| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Does anyone really not know that George W. Bush believes Islam is a peaceful religion? Apparently some don't: yesterday "a young Palestinian Christian woman, Henriette Charcar" scolded the President for this, telling him: "I think it comes out that you don't like Muslims because in most of your speeches you do tend to relate extremism to Muslims."
Oh, the mind reels. Yet the sentiments of this "young Palestinian Christian woman, Henriette Charcar," are not all that different from the assumptions of the mainstream media, both liberal and conservative, in America today. Two of these assumptions are:
1. If you take note of the fact that Islamic jihadists justify their actions by referring to Islam texts and teachings that -- at very least by the account of the jihadists themselves -- justify violence and supremacism, it must mean that you hate Muslims.
But do Islamic texts and teachings actually contain elements that justify violence and supremacism? If they do, would it really mean that one necessarily dislikes Muslims if one points it out? Wouldn't that be rather like saying that if you point out that the Sun is hot, you must hate eskimos?
2. Those who "relate extremism to Muslims" are people like (preposterously enough, since he has bent over backwards to deny any such link) the President and other non-Muslims. There is no notice taken of the fact that the people who are really expending all their time energy to "relate extremism to Muslims" are Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and their ilk.
And also: if Islam really isn't a peaceful religion, as it manifestly isn't, as it is the only religion that contains doctrines and traditions mandating warfare against unbelievers, then what exactly will George W. Bush gain by pretending that it is? Will he convince peaceful Muslims not to support the jihad? Unlikely -- his status, and the status of any non-Muslim, as a teacher of Islam is not all that exalted. Will he prevent Muslim countries that are our nominal allies from supporting the jihadists? Well, it hasn't worked so far in Egypt and Pakistan, where despite ostensibly pro-Western governments there is significant support for the jihad at the highest levels.
"U.S. not at war with Islam faith, Bush says," by Jon Ward for the Washington Times, May 17 (thanks to Cindy):
President Bush yesterday told students in Israel he hasn't done enough to dispel the idea that the United States is at war with Islam, but also blamed the "poisonous" state-run TV stations in the Middle East for mischaracterizing him.During an extended conversation with about 12 college and high school students under an olive tree in Jerusalem, the issue of diplomacy arose, and Mr. Bush launched into a defense of his attitude toward Muslims.
"Somebody said to me, 'Well, how come you dislike Muslims?'" Mr. Bush said. "I don't."
But then a young Palestinian Christian woman, Henriette Charcar, spoke up.
"I think it comes out that you don't like Muslims because in most of your speeches you do tend to relate extremism to Muslims," said Miss Charcar, who attends the Tabitha school in Jaffa.
Mr. Bush responded: "Actually what I say is you're not a religious person if you're a murderer. But you're right. I've got to do a better job of making it clear when I talk about Islam, I talk about a peaceful religion, which I talk about a lot."...
Posted by Robert at May 17, 2008 9:16 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Errata Sheet:
For "a young Palestinian Christian woman, Henriette Charcar"
Read "a young islamochristian, Henriette Charcar..."
For ""U.S. not at war with Islam faith, Bush says"
Read "U.S. not at war with Islam faith, Bush says, but goes on to add that Islam in a permanent state of war with all Unbelievers who resist in any way its spread and dominance"
Posted by: Hugh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 17, 2008 9:44 AM
How do we know she is in fact Christian? Who told the author she was Christian? Is it beyond consideration Muslims would lie about being Christian in order to deceive us? Even if she is Christian, can anything she says be trusted given the constant threat of death (should any Muslim be displeased) all Christians in Palestine are under?
Posted by: aynrandgirl at May 17, 2008 9:45 AM
From RELIGION OF PEACE.COM
The Myth: Islam is a Religion of Peace
Muhammad was a peaceful man who taught his followers to be the same. Muslims lived peacefully for centuries, only fighting in self-defense when it was necessary. True Muslims would never act aggressively.
The Truth:
Muhammad organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life and personally led 27 of them. The more power that he attained, the smaller the excuse needed to go to battle, until finally he began attacking tribes merely because they were not part of his growing empire.
After Muhammad’s death, his most faithful followers and even his own family turned on each other almost immediately. There were four Caliphs (leaders) in the first twenty-five years. Three of the four were murdered. The third Caliph was murdered by the son of the first. The fourth Caliph was murdered by the fifth, who left a 100-year dynasty that was ended in a gruesome, widespread bloodbath by descendents of Muhammad’s uncle.
Muhammad’s own daughter, Fatima, and his son-in-law, Ali, who both survived the pagan hardship during the Meccan years safe and sound, did not survive Islam after the death of Muhammad. Fatima died of stress from persecution within three months, and Ali was later assassinated. Their son (Muhammad’s grandson) was killed in battle with the faction that became today’s Sunnis. His people became Shias. The relatives and personal friends of Muhammad were mixed into both warring groups, which then fractured further into hostile sub-divisions as Islam grew.
Muhammad left his men with instructions to take the battle against the Christians, Persians, Jews and polytheists (which came to include millions of unfortunate Hindus). For the next four centuries, Muslim armies steamrolled over unsuspecting neighbors, plundering them of loot and slaves, and forcing the survivors to either convert or pay tribute at the point of a sword.
Companions of Muhammad lived to see Islam declare war on every major religion in the world in just the first few decades following his death - pressing the Jihad against Hindus, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Buddhists.
By the time of the Crusades (when the Europeans began fighting back), Muslims had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world by the sword, from Spain to Syria, and across North Africa. The Arab slave-trading routes would stay open for 1300 years, until pressure from Christian-based countries forced Islamic nations to declare the practice illegal (in theory).
Today, there is not another religion in the world that consistently produces terrorism in the name of religion as does Islam. The most dangerous Muslims are nearly always those who interpret the Qur’an most transparently. They are the fundamentalists or purists of the faith, and believe in Muhammad’s mandate to spread Islamic rule by the sword, putting to death those who will not submit.
