"Are we witnessing the beginning of the end for ISIL?" Topic

"The war against ISIL has entered a critical new phase. The group is facing a multipronged offensive threatening at least three of its most vital strongholds in Syria and Iraq.

The strategic significance of the areas under attack mean the group will have little choice but to put up a serious fight, which will then help the US-led coalition to better assess and target the current capabilities of its enemy. Similarly, the way the assault is conducted will determine whether the new phase is the beginning of the end for the group or the start of a new cycle.

The multi-front onslaught is fateful because the outcome can lead to one of two scenarios. On the one hand, the attacks in both countries are spearheaded by Shia militias beholden to Iran and Kurdish forces perceived to be close to the regime of Bashar Al Assad, which bodes ill for the long-term battle to defeat ISIL. On the other, the weakening of the group by such ISIL-focused forces could in fact compel Sunni forces to become more involved in the effort to root out what remains of the organisation. Which of these scenarios will play out depends on Washington's next moves in the coming months…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

No, they'll just spread, and morph, and attack successfully in other areas we don't expect, that they haven't before.

They seem to be very well led, organized, and efficient, unlike many/most/all of their opponents.

Every time we claim they are JV, are on the way to being defeated, or are finished, they manage to avoid a crushing defeat, and to move to new locations, or to attack or take more towns, villages, and cities.

If you look at the media, the last info about Aleppo was large scale ISIS counter-attack. It seems they have gained back a lot of lost area.There were plenty of rocket launchers and tanks used by ISIS, so even with all bombing of Coalition and Russia their military potential is not spent.
Fallujah is still in ISIS hands.
They're not going anywhere.

i don't think so…for what i'm aware..no real military offensive is even planned vs the strongholds in Paris/Toulouse/Lyon banliuex, in Bruxelles Molenbek or in Malmoe/Rosengård

link

We could hope … but until the local moslems decide enough is enough. Daesh will continue to be a worldwide threat. But again, I think islamist groups like Daesh, AQ, etc., have a lot more support from local moslems than the West wants to believe. Even if they kill and enslave more moslems than anyone else.

An insurgency can't flourish if it does not have local support to some extent. Even with external funding from other moslems in one way or another [Saudis, Iran ?]. Of course like we see in Fallujah … holding locals as hostages and human shields gives them an edge. That is hard to deny or even confront.

Along with radicalizing home grown moslems in the West. Which seems to be too easily done. And as the French and Belgium, etc., are seeing. They have more local support from other moslems, I.e. friends & family …

Good link, Flashman.

As far as their state or caliphate in the ME is concerned, they're finished. They'll continue their never ending war against the infidels of course, but that makes them little different from other terrorist organizations like AQ.

Yep, you are quite right Legion. According to polls, anywhere from 20% – 80%+ of Muslims support their actions, depending upon the country and region, according to surveys.

Even in France and Belgium, the attackers were protected/supported by the locals.

I think it is the "end of the beginning", but certainly not the end of ISIS.

The mistake many make when looking at the mainspring of Jihad, is assuming that in the past most Muslims supported the Jihads of history; whereas now, only a minor part of Islam is trying to whip up the Jihad, and most Muslims don't want to participate, therefore, a good chance exists that the jihadists will fail. The reality is that in all ages, the majority do not want to participate. The jihadist faction usually does not succeed. But when it does succeed, the result is virtually all Muslims getting on board and either actively joining the fighting arm, or at the very least supporting it openly. They have to support it openly, otherwise they get IDed as traitors to the faithful.

This movement is still in the infant stages. Nobody can say which direction the momentum is going. The entire jihad movement could die out. But it could take off. If enough Muslims are convinced that fence sitting is going to get them killed, or worse, they will swing in behind the religious whackos. That could happen very quickly.

"We" cannot affect the outcome, other than to possibly push jihad onto the Muslim world by interfering where most of them will take offense.

