Comic Genesis Forums

It's not gust the Treaty. As a country, I guess the US wants to appear merciful, not to mention what sort of political backlash would be unleashed inside the US. Honestly, on an historical scale, the way this has been treated can either strengthen the UN or drastically hurt the world view of the US as a strong and focused country.[/i]

The problem with being as nasty to them as they are to us is that we *can't* claim to anyone that we are any better and that their way is wrong. Unfortunately, this doesn't help as much as we might wish, but If we were to make his life a living hell through various means, the opposition will undoubtedly be able to actually have TRUE nasty things to say about us instead of lies. So, would the short term satisfaction of vengeance be worth the long term headaches?
note - this is coming from an active duty military type. I prefer hitting ports instead of having to stay out to sea because all the port cities are full of folks who would rather bomb us than take our money ro simply refuse to allow the barbarians entry into their cities.
*shrug* I don't see how this conversation can avoid flames but I'll be civil. If it gets nasty, I'll just stop posting and watch the fireworks. This already seems to be getting pretty charged emotionally.

<I><B>This is not about vengeance.</B><I>

This is about winning, or <B>losing,</b> a war that can quite easily cost millions of our own people's lives.

Let me explain this simple fact to you: <I>There is no doubt in the minds of our enemies that we could quite readily win this war.</i> The enemy is not completely stupid... they are aware that we are currently the most wealthy AND the most militarily powerful nation to ever exist on the face of the earth. They KNOW that if we opened up the throttle and went from "limited" war to a full war that we could clean them out in a matter of months, weeks, even days. They weren't sitting in a closet blindfolded while America blitzed through Saddam's army like shit through a goose. And they know, for a cold, chilling face, that we have reserves of military power we haven't even tapped yet.

That is why they are so desperate to terrorize us into giving up and running away as we did in Korea, vietnam, in the Iranian hostage crisis, in the travesty portrayed in "Black Hawk Down." That is why they exploit our half-heartedness and our unwillingness to press the fight.

This isn't a nursery school, Lurking. We're not in a popularity contest. We're not here to make the other nations LIKE us.<I>we are fighting for our survival.</i>

And what dooms and damns us is that too many of us-- even those who support the current war effort-- are unwilling to accept that truth. We don't WANT to fight a real war. We don't WANT to fight to win. We want a "nice" war, where we can cherry-pick our targets, where bullets swerve around corners and only hit the REALLY MEAN terrorists, and we achieve 90% of our goals by bluster and "hearts and minds" wheedling.... so the other little kids at the U.N. will LIKE us again.

<B><I>This. Is. A. WAR.</i></b> WAR means killing people in large numbers and breaking all their things. It means DEFEATING an enemy, not just INCONVENIENCING him. It means doing things that would make the placid sheep at home blanch in horror. It is ugly. It is horrifying. It is NECESSARY.

Don't you understand? It HAS to be that way. War MUST be waged ruthlessly and violently and with all the ferocity our nation can muster, or the threat of war with us no longer has any averting power. Every day we try to fight a "humanitarian war," we guarantee that the war will last that much longer.... the enemy we face is not only enamored of glamorous death for himself, but has no qualms about violating every principle of civilized warfare--- slaughtering innocents and noncombatants even more readily than he shoots at soldiers, hiding among the civilian populace, faking surrender and injury to draw the compassionate in for a violent backstabbing.

And no irate letter of censure from the useless bodies at the UN is going to avert <I>him.</i>

The islamic terrorists aren't like us. They're not going to <I>get tired of fighting,</i> throw in the towel and run home to mommy. They're not going to succumb to downward-turning approval ratings on the homefront. They don't give a SHIT what other nations think of their tactics, nor are they under the fairy tale delusion that what other nations think means a tinker's damn.

If the opinion of other nations about the "inhumane military actions" meant anything at all, China would be sitting all alone, friendless, without a single trade partner in the world.