The holy texts of Islam are saturated with verses of violence and hatred toward those outside the faith. In sharp contrast to the Bible, which generally moves from relatively violent passages to far more peaceful ones, the Qur’an travels the exact opposite path. The handful of earlier verses that speak of tolerance are overwhelmed by an avalanche of later ones that carry a much different message. While Old Testament verses of blood and guts are generally bound by historical context within the text itself, Qur'anic imperatives to violence usually appear open-ended.
By any objective measure, the "Religion of Peace" has been the harshest, bloodiest religion the world has ever known.
at May 17, 2008 9:47 AM
And this is the guy that's been at the wheel againt the enemy that cannot even be identified. Not very optimistic for "victory" when the entire premise for counter jihad is based on a false one, and the man in charge of it all is chasing unicorns.
Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at May 17, 2008 9:49 AM
What else could a dhimmi say? Of course she is trying to influence what Bush is thinking and what America does thereby, Feeble yes, but still the act of a dhimmi.
Islam is a violent cult. Look at the interaction between the middle east and Europe since the founding of the cult. Look at Israel! Look at Darfur. I- cultic history is a history of warfare. There are a countless number of battles fought by the 'misunderstanders of inner struggle'
Don't Tread on Me!
Posted by: lonewolf at May 17, 2008 9:50 AM
Remain calm.
This is part of Mr Bushes very cunning plan.
So cunning none of us here can see what it is. So it must be some humdinger!
He knows what he's doing, that much is obvious, and we can sleep easy at night.
at May 17, 2008 9:58 AM
A good summary, Mackie! I would only add that the Christians fought back from the first. They weren't successful in Egypt, north Africa, Spain, or the Levant. But they did stop the Moslem onslaught at the walls of Constantinople in the 670's, and drove the Moslems back out of Anatolia, the Byzantine heartland, and kept them out for the next 400 years, despite numerous attacks. It was the loss of Anatolia, following their defeat at Manzikert in 1071, that led the Byzantines to appeal to the Western Christians for help. Likewise, in Spain, the reconquista started almost at once, and by the early 900's much of northern Spain was under Christian kings.
Posted by: ebonystone at May 17, 2008 10:14 AM
"I've got to do a better job of making it clear when I talk about Islam, I talk about a peaceful religion, which I talk about a lot."
-President Bush
Our president lives in Fantasy Land, or he's gone through the looking glass to a place where down is up and up is down and war is peace and peace is war.
Posted by: PMK at May 17, 2008 10:15 AM
Read "a young islamochristian, Henriette Charcar..." --Hugh
Excuse me, but what is that?
Posted by: darcy at May 17, 2008 10:18 AM
Yes, Mackie, that is a great summary.
I'm going to copy it for my Mohammed files.
You should send it to the White House. Somebody will read it, and who knows, maybe pass it on to our ignorant President.
Posted by: darcy at May 17, 2008 10:25 AM
"Read 'a young islamochristian, Henriette Charcar... --Hugh
Excuse me, but what is that?"
-- from a posting above
Fitzgerald: The phenomenon of the "islamochristian"
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald examines the soul of that quintessential modern-day dhimmi, the islamochristian:
The phenomenon of the "islamochristian" deserves wider attention, and the word wider use. An “islamochristian” is a Christian Arab who identifies with and works to advance the Islamic agenda, out of fear or out of a belief that his "Arabness" requires loyalty to Islam. Islamization by the Arab Muslim conquerors of Mesopotamia, Syria, and North Africa was a vehicle for Arab imperialism. This imperialism, the most successful in human history, convinced those who accepted Islam to also forget their own pre-Islamic or non-Islamic pasts. It caused them, in many cases, to forget their own languages and to adopt Arabic -- and in using Arabic, and in adopting Arabic names, within a few generations they had convinced themselves that they were Arabs.
Some held out. The Copts in Egypt today are simply the remnants of a population that was entirely Coptic, and that has suffered steady and slow asphyxiation. How many of Egypt's Arabs are in fact Copts who fail to realize this, much less have any sympathy or interest in how their Coptic ancestors, out of intolerable pressure, assumed the identity of Arabs?
In Lebanon, the mountains provided a refuge for the Maronites, by far the most successful group to withstand the Muslims. And most Maronites are quick to make the important distinction that, while they are "users of Arabic," that does not make them "Arabs." When they claim that they predate the Arab invasion (which of course they do) and are the descendants of the previous inhabitants of Lebanon, the Phoenicians, they are greeted with ridicule. But why? Where did the Phoenicians go? Did they just disappear? It is far more plausible to believe that the Maronites and the others in Lebanon are, most of them (for how many real "Arabs" actually came from the Arabian peninsula to conquer far more numerous populations of non-Arabs?) the descendants of those Phoenicians. The Maronites recognize this; the Muslims do not, because for them the superior people, the people to whom the Qur'an was "given" and "in their language," are the Arabs. The sense of Arab supremacy comes not only from the fact that the Qur'an was written in Arabic (with bits of Aramaic still floating in it), but because the Sunna, the other great guide for Muslims, consists of, and is derived from, the hadith and the sira, and reflects the life of people in 7th century Arabia.
Thus one sees the forcibly-converted descendants of Hindus, the Muslims of India and Pakistan, full of supposed "descendants of the Prophet" who are identified by the name "Sayeed." It is as if, in the middle of a former British colony, say Uganda, black Africans gave themselves such names as Anthony Chenevix-ffrench or Charles Hardcastle, and dressed like remote Englishmen at Agincourt, or Ascot, and insisted, to one and all, that they were indeed lineal descendants of Elizabeth the Virgin Queen, or Hereward the Wake, or Ethelred the Unready.
Yet when those whose ancestors were forcibly converted to Islam (and force can be not military force, but the incessant and relentless pressure of dhimmitude, which will over time cause many to give up and embrace the belief-system of the oppressor) and adopted the names, and mimicked the dress and the manners and customs of Muslims -- which are essentially those of a distant time and place (Arabia, more than a thousand years ago) -- we do not smile or think it absurd. A few Muslim "intellectuals" in East Asia occasionally suggest that local customs and ways, even local expressions of music and art, ought not to be sacrificed to the Sunna of Islam, but to no avail.
