and nationalistic pride, tell him we want to undermine his religion and values with our bankrupt culture and when that combines with the cynicism and suspicion he already has, he at best lacks trust in us and at worst hates our guts.

That said, the best thing we can do is exactly what otter said...stop being so damn dependent on foreign sources of oil. Some of that can be done by increasing our own production, but most of it will have to come by increasing fuel economy, making smarter more practical choices in the cars we drive and transportation options we choose, pushing for technologies that help us use a lot less oil and so on. That will choke off the money that fuels a lot of this crap, but also, it makes those areas less important to us. If the world (and us in particular) isn't economically addicted to Middle East oil, then it's much less of a concern to us if some idiot control this or that percentage of the world's oil fields. He's in control of something we don't have nearly as great a need for, so who cares? And when we aren't in their backyard anymore, the arguments Al Qaida uses against us largely fall flat.

I don't really see better fuel efficiency and using less fossil fuels as some moral imperative as much as I see it as an economic and national security issue. And I believe doing that will largely solve our problems with these idiots.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Yeah Titan, that's what Jimmy Carter thought too.....that if we just acted nice, the bad guys would see we're nice guys too, and there'd be no reason for them to be evil. Sad truth is , there is evil out there, and us pretending there isn't won't make it go away.

[LegalEagle 22]

I think part of the problem is that over the years we've stuck our noses in where they didn't belong...propping up dictator's simply because we deemed them friendly to us in some way (staving off communism's advance, selling us oil at reasonable prices, acting as a counterbalance to a neighboring state we saw as hostile, etc.) When those dictators did what dictators tend to do, which is abuse power and treat their citizens horribly, we end up being blamed for at least part of it. Then there are the ethnic and tribal lines that don't necessarily correspond to the boundaries on a map and you get a big mixed up mess.

That's not to say everytime we've gotten involved somewhere it's been this way, but because of the situations where we've done it that way, when we intervene for all the right reasons we are viewed with suspicion or outright hatred. The bozos in the upper echelons of Al Qaida might "hate us for our freedom", but the average Joe or Achmed on the street hates us because he doesn't believe we get involved to help him or do the right thing. He thinks we get involved to set up power structures that primarily benefit us and he's an after-thought. Then the crazies come in and appeal to his ethnic and nationalistic pride, tell him we want to undermine his religion and values with our bankrupt culture and when that combines with the cynicism and suspicion he already has, he at best lacks trust in us and at worst hates our guts.

That said, the best thing we can do is exactly what otter said...stop being so damn dependent on foreign sources of oil. Some of that can be done by increasing our own production, but most of it will have to come by increasing fuel economy, making smarter more practical choices in the cars we drive and transportation options we choose, pushing for technologies that help us use a lot less oil and so on. That will choke off the money that fuels a lot of this crap, but also, it makes those areas less important to us. If the world (and us in particular) isn't economically addicted to Middle East oil, then it's much less of a concern to us if some idiot control this or that percentage of the world's oil fields. He's in control of something we don't have nearly as great a need for, so who cares? And when we aren't in their backyard anymore, the arguments Al Qaida uses against us largely fall flat.

I don't really see better fuel efficiency and using less fossil fuels as some moral imperative as much as I see it as an economic and national security issue. And I believe doing that will largely solve our problems with these idiots.

TT, how many years will it be before the U. S. is foreign energy independent - even if the government made the effort to require it?

How many wars; how many nukes; how many dirty bombs, how many chemical bombs explode before then?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Yeah Titan, that's what Jimmy Carter thought too.....that if we just acted nice, the bad guys would see we're nice guys too, and there'd be no reason for them to be evil. Sad truth is , there is evil out there, and us pretending there isn't won't make it go away.

You don't understand words very well if that's what you gleaned from my post.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

TT, how many years will it be before the U. S. is foreign energy independent - even if the government made the effort to require it?

How many wars; how many nukes; how many dirty bombs, how many chemical bombs explode before then?

Someone asked how to break the cycle of hatred over there for us and I answered. If you think you'll break it by force, I think you'll find its only worse. Basically I'm saying that our goal should be to remove the reasons that being there matters to us and it will deflate most of the reasons the idiots have to recruit more members.

