Why is it so hard to distinguish between nation-state sponsored ideology and stateless Islamic fundamentalism?

Question

We can readily see how to fight a war against state-sponsored fascism as we did with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and state-sponsored Communism as we did with the former Soviet Union, but aren't we stumbling in our attempts to fight Islamic terrorism that is not a state-sponsored ideology?

How do we fight an efficient war against terror-advocating Islamic fundamentalism while winning the hearts and minds of the citizens of Islamic nations?

Certainly, it isn't by attacking a country like Iraq and allowing the abuses that took place at Abu Ghraib!!!!!

Answer 1

Good to see the usual Yahoo Answers wing nuts out in force- Abu Ghraib was okay because others did worse ten years ago! And we prosecuted a couple of small fry while excusing those at the top, so let's forget about it and return to OUR moral high horse, okay!

Partly the problem is that religion and the state have become a lot closer in recent years, as fundamentalist nutbaggery becomes more popular. This works two ways- in one, the government appears to be religious, so the threatening religion is the motivator to attack. But on the other hand, states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are necessary 'allies', so Bushhco refuses to see their close ties with militant Islam.

America has fought wars against ideologies before- they undermined communism in postwar Europe, while European countries broke the back of left-wing terrorist movements in the 1970s. A combination of propaganda, enlightened social policies and targeting the specific agents of terror worked effectively. These methods would work against militant Islam.

But the problem is the hidden agenda and the tools available. The Republicans have pandered to America's Taliban, the hard-core Christian right, so they can't attack the roots of ignorance that underpin militant Islam. They want to use the US military to solve their problems, and the US military is designed to defeat the armies of nation-states, so they found an enemy that suited the means available. But they misunderstand the instrument, being far-right ideologues from the business world, so they have misused the military even while ignoring their actual enemies.

Propaganda, enlightened social policies, and killing the agents of terrorism are not acceptable to Bushco- they preach to the converted and use wedge politics, so they can't win over the intelligent with persuasion (this is why they love people like Limbaugh and O'Reilly- screaming psychos who have never persuaded anyone of anything). Enlightened social policies are anathema to the right-wing message of look after yourself and sink-if-you-can't-swim. And capturing Osama is difficult, and might involve offending the Pakistani nuclear proliferators who make the White House dance like puppets.

So the war could be won with:
secular ideas based on separation of church and state, and science and reason over religion and superstition; consistent application of principles rather than 'one rule for Iraq and another for Pakistan'; patiently and calmly hunting down and killing the specific leaders and genuinely threatening terrorists- not just any low-IQ guy with a towel on his head and a bad attitude toward George Bush.

Answer 2

Correction, Saddam's Iraq was an example of state sponsored ideology. Look it up in any transcript of his threatening speeches. There are hundreds of examples. Iran, Syria and Afghanistan before we removed the Taliban, are three more. The real crimes at Abu Ghraib prison were committed by the animal who ran it before we got there. Come back down here to earth dude. We as the greatest power in the free world, have a responsibility to help those in need.

Answer 3

Good point in regards to the level of difficulty behind the truth behind this "war" aka invasion of Iraq. Seems to be a mirror image of the Vietnam war. The outcome of this fiasco is despairingly bleak and depressing because of who we are fighting and who can really be trusted? There are the innocents and there are the criminals who are infiltrating the innocents such as the men who volunteer for the Iraqi police or army. This situation is truly sickening to me.

However in regards to Abu Ghraib there are details that you have left out and certainly do not excuse the abuses on our fellow man. I do not feel the people who were directly responsible. "After numerous investigations, 11 low-ranking MPs and Military Intelligence corpsmen were court-martialed. Only one high-ranking officer has been penalized to date: Brigadier General Janis Karpinski was demoted to colonel and has since retired from the military. At the same time, other high-ranking officials associated with the scandal have been promoted and the chain of command has not been subject to an independent investigation." (Rory Kennedy, 2007, "Ghosts of Abu Ghraib", http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/ghostsofabughraib/synopsis.html)

Answer 4

I have worked for Christians, Jews and Muslims as a nanny and I know that the Muslim men have no regard for the feeling of women. They treat the help worse then their wives and daugthter as they consider their women their *property* to dispose of as they deem proper..I have a sister who worked in Kuwait and he worked for a Doctor (a General in their army) and his wife was a Egyptian women but to make a long story short..the Muslims fasted and expectedd the maids, cooks, and nanny to fast with them..most of the Philippine and Europeans were forced to fast even though they were Christian and they were not paid but every three to four months (if they felt like it)and Sexual abuse was the norm in Muslim households and the governments never really listened to the Philippine government complaints until they threatened to withdraw foreign help from the Saudiss Don't think the Islamic Fundamentalism is like Sarah Palin Pentecostalal beliefs..if you lived the life with Muslims you would see the difference. I don't care what Muslims do to their own as most are not responsible for their culture but don't think there is a correlation betweeChristianityty and the Muslims..just live in a Muslim environment and then find out for yourselfrememberer JIHAD?

Answer 5

Abu Ghraib wasn't nothing compared to what Saddam did. So get off your high horse. It was bad, but not nearly as bad as Saddam.

Things will change with the Surge. It's not in full swing yet. You'll see.

Answer 6

By an eye for an eye and quit playing games. Blow it up, don't rebuild it, and let them ride camels.We cannot assign our values to Islamic fundamentalists, only stop them.

Answer 7

We allowed the abuses at Abu Ghurayb? If that's the case, I'm wondering why those involced were prosecuted.