And so strong is the power of Islam among the Arabs, so ingrained is their desire to ward off Muslim displeasure, that unless they do not feel themselves to be Arabs but a self-contained community (Copts, Maronites) that has managed to survive, they are very likely to reflect the Muslim views and promote the Muslim agenda.
Nowhere can this be seen better than among the "Palestinian" Arabs. Michel Sabbagh is only one example. The Sabbagh who gave $6.5 million to support Esposito's pro-Muslim empire at Georgetown was a "Christian." (Note to James V. Schall: can you convince Georgetown's administration to sever its now-embarrassing tie to Esposito? At some point he, and Georgetown, have to part ways, for the sake of Georgetown's reputation and continued support from alumni.) The gun-running icon-stealing Archbishop Hilarion Cappucci was, in name, a Melkite Catholic; he was, in his essence, a PLO supporter. Islamochristian promoters of the Jihad -- beginning with the Jihad against Israel -- include a few "Palestinian" Presybterians who have carefully burrowed within, and risen within, the bureaucracy of the Presbyterian Church in America (no names here, but you can easily find them out), and Naim Ateek, who comes to delude audiences of Christians about the "Palestinian struggle" even as the Christian population of the "Palestinian" territories has plummeted, since Israel relinquished control, from 20% to 2% -- out of fear of Muslim "Palestinians."
Nor, of course, do Michel Sabbagh and his ilk pay much attention to the situation of Christians in the Sudan, or Indonesia, or Pakistan. Why would they? It would get in the way of their promotion of the Islamic attempt not only to reduce Israel to the dimensions that will allow them to go in for the final kill, but to seize control of the Holy Land. What, after all, do you think would happen to that Holy Land if Israel were to disappear? Do you think the Christian sites would be as scrupulously preserved? As available to pilgrims? Would Christians walk around Jerusalem if it were under the rule of Muslims with quite the same feelings of security that they do now?
No? Why not? And don't expect Michel Sabbagh to give you a truthful answer.
[Posted by Hugh at December 27, 2005]
at May 17, 2008 10:40 AM
Darcy:
Good suggestion,it is on its way to comments@whitehouse.gov
Posted by: Mackie at May 17, 2008 10:53 AM
"Do Islamic texts and teachings actually contain elements that justify violence and supremacism? If they do, would it really mean that one necessarily dislikes Muslims?"
Perhaps muslims who know the real islamic agenda do worry that if an infidel knew islam the infidel would necessarily dislike muslims. Perhaps the muslim is projecting how a rational infidel would naturally react to what the muslim is thinking and therefore, the muslim automatically assumes that a knowledgeable infidel will hate him and islam! Why are infidels not allowed to hate the ideals of islam?
Do Jews have a right to hate nazis? Do infidels have a right to hate muslims? Do Jews have a right to criticize Nazis? Hate is not the issue. Will it be a crime for Jews to hate Nazis because Nazis tended to be one ethnic group? It is infidel protection from islamic tyranny that is at issue. Until muslims denounce their co- religionists the alleged majority are co- conspirators. In their silence they allow muslims to tyrannize this planet. Muslims claim that they are hated. Does the muslim have anything to say about it? Should the infidel care to spare the muslim's feelings? Muslim, have you kissed an infidel today? Until muslims stand up en masse and renouce hate and violence of the infidel worldwide, infidels have every right to have an animus to the religion and its adherents.
The only thing oppressing islam is its demonic god. Muslims know this, but have to claim some kind of religious protection qua religion or every knowlegeable infidel would naturally and normally hate islam.
Posted by: David England at May 17, 2008 10:56 AM
Any real Christian would recognize just who Allah and Muhammad were.
what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?
at May 17, 2008 11:11 AM
We are not at war with Islam . We just want this ideology out of our homes . out of our schools and colleges.
It is a free country . yes... but when an ideology threatens the very existence of this land , it is our duty to take it out .
It is ok to be Muslim but go and live somewhere else to practice and teach your rules.
we have to work with the legislators in order for them to declare illegal Islam the same way they declared communism illegal here.
and how many Sept 11 will it take to achieve the goal.?
3800 in NY , over 4000 in Irak.... It is time to stop the blood bath.
Posted by: Tartine at May 17, 2008 11:33 AM
We are not at war with Islam . We just want this ideology out of our homes . out of our schools and colleges.
It is a free country . yes... but when an ideology threatens the very existence of this land , it is our duty to take it out .
It is ok to be Muslim but go and live somewhere else to practice and teach your rules.
we have to work with the legislators in order for them to declare illegal Islam the same way they declared communism illegal here.
and how many Sept 11 will it take to achieve the goal.?
3800 in NY , over 4000 in Irak.... It is time to stop the blood bath.
Posted by: Tartine at May 17, 2008 11:34 AM
What do you want Bush to say? "Koranic texts support violence" therefore "All muslims are extremists"?
Bush saying the above would make all muslims even more defensive of their religion, increase extremism, and further polarize the world. Surely we can be more subtle than that.
Instead of thinking "If your not with me you're against me" try the cleverer way: "If you are not ACTIVELY against us, you are with us" a way of thinking that came from Julius Casear.
I don't agree that moderate muslims will naturally become extremists. Saying that the average muslim is a sleeping Osama bin Laden is not in our interests. To say he is a peaceful man that can work with us, is in our interests.
Not that long ago, the West was in the control of the Church, but its power diminished as we modernised. Isolate the fundamentalists politically and by force if necessary while reaching out to moderates through diplomacy, economics (increasing real trade), culture, and Western values. These combined are our strongest forces in the struggle with fundamentalism.
This site is right that the Koran preaches violence, but perhaps it is not enough to be right, we should be pragmatic too.
Posted by: madijihadi at May 17, 2008 11:40 AM
I can't wait till this fool leaves office.
Even Obama would be better than that. (Not really, but could he be any worse?)
Posted by: scribe10 at May 17, 2008 12:00 PM
Madijihadi:
We have discussed these arguments many times over the past 6 years since the formation of Robert Spencer's Jihadwatch. Yes we realize that the President is trying not to indict the entire umma when he speaks so as to allow for some wiggle room when interacting with the so-called and professed moderates of Islam.
