No Way Jose!

I just can’t do it. Two weeks after an election bloodbath where “corruption” was the single most determinative issue in its outcome and not “Iraq”, Democrats of all stripes are now clogging the airwaves with their “solutions” on Iraq.

No way, Jose!

None of their "plans" are better than what is going on presently, and all of them show a shocking misunderstanding of the what the president said five year ago: "The terrorist high jacked a peaceful religion"

That sentence has proved prophetic.

Hamas,Hezbollah, Al Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban, and the PLO just to name a trifling few have one thing in common: they all existed before George Bush assumed the presidency.

So did the Wahhabi sect, the madarasas of Pakistan, the concept of jihad, the oppressive regimes in Iran and Syria, the thousand year old Shia-Sunni hatred, and most importantly, the Palestinian-Israeli issue.

Every one of the aforementioned concepts above have a single unifying thread...one that would have existed even if Sadam was still gassing Kurds today...and that is the concept that can be no "peace" with the infidel. At best,a truce, but no peace.

People like Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer have devoted their lives ( not to mention risking their lives ) trying to point out this very idea, but they were whistling in the wind as vitriol and partisan hatred gripped this country.

Neither side really has / had the answer and that is because neither side really understands/understood the base issue of conflict there.

The president and his policies inflamed a hatred, but did not create it. In a region where tribal regimes reign supreme with the concept of revenge killings and is the accepted norm, and in a society where uneducated crackpots claim that they are "imams" and speak for the Prophet, and whose flock blindly follow their own vitriol, the talk of withdrawal, redeployment and that we have "lost" has put our forces in a tenuous position.

If I had one bit of advice to to give to the Republican presidential hopefuls going forward it is this: take the time to learn the problem of fundamentalist Islam backward and forward, learn its history, and realize that there can be no true peace with that particular mindset. None. It must be destroyed or it will destroy America and her way of life. Read Spencer's "The Truth About Muhammad: The Founder of The World's Most Intolerant Religion" as a threshold primer.

Most importantly: Educate the American public with the hundreds of millions of dollars that you will raise in political contributions. Separate yourself from the others.

Thus, as I listen to Jack Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy and those that I will be forced to listen to these next 24 months, I have one thing to say: No Way Jose!

Posted by Sicilian Eagle at November 22, 2006 6:59 AM
Comments
Comment #196165

Good take SE, great point. If I have one hope, it is that the Democrats now in power also take your advice to know our enemy. Citizens of this country, of whatever political stripe, must unite and realize the enormity of the battle we face with those who plan our destruction.

Posted by: Seminole 6 at November 22, 2006 7:48 AM
Comment #196166

Nobody hijacked anything. Islam is a violent, intolerent, hateful and vindictive political and religious ideology. The terrorists and the imams who goad them on are following the edicts and example of the (probably schizophrenic) mass murdering pedophile who created it.
Islamists can’t be bargained with and they won’t compromise. Their goal is Islamic domination of the entire world with all other religions, cultures, ideologies and philosophies utterly subjugated or banned outright, as the Koran commands.
They will settle for nothing less and intend to achieve their goal by deception, violence or any other means necessary, as the Koran commands.
Unless and until we understand and accept this fact we will be defeated, as Europe has been (it’s only a matter of time until sharia becomes the law of the continent).
Islam is the greatest evil man has ever faced. In its prior assault on western civilization it was barely defeated and pushed back to the pit where it belongs. This time it made it a lot further and America is the last bastion against this evil. Will we come to our senses in time?

Posted by: traveller, at November 22, 2006 8:32 AM
Comment #196170

SE:

I have been wanting to get Spencer’s book. It sounds like he only quotes early Muslims and Muhammad himself.

Posted by: JimmyRay at November 22, 2006 9:14 AM
Comment #196171

JimmyRay

It’s a tour do force. Period. A primer,warts and all,on the religion

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 22, 2006 9:21 AM
Comment #196172

Bush’s plan is not working. Period. It doesn’t work to simply fight and fight, burning money all the while, and getting nowhere.

Bush Senior’s plan of reducing and managing risk through International trade agreements did work. Period. That seems to be where the Democrats are taking us. Hardly a new, or even anti-Republican position. It’s the same way Reagan beat Russia.

Posted by: Max at November 22, 2006 9:34 AM
Comment #196174

Max

Agreed. However, during the Regan ere, the fundamentalist thought was just getting its legs (again) as it has periodically throughtout history.

The difference is that this time, nuclear WMD’s may be the issue. Then it wasn’t.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 22, 2006 10:03 AM
Comment #196175

We can’t beat this enemy until we become as brutal as they are. We tie ourselves to the Geneva Convention while they decapitate civilians on international TV. We fear the PC implications of blowing up a mosque, but the terrorists hiding inside that mosque would take pleasure in blowing up a Christian church. If we aren’t willing to fight a battle on the same terms they are willing to fight, we will never win and shouldn’t bother trying. They don’t value decency. They don’t value human life.

Posted by: jacktruth at November 22, 2006 10:06 AM
Comment #196176

Bounce……Bounce……Bounce…….YYYYYAAAAAWWWWNN!!!!
I was wondering when you would surface again!

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 22, 2006 10:15 AM
Comment #196180

Paul in Eurolana

Actually, those 3 “Bounce” pieces were very well received and I will do them again in the future.

If nothing else,they provided a good forum for pretty good debate.

The last couple of weeks I have been digesting everything that happened,and realized that the corruption issue…as it very well should have been….was the single biggest influence on the American electorate…and not Iraq.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely…and here was a case in point. In many respects what David Reemer and the rest of the middlin’ crew write about is correct. Except they are spitting in the wind,I think. Until we have a THREE Party system(which will we will never have) of Liberal,Moderate,and Conservative thought, we must put up with what we have.

Of course,what we have is still the best in the world,something that many seem to forget.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 22, 2006 10:32 AM
Comment #196183

SE
Nice. I couldn’t agree with you more. Islam always has been and always will be a violent, intolerant religion. The only period when they weren’t actively conquering someone was when they were too weak to conquer anyone. And now their back with a vengeance, and control of most of the world’s oil. And of course there’s the WMD issue. Wonderful. Somehow the combination of insane religious fanatics dedicated to wiping everyone else of the face of the planet and weapons capable of doing so doesn’t sit well with me.

Max
Given Bush’s strategy isn’t working, but its a whole lot better than “redeployment” otherwise known as wholesale retreat. (In the face of an inferior enemy, no less)

By the way, you guys might be interested in a video called “America Alone:What the West needs to Know.” Its thesis is similar to Traveller’s article. I recommend it.

Posted by: Silima at November 22, 2006 10:51 AM
Comment #196184


Must we destroy Islam? How can we do it?

Do we kill every man, woman and child that is indoctrinated into that religion?

Can we just beat them into submission and have a mass conversion to Christianity?

Posted by: jlw at November 22, 2006 10:54 AM
Comment #196186

jlw

No,we don’t kill all the Muslims. We destroy those WITHIN that community that want to destroy us. Like the nationalistic Japanese and Nazis during the Second World War, nearly a generation of Japanese and Germans were wiped out in order to eradicate that scourge. It must happen again, I think, but we lack the national will to confront the problem. America, and left dominated thought on this issue,is growing weak.Plus, if you advocate anything not on the leftist adgenda, you are quickly labeled a neo-con. This has nothing to do with a neo-con label though. It has to do with with our existence,I think.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 22, 2006 11:03 AM
Comment #196189

“corruption” was the single most determinative issue in its outcome’ Is the rightwing really so narrow minded and single focused? No wonder they became so currupt and insufferable so quickly.

Reasons why we will be listening to things besides how bereft of morality the GOPer leadership became is:

1) Because corruption was not the ONLY reason the GOP got its butt whooped
2) Just because the GOPers are now officially lame, doesn’t mean Iraq disappears as the number one REMAINING problem.
3) Unlike BushCo, the left is willing to discuss issues rather repeat mantra talking points ad nauseum.

To quote the red side; “You lost, get over it.”

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at November 22, 2006 11:05 AM
Comment #196193

Christianity is a violent, intolerent, hateful and vindictive political and religious ideology. Christians are ignorant. Most are homosexual but in denial, the rest are pedophiles.