Demanding we escalate is not about "revenge." That's a child's accusation. <I>It is about hastening the end of this war.</I> The only way this war will end is with the destruction of western civilization--- or when the will of the Islamics to wage war against us is utterly broken. These people have been waging Jihad FOR FOURTEEN HUNDRED YEARS. They are NOT going to be out-waited by a nation that has barely existed for TWO.

They will happily wage the scale of war we have set for them for another thousand years, if need be... or another two years, at which point Iran will give them the Bomb. And then we will HAVE to wage a full war-- or watch our cities disappear one by one in pillars of nuclear fire.

We have to break their will NOW.... or be forced to do it later, when "ground zero" encompasses what used to be an entire American city.

Glib words. How do we enact such a resolution without just exterminating everyone with dusky skin, tho'? That's the real problem with this whole "terrorist" thing; we could nuke every Islamic nation in the world into glowing slag, flash-fry every man, woman, and child who had the misfortune of being born on the wrong side of a national boundary, and these whackjobs would still be around.

Nobody doubts the states' capability of making war. Nobody doubts that you could pretty much conquer any other country or turn the middle east into a shiny glass desert if you really wanted to. The Bundeswehr still has the old running joke: "Our purpose is simple. When the russians come, we must defend our country - for a couple of hours, until the real army arrives." So never fear, you are not being seen as powerless.

Regrettably, terrorism has managed to frustrate this by not presenting a good target. They're cowards, and so far, it's paying off for them. Taking Afghanistan has been a hit for them, maybe Iraq as well (opinions differ on how involved Saddam was with terrorism). But in the end, they are not enemies that are tied to any one nation. They operate more fluidly, and so long as they play it smart, they don't have a single point of failure. Even bin Laden is probably expendable to them.

The challenge is to come up with suitable strategies against them. Some claim that a campaign of education and democratization of the arab countries is necessary to dry up support for the terrorist, others want to hit the financial backers and yet others again the bases of operation. Any way, it's going to be a long war, simply because the enemy is tenacious like rats. The only advantage is that the US cannot lose the war: It can either go on, or be won, but nothing Al-Quaida or all of arabia has can actually defeat the US.

Iran sees the troubles in Iraq and the diplomatic backlash and exploits this situation for its own opportunistic little powerplay. Usually, that wouldn't be so much of a crisis (consider India and Pakistan and the big nothing that happened when they got the bomb), and the usual diplomatic horseplay could ensue - resolutions, sanctions, escalations, special talks... we don't shoot them to death, we talk them to death.

In this case, however, we are dealing with Ahmadinedschad, who has been very open about what he believes - I wouldn't put it past him to invite bin Laden as a guest of honor. That guy actually might just be crazy enough to make a bomb and hand it to "associates", never mind the consequences. Even the possibility of that happening puts the diplomatic solution on a time limit. If diplomacy doesn't quickly show results (which I doubt), Bush could pursue a military campaign, despite the disadvantageous situation.

Little side note:

These people have been waging Jihad FOR FOURTEEN HUNDRED YEARS.

Maybe, but not in the way it's being done today, nor by the same kind of people. In the middle ages, jihad was a war of empires. The moors conquer Spain, the saracenes fight the crusaders, the turks siege Vienna... what can be called fourteen centuries of jihad was mostly a war of one country against the other. The lows to which Al Quaida sinks are mostly an invention of the last century, I think, and are partially born out of the weakness of the islamic countries in modern times.

I think my piont was mis-understood. It was more in frustration that we are handicapped by rules that only seem to ever apply to us. In the history of 20th century warfare, the Armed Forces of the United States have been held to a far higher 'moral standard' than any other fighting force in the history of warefare. In a sence, the 'Schlagkrieg' doctrine of warfare that the US has adapted in the last twenty years, more popularly known by talking heads as 'Shock and Awe' has been an off-shoot of this standard that our armed forces are being held to. Move so fast and with so blindingly fast, faster than any blitzkrieg assault in WWII ever had a chance to dream about being to put the other side so off balance that our objectives are claimed quick and relatively cleanly.