But time and time again the Islamic world does not capitulate, the faces of moderates are way to stealthy. Even when a moderate group called for a peace demonstration in Washington DC a few years ago, only a handful showed up.
Where are they? Who are they? Do we hear them condeming the violent practices of Islam? Why do we see a poll in Pakistan that shows 50Pct. of the population sees Osama Bin Laden as a hero? Why do read of polls that show over 35 Pct. of Muslims in the UK and America approve of suicide bombers?
How do you convince the Arabs,Jordanians,Syrians,Egyptians,Iranians,Iraqisand and 40 other Muslim Countries that Israel is not your enemy?
Posted by: Mackie at May 17, 2008 12:04 PM
>>An “islamochristian” is a Christian Arab who identifies with and works to advance the Islamic agenda, out of fear or out of a belief that his "Arabness" requires loyalty to Islam."
Thank You for that explanation, Hugh. Whoa. I never knew. I'll be copying it for my files.
Posted by: darcy at May 17, 2008 12:49 PM
It wouldn't matter one iota what ANY president of the Great Satan says about Islam. The Islamofacists want us GONE, and they will use any argument to further their cause. We've seen it time and time again, they are chipping away against us using our foibles and laws to do it.
There are too many panderers to them, too many leftists agreeing with them. Political correctness and the left will destroy us from within.
at May 17, 2008 1:10 PM
"I don't agree that moderate muslims will naturally become extremists. "
Dude: Just how will you sort out the 'moderate' from the 'extremist?'
You think you can tell?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 17, 2008 1:10 PM
"I don't agree that moderate muslims will naturally become extremists. "
Dude: Just how will you sort out the 'moderate' from the 'extremist?'
You think you can tell?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 17, 2008 1:10 PM
perhaps most of you do not realize that Bush is practicing muslim double speak, say islam is a ROP as you bomb and destroy their infracture and impose Democracy on them. like muslims you can say one thing and your actions do the complete opposite. could be considered cleaver in some parts of the world.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at May 17, 2008 1:19 PM
Mr. Spencer's observation:
"...if you point out that the Sun is hot, you must hate eskimos?"
Hehehehe. That one had me chuckling away. Nice observation.
Cheers
Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at May 17, 2008 1:26 PM
Madijihadi,
Saying that the average muslim is a sleeping Osama bin Laden is not in our interests. To say he is a peaceful man that can work with us, is in our interests.
That's exactly what we've been trying for more than three decades. I date the very public Western distinctions between "moderate" and "extremist" Muslims from the Iranian Revolution.
Isolate the fundamentalists politically and by force if necessary while reaching out to moderates through diplomacy, economics (increasing real trade), culture, and Western values.
Isn't this what we have been doing? The problem is that isolating the fundamentalists by force OR by diplomacy has resulted in the so-called moderates claiming we are against Islam. The so-called moderates are the ones who admire Osama bin Laden. They are the ones protecting him. Why, unless they support him? You don't have to don a suicide vest to show your support. Those tapes that keep coming out? They're made somewhere. Someone is focusing the camera. Someone is distributing the tapes. The moderates are his network. They operate with impunity because they present a mask of peace even as they support Osama's war.
For a case study, look at Fatah and Hamas. People say we shouldn't isolate Hamas, even though Hamas is extremist.
Then look at Iran. What is moderate about Iran? Please don't point to the Iranian people. They're the ones who support Ahmadinejad. If they don't support him or the mullahs then they have a funny way of showing it.
"If you are not ACTIVELY against us, you are with us"
If this is so clever then Muslims should try it sometime. We've been doing it for decades. Even after 9/11, President Bush took great pain to show the world that all Muslims weren't held responsible, because they weren't ACTIVELY engaged in terrorist acts. (And what is meant by ACTIVELY? They are ACTIVELY against us every day. Didn't you see the stories about how we should be wiped off the map?) Our fight was with al Qaeda. It wasn't even with the Taliban. The Taliban became our enemy once they actively supported bin Laden against us. Our fight wasn't with Saudis, Egyptians, Arabs, Kuwaitis, etc. But people from all those places took America's fight with Afghanistan as a fight with them. People criticized George W. Bush for his pronouncement but all he was doing was taking the fight to the enemy in terms the enemy could understand, since it is the same principle the enemy employs. We have no time to be clever. Matters of survival don't leave room for subtlety. You're alive or dead. In war, you're an enemy or an ally. There is no neutrality. If you are not with us then you are against us.
We're only practicing what they preach. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Following the terms you suggest would mean we can never defend our interests because any action anywhere in the world is taken as an attack on the umma. No one suggests that every Muslim is a bin Laden in the making. But by not renouncing him they are supporting him. By coming to his defense they are supporting him.
Posted by: PMK at May 17, 2008 1:41 PM
I have to wonder when (I hope "when" and not "if") the day will come that an American President will state the obvious: that Islam calls for unremitting war against the unbeliever until all the earth is ruled by Sharia. Those who fault Bush for not doing this should at least acknowledge that there is absolutely no one on the American political landscape who has any kind of electability to the Presidency who is prepared to do that (please, a Tom Tancredo type won't do). This just points out again that Islam's supremacist designs are inordinately aided by the extreme reluctance by most to criticize an entire religion. Meanwhile, Muslim immigration to non-Muslim lands and Muslim terror continue apace. Not good.
Posted by: Wellington at May 17, 2008 1:50 PM
Bush: "Actually what I say is you're not a religious person if you're a murderer.
Of course not. It's not possible for a religious person to murder...is it????
Allahu Ackbar just lost it's meaning...
Posted by: duh_swami at May 17, 2008 2:42 PM
"Actually what I say is you're not a religious person if you're a murderer. But you're right. I've got to do a better job of making it clear when I talk about Islam, I talk about a peaceful religion, which I talk about a lot."
American Dhimmi Award 2008!
