I don't think so.

Post #14,602 by addison 10/22/01 1:56:37 PM Reply	I don't think so. I don't think there are any Muslim's "on the fence". The Muslims in dicatorships, such as Egypt, get anti-american media daily. They're not on the fence... Even if we did, it would be seen as a act of weakness. We do not need to allow them to dictate the battles. If we need to strike, we strike. Not striking gains us little, if anything. Not for the terrorists that we're attacking, but for the Muslims that are still on the fence about whether this is a war on terrorists or on Muslims. Terrorists. Which is why we're attacking them every day of the week, no matter who thinks its Holy. :) We're being way too sensitive to those "fence sitters" - it didn't really gain us anything in the Gulf War, other than not being able to finish Saddam off. Addison
Post #14,608 by marlowe 10/22/01 2:15:06 PM Reply	But what of sensitivity toward Islam itself? Everyone's saying the Koran is against bin Laden. This makes me leery of blaming all this on Islam per se. I'll gladly blame it on Islam as it currently understood, but that's an entirely different proposition. I'm willing to go a lot farther than a lot of people in uprooting a toxic way of life and thought. But I don't want to detroy an entire ethical-monotheistic religion. There's a tension between the ideal of religious freedom and the necessity of our own safety. This means we have to draw the line somewhere. I think it's reasonable to allow a form of Islam to survive. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #14,619 by Silverlock 10/22/01 2:44:46 PM Reply	Ah, the tolerance of the man. How good of you -quote I think it's reasonable to allow a form of Islam to survive. -endquote So, which form will you allow to survive. And how do you propose to destroy the other forms? Don Richards, Proud recipient of the ABBA.
Post #14,630 by hnick 10/22/01 3:28:13 PM Reply	Missing the point The war is NOT against Islam. The war is against a pack of criminals, who merely use Islam as a rallying cry. Nobody (sane) is preaching genocide against the Islamic world. In any event, there is no prohibition agains fighting during Ramadan (but only the misguided, misunderstood fanatics, of course.)If they want sensitivity, they should probably get out of the jihad business, or risk getting shot in the stomach during fasting hours. my .02, Hugh
Post #14,706 by addison 10/22/01 11:01:07 PM Reply	Other ways to look at it.. So there's a murderer and rapist on the run. He claims to be Islamic. Do you want the police to cease chasing him because its now Ramadan, and to arrest him would be to violate his religious beliefs? One of the downsides of starting a war (or joining it, or whatever you want to say) is that you don't get to choose when the other side will respond. Further, backing off because of an Islamic holiday furthers their claim that its an attack on Islam - why else would we be stopping if we weren't "recognizing" that its Islam we're fighting? If our "allies" want to stop and pray, more power to 'em. We're after criminals who have declared war. And war is hell. Addison
Post #14,752 by marlowe 10/23/01 9:11:39 AM Reply	I'm presuming that we can keep an eye on the situation... and make sure he doens't escape in the meantime. If that turns out not to be the case, I'll modify my position accordingly. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #14,779 by addison 10/23/01 11:23:08 AM Reply	Problem is... But the main problem is if he does do something, then you're still in the same boat you would have been ANYWAY. Halting any planned attacks plays into his hands, and quite frankly, I don't see any real benefit to it. He picked the time, he knew Ramadan was coming up. That's not our problem. If he wants to propose a truce during that time, then you've got a point. If he proposes one, and we turn it down, that would be bad. But to unilaterally stop action? Bad move. Addison
Post #14,847 by Ashton 10/23/01 7:54:08 PM Reply	I can't parse it any better than that either. Dubya has surprised many, in going along with the better informed. And while I question the track record of several of his dad's cronies - in their statements and actions then.. There is at least the appearance of nascent tact. No point in second guessing from our ignorance of lots of sub-rosa machinations I am sure we are not privy to. I'll extend a conditional faith in Mr. Powell.. Ashton
Post #14,626 by Steven A S 10/22/01 3:16:24 PM Reply	I see the fence sitters as Those Islamic countries that have so far given us their support. Most of them have their own reasons for backing us instead of ObL, and would require very little push to switch sides. They very much expect us to attack them during that time. They are hoping for it, and they will not hesitate to use it against us. We cannot let the lines blur between their actions and ours. Of course this is just my opinion, and does not necissarily represent the opinions of our leaders who are making the real decisions. ~~~)-Steven---- "I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country..." General George S. Patton

Welcome to IWETHEY!