Training Muslims to fight other Muslims has to be the most slippery of slopes. I think that "we" need to get out and stay out. Meanwhile, prepare for war. Trying to prevent their religious culture from bursting into "jihad mode" is not something that any outsiders can do, short of complete occupation of the "infected areas", i.e. total war before the fact. This is not sustainable by even the entire world economy, much less that of the US. So the only rational course of action is to take no action at all beyond our immediate interests of self defence. If we have defensive capability sufficient to the task, we can prevent all or most attacks upon our own soil. We may not feel free to travel wherever we once did, but that is wartime conditions. As long as they don't come looking for a fight we won't give them one….

all of you (of us) seem to to focus on "what the mass, or at least a majority, of muslims will do"…that'is ..continue, as Mako 11 informed us, to indirectly support the terrorists or end up from inside this cancer…i've the idea, also if only without many sufficient evidences, that the problem is inside the Western Word…will we continue to hide from the reality or , thanks to escalation of awaraness of the peril and the fact that our lives are dramatically changing, wage a true legal, military, cultural war/repression, internal and external, against foes and their supporters?……

ITALWARS and to a lesser extent others:

Islam is not a disease or a cancer. All religions and ideologies can and have been abused by viscious zealots and opportunistic manipulators throughout history. To single out Islam is wrong. The cult of death which is practiced and popularized by ISIL and by western propaganda is NOT Islam anymore than the Crusades and the Inquisition were Christianity.

The vast majority of Muslims are disgusted by the excesses of these maniacs in ISIL and except for those who find themselves under ISIL's direct control, many, many Muslims oppose and vocally attack such extremism. The Muslim majority of the Middle East and abroad are good people living in very difficult times and suffering under conditions partially of their own making, but also caused by the actions of outsiders. They are daily bombarded with images and stories of atrocities done to them by zealots and foreigners alike. Under such circumstances, is it any wonder that you can find examples of angry speech and spectacle in this war ravaged region? To me, the wonder is that so many Muslims have shown restraint and have not become radicalized.

Now, questioning why there has been no offensive against the civilian populations of Europe is very troubling. If that is an implicit advocacy for attacking and supressing the European Muslim population then shame on you. We do not live in 13th Century Sicily or Lombardy and cannot exterminate a Muslim population in our midst by stealth and guile by Sicilian Vespers or pogrom.

If the internet had existed in the 11th to the 14th centuries, this thread would fit in comfortably. Such hate, such xenophobia and such prejudice expressed both implicitly and explicitly on this and other threads about the War on Terror ably demonstrate that there are fundamentalists and radicals on all sides in this latest incarnation of the forever war. There is blame enough to damn all side in this maelstrom of murder and madness which has once again gripped the Middle East. The only way out is for all sides to abandon zealotry and fundamentalism and to then talk honestly and in earnest and to finally compromise, knowing full well that it will be a long and difficult process and that all sides will be tempted to do atrocities in order to achieve their ends and derail such initiatives.

ISIL is a symptom but not the 'disease'. If it is defeated it will reemerge under another name and in another form. To deny this is to yoke ourselves to the forever wack-a-mole war we have been fighting to date. To fight the symptom may make us feel better (and is assuredly the preferred strategy of pharmaceutical companies who wish to maximize long term profits in the case of biological disease). To fight the 'disease' is another matter. You can't bomb blame, hate, prejudice and deep-rooted antagonisms out of existence. To win the War on Terror you must be willing to marginalize the war component and to use law enforcement, propaganda/persuasion, diplomacy, education/indoctrination and money to build the bridges that may eventually lead to peace, coexistence and cooperation. Creativity and new-paradigm-thinking are the way forward. But that is not attractive to the visceral reactionaries nor profitable to certain powerful interests who see war as an opportunity and not a tragedy. Again, like in the pharmaceutical model, it is far more profitable to manage a disease than to cure it. While those interests hold sway, the route to peace is likely blocked.