The problem is, against a standing military force, this works wonders, but against 'irregulars, such as Al Qeda 'freedom fighters' and Taliban 'malitiamen' there is no one place to focuse the might of the assault. We saw what happened with the Republican Guard and the Iraqi Regulars when the armored fists of the US Army and Marine Corps and the steal rain of the Air Force and Navy came smashing down on them, they crumbled, and quickly so. The problem is Al Qeda won't even be brave enough to fight a stand up battle against US Army or Marine forces. Out of all the casualties suffered in these last few years, the vast majority of them have been not actual combat losses, but booby traps and IEDs.

The situation, though I am loathed to make the comparison because of where it might lead, is very similar to what happened in Vietnam. While the North Vietnamese Army was smart, tough and capably lead, every time they stuck their heads up and tried to fight a stand up battle against US Forces, they had their head litterly handed to them. Tet was a major military disaster for them, even if it was portrayed as a disaster for us in the states, that was simple lie. US forces smashed Tet advances ours after they began. But what did we see? VietCong infiltrating the embassy in Saigon, and only lasting about half a day simply because their 'comrades' in the NVA were being slaughtered by US Forces to the north. The seige at Khe Sahn was also a disaster for the NVA, because the simply could not dislodge the Marines from their fortifications, yet it is portrayed as a terrible failure for the Marines, and the war effort as a whole, in the United States.

The horrible fact is, that no one, other than maybe the nations of the former Brittish Commenwealth, really wants us to win this war. To the UN, this is the best way to get the United States out of the way, put so many restrictions on us, that they know that we will try to follow because we want to be the moral good guys in the whole affair, and they know how, if our forces violate even the smallest bit of 'the rules' everyone bleives the good guys should follow, our liberal news media will curcify the armed forces, and the every day american, will be horrifed by the fact that 'we're breaking the rules.' With that situation, they're all just waiting for us to fall on our faces so they can be the heroes they want to be and reclaim what they lost when we and the soviets had 'The Big Stare' of 1949-1990.

Some of the best phrases I have ever heard from military leaders:

"The objective of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other poor bastard die for his" George S. Patton

"This is not the Marquis of Queensbury, If you had a fair fight, you killed people for no good reason." Colonel Richard Boyd, USAF.

SirBob wrote:Glib words. How do we enact such a resolution without just exterminating everyone with dusky skin, tho'? .

Interesting. Once again we see the switch flipped that makes certain people equate "effective warfare" with "genocide."

"I want us to go in and use full military power to bring a swift end to this war."

"Oh NOES, J00 W8nt 2 K1LL 8ll th3 L1TTL3 BR0Wn P30pl3z! N8Z1!!!!"

You want to know how what, precisely, I mean?

1) If terrorists shoot at us from a mosque, or from any of the other 10,000 holy sites per square mile known to Islam--- that mosque is gravel. One plane, one bomb, one crater. Let 'em scream. The homocidal little maniacs will scream and riot on any excuse anyway. And if they see enough "holy sites" turned into sites full of holes, maybe they'll figure out, "gee, if we revere these sites so much maybe we shouldn't desecrate them in the first place!"

2) If a terrorist leader or despot is captured, he is shot. On the spot. None of this 3,4,5,20 year show-trial bullshit.

3) Riots--- Muslim, non-muslim, anti-war, anti-bush, I don't care--- greeted with hard arrests and hard time in jail. And don't whine to me about prison space. We have barbed wire, tents, and lots of desert to choose from.

4) Give the police orders that if they see arson, looting, or property destruction they are to open fire. Back in the 70s that rioting bullcrap came to a screeching halt after Kent State.... see, most whiny hippy brats wanted a revolution, but it really harshed their mellow to figure out the other side might SHOOT BACK WITH REAL BULLETS.

