Depending on how you define "armed conflict", anywhere from 89-95% of all armed conflict in the world today is rooted in Islamic idealogy. Whats the saturation point? In other words, at what point do we get a mainstream counter-revolution or reaction around the world or can there never be such a point in the non-islamic democratic communities?
134419
Dear, thanx for this question, me , as Muslim, i would like to tell u that , the problem is due to stop of peace process in the middle east, USA full support to Israel without taking in consideration the facts ,situations, other people point of view and there feelings, \nwe can add, poverty, unemployment rate is up, no democracy,no communication between the west the the rest of the world, westrn countries give only advice but not real help
590206
First of all, I cannot believe that anyone told you there would be no more killings.  That's totally unrealistic and irresponsible.  But then, yours is a contrived question anyway, right?  I've seen your "questions" before; they are all thinly-veiled rhetoric.\n\nSo, to answer your question, this "war supporter" did not lie to you.  Your question, like all others, is just a contrivance.\n\nLook, everything in the political realm can be viewed in terms of how people relate to one another on an individual basis.  Some countries are governed like a marriage.  Some are governed like a father and son.  Others are tyrannically ruled by the weird, old eccentric uncle who is the matriarch of the family.\n\nIraq is an infant democracy.  Just like babies scream and have temper tantrums because they don't know how to express themselves yet to get attention, this infant democracy is bound to behave badly and lash out blindly because it doesn't quite understand how a civil society works yet.  They're learning.  Give them time.\n\nP.S.  If you truly are a war vet, you must have some REAL questions you could pose.  Why not give us the benefit of your experience?  Certainly, you must have first hand knowledge most of us do not.
409637
The nature of revolution is violence.  In the history of the world, there has never been a non-violent revolution.  Even Ghandi, the great pacifist did not believe that one could acheive revolution without violence.  Ghandi believed in non-violent resistance.  Ghandi expected that resistors would have to endure periods of great violence against them in order to achieve revolution.  So, I don't believe that revolution can be achieved without violence.\n\nNow, to your question.  As some have mentioned here, revolution is the means empolyed to replace a government, or institution that currently holds power.  Most of the reasons we revolt is because of governmental corruption or ineffectivity.  I believe that when the government fully abdons the tenants of US Constitution, and begin to trample on our Universal Human Rights, revolution would be necessary in order to restore a government, of, by and for the people. However, I don't believe that will be something that would ever happen in our lifetime.  To this point, the US government and our current way of life is comfortable for most.  There is no over-arching issue that all citizens are passionate enough about to go to war over.\n\nWhile I don't think there is a real possibility of another revolutionary war in our lifetime, I do believe that we are growing closer to a civil war, in which race will be the catalyst.  The continued unfettered flow of Mexicans across the borders into the US will result in a negative economic impact on US citizens.  I don't believe that you will see organized military involvement, but it will look more like gang/militia warfare on the streets of the US.
82416
Perfect question !\n\nI do not believe that forcing would bring a better treatment of understanding of the issues... Exposing the absurdity of it and containment would be the best approach.\n\nI just saw a chest box... On one side it had the leaders of the West, Bush, CHirac, Sharon and Kofi Annan, on the other side, Arafat, Chinese leader, Putin and another arab leader...  It is clear to me that the UN is perceived as the ennomy for most Islamic states and for a majority of Muslims, they see it and understand it as a puppet of their Ennemi to control them...\n\nThe UN is the grounds from which to level these types of religious idioties. It is blatantly against all the principles the UN was built upon.. and specifically against de declaration of Human Rights... So much so that Islamic Countires now define an `Islamic human rights`charter, what does that say, what does that mean ?\n\nYou take the Red Cross, which symbolises the Neutrality of Swizerland who intiated the movement with no religious affiliations... they start the Red Crossant... Every thing is put in light of the Islamic ideology instead of Humanity...\n\nThe pressure must come from the UN through Countries such as India, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia (I doubt they would), Libanon, Turkey... countries who need to persue their accountability on aligning their intention with these basics human rights...\n\nAustralia almost pulled back their troops from there... I beleive that the pressure is happening simply because of the incestual relationship of Afhany governemnt right now with the foreign troops... The pressure needs to come from organizations, foreign Aids... It must also come from better informed MEdia such as declaring with no SOLID basis that Islam is the fastest growing religion... These census don`t take into account these Apostasy laws, the silence of those who leave Islam even in the West where many (that I know personnally) must stay silent about it in order to protect their loved ones abroad or even to protect their family locally from communal harrasement based on dishonors... \n\nIn any case, this is a clear exemple that should demonstrate that Islam is not at all a growing religion if it needs to put down and KILL competition... It shows it`s blatant lack of Self Esteem as a faith when these demonstration of absurdity are exposed... \n\nThink of what occured that was Islamically influenced that demonstrate lack of religious maturity and insecurity:\n\nCartoons\nEuropean Riots of last summer\nAustralian Riots\nThe continous terrorist attacks from Muslims against Muslims\nThe Darfour Genocide\nThe convetions to `prove`that the holocaust did not exist\nDenials of Armanian Genocide\nElections of violent or racist parties into governemtn in many Islamic countries when they can cast a vote.\n\nThese are a portrait of the situation... I am not saying that the West, China or India have clean slates and don`t make foolish and very condamnable acts... what I am saying is that there is a culture within the Muslim mainstream community that denies REALITY... And i did not say denies the Truth because that can be twisted... I mean denies REALITY.\n\nIn this case even in the USA, CAIR the Muslim Rights Lobbyist group took a few days to make a statement... Why ? Because they needed to validate with Muslim clerics what to say and what they can stand for... INSANE !!! There is no need to ask any advice from anyone on such blatant case of Tribal backwardness (Supported by so called educated advanced civilized autorities...)
