Islam’s ideology is immoral to its core - should we declare war against it?


Ah yes, Syrian citizens, the perfect fighting force!

Unfortunately your example doesn’t account for drone missiles falling from the sky killing your friends and family and home. Or that most people in the revolutionary war owned a firearm equivalent to what the guys shooting back had.

In fact the revolutionary war has almost nothing in common at all with this situation.


Both are awful. That radical Islamic ideology we’re fighting is just not going to go away. We’re just fueling hate and spending money. Stolen money.


Although I will say modern Islam is at it’s most extreme since the Crusades, declaring another war of its like, with a poor excuse for a moral justification since a corrupt few decided to put their radical twist on a religion. No matter what your view is on Islam, there is no way of truly justifying a war on another nation based on a religion they hold without sounding entirely medieval and authoritarian.

You cannot go to war with a radical ideology, just look at how the Cold War went, instead of communism dying out, it was just re-fed through our education systems.

No matter what you do, you can never stop outliers; unless you begin to subscribe to establishing a thought police that threatens to strip people of their right to religion, speech, press, and peaceful assembly.


I see the problem. You incorrectly think morality is subjective, when in fact we can achieve morality by logical thinking.


Not the cowards that are running, but those willing to die for imaginary Gods are quite well motivated.

One man can do a lot more damage than a drone regardless of the type of war.



Likely not but as with other ideologies that we have hated and gone against, it will be reduced to a fringe ideology just as the Nazi ideology is today.

We are not fuelling hate. We are protecting our ideology and showing our justified hate for those who would try to dominate us with their intolerant and immoral ideology.


We did not declare war, Islam did.

Islam is the religion and political system of Sharia with the thought police that end the right to follow another religion and exercise free speech. Have you failed to recognize that fact?

We have our own thought police as well. It enforces our democratic thoughts of equality and free speech that you seem to like. By doing nothing, we would eventually lose that.



Please, tell me how bombing nations, killing innocent civilians, financing and arming Jihadist rebels in several conflicts in the name of “democracy”, having a foreign policy dedicated to destroy or at least damage countries that do not agree with the economic interests of the West, and making bullshit excuses to start invasions that resulted in millions of dead people does not breed hatred.


Eh, thinking is what makes morals subjective. If it was objective, little to no thought or logical thinking would be required.




So you do not like that we push democracy and freedom. I do agree that we have made some mistakes in that push but pushing it is our duty.

You forget your first duty as a free man.

If your first duty as a fee man is not to insure that all share in that freedom, then what is your first duty?

Why has the U.S., as the spearhead for democracy and freedom, been allowed by the free world to do what it has done if that first duty is not recognized?

Would you do nothing while your neighbor basically made a slave out of his wife and daughter and denied them the rights and freedom that you enjoy?



Let’s take this question apart. “Islam’s ideology is immoral” - because the moral code varies from civilisation to civilisation, this cannot be objectively proven. Many Muslims who live their lives in devout accord with Quranic scripture would class themselves as moral by definition, and we have no right to impose other moralities upon these people, i.e. we have no right to force them to follow Christian teaching or democratic dogma. We are judging from the outside a society and a religion which has flourished for millennia, and the very nature of the question assumes that the West is somehow “better”, fit to kill people on the basis of what they believe. That last sentence assumes a very dangerous moral practice, don’t you think? Or does it? I think we should in fact be asking “do the practices of a given society impinge upon the freedom of other societies of the world to act as they please?” because assuming societal freedom allows the greatest degree of harmony between individual groups. If you know that everybody respects this basic law, and you risk serious consequences if you break it, you will not break it. Or at least, so goes the idea. The problem, however, is this: what if the benefit to an individual group (for example, ISIL) of carrying out their beliefs, far exceeds the cost of the consequences of doing so? ISIL fighters don’t care if they die, in fact they long to go to Paradise - the price of retaliation to them even is a bonus. A war against ISIL extremists could then be considered necessary (once other options - diplomatic settlements, ploys to reduce recruitment - have been exhausted) in the name of global security. It is undoubtedly the case though that Western policy in the Arab world ever since Sazonov-Sykes-Picot has gradually changed Arab opinion: in 1919 the Arabs were crying out for Woodrow Wilson’s intervention to form US protectorate states in the region, today the Arabs have voted the US second only to Israel as the two most dangerous threats to world peace. We can go into the intricacies of US, French & British policy in Arabia but the effects have been divisive really beyond contention. Before trying to remove the speck from somebody else’s eye, what about the log in our own? Finally, it is worth observing that this question itself - the fact people even think that declaring war on Islam is legitimate - is symptomatic of the problem. Our tendency as humans - it is quite a tribalistic tendency - to place the blame for a problem with the “others”, and not look at what we have done wrong. When you think about it, even the divide between “others” and “we” is wrong. We are all people living on one planet, there is no “us and them”, and any differences we do have we should try to put aside. Every premise in this question is wrong. Not just that: the question is wrong, the question shouldn’t exist. There should not even be a question.


The US, NATO and the West in general have little care for spreading democracy. Else, Saudi Arabia wouldn’t be an ally of the US, and the CIA wouldn’t have consistently attacked democracies around the world, including the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh, a democratically-elected secular progressive Prime Minister in Iran whose only wrongdoing was attempting to help the Iranian people, and replacing him with a totalitarian state, during Operation Ajax.

You have eaten too much propaganda.

Notice that jihadists and terorrists only target countries affiliated with NATO and allied with the US. They dislike the West’s influence on the Middle East and the wars and suffering it creates. Eastern Europe, in comparison, is hardly ever targeted, despite the narrow differences between Eastern and Western Europe in terms of government and social policy.

Now, I completely agree that ISIS and other Jihadist groups need to be erradicated and countries utilizing Sharia Law to be pressed to abandon it, but declaring war on the whole of Islam, even on secular and progressive muslims, represents a complete lack of thought and consideration on the situation of muslim countries and what the people living there make up of the mess that surrounds them. It will only make the situation worse, and create further radicalization.


You realize some of them are staying, right? The people fighting over there didnt just come from nowhere.


Uhm, I’m pretty sure that one well-landed AGM guided missile can take out a lot of people at once.

One man is nothing against the brutality of war.



Tell that to Paul Revere.



Paul Revere is famous for delivering a message, above everything else. He barely participated in armed combat. Delivering a message and contributing towards military communication is very important in the development of any war, but that wasn’t my point. A regular man in the frontline is just another soldier, especially in modern warfare. One bullet and he can be dead.


True, but it can be subjectively proven as most if not all morals are subjective, not objective.

We do have that right as well as a duty to do so. That is scripture.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Seems that with your views, we would have just let Hitler continue his genocide without lifting a finger.

It has only flourished because it grew itself by the sword instead of by good deeds.

We certainly do when their morality says that they must force their morality onto us. Self defence is our right.

That is Islam’s way and reciprocity is fair play is it not?

Seems that you do not care that our ideology is under attack and I guess that you do not think it worth fighting for.


Of course. Those against freedom will dislike those who are free and wish to free others.

This is good while you think it evil. Ask Hitler if he liked the West.


Sure. That does not take away from the fact that if all stayed, it would bolster those who are fighting the militants.


That last is true but if he happens to spot the enemy first, it can change the outcome of a battle and war.

But if you think our fighting men are useless, you might wonder why we maintain them.

Your point was too narrow just as your thinking is. Think of the big picture.