5) SLAM THE BORDERS SHUT. Put up razor wire along those porous northern and southern borders. Authorize the border patrol to shoot to kill. Everyone IN this country on a visa, expired or not, from terrorist-supporting countries, gets a one-way plane ticket back home. Illegal immigrants rounded up, shipped by bus to just the other side of the southern border, and kicked to the curb.
If you don't think this is part of total warfare, you aren't thinking too far ahead.

6) A public presidential announcement that any use of nuclear weapons by Iran or any other Islamic state against any American territory or ally, or any terrorist use of said weapons, will result in instant and immediate reprisal. Said state will be FRAGGED. And we will not be wasting billion-dollar pinpoint smart-bombs on them. WE go in, and we do not stop till we have dismantled that country right down to the last brick.

7) Any nation taken by American forces will be treated as post WWII germany was--- divided up and placed under the control of the United States and its allies for no less than 50 years. THEN we'll talk about interim governments.

8) POWs get no privileges. I repeat-- POWS GET NO PRIVILEGES. No kid-glove handled Korans, no special meals, no prayer rugs, nothing. They get what we give them and thank whatever they might believe in-- in private-- that we don't treat them like we've seen them treat their own prisoners in the name of Allah. I'm in no way obligated to facilitate their religious practices <I>when their religion is what tells them to wage jihad and slaughter innocent men, women and children in the first place.</i>

9)Profiling. We are at war with Islam, so when we look for terrorists on board our planes and boats we-- duh--- look at the ones bowing to Mecca first. Any pussy whining from the ACLU shall be grounds for a shoeleather suppository.

10)Military tribunals, NOT civil trials, for terrorists.... followed by swift public executions.

RHJunior wrote:

SirBob wrote:Glib words. How do we enact such a resolution without just exterminating everyone with dusky skin, tho'? .

Interesting. Once again we see the switch flipped that makes certain people equate "effective warfare" with "genocide."

"I want us to go in and use full military power to bring a swift end to this war."

"Oh NOES, J00 W8nt 2 K1LL 8ll th3 L1TTL3 BR0Wn P30pl3z! N8Z1!!!!"

Ralph, you tend to talk more violently than the average hawk. If you were somebody else, looking at this post, you'd be pretty sure the person on the other end wanted to nuke anyplace that offended us, too.

RHJunior wrote:You want to know how what, precisely, I mean?

1) If terrorists shoot at us from a mosque, or from any of the other 10,000 holy sites per square mile known to Islam--- that mosque is gravel. One plane, one bomb, one crater. Let 'em scream. The homocidal little maniacs will scream and riot on any excuse anyway. And if they see enough "holy sites" turned into sites full of holes, maybe they'll figure out, "gee, if we revere these sites so much maybe we shouldn't desecrate them in the first place!"

1) Nice idea. Of course, it lends strength to the argument (used to recruit for al-Qaeda) that the United States wants to destroy all Islam and hand the world over to Israel, but hey... that shouldn't affect the use of a viable military strategy, right? Besides, the insurgents are already reducing the number of available mosques by blowing them up for us. <sarcasm> And if the enemy's doing it, it must be a good thing, right?</sarcasm>

RHJunior wrote:2) If a terrorist leader or despot is captured, he is shot. On the spot. None of this 3,4,5,20 year show-trial bullshit.

2) True, civilization is a bore, and putting a bullet between their eyes is so much more satisfying. The problem is, we have to be sure we've got the right guy. Even when we think we're sure, it's a pretty good idea to know who you're killing.

RHJunior wrote:3) Riots--- Muslim, non-muslim, anti-war, anti-bush, I don't care--- greeted with hard arrests and hard time in jail. And don't whine to me about prison space. We have barbed wire, tents, and lots of desert to choose from.

3) <puzzled look> Tents are lousy prisons, Ralph. If you're just going to kill them by making them "attempt escape" through the tent walls, or fry them in the desert, why not just shoot them? The innocent ones can go straight to Heaven anyway, so it's not like murdering them is actual murder, right?