10361
I am very pleased my previous post sparked such thought. The first of your two questions was " whether or not terrorists are primitive". I am not sure how to answer that except that OBL is probably living in a cave somewhere near the border of Afganastan and Pakistan and is offering a truths with the United States of America. (Someone isn't so sure they will get their 40 virgins.) Your second question "is being primitive bad?" No not if your fundimental beliefs are not centered around killing the innocent. I have no problem with primitave cultures. In fact I appreciate the fact that primative cultures have not disolved in our modern world.\nYou asked more than 2 questions. You went on to ask if it makes them any dumber and several other things I will try to address but it is getting late for me.\nOkay look, I have no problem with Muslims or any other specific ethnic or religous peoples. The original question was "Is war bad?" I answered quick to get my 2 points and move on, because I did not feel the asker had put much serious thought into it. War is bad. War is evil, vile, and discusting to anybody with half a brain, primative or not. However there are times when wars must be fought, and as long as there are people out there in the world that seek to cause the loss of life on our soil then we will fight them. We will start and finish them. We will destroy those who seek to destroy us. Peace through superior firepower is a sad way of puting it, I know. However the best defense is a strong offence. You do not have to agree with me but please believe me I say these things with conviction. I wish the world was a peacefull place. I would feel alot better about the saftey of my children. However the world is not peacefull, far from it. There are people who wish to destroy us and our way of life so bad they are willing to die for it. Well I for one am willing to die to defend it.
459419
That is a cold view of life and human spirituality.  \n\nWould it not be better to create an environment where the necessity for religious war, and war in general, was no longer needed?  This certainly is a Utopian thought and construct but I do think we should strive for that unreachable bar.  It is in the act of "doing" that we truly express our basic humanity.
24575
Everybody has his right to express opinion. There are critics who say A, there are others who say B. I personally think war is wrong, terror is wrong. War brings more terror. Terror brings more war. Please focus on trying to end both war and terror, blaming one another as the source of problems won't do any good.
111337
Well the Issue in Afghanistan is Islam. Islam is an intolerant religion with intolerant hateful followers. Their way or no way.
587735
I couldn't answer in details as I don't know the specifics of the situation... but just generally as I see it, almost everything on earth goes through some kind of cycle.\n\nBut you're right it's one thing that is BLOODY ridiculous!\n\nThough everyone is entitled to his own cause, whether for religion or politics, we must think of the common good for everyone.  And if ever, we would cling to the words of the Bible that we're created in the image and likeness of God, we must NOT be hurting others, much as we wouldn't like to be hurt.  More so that people should not be killing people, because we are all the same in this world all having the rights for life, for love, for everything we're entitled.\n\nAnd even if we don't believe in God nor in any religion, may we just ask ourselves, "Do we really like what is happening, such as these wars for eons...?" -- and if the answer is NO, and I think it's just COMMON SENSE that we should stop doing such.\n\nBut even if unknowingly, we have been molded by the "structural system" in our society, that we must be like what we believe is right for us... when when see the killings and damages to life and properties, is not enough to say that IT'S ENOUGH!  \n\nIn simple Philosophy we are not ordinary animals... we have FREE WILL and MIND to think what to choose what to do or not to do.