[BZ770 2]

We should start teaching our children at school at an earlier age of the different religions of the world and teach them not to hate them because they are different but embrace their culture.

So you think the current problem in the middle east...and the fact that most of the people who live there want Americans dead...is because of OUR intolerance?

I think our arrogance and policy against the Arab nations are what has caused this problem. We should respect them let them do things their way, if they want to have public beheadings, let women not vote, etc, that is their agenda not ours. We should just leave them alone and then the problem would pretty much take care of itself.

[CCTAU 3,350]

WOW. They teach hatred and we are supposed to stick our head in the sand and that will make them stop? Just WOW.

I agree with the dependence on oil. But I would never agree with stoning a woman for not covering her face.

And the UN teaching my children anything would be a farce. The UN is the biggest hater of America that there is. Anybody who subscribes to this should move to a third world country. Because that is what we will be if the UN has their way.

I do not think our education is the problem. We are not taught to hate and to kill. Maybe we should be. That seems to be acceptable for some of you. I think it starts with the education of arabs. The UN should be allowed to go in there and teach tolerance to muslims. (see how it sounds when we say it about them)

I do feel the only way to deal with muslim nations is to always show force. They understand nothing less. Even when dealing with each other.

Iraq will take a while, but we have already seen how force and persistence will gt them to listen. Now we work with them to better their country.

But to bury our heads in the sand will do nothing but embolden them....Even if we need NO oil.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

We've certainly buried our heads in the sand and let governments other places abuse, torture and murder their people: China, N. Korea, half the countries in Africa, Cuba. Why the concern for Arab women and dissidents and not for all these others? Do any of you advocate use of force worldwide for all these problems?

[LegalEagle 22]

And the UN teaching my children anything would be a farce. The UN is the biggest hater of America that there is. Anybody who subscribes to this should move to a third world country. Because that is what we will be if the UN has their way.

I do not think our education is the problem. We are not taught to hate and to kill. Maybe we should be. That seems to be acceptable for some of you. I think it starts with the education of arabs. The UN should be allowed to go in there and teach tolerance to muslims. (see how it sounds when we say it about them)

And for you UN bashers, please add - Instead of getting a diploma, all successful students will have the number 666 tatooed on their foreheads.

TT - I agree with becoming energy sufficient. I'm just pointing it is a very slow process - especially when Republicans bash mandates as anti-capitolism and pro-big government. Just think where we could be had we taken the oil crisis of the 1970s seriously.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Well, both parties share blame for that. Dems have been in bed with environuts for so long that prevent new drilling, new refineries and such that it's exacerbated the problem. I think a combination of higher fuel standards and an emphasis on advanced technology to help us use less (GOP needs to give here) and more domestic drilling and production/refining capacity (Dems need to give here) will get us there the fastest. After that, it's a matter of selling to the public the need to buy and use vehicles that are more appropriate to their needs. Obviously if someone needs a truck for hauling stuff, they should get it. But those who just like to drive around mostly by themselves in gargantuan vehicles that get 14 mpg need to think of someone other than themselves. That's not a gov't mandate, it's just rethinking our priorities as a culture and a society.

[BZ770 2]

Pakistan is a Muslim nation. They do have problems with religious agenda, but not too the the extent of your Iraq, Iran, Syria. I dated a Pakistani girl in college for a short time, I am southern Baptist She was not a radical Muslim but she did pray and I respected her for it. US Policy is that we are the biggest and baddest, take a look China is going through the Growth that we experienced in the first half of the 20th century. If we don't start focusing on our home agendas they will be the ones bullying us around in the future.

[Tigermike 3,055]

While reading through this thread I have been thinking what does it take for people to open their eyes and see what is and what has been going on. I have been thinking wishful thinking is not going to solve any problems then I ran across this. Funny how things work out.

Wishful Thinking: A lethal habit when it comes to Islamist terrorists

By Clifford D. May

Scripps Howard News Service

January 10, 2008

Osama bin Laden probably does not get home delivery of Parade but more than 30 million Americans do. And on the magazine’s cover last Sunday was the not-quite-smiling face of Benazir Bhutto, along with this confident quote: “I am what the terrorists most fear.”