Hey, making ridiculous generalizations are fun!

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at November 22, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #196195

Joseph Briggs

History is replete with Christian blood. However,those who espoused that philosophy were purged. Same principle with Islam. Those who espouse the philosophy must be purged.

Dave

Corruption cost the election. Every exit poll proved that.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 22, 2006 11:38 AM
Comment #196197


S.E.: You say that we must destroy the radical faction in Islam that want’s to destroy us and our way of life and who also wants to subjucate the World to their version of Gods law, even if they have to destroy all non-believers.

You say that the American people lack the will to confront this great threat to us. You also blame the liberals for the peoples lack of will.

After 9/11, weren’t the American people united on the very cause that you are espousing? Didn’t we begin that cause when we invaded Afganistan?

Did the President, under the influence of the neocons, turn his back on that cause ( frankly, I am not worried about Osama) so that he and his advisors could turn the crank on a secular dictator, releasing a giant worm that is eating the heart out of our cause and created more of those that we must confront?

It is not the liberals that have weakened the peoples will. It is our President!

Posted by: jlw at November 22, 2006 11:48 AM
Comment #196198

The election turned on Iraq.
It is obvious that Iraq is a contrived war,an effort that has strengthened,rather than weakened the Jihadi movement,leaving us in a situation where our enemies gain strength while we flounder in the abyss that is Iraq.
The only thing the jihadis want more than us in Iraq,is us in Iran.
Corruption,sexual escapades,etc,were all just lagniappe.
As far as your ignorance of the true tenets of Islam,well,all religions have their wackos,but we are helping the Islamic moderates lose ground every day to the seductive voices of the more radical Imams.
We have plenty of wacko right wing Christians in this country as well.They are part of the problem

Posted by: Terry......... at November 22, 2006 11:49 AM
Comment #196201

…and plenty of left wing wackos, as Terry has just demonstrated.

Posted by: jacktruth at November 22, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #196202

Sic. Eagle, the exit polls had ethics and corruption at 40% and Iraq at 39%, dead tie when margin of error is looked at.

So, Dem’s are right to tackle both Ethics and Corruption and Iraq right out of the starting gate, as these were the highest priorities for the most voters according to exit polls.

And, I should add, Dem’s can suggest, ONLY BUSH can alter the course taken in Iraq as Commander in Chief. Congress is not charged with directing war, and couldn’t, if it wanted to. Iraq will remain Bush’s albatross, and attempts by the right to make it the war of Dem’s new majority will fall flat on their face.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 22, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #196204

JimmyRay,

I haven’t read Spencer’s book, but you don’t really even need to. When I first arrived in Iraq, I decided to read the Koran in an attempt to better understand why it is that the terrorists want us dead. I bought the PC bullshit that says that the extremists hijacked Islam. I thought that the idea of violence against others was probably just based on a few verses taken out of context. This is manifestly not the case. Its hard to find a page of the Koran that doesn’t call for violence. The sayings of Muhammad are just as bad. Virtually every verse of this rag calls for death for non-Muslims. Terrorism is not the result of the hijacking of a peaceful religion, it is the logical conclusion of the constant calls for violence inherent within the message of Islam. I hope to God that traveller is wrong about Europe, and I think that there’s reason to be optimistic. I think the Europeans are finally starting to realize just what a threat they’ve let into their midst, my hope is that they fully recognize the threat and take steps to preserve their culture

Posted by: 1LT B at November 22, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #196207
However,those who espoused that philosophy were purged.

Little Green Footballs is a better forum to witness the seething bigotry and violence of the Christian American spirit but you can find enough of the same kind of precursor-to-genocide rhetoric right here in this thread. It always starts with baseless generalizations whose sole point is to dehumanize and demonize the character of the enemy. First thing to note is how this thread seems to assume that the War on Terror is actually a war against Islam, thus turning the enemy of thousands into an enemy numbering a billion; great for upping the doom and gloom factor so necessary to incite genocide. Then onto all the oversimplified characterizations:

Islam is a violent, intolerent, hateful and vindictive political and religious ideology. The terrorists and the imams who goad them on are following the edicts and example of the (probably schizophrenic) mass murdering pedophile who created it. […]

Islam is the greatest evil man has ever faced. In its prior assault on western civilization it was barely defeated and pushed back to the pit where it belongs.

We can’t beat this enemy until we become as brutal as they are. […] If we aren’t willing to fight a battle on the same terms they are willing to fight, we will never win and shouldn’t bother trying. They don’t value decency. They don’t value human life.
Islam always has been and always will be a violent, intolerant religion.

What do you, SE, see as the logical conclusion of this kind of intolerant and bigoted rhetoric? If those who espoused these dimwitted opinions would have the balls to follow through on their vitriol, I’m sure we’d start to see their true spirit of murderous intent.

Also, if I were to assume you are a Christian and a conservative, I would have to wonder if you’re one of those Christians who believe America is a Christian nation, and I would wonder if you believe the War on Terror is actually a conflict between Christianity and Islam. And if these assumptions are correct and your answers affirmative then how do you reconcile the blood split by this allegedly Christian nation with your opinion that the bloodlust of Christians has somehow been purged and abated?

Ultimately it has nothing to do with Christians or Muslims. It has to do with sheeple who are stupid enough to think that flags, borders, religion and other abstractions and superstitions are reason enough to blindly kill and to advocate such killing.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at November 22, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #196208

Left wing wacko?Only if you are a right wing wacko.Then everybody’s a left winger,huh?
Well,most of my sources on that came from that famous left wing rag,The Economist.
I do admit some also came from a New Yorker article quoting a Jihadist “Think Tank”,if you can imagine such a thing.Very interesting,he laid out a 20 year plan about 7 years agoI can assure you, we are well on track with the jihadist program,and you seem to be willing to help.It did include an invasion of an secular Arab nation (Iraq).The next step in their stated agenda is the invasion of Iran to really stretch us thin,the repression in other Muslim nations,then the Jihadist rise up as a saving force,see Lebanon today.
Way to play into their hands.
My compliments.

Posted by: Terry......... at November 22, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #196209

Just some thoughts, hopefully connected.
I think Kerry got it right with his comment about needing to fight a more sensitive war on terrorism.
Bush had his mojo going in early ‘03. Getting the WMD inspectors back into Iraq by building up forces and pressuring Hussein. I was actually considering the possibility that bush wasn’t an idiot after all!!
Forget Islam. The third world Street is against us because Muslim/Arab/3rd world people think that the West, and particularly the United States, does not respect them.
Chavez, I think, struck a cord with many in the world when he said, in effect, “who does he (bush) think he is? He thinks he runs the world”.
As long as we act like we run the world, like we can just pass our dictates through a slot in the door, we will fail; not only in the diplomatic efforts that are needed in Southwest Asia but everywhere else.
I don’t know if my Dem’s can do any better when they take over the presidency in ‘08 but I don’t see how they could do any worse then what we have seen in the last six years. Regards

Posted by: charles Ross at November 22, 2006 1:08 PM
Comment #196210

We all wish to God that Bush had taken the time to understand the issues involved before rushing into a war that was only tangential to fighting terrorist organizations. If he had, he may at least have understood that it wasn’t going to be the walk in the park he claimed it would be. But of course that is not what this article writer means. He means if we understood the issues we would agree with him — though, of course, he doesn’t propose any action whatsoever; he merely condemns those not of his party.

Your guy has screwed this country big time and there are no good solutions now. But that won’t stop you from condemning the folks that have to deal with this god-awful mess. I find it gratifying, though, that not all on the right are so blind to the obvious.

Posted by: Trent at November 22, 2006 1:11 PM
Comment #196211

And I don’t buy that 40% corruption,39% Iraq either,although the difference is statistically insignificant


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2006/story?id=2635898&page=1

Posted by: Terry......... at November 22, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #196212

SE, good to see you posting again. The war on terror has, it seems, escalated to the War on Islam. Is this how you see it?

The problem I think we face as a Country now is the lack of leadership beleivability. How can we trust the President and his administration after witnessing so much deception, halftruths and out right lies? Why should the American people beleive the repubs after what we have been through the past 6 years? How do we as a Country gain our trust in the Administration again?