RHJunior wrote:4) Give the police orders that if they see arson, looting, or property destruction they are to open fire. Back in the 70s that rioting bullcrap came to a screeching halt after Kent State.... see, most whiny hippy brats wanted a revolution, but it really harshed their mellow to figure out the other side might SHOOT BACK WITH REAL BULLETS.

4) Problem is, those "whiny hippy brats" weren't looting or rioting. They were exercising their Constitutional right to freedom of assembly. They were then shot by National Guardsmen at a range of 85 yards. Even then, they wanted to take vengeance... seeing your friends get slaughtered for just standing there tends to make people angry... until Professor Glenn Frank spoke up:

"I don't care if you've never listened to anybody before in your life. I am begging you right now, if you don't disperse right now, they're going to move in. It will only be a slaughter. Please, listen to me. Jesus Christ, I don't want to be part of this. Listen to me."

Doesn't speak volumes for the "shoot, they might be dangerous" school of tactics, huh?

Besides, the insurgents aren't rioting... they're shooting and bombing. Whose side do you want to kill first, Ralph?

RHJunior wrote:5) SLAM THE BORDERS SHUT. Put up razor wire along those porous northern and southern borders. Authorize the border patrol to shoot to kill. Everyone IN this country on a visa, expired or not, from terrorist-supporting countries, gets a one-way plane ticket back home. Illegal immigrants rounded up, shipped by bus to just the other side of the southern border, and kicked to the curb.
If you don't think this is part of total warfare, you aren't thinking too far ahead.

5) Yeah, just think how many immigrants we could've done without in WWII. Einstein and Fermi could've been sent back to face the music in Austria and Italy, respectively.

And, Ralph? If we could maintain a solid border without a Great Wall of China, don't you think we would've done it by now? Or do you think the INS is just kicking back and swigging a cold one each day?

RHJunior wrote:6) A public presidential announcement that any use of nuclear weapons by Iran or any other Islamic state against any American territory or ally, or any terrorist use of said weapons, will result in instant and immediate reprisal. Said state will be FRAGGED. And we will not be wasting billion-dollar pinpoint smart-bombs on them. WE go in, and we do not stop till we have dismantled that country right down to the last brick.

6) Talk about redundant. Why announce what everyone already knows, Ralph? You just got through talking about how certain the world is that we can't lose; have you changed your mind? If any given country uses a nuclear weapon against any other country, they'll get such a (please pardon the language) shitstorm kicked up that it'll make Abu Ghraib look like a tea party with the Queen Mother.

RHJunior wrote:7) Any nation taken by American forces will be treated as post WWII germany was--- divided up and placed under the control of the United States and its allies for no less than 50 years. THEN we'll talk about interim governments.

7) East Germany, anyone? Yeah, giving land to the people we wind up fighting for the next fifty years worked SO well... besides, nobody can afford to prop them up anymore. Even us.

RHJunior wrote:8) POWs get no privileges. I repeat-- POWS GET NO PRIVILEGES. No kid-glove handled Korans, no special meals, no prayer rugs, nothing. They get what we give them and thank whatever they might believe in-- in private-- that we don't treat them like we've seen them treat their own prisoners in the name of Allah. I'm in no way obligated to facilitate their religious practices <I>when their religion is what tells them to wage jihad and slaughter innocent men, women and children in the first place.</i>

8) Still planning to assassinate Muhammad Ali, I see. (Remember to get his daughter, too. She could be dangerous.) Ralph, does it ever strike you that people who blow up mosques aren't terribly religious?

In any event, remember what all your loyal readers pointed out to you before: You don't use the Geneva Conventions, you lose them. How would you like our American POWs treated, Ralph? Boiled or fried?

RHJunior wrote:9)Profiling. We are at war with Islam, so when we look for terrorists on board our planes and boats we-- duh--- look at the ones bowing to Mecca first. Any pussy whining from the ACLU shall be grounds for a shoeleather suppository.

