Here, I just thought of a specific example.

The Catholic Church, has this "outreach program" with Buddhism.

It's like, "multi-national". For instance, in Tokyo, there are Catholic institutions whose specific purpose is to liaise with the Buddhists on a "belief system" basis.

So, what they'll do, is they'll look for "elements of commonality", not so much in the "doctrine", which is all over the map, but rather in the "model" that's being used to formulate the doctrine.

You know, so this is the kinda thing they talk about.

And I mean, I know of no similar dialog between Christianity and Islam. Which is kinda wierd, when you think about it, since those two religions would seem to be closer together than Christianity and Buddhism.
You know, so they'll focus on concepts like "salvation", which means something entirely different in the Buddhist philosophy, than it does in the Christian philosophy. The "meta-concept" is the same, is kinda like what the Christians call "forgiveness for sin" and the Chinese Buddhists call "right" ("right" feeling, "right" thinking, and so on) - it involves some kinda "freedom" from the worldly insanity of constant fear and worry and "material things" and so on -

You know, but the Christian "way of thinking" about that, involves concepts like "grace", which don't mean anything to a Buddhist who doesn't believe in God. But on the other hand, the Buddhists have a whole catalog of altered states of consciouness, that the Christians know nothing about - and I mean, the way to start exchanging "useful information" like that, is to begin with the very top of the tree of belief, right? Like, "what's the goal"? "Salvation" - okay, so "what does that mean"? Well, you know, so they start arguing for a while, but pretty soon they come to realize that their argument is resulting from the fact that they have different "models" for what that salvation actually "is" - and the reason for that, is 'cause they have different fundamental assumptions - the one says, "God exists", and the other says, "it doesn't matter". So then, the two religions have come up with different "methods" to achieve the particular "freedom" that they crave -

See where I'm going with this analogy?

Man, you know, it's so obvious to even an idiot like me..... you know, it's like, if you kinda make the observation that "everyone craves freedom", don't stop there -

'Cause if you keep on looking, you'll also make the observation that there are different "kinds" of freedom, and some people value one kind more than another -

And you know, in "my" case, "my" politics and belief system, based as it is in "biology" and "human nature", I value the political concepts of "consent of the governed" and "the contract" and things like that - and that's why, you keep seeing them in all my posts.

But I mean, other guys, like SS, value "national security" above all else, and I mean, I understand that, right? You know, I mean, if SS were in Saudi Arabia, I'd be talking to him very differently than I'm talkin' to him in the other thread (you know, tellin' him he's "wrong" and all) - but at the moment, I'm talking to him "as an American" - you know, I'm kinda wearing my "We the People" hat -

But you know, "when in Rome", so like, you know, if I were going to SS's house, well then, (*)(*)(*)(*).... I wouldn't mention word one of anything I said in any of those posts, right? I mean, that would be "extremely rude" of me, in that context. That would be "cowboy diplomacy" ( ) - walking into someone's house and offending their sensibilities by tossing something like that into their face.

But I mean, on "public ground", different rules apply, right? And besides, you know, SS knows what I mean (I think, I hope) - you know, I'm not some evil Islamist terrorist who's gonna come lookin' for him so I can chop his head off. I'm just a concerned American who has a slightly different "political model" than he does, that's all.

See? So, I mean, if you go to those Islamists, and talk to them in those terms, and you can convince them that you're kinda "respecting" their tradition by genuinely trying to understand it and understand where they're coming from, instead of trying to foist "your" value system on 'em by telling 'em what kind of "freedom" they oughta be valuing more than another -

I mean, in my eyes, the difference between that, and what SS and me are doing, is "we Americans" already have a common political model. You know, it's called the Constitution. I think, that is I "hope", that most Americans buy into that particular "contract". There are some who don't. It's useful to know who they are, 'cause I mean, I don't want cowboy diplomats running around my kids, right?

But the US and "most of Islam", we have yet to develop enough "common understanding" to where we could have any kind of "common political model". There's, kinda, some stuff that has to come "first", in terms of common understanding. 'Cause you know, most of "us", don't even realize that for a Muslim fundamentalist, religion and politics are one and the same thing. So, you know, if you come at 'em with any kinda "assumptions" about separation of church and state, or morality and law, or anything like that, they're gonna just look back at you with this blank stare, 'cause that concept is gonna make no sense to 'em. As far as a lot of 'em get these days, is a tacit acceptance of the idea that "some" Muslim governments actually let people choose whether they want to get justice by Sharia law or by secular law. And that, would be a big social advance, in some places.

So ah, it seems to me, that the only useful way to address this thing, the "right level of description", is at the level of the belief system. And I mean, there are elements of commonality that we could touch on, I've already identified several of them.

But "how" you do that, in terms of "human nature", is an entirely different question. That, is "strategic" in nature, and you know, someone like a General Petraeus might be able to give you some useful input, from the standpoint of "military strategy" and how you do "counter-insurgency" and "anti-guerilla ops" and that kinda thing, and someone like a Lloyd Ogilvie (ex-chaplain of the Senate) could probably talk to you about the "elements of commonality" piece in terms of actual experience, but I mean, then you'd still have to get the perspective of someone like a Muqtada al-Sadr if you wanna know what's really going on -

"intel", right?

Gotta send out "scouts".

And this "doll" thing, is just the "propaganda" piece.

According to Sun Tzu, this is how we "win the war without firing a single shot".

darn servers... sorry, they won't let me edit it no more.....

I'm no advocate of banning such "toys." There's no question that such a doll is legally acceptable, but it's moral acceptability is questionable. Bigotry is only acceptable as humor if it is applied to everyone, including yourself, equally.

The Japanese have a saying for this kind of situation. I don't remember exactly how they say it, but what it means is that when you purposely say or do something that you know will enrage a person, or group of people to retaliate, you share the responsibility of any tragedy that befalls from it.

__________________
LET ME SEE YOUR WAR FACE!!!