Karl Heidenreich wrote:Boreatwork:For being such an inteligent and educated person you seem too naive in your appreciation of this problem.
No more naive than thinking application of unlimited military force would "solve it."
There are an estimated 1.2 billion muslims in the world. If we are to belive you then a substantial portion of them are no better than the extremists. The United States and elements of Nato couldn't pacify 2 countries with a total population less than 10% of that. And that with substantial portions of both populations being, if not "friendly" towards the west then certainly openly hostile towards the insurgents.
A war against Islam will make them all openly hostile. How do you pacify a population of 1.2 Billion when it only takes 1 to plant a bomb?
The cost to remotely attempt this - while losing access to the economic resources of Islamic Countries for the duration, is crippling. If any victory could be achieved it would be at best Pyrrhic - with the western nations so bankrupt that their own internal finacial problems would tear them apart FAR more effectively than the occasional terrorist attack. Unlike WW2 there would be no benevolent superpower pumping in reconstruction aid into the local economy. The door would be wide open for neo-fascist, neo-nationalists, and neo-communist parties to run rampant and fuel further conflicts.
And even supposing you "defeat" the muslims without financial ruin what's next? Eternal Peace?
Hardly. Even before the victory is final the fear mongers will find another culture or ethnicity to be the next "threat." How many blacks are living in America and Europe now? Or Hispanics? Or Chinese? How many of them are "stealing our jobs" or being "a drain on our resources" or "an aggressive imperialistic culture?"
Why? Because promoting xenophobia is an easy way for inept leaders be they political or religious, muslim or christian or atheist to gain and keep power by deflecting public blame and anger from their own bumbling incompetance by instead dierecting it towards an external "enemy."
So, you equate Germans with Nazis?
Why not? If you're going to equate Muslims with Fundamentalists I'm merely following your lead.
However the constant effort of Islam to advance and "convert" the world to their faith is just that: constant. Since Day One when Mohammed started his military campaing (in the Gospels I do not see Christ commanding Peter to raise an army, but Allah asks precisely that to the Profet).
Again you make "my religion is better than yours" arguments while ignoring historical truth. It doesn't matter what was *written* in the Gospels because Christians HAVE made CONSTANT efforts to advance and convert the world to their faith as well, by both peaceful and militant means - how else do you think a religion born in isreal long before the internet could spread to 2 billion people globally?
"A man who is convinced of the truth of his religion is indeed never tolerant. At the least, he is to feel pity for the adherent of another religion but usually it does not stop there. The faithful adherent of a religion will try first of all to convince those that believe in another religion and usually he goes on to hatred if he is not successful. However, hatred then leads to persecution when the might of the majority is behind it.
In the case of a Christian clergyman, the tragic-comical is found in this: that the Christian religion demands love from the faithful, even love for the enemy. This demand, because it is indeed superhuman, he is unable to fulfill. Thus intolerance and hatred ring through the oily words of the clergyman."