Thus, the way forward requires us to examine and change our ways and behaviours while at the same time negotiating with the Muslim world to do the same. What is needed is a double-barreled-renaissance where both sides change. Let us not forget that the first great renaissance was brought about by the guidance of Muslim and Arab thinkers whose works were admittedly looted from the Arab world. Perhaps it would be useful to seek such guidance out again but cooperatively this time and not through war.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

No

Rod Robertson i'll restrain myself in answering you with the same violent mode you've just used to counter my thoughts…and 'll consider that you cannot depart from your political agenda…but i'll jus pont out something among what you said:
"The cult of death which is practiced and popularized by ISIL and by western propaganda is NOT Islam anymore than the Crusades"??…..a cult of death inside other religions is absolutly ridicoulous..
"questioning why there has been no offensive against the civilian populations of Europe"….not against civilian population but against collaborators and supporters….tell me please, in your country, if in a public coffee shop, or in a church..i'll praise the Kuklux Klan …would somebody call the police or not?

"To me, the wonder is that so many Muslims have shown restraint and have not become radicalized"

be true..they are really not so many.. i really cannot see so many…let see majority of interview in every TV of the world..there is always a justification

"To win the War on Terror you must be willing to marginalize the war component and to use law enforcement, propaganda/persuasion, diplomacy"….
don't you think that'exaclty what were are doing from years…any good results?

"Let us not forget that the first great renaissance was brought about by the guidance of Muslim and Arab thinkers whose works were admittedly looted from the Arab world"
out of topic certainly…waht has to do this bizarre statemnt from you with the "War on Terror"?…but i'm so amazed in reading again such a non sense that i cannot stay quiet…the truth is exactly the opposite..what you said is simply a non documnetated and propaganda slogan..as our great intellectual and writer..Orianna Fallaci..had pointed in out in his books…please read it

Rod, we don't need to change our ways.

We are very open and welcoming of other cultures, peoples, and religions.

The same can't be said of Islamists being tolerant of Christianity, and other faiths, or lack of them (including atheists and agnostics).

Doubt that?

Try taking a bible into, or talking/practicing religion in many/most Muslim dominated countries and see what happens.

We are not the problem. They are.

one main error of evaluation we all probably made..is to consider Islam a Religion..which's nt in fact..is a far more important thing,,is a doctrine, a political doctrive, an ideology and a way of life..in practice is everything..and the fact to adhere to it and then questioning it and call for moderate it or modernise it..is something that a muslim is not even allow to think about

The only way out is for all sides to abandon zealotry and fundamentalism and to then talk honestly and in earnest and to finally compromise, knowing full well that it will be a long and difficult process and that all sides will be tempted to do atrocities in order to achieve their ends and derail such initiatives.

…

Thus, the way forward requires us to examine and change our ways and behaviours while at the same time negotiating with the Muslim world to do the same.

There is not a moral equivalency at work here. Our fundamentalists pale by comparison, both in numbers and historical action.

We are not the same. We do not need to change to become more like them, or else the world will see bombings and beheadings proliferating. Be specific, not rhetorical: what exactly do we need to change in order to live with radicalizing Islam? Do we have a problem with moderate Islam?

"Both sides" are therefore not approaching rapprochement from the same paradigm: Muslims in underdeveloped countries see imperialism at work keeping them disadvantaged. Muslims in developed countries have connections to relatives in the underdeveloped countries that they have emigrated from. Integration is a rarity. It only really comes when the Muslim immigrants have largely abandoned their religion, taking Islam in name only, much as most "Christians" do. Secularized Muslims are as approachable as secularized Jews, Christians and Hindus; secularized populations get along just fine with non believers as well.

So there is no bloc on either side that can talk honestly and compromise, except those secularized elements already in existence. What portion of Muslims in underdeveloped countries, do you think, are secularized? To demonstrate as such is inviting a death sentence.

The time for talk was before the problem of violence and terrorism reared its ugly head. But there was no perceived need for any talk. Now it's too late. All that can be done is wait this thing out. And defend ourselves where we live.

If ISIS dies out, yes, some other groups will fill the vacuum. But like those groups in recent history, they will amount to little or nothing if their populations don't give them any support.