Posted by: j2t2 at November 22, 2006 1:20 PM
Comment #196216

Joseph Briggs

You pose interesting questions. Let me answer.

First, I am a lapsed Catholic. I was trained theologically by the Brothers of the Sacred Heart, The Augustinians, The Franciscans, and the Jesuits. All told, I studied Theology 20 years.

I found holes in my religion…mainy over the issue of women not being able to be priests, over priests being not able to be married, and other theological issues.

However, in all my years of study, never once was I taught to kill those that were unbelievers. Perhaps during other era that was taught, but not during the 50s,60s and 70s when I was a student.

The relifgion I was taught was that of Love…Jesus’ two great commandments.

That said, America is a country for all…so long as all abide by the rule of law…which sayd you do not kill the infidel.

You must realize that a certain sub set of humaninty abhors our way of life and wants it obliterated,no ifs,and or buts.

Can’t be reasoned with.

As Robert Louis Stephenson said “Sometimes you must fight it out or die; and if that is the case,why not here where we stand?”

My view anyway

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 22, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #196221

Joseph Briggs,

Jesus wasn’t a mass murderer and a pedophile but Mohammad was. Jesus didn’t command his followers to commit murder and enslave or kill all who don’t follow him but Mohammad did.
People who claim to follow Christ have violated his teachings and committed many crimes in his name. That doesn’t make his teachings or the religion that bears his name evil. The teachings of Mohammad are evil, as we can see from studying his words and from the actions of his followers who obey his words.
Speaking for myself, my condemnation of Islam comes not from ignorance and bigotry but from the opposite. It comes from detailed study of Islamic history and ideology. I started with no opinion and the simple question, “What is the truth?” The pursuit of the answer lead me to the conclusions in my post.

Posted by: traveller at November 22, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #196222

SE, you may stand there with your hands over your ears, if you like, but the American people aren’t with you.

I think everyone recognizes that radical Islam is a problem. Unfortunately, W has played into that shcizm, by cavalierly invading Iraq, and then failing to recognize issues with the size of the military force. He violated the Powell Doctrine and failed. The damage has been done, every rational strategist thinks it is time to begin to withdraw. There isn’t political will to stay the course for a generation. Rangel is smart enough and honest enough to recognize the threat requires building our troop strength.

We will likely fight this battle again, perhaps in Pakistan.

I sympathize with your unwillingness to admit error, but that is Human. I think you need to acknowledge the will of the people, since this is still a democracy and not a theocracy or kingdom yet. The American people aren’t as dumb as many seem to think.

Pat Buchanan in a recent article said that the people did not enter WWII to stop the spread of facism in Europe, but to avenge the attackon Pearl Harbor. Democracies to not commit to war lightly or for the benefit of other countries,or political opportunism.

Posted by: gergle at November 22, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #196224

Joseph Briggs,

Have you ever read the Koran? How about a biography of Muhammad? I don’t know if you read my post before you posted yours, but we use almost the same language about the logical consequences of rhetoric. The edition of the Koran I have read was not translated by a Westerner, but by an Egyptian and endorsed by the Al-azhar Islamic Research Academy out of Cairo and is “free from anything that contradicts the teachings of Islam.” There are calls for violence against “unbelievers” on almost every page.

That being said, I don’t believe that most Muslims are inherently violent, but they’ve made such a shambles of the countries that they run that most people are poor and there are huge numbers of young men who can’t get a job and can’t get married. As a result, they have no hope and nothing to lose, and radicalized Islam offers them a way out as they see it. There are passages in the Bible that, when taken out of context, would more than justify murder, but you don’t see too many Christian terrorists. The main reason for this is that most Christians don’t live in the abject poverty and despair that many Muslims do. Also, most Christian denominations have leadership that is willing to stand up against violence. Whether due to actually supporting violence or fearing that it will be turned on them, Muslim religious leaders do not speak out against violence. There have been terrorists in the name of damned near every religion, but none has bred them in the numbers that Islam has, nor has any other created such extreme methods, such as mass suicide bombings.

Probably the best way to end the threat of terrorism is to restore hope to the Muslim world. It seems that Americans are hopeless about the war in Iraq, imagine what the Iraqis must feel like. It is this hopelessness and despair that fuels Muslim rage and creates more terrorists. If we can restore hope and bring economic prosperity than we can go a long way to fixing the problem. Terry talks about the 20 year plan of the jihadists and how we’re falling into it. What needs to be realized, however, is the power of the blow that will be dealt to the jihadist movement if Iraq succeeds. if Iraq can demonstrate that democracy and freedom can work in the world, it will give a viable alternative to the sharia caliphate that is the ultimate goal of the jihadists. Say what you will about the reasoning for coming to Iraq, but now that we’re here, it is a battle we can’t afford to lose.

Posted by: 1LT B at November 22, 2006 2:10 PM
Comment #196225

SE,

You say: “If I had one bit of advice to to give to the Republican presidential hopefuls going forward it is this: take the time to learn the problem of fundamentalist Islam backward and forward, learn its history, and realize that there can be no true peace with that particular mindset. None. It must be destroyed or it will destroy America and her way of life. Read Spencer’s “The Truth About Muhammad: The Founder of The World’s Most Intolerant Religion” as a threshold primer.”

…and to the extent that you get that messege across, or to the extent that it is already part of the mindset of the republicans…

THERE IS NO HOPE FOR YOUR PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: RGF at November 22, 2006 2:11 PM
Comment #196230

RGF,

“…and to the extent that you get that messege across, or to the extent that it is already part of the mindset of the republicans…

THERE IS NO HOPE FOR YOUR PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”


Why?

Posted by: traveller at November 22, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #196231

I don’t know where to start! It took you twenty years of theological “study” to discover that women can’t become priests and that priests cannot marry; and those were the issues that drove you away from Catholicism????!!!
Muslims and Islam comes in a distant, distant second to Christianity in their record of murder torture and enslavement. Did you ever wonder why the Vatican sat, untouched, when the first “axis of evil” ran Europe? Did you ever wonder why the catholic church and Israel have such a poor relationship, even today? Did you know that Jesuits for many years were the largest owners of slaves in the New World? As the Spanish worked the Indigenous people to death in mines looking for gold and silver it was the Jesuits who came up with the bright idea of importing hundreds of thousands of blacks from Africa to do the work (this after almost %100 of the indigenous people were wiped out through overwork and disease) Did you know that European empires needed a rational to justify the enslavement of tens of millions of people and the Catholic Church provided it to them: It is better for the soul to live as a slave converted to Christianity than as a non-Christian freeman. Did you know that even today the Catholic Church tries to downplay and hide the illicit activities of their priests. (There was a trial in Sacramento, Ca. in recent years, a priest impregnated a church member and the diocese was being sued for child support. The church argued that they were not liable for support because the woman failed to exercise due diligence by using birth control! Birth control! It doesn’t get more hypocritical than that)
With all this you write that Muslims are murderers and you don’t like the catholics because they won’t let the priests marry???
You’re right to not like the catholics but not for the reasons you stated. The “brothers of the sacred heart”, the “augustinians” the “franciscans” and the “jesuits” provided you with a really poor education!!!!!!

Posted by: charles Ross at November 22, 2006 2:31 PM
Comment #196232

SE:

OK, you read a book. This does not mean that whatever the book says is right.

Islam is a religion just like Christianity is a religion. As a matter of fact, Muslims revere the Jewish and Christian prophets. They consider Islam an extension of Judaism and Christianity.

Here is a quote from Muhammad:

“None of you can be a believer unless he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.”

This sounds very much like what Jesus said:

“Love they neighbor as thyself.”