By the time Bhutto’s image and words reached America’s breakfast tables, she was, of course, dead. The January 6 issue of the magazine had gone to press before Bhutto was assassinated on Dec. 27 during a campaign stop in northern Pakistan.

Not far from where she was killed are the “tribal areas” of Pakistan -- a swath of wild, mountainous territory along the Afghanistan border where al-Qaeda and its allies hold sway. Bin Laden is believed to enjoy sanctuary there. If he and other terrorists did fear Bhutto, they evidently found an effective way to deal with their fear. To slightly paraphrase Joseph Stalin, the Soviet dictator and mass murderer: No woman, no problem.

Did Bhutto really believe she was more of a threat to the militant Islamists than they were to her? Perhaps what she intended to signal was that, should she take power, she’d lead an all-out military offensive against al-Qaeda in Pakistan. But it’s also possible that she was expressing the too-common illusion – implied by Parade magazine -- that election campaigns are tantamount to democracy and an antidote for Islamist terrorism.

In November, Bhutto also said: "I don't believe that a true Muslim will attack me. I believe Islam forbids suicide bombings." Again, maybe she meant only to assert her interpretation of Koranic law. Surely she knew that wealthy, powerful and influential voices in the Muslim world argue that suicide bombings against infidels and apostates – including Muslim women who dare seek political power – are not merely permissible; they are a theological obligation.

Pakistan is a country with a brief, violent and fascinating history. It came into being in 1947, in the aftermath of World War II, a time when the British were relinquishing their colonial possessions. Many of India’s Muslims did not relish the prospect of minority status in predominately Hindu India. The remedy was partition: the establishment of a homeland for Indian Muslims in some of the areas in where they were in the majority.

Pakistan’s founding father, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, envisioned a secular state, one that would show tolerance toward Hindus, Sikhs, Christians and Buddhists. But Jinnah died just months after the nation was born and his vision of Pakistan was buried with him. In the end, more than a million people were killed during a massive population exchange. Today, 97 percent of Pakistan’s 165 million are Muslim. India, by contrast, is only 80 percent Hindu with Muslims constituting more than 13 percent of its 1.1 billion souls.

In 1956, a military coup led to Pakistan becoming “the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.” Even so, it was not yet what you’d call a militant Islamist state. The country’s elites, educated in British and American schools (Bhutto attended both Harvard and Oxford), were hardly theocrats, much less militant jihadis.

Pakistan’s nuclear program was established in1972 by her father, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, then Minister for Fuel, Power and Natural Resources. He became Prime Minister the following year, but was ousted by a military coup in 1977. Accused of various crimes, he was hanged two years after that.

But the nuclear program continued and in 1998 Pakistan detonated an “Islamic” nuclear bomb. Military historian Victor Davis Hanson called letting that happen “the greatest foreign policy lapse of the last quarter-century.” Coincidently, 1998 also was the year bin Laden issued his infamous fatwa: "The rule to kill Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is a sacred duty for any Muslim."

The Parade article, written by Gail Sheehy – called by The New York Times “America 's most therapeutic journalist” -- quotes Bhutto saying that without new and improved Pakistani leadership, al-Qaeda could be “marching on Islamabad in two to four years.”

Sheehy concludes by saying that Bhutto “appears to be America’s strong anchor in the effort to turn back the extremist Islamic tide threatening to engulf Pakistan.” If so, America is now adrift in a nuclear-armed and therefore critical corner of the world. At least part of the reason may be wishful thinking – the still widely held belief that militant Islamists – in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and elsewhere -- can be frightened by words, appeased with money, and defeated by subpoenas and good intentions.

Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.

link

[WarEagle007 1]

Sure there is. For, right now, they're acting from a position of strength.

Want to change the situation? Change the economics. Figure out how to slash the consumption of oil in this country through better fuel economy or whatever means else required. Develop domestic resources, and to hell with the reindeer and the NIMBY people. Allow gasoline prices to go as high as the oil companies want them to go, because when gasoline hits $4 a gallon, I guarantee you that people won't be driving their Suburbans on unnecessary trips.

