Historical Significance

[Kacey]

I received this essay via email - as with the person who sent it to me, I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but it does make for interesting reading.

Historical Significance by Raymond S. Kraft

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk morethan four hundred British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.
At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war.
<~~~snip~~~>
There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world.
The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs &#8212; they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world. And that all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, and purge the world of Jews. This is their mantra.
<~~~snip~~~>
If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies. The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC &#8212; not an OPEC dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.
You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want the dollar to be worth anything? You better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.
If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.
<~~~snip~~~>
The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away if we ignore it.
If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an &#8220;England&#8221; in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the
barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless somebody prevents them.
We have four options:
1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.
2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran&#8217;s progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).
3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in, America.
4. Or, we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.
If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.
The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
Remember, perspective is every thing, and America&#8217;s schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.

 

[Andrew Green]

Well, I disagree with most of it

Islam is not a country like Germany that can be defeated. It is a religion, an ideal, one that opressing gives it strength, converting moderates to radicals.

The US is also hardly in a place to criticise religious fundamentalism, which is also on the rise in the US. And IMO Christian fundamentalism is just as dangerous as Islamic Fundamentalism.

Wanting the ability to deliver a nuke anywhere in the world and actually being able to do it are two very different things. Intercontinental missiles are not a easy to make piece of technology. Remember the Cuban Missle crisis? If someone wants to point a nuke at you, there best bet is to get a near by place to do it.

The US will not end up a Islamic state, unless its citizens convert to Islam. Religious wars have been going on for a long time, and one thing that should have been learnt is that just because you got bigger guns, doesn't mean everyone will convert to your religion. It just makes them fight back harder keeping the cycle going.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

The US is also hardly in a place to criticise religious fundamentalism, which is also on the rise in the US. And IMO Christian fundamentalism is just as dangerous as Islamic Fundamentalism.

Oh yeah those "Christians" in the bomb vests, and the others flying planes into buildings, look out for them.

 

[Andrew Green]

Oh yeah those "Christians" in the bomb vests, and the others flying planes into buildings, look out for them.

If the US was occupied by a Muslim power do you really think there wouldn't be Christian suicide bombers?

 

[Flying Crane]

Anyone who believes the world should run according to their own religious beliefs, and is willing and eager to force this upon others, regardless of what religion that may be, should be despised, shunned, and considered a potential danger. This includes Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and any other ISM or belief system out there.

Radical Muslims are not the only crazy and dangerous religious zealots in the world. We've got a fair number of our own home-grown lunatics right here in the good old USA.

 

[MA-Caver]

Anyone who believes the world should run according to their own religious beliefs, and is willing and eager to force this upon others, regardless of what religion that may be, should be despised, shunned, and considered a potential danger. This includes Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and any other ISM or belief system out there.

Radical Muslims are not the only crazy and dangerous religious zealots in the world. We've got a fair number of our own home-grown lunatics right here in the good old USA.

Yep, the Branch Davidians and Jim Joneses (who moved elsewhere) are good examples of that.
Of the non-extremist Muslims that I've known I don't fear a world wide conversion to one religion or another. They're ashamed of their radical brothers in faith and hope the leaders will be seen for what they are... blaspheming against their God/Allah by creating non-sanctioned holy-wars against a people who have basically left them pretty much alone.

I have to agree with Andrew's reply that there would be suicide Christian Bombers if things got that bad here in the U.S. The idea boggles the mind but it's conceivable. It's just hoped that those (proposed) ideological maniac Christians will be a bit more selective about where they push their buttons... instead of say in a crowded shopping mall filled with innocents even if those innocents are Muslim children. They shouldn't have to stoop that low. That's just plain ignorant.
Bush has the right idea to get rid of the terrorists but he's going about it the wrong way and taking too damned long IMO focusing on one country at a time. True, you don't want to spread yourself too thin... strategically that's stupid... but we're doing something other than his mission statement in Iraq. Helping the country of Iraq develop something akin to democracy and getting rid of the terrorist in this world are two different things.
One problem I see is that we're too blind and kissing Saudi Arabia's butt because of their oil power and they're harboring and financing terrorist though there's no proof of that (and "they" don't WANT to prove it) but we know they are because they have laws against anyone practicing their religion in their country... what does that say?
There was a time when we didn't give a darn about what anyone else thought, screw with us (i.e. 9-11 or Iran Hostage Crisis, etc) and we'll kick your ***! But with the fiasco of the aforementioned Iran hostages we showed them that we can be hurt and worse of all... that they can get away with it. This empowered others to try (and succeed) to hurt us.
The CIA also doesn't help matters by secretly helping someone fight our enemies and then leaving them cold as supposedly we did to Osama Bin Laden during the Russian Invasion of Afghanistan, which is why supposedly he's really pissed at the U.S. and uses the guise of a jihad to attack us.
It's not the first time the CIA has done it either... anyone remember Noreiga? But we took care of him though.

