How to stop Jihad

[Lumberjack77]

Sorry if this is a repost!

This is a portion of an article taken from here. (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/islamsweakness.shtml) I first found out about this in my American Diplomacy class last Spring, figured it was bunk, and decided to research it a little bit. Pork is forbidden in Islam, so is the consumption of any blood. In fact, when an animal is slaughtered by a a devout Muslim, they cut the jugular vein only, so that the animal dies from massive blood loss instead of damage to any vital organs. Anyways, here's the part of the article I liked.... This would work if we weren't so concerned about the human rights of the Islamic terrorist scumbags......





Taking a cue from the colonel in the Palawan Island, who successfully quelled the Islamic insurrection there, General Hansen decided to also use this opportunity to set Islam against Islam. He devised a plan to put an end to this Islamic insurrection in Mindanao Island. In the wee hours of the morning, he had the 7 Islamic terrorists to dig their own graves. The eighth terrorist was handcuffed and made to watch the American execution process. The 7 Islamic terrorists were then tied to 7 posts, but without blindfolds, so that they too could see the proceedings of their own execution. Years of Islamic nurturing, taught the Muslims that, if a pig contaminated their bodies, they would go direct to the fires of hell permanently; instead of as martyrs to paradise to enjoy sex exclusively with 72 fair virgin maidens forever. The soldiers then slaughtered a live Pig in front of them. The terrorists’ clothes and body were smeared with the pig's blood and fat. The pig was cut into 7 portions and placed in each grave. On witnessing all this, the terrorists’ eyes almost popped out, and it terrified the terrorists. Some even urinated out of shear terror and all went blue/black shouting and screaming for Allah to save them but in vain. The terrorists were petrified of such a death and burial, and were left to beg, cry, bawl, plead, and scream their souls out, all day.

At sundown, the 7 terrorists were shot and their bodies were placed in each grave, together with the chunk of pork. The eighth Islamic Terrorist was ordered to fill up the 7 graves and subsequently set free. This 8th terrorist fled for his life and the news spread like wildfire, and immediately all Muslims became aware of the unique but very UN-Islamic ‘American system of execution’, and just the thought alone, terrorized all the Muslims into a fit of total terror. The Islamic Jihad vanished almost instantaneously.

Thereafter, a sudden peace prevailed in every part of the Philippines, not a bullet was fired, thousands of lives of innocent men, women and children, and property were saved, and the Islamic Jihad was never heard of, till well after the Philippine independence, more than 50 years later.

(To my surprise, every Filipino I interviewed, seemed to know of these historical episodes. Some said it is true, others said it could be exaggerated, but no one denied the episodes ever took place. Local historians say, there is no other credible event around 1911 to have terrorized the Muslims to suddenly drop their barbaric Islamic insurrection, and believe this to be accurate and true. The Filipinos also sadly told me, “the Philippine Catholic Church has decreed against these methods, as it contravenes the Lord's teachings; evangelizing is being applied instead, but conversions are not fast enough to stem this Islamic savagery today”).

[ben kenobi]

If any of our leaders had read and understood Huntington . . .
If any of our leaders understood the historical context of the word 'Jihad' . . .

There are bigger things at issue here.

[Lumberjack77]

If any of our leaders had read and understood Huntington . . .
If any of our leaders understood the historical context of the word 'Jihad' . . .

There are bigger things at issue here.

What about Huntington? He has said that wars are no longer fought between tangible states, but between civilizations, hence the Clash of Civilizations, such as West v. Islam, Buddhism v. Taoism, etc etc. Using that premise, this method would makes sense, because it fights Islam directly, not an actual state.

I'm sure PLENTY of our leaders have read and understood Huntington, that's why they are our leaders and we're not. If there are bigger things at issue here, please elaborate instead of spouting rhetoric. Apparently the Islamic militants have taken the word 'Jihad' and twisted it to mean the slaughter of American contractors, instead of "the struggle," which does not necessarily entail war or violence. If the militants had used the word 'Jihad' in its historical context, we wouldn't have the threat of beheadings every week.