The way forward is abundance. Raise the standard of living and the need for radical religion vanishes. Material abundance kills off want and replaces it with something approaching contentment.

Personal religion was always the path to inner peace "Group think" fosters the cultish mentality, which falls prey to radical leadership. It only flourishes in conditions of deprivation….

Rod … a gent here pointed out this link to me … you are not the only one who can read and post from the net …

link

To win the War on Terror you must be willing to marginalize the war component and to use law enforcement, propaganda/persuasion, diplomacy, education/indoctrination and money to build the bridges that may eventually lead to peace, coexistence and cooperation.

All forms of "actions" need to be used to address radical islam. And in may cases this is happening.

But until they decide to stop killing Western Civilians on Western territory and elsewhere. The military, intel and LEOs have to work very close together. And they do …

The military has scaled back it's footprint in many places where islamic terrorism, jihadis, etc., exist. There are very few troops deployed in those regions compared to previously. Like only 5000 US troops in Iraq and 9800 in A'stan. Others Western Nation have deployed mere Platoons, Companies, or even a Battalion. Not Regiments, Brigades or even Divisions.

Now I'm NOT marginalizing any Western Forces' deployment numbers. As their primary missions of training, advising, and most importantly calling in accurate CAS. Does not require large organizations to be effective. And those sent are some of the best in the world.

GWA your posting , theorically, let us hope in something better..also if i totally disagree in comparing "secularised" Muslims with "secularised Jews, Christians ecc….but, said that, from what we all see and from personal experience , unfortunatly, abundance is not the solution
"the way forward is abundance. Raise the standard of living and the need for radical religion vanishes. Material abundance kills off want and replaces it with something approaching contentment"
during the Seventies (so well before War on Terror ecc..) i attended the most snobish, élitarian and expensive international School in my country..in which we Italians were a minority…and i perfectly remenber to find myself so amazed and sad at seeing Muslim boys , all sons of Diplomats, International businessmen, or sons of top employees in International Agencies..whose parents, embedded also from liberal principles of the recently obtained independance from Imperial Countries and that had studied in the most qualified universities in Europe or USA..well at every PLO murder/bombing of civilians in Israel, Europe ecc…they acclaimed with joy and tosted with shouts of victory those dramatical events..i can add you that each time one of them dated an Italian,British, US, German, Belgian, French girl…those girls could no more cultivate friendship, go out, even talk oustside school with other boys in the school or even other girls..out of question short skirts..and i perfectly remenber a girl friend of mine..a promising active handball player that was obliged to give up with her sport training session because his boyfriend did'nt accept that…last in quite a few cases many contrast inside the couples ended with the European girl verbaly trehatned or even beaten up by boyfriend
so do also inside affluent and well educated milieux..always the same problems..integration impossible

I stand by my theory. It won't answer all problems of culture that cross over religious doctrines. But the majority, even the great majority, of any religious population ceases to be a radical problem for everyone else when they become "secularized". Culture remains a problem of its own. And I believe that the problem with Muslim Jihadists is more cultural than religious. The leaders are almost entirely from the privileged or "elite" (educated) part of the Islamo-Arabic demographic, as Italian Wars has pointed out. They were radicalized as youngsters and have not moved from that mindset. The rising generations, however, if they see opportunity within their own countries to advance themselves in a capitalistic and democratic way, and become like the advanced nations, will largely drop radicalized agendas because they don't see a need for them. In fact, the radicalized agenda approach can get them killed, and certainly marginalized by civilized people everywhere. So, no purpose in it. If the religious component is dead, all you have left is the cultural component. And if that changes steadily, inexorably, into a "Westernized" variant, then I cannot see any terrorist organization having any significant manpower pool from which to draw.

If you were thinking, that I am thinking, that this will happen overnight, then let me say now that this will be the major process occurring throughout the 21st century. And if it doesn't fall out that way, the alternative is probably WW3 with Islam as the casus belli….