16418
Yes. Ours. In Iraq over 30,000 civilians have been killed. It is not known how many were "terrorist", it is known that none were Bin Laden. He is in Afghanistan not Iraq, Ooooooops, wrong Country.\nBTW, the UN says it was more like 500,000 civilians since Desert Storm when Iraq surrendered.\nWhat religions would Invade a defenseless Country, that had already surrendered?
418856
I guess the concept of self defense can be expressed with one sentence. So I am not sure why the Quran needs to ramble on about war and violence ad naseum? Maybe its not about self defense.
111913
Religion and politics have had a spill over effect with regards to each other, to a large extent in Pakistan. Religious 'Islamic' parties have furthered their political agenda on the basis of religion as a unifying and vote-gaining factor. This is where in my opinion most of the problems have erupted. Religion, be it any, does not advocate unwarranted violence. \nWhile in the case of Pakistan, political protest has more than often taken a violent turn, and since the religiohs parties are inviolved at times, it has been associated with the religion being violent. \nReligious ppl here in pakistan, the educated kind, are not at all violent. They are regular ppl that you would encounter on the street. They might have a beard, but that does not mean that they are trigger happy ,or weild a sword at every non-muslim. \nThe violence emerges out of political unrest, and soem reliogious political leaders, who claim themsevles to be the vanguards of the faith, utilise it to garner votes. So its important to seperate any understanding of religious people and those who use religion to further political gains.
30328
I disagree with your premise that war has been the only means.  There has been many, many disagreements that have been worked out and resulted in treaties.\n \nTo me, it seems the world has been moving closer and closer to peace over time, until we (U.S.) were attacked.  That brought a realization that there is a different type of enemy lurking.  \n\nI wouldn't demonize you for wanting peace.  I would demonize you for not recognizing that war can be necessary from time to time, and that war now could bring about peace later.
528504
I dont know where you got your data, but I will answer on the part of ramifications..\n\n\nSomeday soon, you might wake up to the call to prayer from a muezzin. Europeans already are. \n\nAnd liberals will still tell you that "diversity is our strength"—while Talibanic enforcers cruise Greenwich Village burning books and barber shops, the Supreme Court decides sharia law doesn’t violate the "separation of church and state," and the Hollywood Left decides to give up on gay rights in favor of the much safer charms of polygamy. \n\nIf you think this can’t happen, you haven’t been paying attention to demographics. All one has to do is watch and see what is going on in Europe, & Australia and much of the pacific rim. A radical Islam wave is changing the way the rest of those populations conduct law, and the freedoms they would otherwise enjoy.\n\nThe future, belongs to the fecund and the confident. And the Islamists are both, while the West—wedded to a multiculturalism that undercuts its own confidence, a welfare state that nudges it toward sloth and self-indulgence, and a childlessness that consigns it to oblivion—is looking ever more like the ruins of a civilization. \n\nIn the ongoing conflict between the West and Islam, both the demographics and the will to power favor the Islamists. That a country like Spain for example, with a birth rate of 1.15 children per adult women, will extinguish itself in a few generations, while immigrants from countries such as Pakistan (birth rate 4.53) will move in to fill the vacuum. \n\nToday an aggressive, unassimilated minority edges closer to a majority (as in France, with an estimated 30% Muslim population in the under 20 age group), the character of the democratic institutions will become more closely aligned with Islamic law and culture.
649592
When you boil it down aren't all wars an inability of one or both sides to see the other's point of view?  All wars are fought over ideas.  I think that wars will always been fought, there will always be people who will not abide by what is right.
528658
I don't follow Aljazeera links as it seems too closely linked with terrorism.  Their reporting seems biased at best for extreme Islamic radical movements.\n\nFreedom is not war, but peace.  The true submission is not to an external force but to the internal nature, even to our God.  Death and pain does not refine us or free us, but instead life and productive sacrifice (work).\n\nNo rational or moral argument can follow the use of force, which is only fit in resistance to force.  Anger and revenge are incompatible with the peace and freedom for which religion strives.  All who preach such enmity in the name of God (who Muslims call Allah) speak falsely and offend God, the Father of all peoples, by dividing His children against each other.\n\nThose who claim freedom can fight only those who initiate the use of force, which includes terrorism.  No freedom fighter can kill an unarmed person, without certainty that this person intends to take up arms against him.  Terrorists cowardly fight freedom by targeting civilians and hide their guilt behind their own deaths by suicide.
636378
Where were you in the '90's? That was all tried.\n\nSometimes war is the only way to stop an irrational use of force, defeat being necessary to remove the desire to continue a course of action.\n\nIf there were a better way why can't we find it?