9) Good call! Hey, it isn't like we're allied with Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Syria, or any other Muslim countries, right? I'm sure their ambassador won't mind being forcibly cavity-searched just for carrying a prayer rug...

RH, I think your testosterone is clouding your brain back there... not every Muslim is against America, not every Muslim is a bomber, and not every Muslim follows Osama bin Laden. Just like not all Christians are like Reverend Phelps, who's against the United States Army for including homosexuals in its ranks. Do you get the point, or did it fly over your head again?

RHJunior wrote:10)Military tribunals, NOT civil trials, for terrorists.... followed by swift public executions.

10) Public executions were discontinued for a reason, Ralph... the public gets enough rocks off with American Gladiators. They don't really need a public execution. (Muslim radicals, however, would love one; it means we're just like them, after all.)

Yours truly,

The exasperated,

Wanderer

RHJunior wrote:

SirBob wrote:Glib words. How do we enact such a resolution without just exterminating everyone with dusky skin, tho'? .

Interesting. Once again we see the switch flipped that makes certain people equate "effective warfare" with "genocide."

I find it equally interesting that your initial post advocates preemptive nuclear action, but your response to my query entirely fails to mention it. I'll ask you again: who, exactly, do you think we should be nuking here?

I agree with about half of what RH had to say.

The fact is that this is very much a matter of "winning hearts and minds" (which, contrary to popular opinion, was working very well in Vietnam until Westmoreland was appointed and he dismantled the program in order to put more Marines on the front line).

We have made a start in that direction ala Afghanistan and Iraq, by removing from power those people who encourage religious extremism (Taliban) and those who consider their neighbors viable targets for imperial dreams (Ba'athists). Now we have governments in place who actually give human rights serious consideration.

The true key in all of this is EDUCATION. Kids will grow up in Afghanistan and Iraq being taught how to coexist, how to get along with each other. "Death to the infidels" and "My Life for Saddam" are slogans they will be raised to mock. A wedge has been driven between the forces of propaganda and theo-political indoctrination.

But bear that in mind: the process takes at least one generation. The current generation may be swayed to some extent, but it will not be until Islam once again teaches its children to be sages rather than martyrs that this war will truly end.

Calbeck wrote:But bear that in mind: the process takes at least one generation. The current generation may be swayed to some extent, but it will not be until Islam once again teaches its children to be sages rather than martyrs that this war will truly end.

Sadly, Mr. Hayes has expressed in the past that he believes Islam to be intrinsically violent and hateful religion, and that the only long-term solution is to stamp out its practice entirely.

SirBob wrote:Sadly, Mr. Hayes has expressed in the past that he believes Islam to be intrinsically violent and hateful religion

The way it's currently being taught by a great many imams, ayatollahs, etcetera, it is...for the same exact reasons that once upon a time we had bishops and archbishops and popes declaring how right and just it was to slay "the infidel".

The difference, as a friend of mine and I were discussing last night, is that Christianity went through a Hundred Year War which, when you boil the BS out of it, was nothing less than Catholicism and Protestantism mustering the nations they controlled and trying to wipe each other out. Little progress was ever made in that regard, but it still took a century of bitter, atrocity-laden warfare before Christianity as a whole realized that the idea simply wasn't going to work. Catholics and Protestants have continued to have their differences and low-level wars (and bouts of terrorism), but on the whole they learned to co-exist.

Subsequently, Christians learned that co-existing with other religions wasn't much harder than co-existing with each other. And so the West has learned, through bloody lessons, Religious Freedom.

Not so in the world of Islam. There is a division between Shia and Sunni, but it has never risen to the point of a war which ran all sides to mutual economic exhaustion. To the contrary, the history of war in Islamic realms remains highly romanticised and, to a larger extent than in the West, mythologized. When Muslims say they think of the West in terms of the "Crusader", they literally mean it --- they find it hard to believe that the motives of the West in the 21st Century are substantially different from those of the 12th Century.