There's always going to be hate, there's always going to be prejudice, there's always going to be grown men who are deep down inside mean spiteful little boys that will get their revenge for some imagined or actual wrong doing by warping the beliefs of others to their own ends.
IMO we (and Britain included btw) need to show everyone... go ahead be mad at us...but hurt us and you're gonna lose a lot more than your pride, you're gonna get your *** kicked and that right soon.
It'll make others think twice.

 

[Flying Crane]

Of the non-extremist Muslims that I've known I don't fear a world wide conversion to one religion or another. They're ashamed of their radical brothers in faith and hope the leaders will be seen for what they are... blaspheming against their God/Allah by creating non-sanctioned holy-wars against a people who have basically left them pretty much alone.

agreed here. But I also feel that the extremist Christians here in the US are blaspheming against God just as strongly.

Bush has the right idea to get rid of the terrorists but he's going about it the wrong way and taking too damned long IMO focusing on one country at a time. True, you don't want to spread yourself too thin... strategically that's stupid...

I don't really agree with you here, however.
The thing is, post 9-11 era, we now like to label anyone in the world who dislikes the US, a terrorist. And this is a problem. There will ALWAYS be people in the world who dislike the US and its policies around the world. And some of those people might be willing to take steps to hurt or damage the US and its citizens and its military and business. These people will ALWAYS be out there, they cannot be gotten rid of. There will always be more to take the place of any who are gotten rid of. So a war against terrorists or against terrorism, is an unwinable, and unendable war. By its very definition, it will go on forever.

I think we need to step back and look at the bigger picture. In many ways, we throw gasoline on the fire in places like the Middle East. We have a long history of imposing our will on others around the world, including the Middle East. In that region in particular, they have oil, and we want it. The US consumes about 80% of all oil consumption around the world, but our population is only about 17% of the world. That is really out of balance, yet we continue to increase our useage, and expect to have access to oil no matter where it might lie. So we often create a situation where we can essentially walk in and take it, and we give little back to the countries in which we do this.

This kind of behavior builds resentment around the world. People are pretty resilient, and they will often suck it up and just take the abuse for a long time. But everyone has their breaking point. And when that point is reached, they finally decided to do something to fight back. And they strike in whatever manner they have at their disposal. Often, these people do not have a formal army, so they conduct a guerrilla war, and we call them "terrorists".

It perhaps starts with the radical groups, in the case of the Middle East, the radical Muslim groups. And as the conflict grows, more people join the fight because they are equally frustrated. They themselves may not agree with radical Muslim ideology, but they are willing to join with them to fight a common enemy.

Andrew's notion that if the US was overrun by radical Muslims, then Christians would perhaps become "terrorist" suicide bombers is an interesting notion. The last thing in the world I want to be identified and associated with would be the conservative Christians. But if they had a method to fight an invasion of radical Muslims, I just might be willing to join with them to fight the common enemy. War makes strange bedfellows.

I think the US needs to swallow a little bit of pride and step back and begin treating other nations with more respect. If we continue to think we can bully the world into bending to our will, we will eventually have the entire world against us. Don't give them a reason to hate us, and they won't hate us. That doesn't mean just let crazy people do whatever they want. But our approach needs to be less about dropping bombs and firing missiles.

There was a time when we didn't give a darn about what anyone else thought, screw with us (i.e. 9-11 or Iran Hostage Crisis, etc) and we'll kick your ***! But with the fiasco of the aforementioned Iran hostages we showed them that we can be hurt and worse of all... that they can get away with it. This empowered others to try (and succeed) to hurt us.

Yup, this is what often happens to bullies, and the US has indeed acted like a global bully for a very long time.

The CIA also doesn't help matters by secretly helping someone fight our enemies and then leaving them cold as supposedly we did to Osama Bin Laden during the Russian Invasion of Afghanistan, which is why supposedly he's really pissed at the U.S. and uses the guise of a jihad to attack us.

Yes, the CIA is the worlds largest, most effective, best funded, State supported terrorist agency in the world, by our own definitions of terrorism. They assassinate people, sow civil unrest, topple elected governments and instate oppressive puppet regimes around the world, so long as they give the US what we want.

There's always going to be hate, there's always going to be prejudice, there's always going to be grown men who are deep down inside mean spiteful little boys that will get their revenge for some imagined or actual wrong doing by warping the beliefs of others to their own ends.

not surprisingly, the first people to come to my mind with this description is the highest members of our very own Federal Government.

