@Chosen Daughter @Smokin Joe @Hoodat @Mesaclone
I would be interested to know how you all stand on the issue of islam.
Personally, I think it needs to be wiped from the face of the earth in its entirety.
I would love to see Islam eliminated as a threat to Western Civilization.
But in presenting the issue as one of 'convert (abandon Islam) or die', some will argue we become no better than they in that regard.
Let's look at what we (should) know about Islam, as a system of conquest (it isn't
just a religion, because it does not just seek to accumulate believers, but to eliminate those who are not, ultimately for the purpose of achieving "peace" through world domination, through the elimination or total subjugation of all others.)
There can be no changes in Islam. To change any syllable of the Koran is punishable by death. Thus translations are not the Koran, but an approximation (Otherwise, the translator should be hunted down, simply because as with any translation some things just do not translate well.) So, don't expect a 'Mecca II conference' to come out with some softer, gentler version.
If there was a single organism on Earth devoted to the elimination of Humans, to the extent it would gladly die in order to attempt to kill us, we'd brush aside the environmentalists and do all in our power to eradicate it.
But here, we are not dealing with an organism, but a philosophy, a raison d'etre, a worldview, a religion, a framework of government, a culture, an entire way of life. To eliminate it would go beyond genocide, for every remnant that might lead to a resurgence would have to be carefully ferreted out and destroyed. To leave no stone standing upon another.
That's some pretty heavy stuff, and a resolve not seen since the Romans sacked Carthage.
Not that much of the world hasn't mobilized against a threat before, twice in the last century, this was done. But even now, those philosophies remain, are noted in history, real remnants of the past, relics of that threat (and a great many fakes and reproductions) not only exist, but are actively traded by a range of people who vary in motive from historical interest to fanatic belief.
But to eliminate a culture would involve the elimination of their cultural icons as well, like the destruction of holy sites, historical architecture, artwork, and writings.
Where, indeed, have we seen this? 5,000 year old Buddhas shelled with artillery pieces, archaeological sites looted wholesale, tombs blown up, artwork destroyed?
You know the answer. What we fight has no qualms about the systematic eradication of the very memory of the cultures it overruns, nor the enslavement or slaughter of the people who adhere to those cultures. In fact, it celebrates that destruction.
There is no soft way to deal with that, no 'peaceful coexistence' save that to be found in territorial separation or the eventual triumph of one over the other.
The question is one of how much territory would be enough, and how to keep that balance if the former was to be attempted--and how long it would take for one side or the other to deem it necessary to have more. While the West certainly has had its wars of territorial domination, as has the Far East, Islam has the stated goal of having it all. Therefore, there will always be conflict, as the spread of Islam is mandated in its teachings, with the goal of global domination.
That removes the option of a tense, if quasi-peaceful, coexistence of any duration from consideration in the long run.
