Which stage are you in?

So many of my postings about Islam, Muslims and "Radiacal Islam" or "Islamism", have been my own way of trying to come to terms with what it is we are REALLY dealing with.

I've been even questioning if there really is such a thing as "moderate" Muslims; questioning if Islam can ever be compatible with civilized, modern society. I know there are "modern" Muslims, who have been educated in the west, and seem to embrace aspects of our culture. But some of them actually become terrorists, and use there knowlege to kill us. And even if some Muslims are truely modern AND peaceful... how many of them are like that? And what about all the ones in between, who might teeter either way, depending on what propaganda they hear and what Imam manipulates their passions and hatereds?

There are two posts on the blog PBS Watch, which address these thoughts and more.

The first post, "Awareness", looks at general trends in thinking about the Islamic problem, in terms of stages of awareness, that for many have changed with events:

Stage One. Pre-1990s. All cultures, societies, races, and religions are equally valid and are to be welcomed and embraced. Any friction with any other group is a result of inadequate knowledge, flexibility, and sensitivity on our part. In particular, Islam is one of the world's great religions and should be admired as such. Its adherents should be encouraged and welcomed in our society as their presence adds to the diversity of thought and experience in our country.

Stage Two. September 10. Stage One views continue but it is recognized that their is a problem with a small group of "fanatical" and "extremist" Islamic "radicals." The problem is addressed in a manner similar to that of organized international crime. Better cooperation among international authorities and better law enforcement will stem the tide. In addition to our insensivities, our economic exploitation of the Muslim world is a "root cause" of the strife.

Stage Three. September 12. We are at war with "fanatical, extremist, radical" elements of Islam. As we prosecute that war, we must be careful to isolate the radicals and gain the support of the moderate Muslim majority.

Stage Four. Post-cartoons. We are at war with Islam. This is a clash of civilizations, Islam against the west. There is no moderate Islamic faction with sufficient voice or desire to influence events. Islam is functionally incompatible with democracy.

Stage Four is a tough one. I'm not ready to conceed that yet, but I also want to look at it honesty and realistically. The rest of the post goes on to discuss this, and asks such interesting questions such as what constitutes a "moderate" Mulsim; is a moderate Muslim just a "good cop" to a jihadist's "bad cop"? There's more, with some good links too, it's worth reading.

The second post I read is titled "The Heart of the Matter". It starts of by refering to an article by David Warren, who admits his fear of Stage Four thinking.

Then there is a reference to a comment made by somebody on the Volohk Conspiracy blog:

You only have 3 choices:

1. Convince these people that they are misunderstanding what God has said on this subject. You obviously don't try to do that.

2. Acquiesce in their interpretation and obey God's command (as, e.g., the editorial departments of various newspapers here have done).

3. Say, in words or substance, screw you, and go on talking about free speech and the need for 'balance' and the 'fact' that some cartoons may not be particularly offensive compared to, say, the average cartoon on the editorial pages of the Washington Post or any newspaper in Iran.

Then "P-BS-Watcher" comments:

I have proposed a muscular version of choice 3 here, here, and here,[3 hyperlinks] essentially a cold war against the Islamic world. Such a policy would allow for the emergence of moderates along the lines of those that emerged in Eastern Europe during the cold war against communism. When intervention becomes necessary to eliminate a threat, as it was in Iraq, it is worthwhile to test the current state of moderate Islamic thinking by attempting to institute democratic reforms. The corollary to such a cold war policy has to be the willingness to proceed to a large scale hot war when circumstances, such as a terrorist WMD attack, warrant.

(bold emphasis mine) I see some sense in this. It allows for moderates, but does not tolerate enemies who are bend on destroying us. So much of what we are seeing in the Middle East is a dangersous mental pathology of suicide-murder, not unlike the Japanese Kamakazi bombers of WWII. Such a pathology should not be encouraged, excused or tolerated in any way (the way the political Left and the MSM has been doing).

Of course, there would be differences in this cold war, to the one with the Soviet Union. Would the threat of MAD (Mutually Assured Destructon) even matter to crazed religious fanatics? There is a lot to consider; and if you read these two posts, you will find lots to chew on.