Great War Ace is correct. During Iraq's and Syria's better days under Saddam Hussein and Hafez al-Assad (the current Assad's father), these countries were considered to be secular regimes under which the various sects and cultural minorities lived in peaceful co-existence if not in harmony.

It is one of the great ironies of the 21st century that the 2003 US invasion and the Arab Spring democratic movement brought about the unstable conditions and failed states in which radical extremism thrived. Had these two events not occurred there would be no ISIS in the first place.

ITALWARS:

I am not sure what it is you are trying to say at times but here is my response to what I think you are trying to say.

…cult of death inside other religions is absolutly ridicoulous..

There are cults of death in most major religions. Millions in Mexico and the USA revere Sante Muerta and death cults are part of modern Hindu religion and African animism faiths.

….not against civilian population but against collaborators and supporters….tell me please, in your country, if in a public coffee shop, or in a church..i'll praise the Kuklux Klan …would somebody call the police or not?

The problem is accurately identifying the 'collaborators' and 'supporters'. Given European history, such 'offensives' usually degenerate into orgies of accusation and intimidation which have led to pogroms and repression. What activities constitute collaboration or giving support. Is criticizing the western war on terrorism allowable? How about educating young people about the western rooted bloodshed which has occurred in the Middle East and Asia just since 2000? How about contributing to charities which support people suffering in the Middle East? This has in the past and will in the future spiraled out of control causing misery and suffering to targeted populations in Europe.

I live in Canada. If someone expounded the virtues of the Ku Klux Klan or any other odious group, most people around would roll their eyes, shake their heads or just shrug their shoulders. On rare occasions an argument or fist fight might result. Never in my 56 years on this planet have I seen someone here phone the police because an unpopular idiot is spewing hate and ignorance. We believe in free speech and with that freedom comes the responsibility to speak out against such hate mongering. Come to think of it the only kind of speech which draws the active attention of the police here is speech directed against positions expressed by people or groups in power.

…be true..they are really not so many.. i really cannot see so many…let see majority of interview in every TV of the world..there is always a justification.

There are 1.6 Billion Muslims in the world. There are 50,000 ISIL fighters at most. Let's be generous and roll in all the terrorists and their supporters and say that they number a million. That is one terrorist in every 1600 Muslims in the world's Muslim population. So, yes, the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and not participating in the War on Terror, except perhaps as the unlucky collateral damage of one side or the other in this 'war'.

"To win the War on Terror you must be willing to marginalize the war component and to use law enforcement, propaganda/persuasion, diplomacy"….
don't you think that'exaclty what were are doing from years…any good results?

Since 1979, and arguably earlier, the West has been involved in backing or openly conducting military operations in order to destabilize and reshape the Middle East. That military intervention accelerated and intensified after 1990 and again after 2001. Only more recently did the emphasis on military confrontation begin to diminish somewhat but that was largely due to adopting a lighter footprint by using western forces and mercenaries as force multipliers for local proxy forces. So, no, we have not tried to de-emphasize the military role and tried to rely on alternate strategies to reduce terrorism.

My point about the Renaissance, old and possibly new, is that it would be wise to seek the counsel of moderate and responsible voices in the Middle East and elsewhere in our efforts to reduce terrorism. No one expects that we can convince most of the hard-core of ISIL to change their stripes and renounce terrorism. But if we can get a critical mass of the Arab-street to vigorously oppose terrorism in their name and if we can convince and reward them to turn on the terrorists in their midst then we have come much closer to realizing the stated goals of the War on Terror. Menachem Begin was a terrorist who turned the corner to lead his country as prime minister. Likewise Nelson Mandela as president.

…the truth is exactly the opposite..what you said is simply a non documnetated and propaganda slogan..as our great intellectual and writer..Orianna Fallaci..had pointed in out in his books…please read it.

If what I have said is wrong, then prove it.

I have read two of Fallaci's books and was unimpressed to say the least. She was a fine journalist and a spirited interviewer. However she was also a bundle of contradictions and in her later years became a very entrenched ultra-conservative. La Rage et L'Orgueil/ The Rage and The Pride was slightly better than the later La Force de la Raison/The Force of Reason.
Both were essentially xenophobic polemics against a changing Europe and the role of Islamic immigration in that process. Neither book was very convincing from my perspective.

