Understanding the Enemy

[Coyote]

Yote... you're almost there babe.
read all you can from the State Department and Homeland Security sites and then you will understand the US view of the whole thing.

then spend some time at Spencer's site
www.jihadwatch.com
he's brilliant. and he can give you insight from the inside of Islam and how they see us (the enemy, the infidel, the dhimmi)

but most importantly is to realize that this is happening really fast and becoming an educated and informed America is essential to our survival!

I've been to that site - it seems extremely biased, hardly impartial and not always factual. It has a definate agenda and that is obvious by it's choice of language.

Look, for example at it's analysis of Islam. It spends the briefest few sentances on the portion of Islam that is considered integral to most Muslims and definitive of what it means to be a good Muslim. Just ask a Muslim. The 5 Pillars say a tremendous amount of how a Muslim is supposed to act but he dismisses them - not just for extremists, but for all of Islam.

Imagine the outcry if we were to do that for all Christians.

And for all that, it's interesting that in the past 100 years - no Islamic country has invaded a non-Islamic country...can you say the same for Western secular (Christian) countries?

 

[bewitched]

I've been to that site - it seems extremely biased, hardly impartial and not always factual. It has a definate agenda and that is obvious by it's choice of language.

Look, for example at it's analysis of Islam. It spends the briefest few sentances on the portion of Islam that is considered integral to most Muslims and definitive of what it means to be a good Muslim. Just ask a Muslim. The 5 Pillars say a tremendous amount of how a Muslim is supposed to act but he dismisses them - not just for extremists, but for all of Islam.

Imagine the outcry if we were to do that for all Christians.

And for all that, it's interesting that in the past 100 years - no Islamic country has invaded a non-Islamic country...can you say the same for Western secular (Christian) countries?

it may seem partial and biased but he speaks the truth about Islam, like Salman Rushdie did. so much so that Ossama even mentioned Spencer by name as an enemy in one of his tapes.

I know Islam, I've practiced it and studied it for 40 years, the pillars aren't the most important part, I assure you.

and 911 was an invasion from Islam in NYC.

don't feel guilty or obligated as a Christian to accept the behavior of violence from Islam. we should all be outraged. we should all not accept it. you don't have to think they are like you and plural, Islam is not plural, they will not accept you.

 

[bewitched]

Sorry to butt in on Coyote's line of thought, but Fidel Castro has a doctorate in law, and he is one of the more brutal, oppressive dictators in the Western Hemisphere, which I equate as scum, right along with the aforementioned Islamic jihadists. Again: well educated scum.

add Chavez.

 

[Coyote]

it may seem partial and biased but he speaks the truth about Islam, like Salman Rushdie did. so much so that Ossama even mentioned Spencer by name as an enemy in one of his tapes.

I know Islam, I've practiced it and studied it for 40 years, the pillars aren't the most important part, I assure you.

and 911 was an invasion from Islam in NYC.

don't feel guilty or obligated as a Christian to accept the behavior of violence from Islam. we should all be outraged. we should all not accept it. you don't have to think they are like you and plural, Islam is not plural, they will not accept you.

No religious violence should be tolerated.

There are certainly many voices in Islam condemning this violence.

Osama is a fanatic condemned by his own religion.

Islam has certainly accepted many other religions living within it's realms. Indeed, at one time it was a bit more accepting (marginally) of it's non-Islamic populations then Christian countries were of non-Christians.

You'll have to excuse me for being skeptical here, but anyone can say anything about themselves on the internet and there is no way to verify. Usually, when some one resorts to backing up their arguments with statements about their self-proclaimed expertise, it's considered a fallacy - an appeal to authority I believe. The arguments should stand on their own.

 

[Popeye]

add Chavez.

Um excuse me, perhaps you could enlighten me as to what makes Hugo Chavez scum?

 

[numinus]

Odd arguement. You can credit TZU in whatever BC with documenting the tactic. That doesn't negate "the enemy" we face today having adopted that tactic. And they rely on a different treatise-



refering to





But I understand the need to insert ones head into the ground and just yell "NOTHING RELIGIOUS ABOUT IT."

What exactly are you talking about, eh?

Are you suggesting that the rituals in islam are the basis of a military strategy? Or that the mujahideen are using an entirely different, previously unknown strategy in waging this war?

Read my lips - the principles that guide their military strategy are THE SAME. The only difference is the theater in which the war is waged and the respective combatants.

Try not muddle a purely academic analysis by your religious biases.

 

[numinus]

I don't think numinus was saying they arn't fighting for religion, I think he was merely pointing out the tactic they use is anything but exclusive to Islam.

