consistency?

Submitted by trans-parere (Canada), Feb 26, 2012 at 22:52

How can one posit that American intervention is the root cause of the spread of the Islamist ideal and then argue that further American intervention is the solution to counter the Islamist ideal. It's nonsensical. For all the regime change and billions invested the Iraqi people are no better off, or free from inter tribal and sectarian violence.

This has nothing to do with "western intervention", it has everything to do with the Muslim psyche and the general treatment the Muslim receives under Islam as a political philosophy. It is fruitless to have any expectation of a change for the better as long as there remains no call from with in the Islamic world for a separation between Church and State and the State and it's system of justice. It is very limited thinking to advocate killing/removing the Muslim leaders -as they rise out of Islam- if the true cause which lies with in Islam is not addressed by the Muslim. Most certainly then we non-Muslims will be a long time at the killing and removing that brings no gains to the Muslim. Let us learn from our experience with Iraq and Afghanistan. We have changed nothing at the costs of billions of dollars invested and hundreds of thousands of lives lost.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".