Yes, there are Muslims who are fundamentalist fanatics. They want to kill us. They are the terrorists. Let’s separate the violent from the good. A post like yours that lumps the good with the bad produces more hatred and terrorism towards us.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at November 22, 2006 2:44 PM
Comment #196235

Terry, your link doesn’t even address the exit poll numbers I cited. Cherry picking interpretations is easy. But, the exit polls did show 40 and 39, ethics and Iraq as I stated. Google exit polls voters main concerns, and you will likely pull up similar poll results to what I cited.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 22, 2006 3:02 PM
Comment #196237

Paul,

The Koranic quote you took out of context, and by juxtaposing it with Christ’s admonition to love thy neighbor placed in a Christian context, does sound similar until you place it back into it’s proper Islamic context.
Jesus said that his teachings of charity and brotherhood applies to all people, regardless of their creed. Mohammad said that Islamic charity and brotherhood extends to other muslims only. There is a very big, fundamental difference in the two principles.

Posted by: traveller at November 22, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #196238
As Robert Louis Stephenson said “Sometimes you must fight it out or die; and if that is the case,why not here where we stand?”

That’s a great quote, SE, and if you thought about it for a moment, you might understand the problem a little better. Where do we stand? Where is here? Are we defending American soil by killing untold thousands of ME civilians in the ME in pursuit of a much smaller number of radicals? I’m sure many of the advocates of ME genocide would yelp that “911 was an attack on our soil” and use that to justify making “here” and “where we stand” equal the ME or wherever we feel the need to lash out in our fear. But pointing to 911 is far, far removed from the origins of this conflict, and if those origins had ever been addressed, we might not have ever arrived at that fateful day. I am willing to fight where I stand.

Jesus wasn’t a mass murderer and a pedophile but Mohammad was. Jesus didn’t command his followers to commit murder and enslave or kill all who don’t follow him but Mohammad did.

You know what else Jesus didn’t do? He didn’t institute Christianity. Basically everyone who has ever considered themselves a part of some organized Christian sect has betrayed the teachings of Jesus. I don’t hold that against them. I hold their history and their contemporary bullshit against them.

Nonetheless, to address the point you and 1LT B have made, I tend to agree that Mohammad was a raving lunatic, but that’s not what I was addressing. I was addressing the generalizations about Islam. Now if you think Islam is defined by the text of the Koran then I would think you are simplifying the issue for convenience. That’s like saying Christianity is based on the teachings of the KJ Bible. If we were to judge institutions on their foundational texts, then public education is perfect, and our country is the pinnacle of the Enlightenment. But from what I see, Christianity only pays lip service to the Bible, public education is a right mess, and America is about as far as you can get from the Enlightenment without leaving the planet. Religions, like any other institutional amalgam of persons, are defined by the actions of the people who profess to follow.

And if you’re just going to point out their history of conquest as a means to prove your point that Islam is violent then you’re just being disingenuous. History is defined by conquest. No one is free from that guilt.

I don’t believe that most Muslims are inherently violent, but they’ve made such a shambles of the countries that they run that most people are poor […]

You think this is something inherent to Muslims? Do you understand the history and ramifications of colonialism in the ME?

Like I said, this isn’t about religion.

All terrorist activity is about removing foreign occupiers from valued land. More than half has been perpetrated by secular groups.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at November 22, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #196239

SE,

How many times has Hezbollah launched an attack inside the US, or even attempted one?

How many times has Hamas launched an attack inside the US, or even attempted one?

How many times has the Muslim Brotherhood or the PLO launched an attack inside the US, or even attempted one?

The only Islamic fundamentalists who have launched an attack against US terroritory are Al Qaida, and indirectly the Taliban, who harbored Osama bin Laden.

In every case where attacks have been launched against US troops, the troops have either invaded or occupied the Muslim territory.

Can anyone name a recent example of a “Muslim” country invading another country?

Iraq invaded Iran & Kuwait. That is the only one that comes to mind, and Iraq under Saddam Hussein had a secular, Baathist government.

Can anyone name an example of a “Christian” country invading other countries?

You could argue the only reason Muslim countries are not aggressors is that they are too weak, and that is why they rely upon asymmetrical warfare tactics like terrorism.

Nevertheless, islamic terrorists have not, as a rule, initiated attacks outside their own country without provocation.

The only notable exception is Al Qaida.
And that exception assumes you reject the grievances listed by Osama bin Laden as invalid; objecting to US bases in Arabia, objecting to the situation in Palestine, and objecting to the infiltration of corrupting western culture into Islamic lands.

Alone among radical fundamentalists, Al Qaida has an international perspective. It is an odd combination of an almost trotskyite activism with an anti-historical version of Islam. And whether their grievances are legitimate or not, many Muslims believe it to be true. While the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject violent jihadists in Iraq, they nevertheless approve of attacks upon the foreign soldiers occupying their soil.

The anti-historical version of Islam advocated by OBL is a non-starter. There is no chance Muslims will embrace a return to a medieval lifestyle, no chance. There is every chance they will fundamentalists as long as the perception of oppression persists.

Posted by: phx8 at November 22, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #196243

Joseph Briggs,

“You know what else Jesus didn’t do? He didn’t institute Christianity.”

Peter did. What’s your point?

“Basically everyone who has ever considered themselves a part of some organized Christian sect has betrayed the teachings of Jesus.”

How? We all fall short but that’s a far cry from betrayal.

If Christianity isn’t based on the teachings of the Bible, then what is it based on? (btw-the KJV is considered by scholars to be the most inaccurate translation in existence)

From my understanding of the Enlightenment I thought that totalitarian countries like the Soviet Union, Communist China, Iran and Saudia Arabia were as far from it as you can get. What is it about America that you find so distasteful?


Posted by: traveller at November 22, 2006 5:54 PM
Comment #196250

SE-
There are people who truly will go to any lengths to see us dead, and then there are those whose concerns are more regional. We do well to make the distinction, because its crucial to knowing whose ass really needs kicking.

The temptation to treat this like a culture-wide problem should be resisted. It’s not culture-wide, it deals with a certain kind of Islamism, with a certain kind of base, with a certain historical background. If you restrict yourself to the problem at hand, you can pick your fights better, alienate fewer potential Muslim allies, and score victories instead of the kinds of defeats that come of trying to bludgeon Islamic radicalism as if it were one big problem instead of a number of smaller ones.

It’s not unlike what happened in America the past few months, in terms of the elections. The Republicans tried to approach the problem with an eye towards bringing out their base, but they failed to recognize a crucial set of demographics outside the base who had become alienated from them, and who Democrats had successfully courted. We appealed to the right cultures in the right places, and won because we gave personal, nuanced attention to the right people.

The real enemies we face are not born in a vacuum. They have certain backgrounds, affiliations, and ideological progenitors. This is not a war we win by fighting harder, necessarily. This is a battle that requires us to take care in who we take the fight to and how. If we do things right, we can cut these people off from their support, and then remove them as a threat for the forseeable future. If not, we’ll only function to unite people around their cause and weaken our ability to corrode their support.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 22, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #196252

Sicilian Eagle,

You are right on about the mindset of the religious terrorist. But, I have to disagree with the premise that neither side knows how to deal with them. During the elections, we were told that everyone in the military was turning on Bush’s strategy. Now, we know that was a lie. The generals in the field are preferring Bush’s strategy of stay the course over redeployment, increasing troops, etc. This was a deliberate attempt to manipulate people with untruths from the Democratic Party and the Press to win for Democrats what they knew would be a close election. Bush is facing the enemy head on in a very difficult battle front. It is about time someone did! And I still believe this deliberate mischaracterization of Bush and our military was the major factor in the election. I don’t hear as much coming out of Iraq in the last two weeks since the election. I wonder why? Where is Murtha now? Sitting in the back row of the Democratic Party meetings thinking of the good old days? I am disgusted by this whole Democratic / Media charade. Everyone should know that peace will come in the Middle East when Democracy reigns. Democratic governments are always more apt to settle things diplomatically, that is, unless they are brutally and viciously attacked first!!

JD

Posted by: JD at November 22, 2006 7:09 PM
Comment #196259
Peter did. What’s your point?

You were comparing Muhammad to Jesus, not Peter, remember? Besides, Mohammad wrote something. Jesus didn’t. Hell, Mohammad was a verifiable person.

(btw-the KJV is considered by scholars to be the most inaccurate translation in existence)

Yeah, just ignore that KJ. I meant to delete it but I missed.

If Christianity isn’t based on the teachings of the Bible, then what is it based on?