It is time....Bush must win!
at May 17, 2008 4:41 PM
Redefining words or concepts are a form of deceit. It shows the lack of true leadership of the President. As other threads have noted he is listening to Condi to much. She may have been good with the USSR but she does not know the enemy and tends to compartmentalize the war in nation state terms. That give the State Dept a reason to exist. I am convinced that he believes what he says. The trick is to convince him otherwise.
Keep this cards, letters and emails going to the government. I will be copying and pasting comments made by others on the thread to a email I am sending today.
Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at May 17, 2008 4:56 PM
"I think it comes out that you don't like Muslims because in most of your speeches you do tend to relate extremism to Muslims."
Yes...and I relate Cancer to Death. Any wonder why?
Indeed....how does one separate the moderate Muslim from the nutcake. You don't/can't. The wheat will fall with the weeds. Pity. All those Muslim Jim Jones' out there, leading their people to death.
I don't blame the brainwashed...I blame the brainwasher.
Posted by: Alaskan
at May 17, 2008 6:19 PM
Extremist: Mohammedan actively engaged in physical Jihad (or killing the Kafur). A.k.a. The Army of the Ummah
Moderate: Mohammedan actively engaged in “the inner spiritual struggle” ( or 5th columnist engaged in Taqqiya or the deception and misdirection of the Kafur as the Extremist prepare their attacks. They also use the Achilles’ heel of the Western Democracies of PC, Multiculturalism, and Self-absorbed guilt riding angst). A.k.a. the saboteurs or the Kitman
Remember most of our politicians have been bought by Saudi Oil money and are such paid mercenary saboteurs.
at May 17, 2008 6:36 PM
I see no evidence that Islam is the religion of peace.
The only ‘peace’ that Islamic leaders are talking about is the peace that you get when you have totally defeated your enemies by the sword. And then look up how they define ‘enemy’.
Why then does this so called president propagate this crap. Does he really think anyone, including muslims, are so screwed up to believe this? Not even Bush believes it nor could he substantiate what he means by it.
The fact is that the "religion of peace" tag is a smokescreen and Bush is treating the US people with contempt by attempting to spread this message. If McCain ever starts up with this shit I will truly despair for the Republicans.
Posted by: raven_ at May 17, 2008 6:49 PM
You have Politicians not willing to take a stand against Islam directly in order to escape the dreaded bigot/hateful/intolerant labels in the MSM. They are scared to lose broad voter appeal. They'll be exploited to great lengths by Muslim spin doctors in the media to cloud the real issue what true Islamic doctrine is all about.
You have people born into families with a "Christian heritage" willing to parrot the PC dogma that Islam is really a good religion at heart being perverted by a few wackos. They'll be exploited to great lengths by Muslim spin doctors in the media to cloud the real issue what true Islamic doctrine is all about.
You also have people born into Muslim families that just assume the identity half heartedly that appear peaceful & tolerant, because their loose commitment allow them to blend into western culture easier. They'll be exploited to great lengths by Muslim spin doctors in the media to cloud the real issue what true Islamic doctrine is all about.
And we are left to try to sift through this junk out in trying to expose Islam-o-fascism to the rest of society.
Posted by: SoteriA at May 17, 2008 7:17 PM
Hey Mackie,
Here's a funny. I did a search for religionofpeace.com to include the URL in my copy of what you posted and I wound up at a site that declares:
Purpose of Islam
The purpose of Islam is to save humankind from the anguish of this world and the world to come. Therefore the Prophet's mission was to establish justice and peace on earth and to offer guidance for salvation in the Hereafter. For all of this his method was nonviolence, because he was created rahmatan lil-`alamin as a Mercy to the Worlds.
His love for humankind historically proves the truth of his way. At the beginning of his prophethood he went to Taif to call the people towards Allah, and people threw stones at him mercilessly and hurt him severely. The angels came to him and sought his order to punish the people of Taif, but the Mercy to the Worlds refused them, and prayed to Allah for the good of those who hurt him.
Mankind is one single nation
The Prophet taught the people to love Allah and to love human beings. He taught them to love even their oppressors. It is known from the hadith that the Prophet used to pray for the good of his Ummah with tears, every day after each of the five obligatory prayers. Even at the time of his death the Prophet wept for his Ummah. And according to Islam all human beings from his time to the last day of the world are the Ummah of Hadrat Muhammad.salli Allahu `alayhi wa sallam The Qur'an declares (2:213): "Mankind is one single nation." The Holy Prophet's life was a symbol of love and nonviolence. He was the first among all to protect others' rights.
I must admit. I have never before read such sanitized self-serving bullshit as this. Have you?
Posted by: Lex at May 17, 2008 7:23 PM
Here's the link: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Myths-of-Islam.htm#peace
Posted by: Lex at May 17, 2008 7:27 PM
Yeah Lex all that is [sort of]true IF one willingly submits and converts to Islam. If you choose to reject Islam and even dare to oppose it's rule?
Jihad.
Posted by: SoteriA at May 17, 2008 7:34 PM
aide to bush:
"You don't want to offend muslims, right?"
bush:
"Correct-a-mundo. That's spanish, in case you didn't recognize it."
aide:
"Then insead of saying 'You're not a religious person if you're a murderer,' you should say, 'You're not a religious person if you're a murderer, unless you're a muslim, in which case murder committed to advance the cause of islam is not only permissible, but commendable.'"
bush:
"I don't follow. BTW, that happens often."
aide:
"It's really quite straightforward. mohammad is the islamic prophet. muslims regard him as the perfect man, the perfect model for human conduct. That means that whatever he did as the muslim prophet is worthy of emulation by any muslim at any time."
bush:
"OK."
aide:
"well, mohammad ordered the assassination of at least 2 poets: an elderly poetess, Abu 'Afak, whose only crime was to mock him in her poems, and a Jewish poet named Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf. So if muslims regard mohammad as the perfect model for human conduct, and mohammad ordered the assassination of people whose only transgression was to offend his sensibilities, then you can no longer say, 'You're not a religious person if you're a murderer.' mohammad clearly was a murderer AND a religious person, at least according to muslims and, I might add, according to you, since you have called islam one of the world's great RELIGIONS. So what you should say is, 'You're not a religious person if you're a murderer, unless you're a muslim, in which case murder committed to advance islam is permissible.'"
bush:
"Wow! Thanks a lot. Tell my speechwriters to add the offending statement to the list of words/phrases never to be uttered again, such as 'crusade,' 'islamofasist,' and jihad.'"
at May 17, 2008 8:01 PM
Bush cannot think on his feet.
