Maybe I misunderstood you

Submitted by Schills (United States), Jun 26, 2012 at 01:03

Sara,

I stated that if Muslims democratically elect Islamists, and do not engage in acts of violence against us, then it is none of our business. Your restatement of my position suggests I do not care how Islamist come to power. I care how Islamists come to power just as I care how a social democrat comes to power. I don't think you would throw Tony Blair in with Stalin. Why throw Muhammad Mursi in with ayatollah Khomeini? My understanding of your position is that you are absolutely against Islamists coming to power even if they are democratically elected. I also understand your position to be that Islam is inherently violent and cannot coexist with other ideologies in a non-violent manner.

Based on my understanding of your position which would align US foreign policy against an idea I presented four policy options all of which are ridiculous. As for deterrence, ideas cannot be deter or contained. As 9/11 demonstrated, all it takes is a handful of non-state actors to inflict mass casualties. If all Muslims are inherently our enemies, then we are left with no policy options which can succeed. On the other hand, if we accepted the possibility of non-violent coexistence with Muslims and support democratic elections in Muslim countries even if young lovers won't be free to walk down the street holding hands, then we will have taken a big step towards isolating the individuals who pose an actual threat to us.

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".