I don’t care what it’s based on (see my implications toward Islam). I care about how people practice their faith. Anybody who lives above their means and hoards the rest of their cash and resources obviously isn’t basing their life on the teachings of Jesus. Anyone who advocates torture of suspected terrorists isn’t basing their actions on the teachings of Jesus. Anyone who advocates a war in retaliation for 911 isn’t basing their actions on the teachings of Jesus. Which parts of Jesus’s teachings do Christians actually follow? Let me guess: judge not lest ye be judged. No wait… the chances of a rich man entering heaven? No wait… you can’t serve god and mammon? No. How you treat the least of our brethren is how you treat him? No. Avoiding conspicuous piety? No.

From my understanding of the Enlightenment I thought that totalitarian countries like the Soviet Union, Communist China, Iran and Saudia Arabia were as far from it as you can get.

Heh. What’s the matter, don’t like hyperbole?

What is it about America that you find so distasteful?

A strawman inside a strawman.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at November 22, 2006 8:30 PM
Comment #196261

And to follow-up on this Jesus/Mohammad comparison: I’d argue that modern Christianity has more of a relationship with the teachings of that idiot Paul aka Saul (people who suddenly change their name is a definite sign of a con man). So you might want to compare them.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at November 22, 2006 8:45 PM
Comment #196262

Or compare Mohammad to Constantine.

/okay, I’m done for now.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at November 22, 2006 8:48 PM
Comment #196266
Can anyone name an example of a “Christian” country invading other countries?…Posted by: phx8 at November 22, 2006 04:24 PM
Are you discounting European colonialism?
the KJV is considered by scholars to be the most inaccurate translation in existence)…Posted by: traveller at November 22, 2006 05:54 PM
Perhaps, but my understanding is that fundamentalist/evangelicals, like Bush, think it is the unerring unchanging “Gods joyful message” or whatever todays buzzphrase is. Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at November 22, 2006 9:42 PM
Comment #196276

Eagle;
I must question your premis. Iraq and corruption are one big ugly ball called imcompetence. Had that been an exit poll question it probably would have scored high.Corruption and incompetence are evil sisters actually. Going into a conflict without enough troops or body armor is incompetence brought about by corruption. The huge defense budget goes to hyper-expensive weapons systems of little utility instead of troop levels or relatively inexpensive items like body armor or armored Humvees. Why? Because defense contractors give heavily to campaigns,bribe officials,supply real cool trips,procure prostitutes,place retired politicians on their boards,etc. Giving cronies huge rebuilding contracts that they fail to perform is coruption/incompetence. Weak oversight is incompetent/ coruption. Appointing cronies to head FEMA is incompetence/corruption.Failure to implement immigration reform that has any chance of success is incompetence/corruption. Large employer groups useing their juice to maintain the status quo by stalmate with no risk of law enforcment. Get my drift?The decision to go into Iraq was itself an example of incomptence/coruption egged on by the defense and oil industries. This stuff is not new or limited to one party. the Rep government appeared to fall into this on a grand scale and got busted for it is all.

Anybody else see the irony of supposed Christians calling for the death and destruction of hundred of thousands of Muslums because the Muslums are bloodthirsty?What a world.

Posted by: BillS at November 22, 2006 11:41 PM
Comment #196279

J. Briggs -

“Mohammad was a verifiable person.” (as opposed to Jesus, I suppose)

The problem is that you seem to know little about the “Historical Mohommed.” Scholars have been working for over 50 years trying to separate the man from the myth. Let me quote one of those scholars:

“Our first consideration is that of sources … for Muslims themselves are likely to have been the first to write lives of their own Prophet. Here at first glance the student’s heart might almost fail him before the bewildering array of Muslim lives of the Prophet, for there are literally hundreds of them in Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Urdu, Malay, and even in Chinese and lesser Eastern languages….”
“The earliest Life of Muhammad of which we have any trace was written by Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, who died in 768 C.E. i.e., one hundred and thirty years after the death of the Prophet. The book of Ibn Ishaq, however, has perished, and all we know of it is what is quoted from it (and these quotations are fortunately considerable) in the works of later writers….”

Verifiable? No more than Jesus.

However, I don’t know why you would even raise this issue. It doesn’t help you to make your point. And it doesn’t help in the discussion we are having, namely how to exit Iraq as victors.

Posted by: Don at November 22, 2006 11:51 PM
Comment #196283

Joseph Briggs,
How is the fact that Jesus didn’t write the Bible relevent? The way the two men lived their lives is.

Here’s a news flash-Mohammad didn’t write the Koran. He wrote his so-called “revelations” on scraps of wood, rocks and bits of palm leaves. After his death some of them were gathered up and condensed into what is now known as the Koran by some of his followers.

What Christianity, Islam or any other religion is based on is of utmost importance. Without knowledge of the scripture that guides the actions of the faithful one cannot understand how they practice their faith.
You say you don’t care what Christianity is based on and then condemn Christians for not being perfect in their adherence to the basis of their faith.

I’m a big fan of hyperbole. I also understand the difference between it and hatred of America.

Please explain “a strawman inside a strawman”. I’m just a dumb Christian and it doesn’t make any sense.

The teachings of Paul do strongly influence modern Christianity. God chose him and transformed him on the Damascus Road for that purpose. He wasn’t the same man after the experience. He also didn’t change his name. Acts 13:9 says “Then Saul, also called Paul,…” and he is thereafter called Paul.
I will happily compare Paul, a righteous man, with Mohammad, a depraved, licentious murderer.

Constantine was an earthly king and a vain, prideful man. He still compares favorably to Mohammad.

Your atheism was readily apparent from the first. You also use the confused logic of someone strongly influenced by Marxism. You have my pity.

Posted by: traveller, at November 23, 2006 12:12 AM
Comment #196296
If I have one hope, it is that the Democrats now in power also take your advice to know our enemy.

Huh. For the last five years, you righties crapped all over Democrats for wanting to understand the enemy. I’m glad you finally see things our way.

SE, there are 1.4 billion Muslims and 300 million of us. If Islam is inherently violent, then we’re doomed. Happy Thanksgiving. :)

Posted by: American Pundit at November 23, 2006 3:48 AM
Comment #196298

Of course,what we have is still the best in the world,something that many seem to forget.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 22, 2006 10:32 AM

Oh yeah? By what criteria? I accept that the US has a fine constitution. But that Constitution did not grow out of a vacuum. Further, there are many democracies that are arguably as good as the US, if not better. In fact, despite you fine Constitution, incompetence and corruption, such as under the current regime, can still despoil your system, and your method of Judicial appointments can and clearly does lead to division among the people. Indeed, I have always thought that given the geographical size of the US, it has to be near impossible for the electorate to accurately size up presidential candidates. Add to that the manner in which debate is carried out with candidates in tightly controlled and choreographed conditions where they are not required by and large to think on their feet in response to questions, and the system becomes a vitual lottery. And you’re a lawyer SE, so you should know better! With respect to an attack on Islam, isn’t that how we got to where we are today? The phoney war launched on Iraq with no aftermath planning and no control in the immediate period following the fall of the regime allowed the most evil elements to gain traction and time for them country to split along its fault lines. Of course this was eminently forseeable, as HW foresaw in 91, and this is the principle reason he did not invade Iraq proper in 91. 1 LT B says that the US must win in Iraq. I can see the point he is making. But needing to win does not mean there is any effective way of making that happen. The situation is that the US in now part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. Perhaps the only way to leave Iraq with any semblance on acheivement would be to install a new Sunni Ba’athist regime and facilitate it in putting down resistance to it. Just like Saddam did. Deja Vu all over again. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose!

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 23, 2006 6:48 AM
Comment #196301

American Pundit,

Absolute numbers are nowhere near as important as you make them out to be. In WWII, using bombers with far less capacity and accuracy, we were able to reduce entire cities to rubble. Our bombers are now far more capable than they were back then, the bombs more advanced, and no Islamic state has anything like an air defense network capable of resisting us. If we ever decided to, we could knock those numbers down in a big way in a big hurry.