(Or many other extremities.)
He has no apparent understanding of Islam.
He wings it with the "Islam is peace stuff" the way his father did with the "vision thing".
Soon, thankfully, he will be history.
Hopefully, the rest of us will not be ...thanks to his naivete.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 17, 2008 8:23 PM
The Arab analysts are hard at work. There is an article answering the apostasy charge - that Muslims can be killed for leaving Islam. It has many non-answers but the most compelling is below.
The Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, one of the most prominent Sunni institutions, Muhammad Sayyed Tantantawi said, “A Muslim who renounced his faith or turned apostate should be left alone as long as he does not pose a threat or belittle Islam.”
Note the qualifier. What does it mean to "belittle" Islam? Doesn't anyone who leaves Islam automatically pose a threat to the ROP? They might convince others to follow suit.
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=748461763c855f20d312f900bedd1fc6
Posted by: PMK at May 17, 2008 9:10 PM
profitsbeard: OK, I get the fact you don't like or respect President Bush. So whom do you think does get it about Islam in the American political establishment and is ready to say so and be convincing to a majority of the American people?
Posted by: Wellington at May 17, 2008 9:32 PM
Wellington,
If I may, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota), wants to “take over” and “institute Sharia,” according to Pat Robertson. I should note that this was from a March 20, 2007 posting at http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/03/robertson_musli_1.html, so it may be that Robertson has since moderated his views, or Ellison is not the threat that he COULD be.
Does John McCain "get it?" There's this
Blurb: Presidential candidate and U.S. Senator John McCain discusses the country's Judeo-Christian roots, explains why the prospect of a Muslim in the White House makes him uncomfortable, and reveals that he wouldn't undergo a full-immersion baptism until his presidential campaign is over.
at May 17, 2008 9:54 PM
Fixed: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/03/robertson_musli_1.html
Posted by: Lex at May 17, 2008 9:55 PM
Wellington:
That's an entirely fair question. I single bush out not b/c other influential politicians get it & he doesn't, but b/c he's the president, with all the power & influence that that office carries.
You may have seen Peggy Noonan's article, linked on Drudge, about the death of the Republican Party. bush isn't the only culprit, of course, but he's the main one. What's especially galling about the catastrophe that is the Republican party is that if bush had made the right decisions following 9/11 by correctly identifying our enemy, using the existence of that enemy as the justification for a long-term plan to reduce our dependence on mideast oil by, say, 75% over 10-15 years, more effectively prosecuting the war in afghanistan, securing the borders, reigning in earmarks/wasteful government spending ("Our military spending over the next decade will have to expand significantly, so we have to cut back in other areas, esp. gov't pork." He could have called earmarks war profiteering, with little exaggeration), opposing expansion of government through McCain/Feingold & Prescription Plan D, etc., I'm convinced that the Democratic Party could have been banished to the political wilderness for 25-40 years. Instead, we nearly have the reverse.
Posted by: sheik yer booty at May 17, 2008 10:15 PM
The moderate Muslims have no one to defend them but us. The Bush Administration has been very clear in its policy of confronting and killing the extremists in Islam. To the exclusion of just about everyone else.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at May 17, 2008 10:23 PM
Lex: Thanks for the humor about Keith Ellison. I would only add here that the day America has a majority of his type in Congress, that will signal the end of America as we know it. As for the John McCain comments, I fear they're just peripheral stuff by a good man (so is Bush I would contend) who still is not prepared to state (or fully know) what needs to be stated, i.e., that Islam unfettered in America and the West would destroy America and the West.
sheik yer booty: Thanks for your reply, which I can only fault because too honest. Do you really think any American President in the first decade of the twenty-first century could actually say what you (and I) would really want him to say? I submit to you that it is in the realm of the arguable that Bush has pushed the envelope respecting attacking the invidious enemy which is radical Islam as much as anyone could have (this is completely lost on those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome). The Democrats, clueless as usual, would not have done nearly as much as Bush has and a whole load of Republicans are wussies as well and not nearly as ready as Bush has been to assert moral certitudes about freedom and the need to defend it. I remain amused by the fact that all those critics of Bush out there don't seem to consider the possibility that the President, with his limitations to be sure, is the best we have for now. We need to ascend to the next level of leadership, which means aspiring to find a new Lincoln. No one I know of on the American political horizon (or in all of the West for that matter) meets this criterion. But what do you think?
Posted by: Wellington at May 17, 2008 10:55 PM
The poor little IslamoChristian dear says "you don't like Muslims because in most of your speeches you do tend to relate extremism to Muslims."
=== === === === === ===
Who, exactly, does she think is doing all this "extremist" stuff? Beheading schoolgirls, flying planes into skyscrapers, blowing up train & subway stations, attempting to blow up airport terminals, etc, etc, etc??? Does this little female think it's the friggin' Eskimos? Wild 'n' crazy Mensa members? Does "allahu ackbar" sound Latin to her?
There was a quote that made the rounds a couple of years ago, by Abdel Rahman al-Rashed (general manager of Al- Arabiya news channel): "It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims." Does Ms. Charcar think Mr. al-Rashed doesn't like Muslims? Does Ms. Charcar think that some new terrorist group is trying to muscle jihadist Muslims out of the "continuing-as-number-one-in-worldwide-terrorism" spot on our national hit parade?
Sheesh. Dumber 'n a box of rocks...
Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at May 17, 2008 10:55 PM
Wellington-
Tom Tancredo.
Sue Myrick.
Very few others.
Bush has waffled, perhaps fatally for the West, about Islam since 9/12/2001, when he could have used that traumatic clash (between the Muslim faith's imperialistic and intolerant ideological core and the human rights and freedom-promoting West) as a moment to confront the noxious teachings within Islam. And try to force some change and progress and tolerance upon backward Mohammadism.