IMO we (and Britain included btw) need to show everyone... go ahead be mad at us...but hurt us and you're gonna lose a lot more than your pride, you're gonna get your *** kicked and that right soon.
It'll make others think twice.

No, it will not be a deterrant to anyone. They will just step up their operations and continue to pick away at us, until they develop or acquire the means to hit us on a large scale. They are fighting a guerrilla war that has the means to continue for decades or longer, and we cannot hit them decisively or with finality because there will ALWAYS be others ready to step up. And the more we swing the big stick at others, the more willing they will become to fight back. With this attitude, we just make more and more enemies, and make ourselves more afraid, more paranoid, and more at risk.

 

[Touch Of Death]

We created the struggle (Jihad); so, the entire premise is based on the defeating the radical mentality we created by imposing our view of the world, keeping the Saudi royals in power, abanoning the afgannis after the Russians left, and ignoring and backing any problems created by Israel.
Sean

 

[crushing]

Yep, the Branch Davidians and Jim Joneses (who moved elsewhere) are good examples of that.

The Waco Branch Davidian incident is more of an example of the US government run amuck and how the government can influence media which helps control public opinion.

 

[Touch Of Death]

The Waco Branch Davidian incident is more of an example of the US government run amuck and how the government can influence media which helps control public opinion.

How do you handle a religious scuicidal situation?
sean

 

[Yeti]

If the US was occupied by a Muslim power do you really think there wouldn't be Christian suicide bombers?

Actually I don't. Suicide is considered a cardinal sin.

 

[Flying Crane]

How do you handle a religious scuicidal situation?
sean

It was actually Federal Agents who provoked and pushed the situation into what it became. There is a very well made documentary about it, unfortunately I don't remember the name.

There is far more to the story than what was revealed in mainstream media.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Oh yeah those "Christians" in the bomb vests, and the others flying planes into buildings, look out for them.

While I see your obvious points here are some to think about:

1) I read that many Christian Organizations pay for radio time to blast countries in the Mid East to tell them why Islam is wrong and why they are going to hell.

2) Abortion Clinic bombings / Planned Parenthood attacks

3) Bumper stickers that say "Stop Abortion by any means possible"
** Side note: I have seen this numerous times but the one car that had the following made me laugh and cry:
a) Vehicle protected by Smith & Wesson
&
b) Hang all the lawyers
&
c) I support Capital Punishment


I find it wierd how some support one but not others forms of ending a life. All from the same person.

 

[Touch Of Death]

It was actually Federal Agents who provoked and pushed the situation into what it became. There is a very well made documentary about it, unfortunately I don't remember the name.

There is far more to the story than what was revealed in mainstream media.

However, at the time, David koresh was sleeping with the wives and children of his followers and just plain getting out of control. Were we to remain indefferent?
Sean

 

[Andrew Green]

Actually I don't. Suicide is considered a cardinal sin.

"Suicide" would not be there choice of words, but dieing for your beliefs is certainly something Christianity has a history of.

Fanatics of any religion can be manipulated into doing crazy things based on what they believe. They believe them so strongly rationality is irrelevant, that is what makes them fanatics.

"Suicide" missions have been a part of every holy war, ok, every war. Generally dieing in God's service is a free ticket to heaven.

Now my Catholic rules are not the greatest, but isn't the suicide rule based around the fact that we are God's children, and God chooses when we die, not us? So if God's will is that we die on a mission for him, it is not suicide, it is God's will. And giving your life to God to serve his will with is a big gold star for you

And for the record, suicide is strictly forbidden in Islam as well. http://www.inter-islam.org/Prohibit...shown, neither the Judaic nor Christian parts

 

[Flying Crane]

However, at the time, David koresh was sleeping with the wives and children of his followers and just plain getting out of control. Were we to remain indefferent?
Sean

Doesn't justify turning it into a bloodbath, where all those women and children were also shot and gassed by Federal Agents.

 

[crushing]

How do you handle a religious scuicidal situation?
sean

Making the assumption that it was really a suicidal situation I think most people that paid any attention would say pick Koresh up on one of his trips into town, or one of his walks around the church property.

Some things not to do:
Go in with guns blazing, then try to negotiate.
Use pyrotechnic grenades.
Lie to the special counsel.

However, at the time, David koresh was sleeping with the wives and children of his followers and just plain getting out of control. Were we to remain indefferent?
Sean

After such an allegation, is there nothing between being indifferent and having an onsite judge, jury, and summary executioner?

 

[Marginal]

I received this essay via email - as with the person who sent it to me, I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but it does make for interesting reading.

Historical Significance by Raymond S. Kraft

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechjudgmentatnuremberg3.html

I'll take fictionalized wise men over fictional global conflicts that some think need must be made reality.