Paul in Euroland,

You are correct to state that there is no effective way to win in Iraq, at least a way that would be considered effective to Americans. The easy and nearly bloodless victories in the first Gulf War, over Serbia, and in Afghanistan and the initial phase of operations in Iraq gave the average American the idiotic belief that wars are easy and bloodless, more a press event than anything else. Our technology and training give us advantages, but these advantages are of limited utility in an insurgency. Since we will not act in a manner that inspires fear, we have no choice but to try and ensure that the Iraqis themselves are ready to handle the governance and security of thier own country before we hand it back to them. This is neither quick nor cheap, probably the main reason for the opposition to the war.

Posted by: 1LT B at November 23, 2006 8:29 AM
Comment #196323

1LT B,

Finally someone who gets it! The military is a tool to inspire fear, not to play diplomat with! Funny thing- the liberals went around accusing the President of promoting a message of fear during the elections. That is what great military commanders do. It prevents retalliation and even first strikes, on both sides. That was the message of “Bring It On”! When we treat our military as if they are inept poor underclass fools, it undermines the war and that it just what the Dems have done. They couldn’t have done a better job if they had gone to Iraq and shot every soldier in the foot. Now, the President’s hands are tied. I hope he can find a way to loosen the ropes a bit, but I seriously doubt it!!

JD

Posted by: JD at November 23, 2006 12:15 PM
Comment #196324

Joseph Briggs
You seem to grossly misunderstand (and despise) Christianity. Just something I picked up. Sure, lots of people don’t perfectly follow the teachings of Christ.

You, apparently, don’t follow your atheism to its logical conclusion: total lack of moral or ethical authority. If there is no higher authority to dispense moral law, where does it come from? Nature? Lots of ugly stuff happens in nature. (Rape, murder, etc.) The State? Then anything the State does is OK, including slaughtering a few million people. Individual People? Then People can do whatever they want.

Your worldview does not allow for the existance of any reasonable ethical system. Christianity does. Its has authority:God. and a credible system of ethics that calls for pretty good treatment of people. Unlike Islam, in which people only have rights if they’re muslims, if they’re not they need to be killed or enslaved.

When was the last time there was a “Christian” nation? Every western country has had a large non-or nominal-(theist) Christian population for the last 300 years. The last time a “Christian” nation attacked another was probably in the wars of the Reformation. The last time a “muslim” nation attacked another? 9/11. The muslim invasions of Israel. The Iraq-Iran war.

American Pundit
You seem to forget we have these cool little toys called nukes. We want to wipe the ME and its muslims out, it won’t be terribly difficult. Also they have no way to attack us in a destructive way. The navies of every muslim nation on earth would be squashed by a single of our carrier groups, let alone our whole navy. They could pull little attacks on us, but nothing remotely capable of defeating us. They could try sneaking over a border, but they’d still have to cross an ocean to get to the Americas.

Here’s one possible solution: Quick, 2 year, limited draft. 6 months to train, then throw a few million soldiers into Iraq. See how long the insurgency lasts then. It may give the terrorists more targets, but they’ll have a lot more guys shooting back at them.

Posted by: Silima at November 23, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #196337
Absolute numbers are nowhere near as important as you make them out to be.

Of course, 1LT B. That’s why the Pentagon can say we’d win a second Korean War with only 30,000 troops. They never use the ‘N’ word, but we all know what they’re talking about. I was just being funny with my last comment — hence the smiley face. :)

Posted by: American Pundit at November 23, 2006 3:13 PM
Comment #196341

1LT B, Gulf war 1 was far from bloodless. In fact it was a massacre, especially at the mutlah gap. A necessary massacre maybe, but a massacre all the same. The victims were presumably all military. The Nato operation in Serbia was a relatively low level conflict, with operations conducted from the air with guided weapons. As for Afghanistan, we probably will never know how many were killed by the B52 carpet bombing of Taliban positions. But again, these guys were combatants and hardly deserving of much sympathy by right minded people. I would have a lot more sympathy for the poor conscripts into Saddams army in 91.

You speak of having to try and ensure the Iraqis themselves are ready to handle the security and governance of their own country before you hand it back to them. Are you for real? Have you heard the news today? Have you been paying attention lately? There are no Iraqi security forces. There are only factions wearing security force uniforms and carrying security force weapons. They do not serve Iraq, but factional leaders such as al sadr and as the Iraqis themselves say, the wahabis among the Sunni. You would have to be a raving optimist overdosing on prozac to see any prospect of security or governance in this scenario. What we are witnessing is a country falling apart, and no apparent native forces or influences with the wish or capacity to halt this process.

JD, are you for real? Bush did say bring it on. And they did bring it on! And they continue to do so. How is this the work of the Dems? Are you so blinded by partisan loyalty that you cannot see the truth staring you in the face?

Silima refers to the Muslim invasions of Israel. And all the time I thought it was a conflict about land. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good story. And when Saddam attacked Iran, it wan’t about religion, at least not directly. His regime was secular, and he feared the influence Iran might have on Iraqi Shias. But that was a political judgement, not a religious one. If you look at the Muslim world and its experience at the hands of the west historically, they don’t have much reason to love us. Allowing all of this talk of destroying the Muslim world is the western equivalent of the Muslim extremists. What we need to target are the ones who are causing the problems, a tiny minority of Muslims. If we do this efficiently and quietly, then the Muslim world will quiety look the other way. The conflict we are in today requires cold hard reason, intelligence of both the intellectual and informantional types. Going off at half cock such as the Bush regime did in the wake of 9/11 had deepened the rift between east and west, not healed it. Bush went into Iraq for the reasons of his puppetmasters. It was planned well in advance of 9/11, and it was a massive distraction from and highly damaging to the battle against extremism. Well, he sowed the wind, and now he, and America are reaping the whirlwind. As ye sow, so also shall ye reap. Biblical justice eh?

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 23, 2006 4:49 PM
Comment #196358

Sorry 1LT B, I wasn’t aware that the Iraqi asked anyone to unf**k them. And there are many around the world, including in your own country, who believe that it was the invasion that principally f***ed Iraq. Life under Saddam was dangerous but livable for most. In the current chaos, it’s not just dangerous, its unliveable. No security at all, no economy for most, little hope for the future. Anyone with any wealth or useful skills, such as doctors, subject to kidnapping for ransom. For Iraqis, it would have been far better if the invasion had never happened. And in order to get Iraq back to a semblance of normaliy, it will require another Saddam to keep it together. Heckuva job, Bushie!

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 24, 2006 4:27 AM
Comment #196362

Paul in Euroland,

It never ceases to amaze me the smugness of Europe. In the course of 50 years, Europe goes from a continent of empires that dominated the world to a continent of declining power and influence thanks to nothing more than thier own short-sightedness. It was America that was forced to fix Europe’s issues in WWII and then protect them from the Soviets. And now, America is forced to deal with the mess European colonialism in the Middle East. I would think that if anybody knew the value of pre-emptive action against tyrants it would be Europe. I guess not. So go on and continue to hope we fail. You’re in for a fun time when they come for you and the big, mean US doesn’t have the time, resources, or inclination to haul your asses out of the fire again.

Posted by: 1LT B at November 24, 2006 6:48 AM
Comment #196365

1LT B-
They’ve had experience with this kind of thing. If you think Europe is ill informed about war, you’re badly mistaken. They’ve been through just about every kind.

I think it’s not that Americans don’t have the stomach for war, it’s they don’t have the stomach for failure. Some, if not all of the provinces that aren’t under control are the ones that have the highest populations, including that of Baghdad.

The issue we have here is what kind of good are our efforts doing in the places that need the law and order, the peace and reconstruction the worst. Focusing on this as an image problem is like blaming the smoke stains on your hood from the malfunctioning engine below it on those who are washing your car.

This was a practical, strategic problem from the start. This wasn’t a successful war that people became discouraged about. This was a mismanaged one with the seeds of our current crisis already planted within it. The appearance of success has been made priority one, at the expense of its reality. We would be in much better shape if we had focused on the real issues long ago.

Unfortunately, to the current occupants of the White House, appearances count for everything. They can be seen to change or to waver, because that would signal weakness, or whatever else. Meanwhile, the actual causes remain unaddressed, and the only thing most of their supporters can do is attack those who want something better out of this war than just a continued, frustrating slide into defeat.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 24, 2006 8:51 AM
Comment #196369
How is the fact that Jesus didn’t write the Bible relevent? The way the two men lived their lives is.