Do all that, and the Middle East's economy collapses. Then governments won't have spare bags of cash floating around to pay for race horses or five star hotels, let alone sneaking money to terrorist groups. What's more, the Middle East, in terms of world priorities, will revert back to its normal importance, down there with Surinam or Equitorial Guinea. And, irony of ironies, the economies of the region that will survive will also be the same countries that have emphasized relative moderation and toleration, such as Dubai, Qatar, Tunisia, and the United Arab Emirates. Then we will have achieved our aims without having to fire a shot. Checkmate, Arabs.

In other words, self-sufficiency should be a strategic priority of the United States.

A good idea, but I tend to think that might make the terrorism problem worse. When people find themselves in a time of low morale and weakness, they tend to look to the most influential voice. Look at what Hitler did, he motivated the people in a difficult time and rose to supremacy. I think there is a chance that the highly influential extremist voices in the region might capitalize on a weakening middle east by promising a return to economic prominence. Now, that theory does tend to go against the traditional Salafi movement (which is anti-capitalist), they would have the potential to gain a wider following and hit more areas by blaming the rest of the world for the decline of the middle east's economic influence.

Also on a side note, Dubai is a city in the UAE, not its own country. That place is freakin' beautiful and is doing some amazing things in the world of architecture (see Burj Dubai). Don't have enough prime oceanfront real estate? No problem! Lets go into the useless desert, take the sand from there, and build some big islands! Talk about ingenious. I would love to go there someday, the place is practically built for westerners by westerners anyways.

[Wishbone 0]

WE NEED TO BE MORE TOLERANT OF ISLAM. YOU GUYS ARE RACIST. ISLAM IS A RELIGON OF PEACE. IF WE ARE MORE TOLERANT THEY WILL STOP ATTACKING US. A GOOD WAY TO SOLVE THIS IS TO BRING ALOT OF MUSLIM IMMIGRANTS INTO THE COUNTRY. TWO LEGS BAD, FOUR LEGS GOOD.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Google video search: Iraqi Love

[AURaptor 1,126]

TWO LEGS BAD, FOUR LEGS GOOD.

Two legs good, four legs better !

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL

BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS

[TitanTiger 20,511]

How is it that everytime this subject comes up and someone suggests that something other than military force might be the best approach that the response becomes characterizing that positions as putting daisies in gun barrels and singing Kum-ba-yah while we allow them to destroy us?

I swear, this is why my posting in the politics forum has gone down over the last couple of years. No one seems to be willing to engage and think critically about any middle ground. You either go over there and bomb the Islamic states and kill them all until they utterly capitulate or you "tolerate" Islam and just love them to death? Those are our choices? Because that's what these debates always seem to devolve into.

Look, thinking we've resorted to military force too quickly or that in some situations we shouldn't have is not tantamount to being a hippie chanting "give peace a chance." It's just acknowledging that the world is a more complicated place than "we're good, they're evil, let's kill them." It's acknowledging that no matter how many times President Bush tells us that they attack us because "they hate us for our freedom", that doesn't mean it's true. It's understanding that there are several factors involved in what fuels groups like Al Qaida in terms of recruiting new members from the population at large and that we are actually exacerbating some of them with the way we handle these situations.

If the best folks around here are going to do for arguments is to waste time lampooning ridiculous caricatures of what people are actually saying, then this forum is a waste of time. I should just rename it "Trading Propaganda" so at least then we'll be honest about what it is.

[WarEagle007 1]

If the best folks around here are going to do for arguments is to waste time lampooning ridiculous caricatures of what people are actually saying, then this forum is a waste of time. I should just rename it "Trading Propaganda" so at least then we'll be honest about what it is.

Isn't that a loose definition of politics? Paint the prettiest picture so people will vote for you and you get to be in power.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

If the best folks around here are going to do for arguments is to waste time lampooning ridiculous caricatures of what people are actually saying, then this forum is a waste of time. I should just rename it "Trading Propaganda" so at least then we'll be honest about what it is.

Isn't that a loose definition of politics? Paint the prettiest picture so people will vote for you and you get to be in power.

No, that is the definition of politicians. People who purport to actually be discussing political issues of the day should be able to do better. None of us to my knowledge is running for office.