Instead, he sugar-coated the hate-filled Koran.
Poison, with a honey sheath, is still poison.
He has prevented a second 9/11, which deserves praise.
But has also invited the slow undermining of the West.
Which requires condemnation.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 17, 2008 11:17 PM
profitsbeard: You're correct. Bush has sugar-coated the Koran and all of Islam. But if he had openly challenged Muslims worldwide right after 9/11 to rid their faith of its many noxious elements, rather than maintaining that said elements are aberrations in an essentially tolerant religion, the outcry and resistance to such an assessment, I would argue, would have led to at least as many difficulties, here at home and worldwide, as we have now. Actually, almost certainly more. Those who post here at JW and know Islam for what it is have the luxury of functioning in an environment with few if any consequences. A President of the United States is not nearly so fortunate.
One step at a time. Bush is the first step. I see him in that context. But now we need to take additional steps. Free peoples, especially Americans (I would put Australians a close second) have to be talked into revolutionary ideas (e.g., that a major religion is rotten to the core) little by little. Time to go the next level as the new Hundred Years War continues.
But damn Islam for all this. It's nothing but trouble and I for one am out of patience with its many imbecilities, its massive intolerance and its capacity to make life miserable for believers and non-believers alike. The trick will be conveying all this in a statesmanlike manner to folks who are not yet ready to hear it. But then statesmanship is often about leading a people to a place they don't yet know they have to go. Sadly, no Churchill or Lincoln like figure has yet appeared but we will need such a person sooner rather than later.
Posted by: Wellington at May 18, 2008 1:01 AM
But if he had openly challenged Muslims worldwide right after 9/11 to rid their faith of its many noxious elements, rather than maintaining that said elements are aberrations in an essentially tolerant religion, the outcry and resistance to such an assessment, I would argue, would have led to at least as many difficulties, here at home and worldwide, as we have now. Actually, almost certainly more.Au contraire, Wellington!
After 9/11, public outrage was red hot, and had Bush done what you state, he would have easily won a lot more converts, than he did later with Iraq. In fact, that was the best time and opportunity for people to learn the truth about Islam - something many posters here claim that was the turning point for them. Remember, Pakistan, for instance, was scrambling to divert US anger from Pakistan to the Taliban, despite the fact that Pakistan was pretty much the backbone of the Taliban. The Saudis too were reeling after that. Had this anti-Islam message been delivered while the iron was hot, Islam would have taken a body blow, and had all the other issues with Islam, such as intolerance, womens rights, religious freedoms of minorities, et al been brought up then, it's quite possible that the Muslim empire might have been considerably shaken up.
Instead, the grovelling before Islam that followed reads like an absolute 'We are sorry you hit us, and so we apologize' exercise.
Defeat. Jaws. Victory.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 18, 2008 1:43 AM
From above: But if he had openly challenged Muslims worldwide right after 9/11 to rid their faith of its many noxious elements, rather than maintaining that said elements are aberrations in an essentially tolerant religion,
How do muslims view a filthy muslim murdering kuffir, who says they have noxious elements in their religion that they need to get rid of?
I plain don't get Bush's relationship with muslims, or especially theirs with him. It seems schizophrenic, almost like 'The Odd Couple'.
Bush is a killer of muslims. They all know that.
Yet they smooze, hug , kiss, hold hands, dine together, and they have even gone so far as to
allow this muslim killer to pray in a mosque, probably to Christ as well. Have these muslims gone daft, or do they know something we don't?
Why would they allow an infidel dog to pray in their mosque, defiling it? Unless maybe, he was not defiling it, and maybe he is not an infidel dog. I don't know, just speculating, but there is something wrong with that picture...
at May 18, 2008 2:04 AM
Infidel Pride-
My thoughts exactly.
Strike when the iron (existential fury) is red hot.
The time was perfectly ripe.
Bush, and the rest, flubbed their historical chance to alter the equation with Islam.
(Libya IMMEDIATELY threw away its nukes in fear of the righteous anger of America, over-estimating our leaders' will.)
You rarely get two such opportunities to influence an enemy to change their ways from a position of unquestioned strength.
Our strength is now questionable- to Islam- because of the diffidence and uncertainty and ignorance demonstrated by our leaders.
Muslims will never fear us as they (justifiably) did on 9/12/2001 again.
Which was Bush's (and all Western leaders') tragic failing.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 18, 2008 2:09 AM
Sheik yer Booty- I read that Peggy Noonan article too. Whew! She really knows how to drive home a point. I think we all know that Bush isn't fit to manage a CVS, let alone occupy the White House, so it is fruitless to pick apart the stupid comments he makes on an overseas trip.
He blew a unique moment in American history and got a lot of our troops killed. That's how we'll remember him.
On the bright side for Republicans, McCain was very funny on SNL last night.
Posted by: Bingo
at May 18, 2008 3:42 AM
What the US and the West needs most of all is leaders as blunt and plain speaking about Islam as John Quincy Adams, Winston Churchill and Theodore Roosevelt, who wrote the following passages:
"In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Adams's capital letters)… Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant… While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and goodwill towards men.” - John Quincy Adams
"The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force." - John Quincy Adams
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
“Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.” - Winston Churchill
“The religion of Islam above all others was founded upon the sword … Moreover it provides incentives to slaughter, and in three continents has produced fighting breeds of men – filled with a wild and merciless fanaticism.” – Winston Churchill
“The Greeks who triumphed at Marathon and Salamis did a work without which the world would have been deprived of the social value of Plato and Aristotle, of Aeschylus, Herodotus, and Thucydides. The civilization of Europe, America, and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization, because the victories stretching through the centuries from the days of Miltiades and Themistocles to those of Charles Martel in the eighth century and those of John Sobieski in the seventeenth century.”