Let me make this very simple for you: You compared Jesus to Mohammad as if Mohammad was the originator of Islam and Jesus was the originator of Christianity. Not only that, you compare a man to a myth. Yeah, Mohammad had problems and Jesus didn’t cuz Jesus was all sweetness and light and the son of god and Mohammad was a man. What a comparison. You might as well have compared Mohammad to Pappa Smurf.

Here’s a news flash-Mohammad didn’t write the Koran. He wrote his so-called “revelations” on scraps of wood, rocks and bits of palm leaves. After his death some of them were gathered up and condensed into what is now known as the Koran by some of his followers.

Being edited does not invalidate authorship. But wait:

[Mohammad v]erifiable? No more than Jesus.

Hey, Don doesn’t even think your pedophile even existed (or has as much chance as being a real person as your Jesus). Hey, I’ll accept that Mohammad didn’t exist and change your comparison to Gargamel and Pappa Smurf.

I’m a big fan of hyperbole. I also understand the difference between it and hatred of America.

Are you trying to imply that I hate America? Why would you imply that? What does it have to do with the issue of gross generalizations of a populace numbering in the billions?

Please explain “a strawman inside a strawman”. I’m just a dumb Christian and it doesn’t make any sense.

My point was that foundational texts do not determine the behavior of individuals in an institution or the institution as a whole.

[Paul] wasn’t the same man after the experience.

Oh, that’s rich.

Constantine was an earthly king and a vain, prideful man. He still compares favorably to Mohammad.

Even richer.

You also use the confused logic of someone strongly influenced by Marxism.

I’ve never known anyone strongly influenced by Marxism so I can’t compare my “confused logic” to it. You may be right but I doubt it since I’m an anarchist. And I imagine my “confused logic” is still better than sheepish piety toward fantasies of being saved by magical aliens.

However, I don’t know why you would even raise this issue. It doesn’t help you to make your point. And it doesn’t help in the discussion we are having, namely how to exit Iraq as victors.

I agree, I had merely hoped to clarify my argument that comparing an obviously flawed human to a mythical character was not relevant in a comparison between Islam and Christianity. Though, I honestly don’t care whether or not my comments might resolve anything.

You, apparently, don’t follow your atheism to its logical conclusion: total lack of moral or ethical authority. […] Your worldview does not allow for the existance of any reasonable ethical system.

This is a bullshit since it ignores the fact that humans are a social mammal with a frontal lobe that allows for complex abstract thought and an expanded concept of time.

If there is no higher authority to dispense moral law, where does it come from?

An individual can obviously determine his own ethics. If those ethics end up in confrontation with the ethics of others, you get politics. These are merely manifestations of the social aspect of our species. Also, the “higher authority” which dispenses “moral law” of which you speak is always delivered by humans.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at November 24, 2006 10:23 AM
Comment #196396

Paul in LaLaLand, er I mean Euroland,

Yes, I’m for real. If the Dems, the American Press, and many in the International Press had not undermined Bush for political reasons throughout this war, starting from the moment we went in, we would not be in this mess. It was the labeling of America as the Bad Guys and aggressors in this thing that stirred the insurgency. The United States had every right to take down Hussein. He was in violation of multiple U.N. rules and sanctions. It was the cause of the United States for the last twenty years to remove him from power. It was only that many in Europe were face down to their ears in Saddam’s oil for food hog trough that they didn’t join us. It was because of this cowering and appeasement in Europe that they are now having real problems of their own, including the fear of actual radical Muslim take-overs in their European countries. I say this would not be if you had joined us. Radical Muslim terrorism is a global issue. You better come to realize that quickly, and get yourselves alligned with the right side.

JD

Posted by: JD at November 24, 2006 10:04 PM
Comment #196442

JD, keep taking the kool aid. It’s everybodys fault but Bush’s eh? There was a time when those in power reckoned that the buck stops here, in other words on their desks, as in Bush’s desk.

The reason so many were against the invasion was the same one that HW was against it in 91. It was the same reason that Powell gave Bush before the invasion; “If you break it, it’s yours”.

It was cleary forseeable that a country that was only held together by a strongman, would fall apart if that keystone was removed.

As for the fear of Muslim takeover in Europe, well I think you’re exaggerating a tad, in fact exaggerating a lot. It is true there is growing concern, however, France, with perhaps the largest percentage of Muslim immigrants at about 10%, is not about to succumb anytime soon. Nevertheless, it is a problem that needs to be addressed with a sense of urgency, and no doubt it will, as the political elites come to increasingly realise that this is a major concern of a large proportion of the populations, as evidenced by electoral advances by anti immigrant politicians. No doubt we could learn much from the US capacity to assimilate immigrants. But it is also the case that the US does not get the same volume of immigration from Islamic countries that Europe does, for both historical and geographical reasons. If it did, I wonder if it would be so successful in assimilating them.

As for radical muslim terrorism, well, haven’t we seen it all before? With the Brigate Rosse in Italy, the Baader Meinhof gang in Germany, and the Sendera Luminosa in Peru. Indeed, even the IRA in my own country and the ETA in Spain. There are always extremist groups trying to stir it up, and in our response to them, we can determine whether they gain the influence they crave with the masses of their target market, or not. It seems that when it comes to defeating Muslim extremists, the US is determined to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and in so doing, gives them exactly what they want, sympathy with the masses. When they see the west’s hypocritical engagement with despotic repressive regimes in the Islamic world while calling for democracy in countries that do not sing to the western tune, they know that our claimed high standards are just cant. And the US’s partisan attitude to the open sore of Palestinian injustice leaves many in the Islamic world ripe for conversion to the extemists message. We are all in this together, and it ill behove the US to believe that, just because it has massive military power at its command, that it should act unilaterally. All of that might in Iraq just looks puny when it cannot even put down a vastly inferior insurgency. And the reason it can’t, besides criminally poor post invasion planning, is that it does not have any degree of reliable intelligence on these groups, which is itself an indication that it does not have any great measure of support among Iraqis in that god forsaken country.

Finally, you say that i’m in LaLa land. And you think that Iraq is in the mess its in because of the Dems, the American and internations press. Otherwise, evertyhing would be hunky dory eh? And you say that i’m in La La land! It would be funny if it were not so tragic.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 25, 2006 6:46 PM
Comment #196449

Joseph Briggs,

Here’s a clue-Mohammad WAS the originator of Islam (he established it and enforced its edicts, violently, during his life), and Jesus is not a myth. While Jesus didn’t originate Christianity, his teachings are its foundation. Comparing the foundational scriptures and their sources is a valid way of assessing the relative merits of the two religions.

“Are you trying to imply that I hate America?”

No, I said it straight out.

“Please explain “a strawman inside a strawman‎. I’m just a dumb Christian and it doesn’t make any sense.
My point was that foundational texts do not determine the behavior of individuals in an institution or the institution as a whole.”

You still don’t make sense.

“I’ve never known anyone strongly influenced by Marxism so I can’t compare my “confused logic” to it. You may be right but I doubt it since I’m an anarchist.”

I’ve studied Marxism and I’ve known Marxists. The fact that you are an anarchist reinforces my point. Anarchy is the theoretical goal of Marxism.

“This is a bullshit since it ignores the fact that humans are a social mammal with a frontal lobe that allows for complex abstract thought and an expanded concept of time.”

No, it isn’t and no, it doesn’t. The ability to engage in abstract thought and to perceive an expanded concept of time are not automatic and do not in and of themselves produce a rational system of ethics. Without a moral grounding there is no basis for determining right.

“An individual can obviously determine his own ethics.”

Ethics without morality is known as “situational ethics”. The horrors it has produced throughout the ages are too numerous to count.