Bravo!

You're not utterly beyond redemption after all!

 

[numinus]

Odd arguement. Their "POLITICAL ACT"s dont negate their "religious colors". It is Islam's "POLITICAL" aspects that cause such conflict with western concepts of government.

Try to keep up without unduly hurting yourself.

Religion, as a right of thought, is INSEPARABLE from the human person. A religious person making a political statement will not make the statement any more religious, does it?

And make no mistake - the terrorists are making a POLITICAL STATEMENT with the intent of gaining a distinct POLITICAL END. If you insist on viewing this as a religious phenomenon (as these clowns are fervently hoping you would), then you have given away a clear and powerful initiative without firing a single shot.

That is why, with all the us' and her allies' vaunted military power, they are loosing.

 

[numinus]

well, yes, indeed there are specific Islamic tactics like taqqiya and kitman. and those suicide bombers seem quite exclusive to the theology.
and those tv shows teaching children to be martyr suicide bombers... are exclusive to... Islam.
maybe numinus can clarify.

You need me to clarify, do you?

All wars of national liberation that occured within the past 2 centuries were conducted in much the same manner, any ***** can make a textbook out of it.

Any ***** knows that NOT all wars of national liberation that occured within the past 2 centuries are religious or islamic wars, no?

When confronted by an immensely more powerful adversary, one need to conduct a war IN A PLACE AND MANNER ACCORDING TO ONE'S OWN CHOOSING - that is, if you wish to avoid carnage of biblical proportions.

It doesn't matter if you are waging a war in a battlefield, a chess board or the ufc octagon - the principle EQUALLY applies.

 

[numinus]

Yeah, TZU used it as well BC. The Irish killed several 100 over 3 decades in the previous century. "The enemy" is not historical figures. In the past 5-10 years 90-95% of the terrorism around the world has eminated from Islamic fundamentalist waging jihad against any form of government other than the Khilafah or religion other than Islam. If understanding the enemy is the goal, I dont see the relevance of TZU. If running a little cover for the enemy and their deeds were the point, I would see the relevance.

That is precisely why the us, with the wealth of experience from vietnam, is loosing.

 

[numinus]

I think he was saying there is "NOTHING RELIGIOUS ABOUT IT." What we think is irrelevant. They believe it is very religious.

All war is DECEPTION.

The fact that bin laden, nasrallah and co. spout religious nonsense in justifying their political actions DOES NOT make it so. And they are counting on the morons of the west being duped by simple, goat-herder logic.

If you are still not satisfied, you might do well to consider the fact that all their intended goals are POLITICAL in nature - as if it wasn't a dead give-away from the beginning.

 

[numinus]

But somehow, this wotrldwide wave of Islamist attacks on civilians, has nothing to do with religion??? I dont follow the analogy.

Correct.

It is simple military logic, nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

The object of the game is to diminish one's adversary's WILL to fight - since an all out confrontation would only result in mutual annihilation, no? Sun tzu said it better when he said that the measure of supreme generalship is to overcome your enemy without engaging in battle.

So, if you are a simple goat-herder, and you know that the amount of terror instilled by a full-scale invasion by a standard army is the same as that instilled by a couple of dozen suicide bombers, what manner of attack would you choose, hmmm?

Or do you wait for allah to answer the question for you?

 

[9sublime]

You can't group Chavez with Castro. Castro wasn't elected legally, thrown out by a coup, and then put back into power purely through the will of the people. Someone who's an oppressive dictator wouldn't get that kind of response, wouldn't you agree?

 

[jb_1430]

What exactly are you talking about, eh?

Are you suggesting that the rituals in islam are the basis of a military strategy?

??? Ive not said anything about "rituals". Their written doctrinis is the basis of a military strategy.

Or that the mujahideen are using an entirely different, previously unknown strategy in waging this war?

Read my lips - the principles that guide their military strategy are THE SAME. The only difference is the theater in which the war is waged and the respective combatants.

Try not muddle a purely academic analysis by your religious biases.

Well one author was a general and military strategist, the other is considered a prophet of God, and his book is considered a divine message from God. It defines the non muslims as the enemy and calls upon the muslims to "slay them where you find them". And thebiggest difference is that the Muslims are reading the Koran and Haddiths. They are not reading Tzu. "Academic"?? Youve brought nothing other than your own personal views to the discussion.

 

[jb_1430]

Correct.

It is simple military logic, nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

What you or I think is irrelevant. Those who carry out terrorist attacks make their motivations well known. And it has everything to do with religion. This topic is called "undersanding the enemy". Not, 'helping cover for the enemy'