Oriana Fallaci often remarked that New York was such a vibrant culture because Europeans had migrated there but had remained unchanged when Europe had been homogenized and Americanized beyond her recognition. She celebrated how you could encounter Hungarian, German, Russian and other European families which clung to old-world European values and ethos despite living in New York. Yet at the same time she was damning Muslims who lived in Europe for refusing to assimilate and for holding on to their old-world culture and religion. She demanded that they abandon their beliefs and principals but said of herself:

The moment you give up your principles, and your values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. Period.

The implication of these books and her above-quoted words is that Muslims must give up their values, their principals and their civilization to live in Europe. They must die as a culture in order to live as Europeans. Not a very tolerant viewpoint to my mind.

She also declared herself to be a 'Christian-Atheist', whatever that means.

So, yes, a very good journalist and a passionate spokeswoman in the modern world, but also a bundle of contradictions who did not offer much except xenophobia and intolerance on the issue of Muslims in Europe.

Finally, on the subject of violence by my words, my statement was conditional, as I was uncertain about what you said. However, those who wish to espouse harmful doctrines of ethnicity and intolerance are well advised to grow a thicker skin when rebuked. This is no job for a delicate snowflake and I will not spare the rod when confronted by intolerance. All you need do is look to the appalling events of late April and the statement made in its wake by the mayor of Palermo, Sicily to see how very much alive the 13th Century is today in parts of Italy. Cosa Nostra killings of immigrants and mayors implicitly defending them are not that different from the crimes you claim Muslim extremists do.

Rod Robertson.

During Iraq's and Syria's better days under Saddam Hussein and Hafez al-Assad (the current Assad's father), these countries were considered to be secular regimes under which the various sects and cultural minorities lived in peaceful co-existence if not in harmony.

I agree and have said that for sometime. Very much cases of the lesser of evils. In comparison to Daesh, AQ, etc., … What was that old saying about "The Devil you know …" … ?

Only more recently did the emphasis on military confrontation begin to diminish somewhat but that was largely due to adopting a lighter footprint by using western forces and mercenaries as force multipliers for local proxy forces. So, no, we have not tried to de-emphasize the military role and tried to rely on alternate strategies to reduce terrorism.

As I said previously there are no where near any way the number of Western Forces in Iraq or A'stan. As it was only 5-6 years ago. And I don't think PMC numbers are as large as any of the Western forces there.

But as I said, as long as the military and PMCs forces we have in country are effective I don't have a problem with either. My only thought is more drone and CAS needs to be used to speed things up to a point in Iraq.

The Russians have Syrian generally under positive control. In that after the FSA factions are no longer a problem. They can turn their attentions to Daesh, AQ, etc. … The Syrians under Assad pose little threat to the West at this time. Daesh and AQ, etc., do … very much so.

A'stan is a waste at this point and has been from sometime. The sooner the Taliban take control of the weak corrupt government the sooner they can go back to old ways of killing other tribes, warlords, etc. And any Westerners, Christians, etc. should just stay away for this 3d World Hell Hole of their own making. Mostly because that is the way they have been doing things for a long time. And down deep … they like it that way.

The US should just keep watchful eyes over the area. As once it may look like any of the terrorists like Daesh or AQ and/or even Taliban support of any or all, etc., … Drones and CAS should break up any threat or perceived threat to the West. And yes it may appear to be a "Forever War" scenario. But in the short run it will be. Like for the next 50 or 100 years or so.

Some interesting stats here:
link

Although ISIS is not popular worldwide, its popularity in certain populous nations is troubling indeed.
link

When 20% – 80% of the 1.6 billion Muslim citizens surveyed, and living in various nations, say they support or condone what ISIS and AQ are doing, and stand for, it's not just a million people that we have to worry about.