Posted by: traveller at November 25, 2006 7:17 PM
Comment #196470

Paul in Euroland,

It is not the terrorists that are getting sympathy from the masses. They are killing the masses! And unfortunately there are extremely evil regimes that are helping them do it. Also, unfortunately there are some countries so caught up in their own “little” worlds that they do not condemn the terrorists but rather simply try to understand them, negotiate with them, and cower from them. Terrorist tactics are to kill as many civilians as possible; getting what they want when others have simply had enough of the bloodshed. The only time we should fear that the terrorists would get sympathy is when pathetically stupid and immoral people would not have the wherewithal to know who the “bad guys” really are, and choose not to hunt the killers of the innocent masses down, and to not join in the fight against them, including condemning them outright! Which leads to my point. That is that the mischaracterization of the United States by the Dems, the American Press, and the International Press has done much more to help the terrorist cause than the terrorist’s puny roadside bombs and suicide bombers. What have any of these three groups I mentioned done that would inspire the people of Iraq to have the confidence to stand up on their own? Hmm?
Your own words give you away. You blame the U.S. for using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. That is a characterization of the “big bad guy” going after the poor little terrorist child. I suggest you rethink your view of the terrorist. That poor little terrorist child could kill 3,000 of your brothers in one swoop. I think G.W. Bush never dreamed that the United States would be so mischaracterized after 9/11. Although, I guess we did have the history of how the Press has mischaracterized Israel time and time again. It is beyond reasonable, logical thinking that going after those who support terror, even after being hit like we were hit by them, is viewed and characterized as unnecessary and over-reactive aggression. I am sorry, I can not fathom your way of thinking! It requires no concept of right and wrong.

JD

Posted by: JD at November 26, 2006 3:04 AM
Comment #196568
The fact that you are an anarchist reinforces my point. Anarchy is the theoretical goal of Marxism.

How does it reinforce your point? You asserted that I am too strongly influenced by Marxism. I assert I am not but rather an anarchist and you say that reinforces your point. How? If two cars take different routes to the same destination how are their means associated? If their destination is what matters then there isn’t any difference between Islam and Christianity since they both wish to achieve paradise for the “worthy.”

“This is a bullshit since it ignores the fact that humans are a social mammal with a frontal lobe that allows for complex abstract thought and an expanded concept of time.”

The ability to engage in abstract thought and to perceive an expanded concept of time are not automatic

What? Are you saying these mental skills aren’t inherent to homo sapiens and wouldn’t arise without prompting? If so, wow.

and do not in and of themselves produce a rational system of ethics.

Sure they do. An expanded concept of time will give rise to the idea of cause and effect, and more specifically consequences for your actions. Add to that some actual social consequences and voila, you have a naturally arising ethical system. No one needs to prompt any such lessons since, as a social mammal, they will arise naturally.

Without a moral grounding there is no basis for determining right.

Well now you’re just twisting meaning to suit your frame of the issue. Morals are a social system of distinguishing right and wrong behavior; which is no different than ethics.

“An individual can obviously determine his own ethics.” Ethics without morality is known as “situational ethics”.

No it’s not. That’s just one label coined by some Episcopalian back in the 60s for a system of Christian ethics based on the premise that the only thing of intrinsic value is love (agape). Are you thinking of moral relativism?

The horrors it has produced throughout the ages are too numerous to count.

Ha. I doubt there’s anything that has been worse than the oceans of blood spilt in the cause of religion.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at November 27, 2006 1:15 PM
Comment #196788

It is beyond reasonable, logical thinking that going after those who support terror, even after being hit like we were hit by them, is viewed and characterized as unnecessary and over-reactive aggression. I am sorry, I can not fathom your way of thinking! It requires no concept of right and wrong.

JD
Posted by: JD at November 26, 2006 03:04 AM

OK JD, I’ll make this very simple for you, as you obviously need it that way. Now listen carefully.
Iraq
had
nothing
to
do
with
9/11.
Saddam
and
Bin
Laden
despised
each
other.
What
part
of
that
can
you
not
understand?

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 28, 2006 9:42 PM
Comment #196819

Paul in Euroland,

Saddam and terror had everything to do with each other. Saddam had been supporting terror for years in the region. He was also public enemy number one in our view of those who were supporting terrorists at the time. We, as a nation, did not know about North Korea’s nukes, nor Irans nuclear plans. Neither did the rest of the world, apparently. It’s ludicrous how Dems criticized Bush for going into Iraq first, when we did not discover that North Korea and Iran were developing nuclear capabilities until after we had already gone in. The fact is, Saddam’s Iraq was next on the list after Afghanistan. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again- the need for the removal of Saddam Hussein from power and the fear of his WMD’s falling into terrorist hands was in every State of the Union Address given by President Bill Clinton. Bush didn’t come in like a cowboy totin’ some sweeping new foreign policy on Iraq. He was working with the information that the Clinton Administration and previous Administrations left him. Bush was going where we knew that terrorists reigned. Though I’m sure you are going to deny that any terrorist training camps existed in Iraq, right? You act as if this all was hatched in the back of Bush’s mind. We went in to remove regimes that supported terror, and that is still our foreign policy, as it has been for decades. 9/11 simply gave us the gumption to be more aggressive in its implementation, and rightly so!!

JD

Posted by: JD at November 29, 2006 1:17 AM
Comment #415234


Hello, friends,
I am out here to testify the good works of Dr.Kareem of FAST SOLUTION HOME in My life, and now my life is back !!!

After 2 years of Broken marriage, my husband left me with two kids.I felt like ending it all.While searching for a solution online, I came across several testimonies about this particular spell caster. Some people testified that he brought their Ex lover back, some testified that he restored womb and cure cancer, and another sickness, some testified that he can cast a spell to stop divorce and also spell to get a well-paid job soon. He is amazing, I also come across one particular testimony, it was about a woman called Sandra she testified about how he brought back her Ex lover in less than 2 days.

After reading all these, I decided to give him a try. I contacted him on via email and explained my problem to him.and he told me what I needed to do and I did AS instruct In just 48hours, my husband came back to me. We resolved our issues, and we are even happier than ever before.Dr.Kareem, you are a gifted man and I will not stop publishing him because he is a wonderful man. If you have any problem and you are looking for a real and genuine spell caster, Try him anytime, he is the answer to your problems.
You can contact him and get your problems solved today!
His direct cell number:+27723697012
Email:drkareemjida@yahoo.com,
drkareemjida@gmail.com
http://fastspellsolution.com/

Posted by: catherine at April 11, 2017 1:36 AM
Comment #415235


Hello, friends,
I am out here to testify the good works of Dr.Kareem of FAST SOLUTION HOME in My life, and now my life is back !!!

After 2 years of Broken marriage, my husband left me with two kids.I felt like ending it all.While searching for a solution online, I came across several testimonies about this particular spell caster. Some people testified that he brought their Ex lover back, some testified that he restored womb and cure cancer, and another sickness, some testified that he can cast a spell to stop divorce and also spell to get a well-paid job soon. He is amazing, I also come across one particular testimony, it was about a woman called Sandra she testified about how he brought back her Ex lover in less than 2 days.

After reading all these, I decided to give him a try. I contacted him on via email and explained my problem to him.and he told me what I needed to do and I did AS instruct In just 48hours, my husband came back to me. We resolved our issues, and we are even happier than ever before.Dr.Kareem, you are a gifted man and I will not stop publishing him because he is a wonderful man. If you have any problem and you are looking for a real and genuine spell caster, Try him anytime, he is the answer to your problems.
You can contact him and get your problems solved today!
His direct cell number:+27723697012
Email:drkareemjida@yahoo.com,
drkareemjida@gmail.com
http://fastspellsolution.com/

Posted by: catherine at April 11, 2017 2:01 AM
Comment #416541

My boyfriend of two years left me for another girl because I accuse him of seeing another girl and since then i have been trying to get him but he refuse to come back to me, he was not responding to my call or email and he even unfriend me on face-book and he told me that he is done with me. i was searching on the internet for help and i saw a testimony of how a spell caster help them to get their ex back so i decided to give it a try and i contacted him and i explain my problems to him and he cast a love spell for me and guarantee me of 2 days that my ex will come back to me and to my greatest surprise the second day a great miracle fell on me and my ex come back to me on the second day and he beg me for forgiveness drocusodospellcaster@gmail.com i will continue to publish his name because he is my Savior and we are happily married now. If you need him to help you Email drocusodospellcaster@yahoo.com or call him +2349067457724

Posted by: Sandra Collins at May 21, 2017 2:17 AM
Post a comment