[ben kenobi]

What about Huntington? He has said that wars are no longer fought between tangible states, but between civilizations, hence the Clash of Civilizations, such as West v. Islam, Buddhism v. Taoism, etc etc. Using that premise, this method would makes sense, because it fights Islam directly, not an actual state.
Again, this does not entail my understanding of Huntington's thesis. True, the Clash now consists of one between Civilizations instead of traditional States. However, the understanding of the opposing civilization comprises a larger part of the issue. We do not understand the civilations that we attempt to conquer and change, and then we do not understand why they resist.

I'm sure PLENTY of our leaders have read and understood Huntington, that's why they are our leaders and we're not. If there are bigger things at issue here, please elaborate instead of spouting rhetoric. Apparently the Islamic militants have taken the word 'Jihad' and twisted it to mean the slaughter of American contractors, instead of "the struggle," which does not necessarily entail war or violence. If the militants had used the word 'Jihad' in its historical context, we wouldn't have the threat of beheadings every week.
They may have read, but it remains to be seen if they have understood his thesis.

As far as the historical context of the word 'Jihad' . . . while its classic definition entails "the struggle", it seems worth mentioning that historically, it can only be 'called' to reclaim stolen land. Which would be the reason the attacks on 9/11 cannot be viewed in this light, while the resistance to occupation can.

[Lumberjack77]

Again, this does not entail my understanding of Huntington's thesis. True, the Clash now consists of one between Civilizations instead of traditional States. However, the understanding of the opposing civilization comprises a larger part of the issue. We do not understand the civilations that we attempt to conquer and change, and then we do not understand why they resist.


They may have read, but it remains to be seen if they have understood his thesis.

As far as the historical context of the word 'Jihad' . . . while its classic definition entails "the struggle", it seems worth mentioning that historically, it can only be 'called' to reclaim stolen land. Which would be the reason the attacks on 9/11 cannot be viewed in this light, while the resistance to occupation can.

I believe that we do understand the other civilization, but our morality limits us from taking the appropriate action against them. The pig's blood strategy would never fly now, but it seemed to have worked during the Philippine Insurrection, which is very similar to this war. Even I understand why they resist, because they hate the West and the "frills" (for lack of a better term) of our way of life. They want to see all Western societies eliminated.

Like I said, the people in charge are there for a reason. If I have read and understood Huntington in an undergrad International Politics class, I bet that the people in our government have done the same.

You're telling me that 9/11 CANNOT be viewed as Jihad when the terrorists themselves claim the attack was part of Jihad against the West? How much sense does that make? No stolen land was involved? Hello, Israel!!! You should know that the militants hate Israel because Israel has basically beat down every Arab coalition ever assembled since the state was established. Israel has what the Arabs have always wanted, a nation of their own. How does Israel win all these wars? They are united, and they have lots of help from The United States. If that's not motivation for Jihad, I don't know what is.

[ben kenobi]

You're telling me that 9/11 CANNOT be viewed as Jihad when the terrorists themselves claim the attack was part of Jihad against the West? How much sense does that make? No stolen land was involved? Hello, Israel!!! You should know that the militants hate Israel because Israel has basically beat down every Arab coalition ever assembled since the state was established. Israel has what the Arabs have always wanted, a nation of their own. How does Israel win all these wars? They are united, and they have lots of help from The United States. If that's not motivation for Jihad, I don't know what is.
I am suggesting that the 9/11 terror attacks are not consistent with the historical context of Jihad. That those that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks are incorrectly calling it a Jihad.

[ben kenobi]

Like I said, the people in charge are there for a reason. If I have read and understood Huntington in an undergrad International Politics class, I bet that the people in our government have done the same.
But you suggested that Huntington's thesis meant that wars are "no longer fought between tangible states, but between civilizations, hence the Clash of Civilizations, such as West v. Islam, Buddhism v. Taoism, etc etc."

You continued with "Using that premise, this method would makes sense, because it fights Islam directly, not an actual state."

Huntington's central thesis seems to have been that to acheive world peace, understanding the nation state is no longer enough, that we must also understand the root civilization that spawned the nation state.