Rounding the above off a bit, and factoring in different numbers of respondents in population for the various countries surveyed, it appears that anywhere from 25% – 50% of the global Muslim population supports the actions of the Islamic radicals, so that's about 400 – 800 million by my count, not just one million.

The end of DAESH?

If only the world were so lucky.

The most recent atrocity to hit the media has me upgrading my plan of hitting every single thing flying the Black Flag of DAESH with a 2000lb bomb to a 100kt bomb. And yes, I do expect to go to hell, so don't waste your breath berating me.

Well, I'm dusting off my cross of St George jupon to go over my body armour, it's a new crusade I tells ya.

Mako 11:

When 20% – 80% of the 1.6 billion Muslim citizens surveyed, and living in various nations, say they support or condone what ISIS and AQ are doing, and stand for, it's not just a million people that we have to worry about.

Rounding the above off a bit, and factoring in different numbers of respondents in population for the various countries surveyed, it appears that anywhere from 25% – 50% of the global Muslim population supports the actions of the Islamic radicals, so that's about 400 – 800 million by my count, not just one million.

Could you provide some evidence for these numbers which you have presented? Also, I would point out that there is a big difference between answering a poll and actually lending support/collaborating with terrorism.

It might be illuminating to see how Americans view Muslims and who in America has which opinions.

link

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

The most recent atrocity to hit the media has me upgrading my plan of hitting every single thing flying the Black Flag of DAESH with a 2000lb bomb to a 100kt bomb. And yes, I do expect to go to hell, so don't waste your breath berating me.

If that is the case … I'll be right there along with you for the trip !

Well, I'm dusting off my cross of St George jupon to go over my body armour, it's a new crusade I tells ya.

I tend to agree !

I read that link Rod. Respect is earned not given. That might be one of the reasons some moslems feel the US has no respect for them.

Now that being said, many molsems in the US are doctors, etc., and are professionals. And I know very few who don't have respect for them. And it appears to me, there may be an overall general lack of respect by some for moslems in the US. But I'm sure many go on a case by case basis.

After all once one has a conversation with someone and get to know them a bit. Only then can you really judge, IMO. I've know a few moslems from the gym and elsewhere. And they seemed to me to me nice people and no threat to anyone.

But when you see in the media and other sources going back decades where islamic terrorists/jihadis, etc., were killing US and other citizens in those attacks. It does not take one too much of a stretch to see the general overall distain, distrust, etc., of them as a group.

And of course 9/11 pushed most over the brink. And in no way can we justify what the islamic terrorists have done and are doing. And I've said this before. But until the islamic world decides that they have had enough of their lunatic fringe brethren. Who kills more moslems than anyone else. And takes real measures to stop this "plague". Many non-moslems will have more respect and not generally see some moslems as a threat.

But as I have said before. For a variety of reasons this does not look like it is not going to happen anytime soon. So the "Forever War" between (radical)islam and non-islam will continue. And the US[and others] military, intel, LEOs, etc. will continue to do what it has to. That is the cold reality of the situation …

Legion 4:
You and Foxweasel would do well to avoid Kurun Hattin during your crusade. The last bunch of Templars to visit there also lost their heads. They had every confidence in their superiority, their martial dominance and the will of God. They ended up as carrion in this dry, harsh land. Destrier or JDAM, history has a tendency to repeat itself or to at least to rhyme.
'Deus Vult' or 'Inshallah', pick your poison and then die on the horns of war.
Rod Robertson.

Yes, I'm well aware of what happened at Hattin to the Crusaders … I posted about that on another thread a few weeks back. And we wouldn't plan on letting that happen again or dying in any event. We would not be religiously motived as it is said many of the Crusaders were. We are much more "evolved(?)" than that …

We would fight as least hypothetically for more important reasons. Like survival … and again … in a case of Us vs. them. As I have said it's going to be them on the losing end. If we as soldiers didn't believe that. We wouldn't be very good at soldiering. Hypothetically of course.

Here I am again … when having at post in response to you. Saying things I have said previously, repeatedly, etc. …

Or …