And this, itself, is in large part because Islamic justifications for war have not themselves changed in all that time. One of the primary justifications espoused for any war, in the eyes of the Muslim, is to advance Islam itself, by point of the sword if need be. Likewise, it is believed that when mainly-Christian or mainly-Jewish nations wage war with Islamic nations, it is for the purpose of imposing Christianity or Judaism upon the populace, no matter what other reasons may be given.

In short, modern-day Islam remains sociopolitically mired in the 14th Century, especially because of the lack of separation of church and state.

Calbeck wrote:

SirBob wrote:Sadly, Mr. Hayes has expressed in the past that he believes Islam to be intrinsically violent and hateful religion

The way it's currently being taught by a great many imams, ayatollahs, etcetera, it is...for the same exact reasons that once upon a time we had bishops and archbishops and popes declaring how right and just it was to slay "the infidel".

You mistake my meaning. I merely mean to point out that your assertion that the problem can be remedied through education and reform isn't going to go over very well here; the prevailing opinion - and one that appears to be shared by our gracious host - is that the only way to "fix" Islam is to get rid of it entirely.

I don't really read him that way, but even if I did, well, maybe he'll change his mind.

Stranger things have happened. -:D

Calbeck wrote:In short, modern-day Islam remains sociopolitically mired in the 14th Century, especially because of the lack of separation of church and state.

I don't know if it's really mired there per se, or if it just happens to be there now. Islam is pretty much 600 years behind Christianity in its development, and Christians were still celebrating the Crusades not 50 years ago. Populations don't change overnight.

Calbeck wrote:

SirBob wrote:Sadly, Mr. Hayes has expressed in the past that he believes Islam to be intrinsically violent and hateful religion

The way it's currently being taught by a great many imams, ayatollahs, etcetera, it is...for the same exact reasons that once upon a time we had bishops and archbishops and popes declaring how right and just it was to slay "the infidel".

The difference, as a friend of mine and I were discussing last night, is that Christianity went through a Hundred Year War which, when you boil the BS out of it, was nothing less than Catholicism and Protestantism mustering the nations they controlled and trying to wipe each other out. Little progress was ever made in that regard, but it still took a century of bitter, atrocity-laden warfare before Christianity as a whole realized that the idea simply wasn't going to work. Catholics and Protestants have continued to have their differences and low-level wars (and bouts of terrorism), but on the whole they learned to co-exist.

Subsequently, Christians learned that co-existing with other religions wasn't much harder than co-existing with each other. And so the West has learned, through bloody lessons, Religious Freedom.

Not so in the world of Islam. There is a division between Shia and Sunni, but it has never risen to the point of a war which ran all sides to mutual economic exhaustion. To the contrary, the history of war in Islamic realms remains highly romanticised and, to a larger extent than in the West, mythologized. When Muslims say they think of the West in terms of the "Crusader", they literally mean it --- they find it hard to believe that the motives of the West in the 21st Century are substantially different from those of the 12th Century.

And this, itself, is in large part because Islamic justifications for war have not themselves changed in all that time. One of the primary justifications espoused for any war, in the eyes of the Muslim, is to advance Islam itself, by point of the sword if need be. Likewise, it is believed that when mainly-Christian or mainly-Jewish nations wage war with Islamic nations, it is for the purpose of imposing Christianity or Judaism upon the populace, no matter what other reasons may be given.

In short, modern-day Islam remains sociopolitically mired in the 14th Century, especially because of the lack of separation of church and state.

I'm not sure that I buy this. The West survived at all because the Ottoman and Persian empires could not get along and bled each other to the point that a remnant of Christendom survived the weakened Islamic onslaught. I think that the seed of church/state separation was not th 100 years war but Jesus himself when he told the people to pay taxes "render unto Caesar" instead of rebelling.

For those who don't think Islam is inherently a violent and destructive cult....

Look up the word JIZYA.

Followed by DHIMMI.


Long long way from "love thy neighbor," isn't it.