It says nothing about we must now make war between civilizations instead of nation states.

What did you get out of his last chapter? The Clash of Civilizations stands as a blueprint for acheiving world peace, not an endorsement for perpetual war.

[Lumberjack77]

See, I don't take it that way. It's unrealistic to think that there will ever be world peace. I read Clash as a warning of sorts, that the world needs to wake up and realize that wars will not be fought amongst tangible states anymore. There will always be war. I don't think Huntington really believes his theories will actually lead to world peace; he must know that war is inevitable. Maybe I am an extreme pessismist, but I do not believe that the West can peacefully coexist with Islam, because they will always want us totally destroyed and this will never change.

These few paragraphs from Huntington support both of our positions, and I think the entire piece is open to interpretation.


This is not to advocate the desirability of conflicts between civilizations. It is to set forth descriptive hypotheses as to what the future may be like. If these are plausible hypotheses, however, it is necessary to consider their implications for Western policy. These implications should be divided between short-term advantage and long- term accommodation. In the short term it is clearly in the interest of the West to promote greater cooperation and unity within its own civilization, particularly between its European and North American components; to incorporate into the West societies in Eastern Europe and Latin America whose cultures are close to those of the West; to promote and maintain cooperative relations with Russia and Japan; to prevent escalation of local inter-civilization conflicts into major inter-civilization wars; to limit the expansion of the military strength of Confucian and Islamic states; to moderate the reduction of Western military capabilities and maintain military superiority in East and Southwest Asia; to exploit differences and conflicts among Confucian and Islamic states; to support in other civilizations groups sympathetic to Western values and interests; to strengthen international institutions that reflect and legitimate Western interests and values and to promote the involvement of non-Western states in those institutions.

In the longer term other measures would be called for. Western civilization is both Western and modern. Non-Western civilizations have attempted to become modern without becoming Western. To date only Japan has fully succeeded in this quest. Non-Western civilizations will continue to attempt to acquire the wealth, technology, skills, machines and weapons that are part of being modern. They will also attempt to reconcile this modernity with their traditional culture and values. Their economic and military strength relative to the West will increase. Hence the West will increasingly have to accommodate these non-Western modern civilizations whose power approaches that of the West but whose values and interests differ significantly from those of the West. This will require the West to maintain the economic and military power necessary to protect its interests in relation to these civilizations. It will also, however, require the West to develop a more profound understanding of the basic religious and philosophical assumptions underlying other civilizations and the ways in which people in those civilizations see their interests. It will require an effort to identify elements of commonality between Western and other civilizations. For the relevant future, there will be no universal civilization, but instead a world of different civilizations, each of which will have to learn to coexist with the others.

[ben kenobi]

These few paragraphs from Huntington support both of our positions, and I think the entire piece is open to interpretation.
I agree that it remains largely a matter of interpretation. Perhaps my eternal optimism that influences mine. As I have said before, two people, with different past experiences can be presented the same set of facts [or in this case, thesis] and come to two entirely different conclusions.

For the record, and in case you do not know, I do not endorse Kerry or Bush. I support sustainability & individuation on a global scale. I feel that understand these different civilizations holds the key to coexisting. Unless we are talking about "The West" completely annihilating an opposing world view [which sounds similar to the 'other side'], then we will be forced to coexist. The sooner we realize that, the better, in my opinion.

As far as "there will always be war", I agree that there will always be differences and clashes, but not that we must always resort to violence to resolve such situations.

[BP]

I thought it was Blackjack Pershing that did that stunt, maybe they both did.

[ben kenobi]

I thought it was Blackjack Pershing that did that stunt, maybe they both did.
Just like the quote . . .

"Some people are born on third base and think they hit a triple."

. . . it gets attributed to many different people. I too have seen that stunt attributed to Pershing as well as a few others.

[BP]

Snopes says it's all probably BS but they can't prove it either way.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.htm

[exlude]

I have heard that story with several different names substituted...and slight variations in method.

[BP]

There are a few flaws even in the snopes version. Pershing was never a Colonel, he went straight from US Army captain to a 1 star General.