“During the thousand years that included the careers of the Frankish soldier and the Polish king, the Christians of Asia and Africa proved unable to wage successful war with the Moslem conquerors; and in consequence Christianity practically vanished from the two continents; and today nobody can find in them any "social values" whatever, in the sense in which we use the words, so far as the sphere of Mohammedan influence. There are such "social values" today in Europe, America, and Australia only because during those thousand years the Christians of Europe possessed the warlike power to do what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to do - that is, to beat back the Moslem invader.” – Theodore Roosevelt
If only Bush and Rice had the same wisdom as these learned men, whose presence is needed more than ever today.
at May 18, 2008 9:16 AM
"I've got to do a better job" - President Bush
And what is that job ? As I am not an American, I had to do a bit of reading, but I think that job may be defined by this oath ?:
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".
In order to execute his office, the President has to concern himself with many things, but is talking "a lot" about Islam really one of them ? Especially when what he says is at such varience with the experience of so many millions of people in the USA and around the world ?
How persistently in denial does a man have to be before questions about his judgement deny him high office ?
at May 18, 2008 9:55 AM
Infidel Pride: I share your great distaste for the Islamic faith but I would counter your argument by pointing out that even now, going on seven years since 9/11, a majority of the American people have not yet concluded that violence and intolerance are intrinsic to Islam (though the numbers are growing, among them many members of my own family as well as several close friends who originally dismissed my criticisms of Islam as too harsh but who now acknowledge that I was correct). Any President in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 who faulted the entire Islamic religion would have had to spend a lot of his time just countering all the extra bile extended his way by his own fellow Americans, not to mention what Europeans would have said. Things are not as easy as they sometimes appear to be, including often times just stating the plain truth. That's part of the reason why I've cut some slack to the President, though leaders of a different kind will be needed soon who can, with skill, say openly and convicingly what you and I already know about Islam.
Posted by: Wellington at May 18, 2008 1:29 PM
With all due respect to President Bush, I'm afraid I don't believe the President IF he really means that the religion of Islam is NOT a violent religion...
Violence is advocated & encouraged toward non believers in the Koran...Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....is this hard to understand...???? Cut out the political crap & understand Islam is an iseology that is at best, Barbaric, Primitive, and plain stupid...Killing people, domination of the world. etc. what kind of rhetoric is this? Normal thinking? I don't think so...
It's time to tell the truth, while we still can, without the threat of slaughter from our peace loving darlings; Islam's folowers....
at May 18, 2008 5:17 PM
Wellington,
As a cantankerous person by nature, I find your unfailing courtesy in debate most annoying. But I suppose that as long as it doesn't violate terms of use set by the board moderators, which it apparently doesn't, I can live with it.
I completely disagree with most of what you say about bush. As Infidel Pride has already alluded to, in the weeks following 9/11, bush's popularity soared as he gave the taliban an ultimatum, and the country was ready to be mobilized for a great struggle ahead. Instead, bush told us to go out & shop. While you see bush as a good first step in a long struggle against islam, I see 2 big black marks: first, misleading the American people about islam; and second, squandering a good percentage of the U.S. resevoir of men, money & morale on the iraq adventure. After being misled, or worse, lied to, about the nature of islam by bush, how likely are Americans to believe another president who tries to make the case against islam? And if islam itself really is the problem (as we know it to be), why have we been trying all these years to build a western-style democracy on an islamic foundation in afghanistan & iraq? Furthermore, after iraq, how likely is American to unite behind another military campaign, this time being one that we should & must fight?
As for current politicians who might ascend to natioanl office & lead us out of the bushes, I'm looking at Gov. Sarah Palin (R) of Alaska & Bobby Jindal (R). I don't know if either has taken a position vis-a-vis islam. As the son of Indian parents, I assume that Jindal is aware of the horrors inflicted upon his parents' homeland by the muslim invaders. And Palin has shown herself to be no friend of the republican establishment by raising state taxes on the oil companies & calling on Sen. Stevens to explain to the citizens of Alaska why their senior senator is being investigated by the FBI.
Posted by: sheik yer booty at May 18, 2008 5:45 PM
sheik yer booty: Thanks for the compliment (I think). OK, let's cut to the quick. Either the West, led by America, pursues a divide and conquer strategy or it's all out war on Islam (by doing nothing more that stating accurately what Islam is). This takes me to the matter of political capital.
I would argue that an American President in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 who would have said something to the effect that "Islam sucks" would have had virtually no political capital left to pursue the more radical elements within the Islamic faith. Let's see, most Democrats would have yelled bloody murder. Even most Republicans (especially Alen Specter, Olympia Snowe types) would have castigated such a President. I think the only viable course for the initial stage of this Hundred Years War we're in was to pretend (or believe) that there's a good Islam out there which needs to be rescued from its hijackers. Even immensely knowledgeable folks like Daniel Pipes and Bernard Lewis continue to argue this position to this day.
Politics is the art of the possible. I submit to you that it was not possible in this first decade of the twenty-first century to label the entire Islamic faith rotten (even though it is). I also submit to you (and here's a major core of my thinking) that the Iraq misadventure was a necessary endeavor in the process of convincing non-Muslims that the Muslim world is hopeless. Yes, it's very Richelieu and Machiavelli like, but I would vigorously argue that it was the only viable course that could have been pursued up to the present.
But what about the future? Ah, here is where you and I will indeed begin to coalesce. Someway, somehow an American political leader will need to state the obvious about Islam in a way that is convincing to most. You mentioned Palin and Jindal. But I have no direct knowledge that either of these two are prepared to do what needs to be done. Neither do I have knowledge that there is anyone else out there with the political skill to state the obvious. Do you?
Hey, we're on the same page. It's just that the patience factor is where we divide. My best to you and yours.
Posted by: Wellington at May 18, 2008 7:10 PM
Wellington,
You wrote:
"I also submit to you (and here's a major core of my thinking) that the Iraq misadventure was a necessary endeavor in the process of convincing non-Muslims that the Muslim world is hopeless."
Possibly. But that process certainly won't advance as you anticipate if Obama is elected. And he owes his prospects for election as the next president entirely to bush's missteps, especially in iraq, without which, as I've said before, people outside of Illinois & Wash. DC wouldn't even know his name.
Posted by: sheik yer booty at May 18, 2008 11:43 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)