Kerry on Iraq

[dhyatt]

For those of you who haven't seen it, you should...

Take the time (12 mins) to watch the documentary. It's fascinating and frightening and unlike Farenheit 911, it's factual - using nothing but Kerry's own words.

http://www.kerryoniraq.com/

[johnb]

This retired military officer and policy analyst makes a strong case, one which the majority of the troops in the ranks agree with.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/19598.htm

DEAD SOLDIERS

BY RALPH PETERS

September 23, 2004 -- IMAGINE if, in the presiden tial election of 1944, the can didate opposing FDR had in sisted that we were losing the Second World War and that, if elected, he would begin to withdraw American troops from Europe and the Pacific.

We would have called it treason. And we would have been right.

In WWII, broadcasts from Tokyo Rose in Japan and from Axis Sally in Germany warned our troops that their lives were being squandered in vain, that they were dying for big business and "the Jew" Roosevelt.

Today, we have a presidential candidate, the conscienceless Sen. John Kerry, doing the work of the enemy propagandists of yesteryear.

Is there nothing Kerry won't say to win the election? Is there no position he won't change? Doesn't he care anything for the sacrifices of our troops in Iraq?

And if he does care about our soldiers and Marines, why is he broadcasting remarks that insist ? against all hard evidence ? that the terrorists are winning?

Has he seen the situation with his own eyes? I'll gladly tell him how to get there. I'll even be his guide. And he can smell what remains of Saddam's mass graves ? with new ones still being discovered. He can taste the joy of freedom among the Kurds. He can see the bustling commerce throughout the country ? despite the violence that alone makes headlines.

Above all, he could see the magnificent performance of our troops, their dedication and professionalism. And their humanity, their goodness.

But Kerry doesn't want to see those things. He's reverting to form. Just as he lied about our troops three decades ago, encouraging our enemies of the day and worsening the suffering of our POWs in North Vietnam, today he's pandering to a new enemy.

Imagine the encouragement the terrorists, insurgents and global extremists draw from Kerry's declarations of defeat, from his insistence that our efforts in Iraq and in the War on Terror have failed.

As he always does, Kerry slips in qualifiers. Of course, Iraq's important. And he'll fight terror, too. It's just that the Bush administration doesn't know how to do anything. A Kerry presidency would let us withdraw our troops, collect more allies, succeed where others have "failed" and win the hearts and minds of the whole, wide world.

Earlier this week, Kerry made a much-ballyhooed speech offering four generalizations about how he would fix Iraq. But there was no detail, not a single nut or a lonely bolt. And the current administration is already doing most of what Kerry suggested.

As for involving the French and Germans, the truth is that they'd do more harm than good. These are the corrupt cynics who made billions from the U.N. Oil-for-Food program while the Iraqi people suffered. The French kiss up to every dictator willing to wink in their direction. The German military barely exists ? it's just an employment agency for uniformed bureaucrats ? and the French military's sole competence lies in slaughtering unarmed black Africans.

As for the United Nations, any day now we'll see a huge banner hanging from its Manhattan headquarters: Dictators For Kerry.

Even if I detested everything about President Bush, I'd vote for him just to rub it in the faces of the Germans, the French and all of the tyrants rooting for the Iraqi people to slip back into despotism. We Americans choose our own presidents, and we don't take orders from Europeans or from any of Kerry's other Swiss boarding-school pals.

I think it's great that Kerry speaks fluent French. I wish he'd go to France where he could speak it all the time.

In an election year, our engagement in Iraq is a legitimate topic for sober debate. But Kerry isn't serious. All he does is to declare defeat. He certainly doesn't want to be al Qaeda's candidate, but he's made himself into their man through his irresponsibility.

If Kerry were insisting, without caveats, that we're going to stay the course and win, while backing up his criticisms with convincing details of how he would improve our efforts, that would be fine. But his mad claims of disaster and his inability to maintain a firm position unquestionably give aid and comfort to the enemy.

The terrorists and their allies already intended to increase the level of violence in Iraq before November. But Kerry's pandering has encouraged them to pull out all the stops. I wish it were otherwise, that our election process had more integrity, but the truth is that every roadside blast and car bomb in Iraq is meant to support John Kerry.

Meanwhile, Kerry has assembled the most despicable cast of has-beens and failed officials in campaign history. He's represented by the likes of Jamie Rubin ? a Clintonite who so loved America that he moved to London, returning to our shores only to tell real Americans how we need to vote.

Putting Rubin on the talk-show circuit demonstrates how badly the Democratic elite is out of touch with the country it claims to represent. With his permanent sneer and his condescending snicker, Rubin represents nearly all that working Americans ? and our troops ? despise about today's Dems.

In 1944, the Democrats had FDR. In 2004, they've got the stretch-limo version of Mike Dukakis.

There was a wartime election in 1864, too. The Democratic Party's candidate, former Gen. George McClellan, ran on a platform that declared President Abraham Lincoln's policy a failure. The price of McClellan's rhetoric was a prolonged war and tens of thousands of dead Americans.

In 1864, the citizens of the North were steadfast. They rejected the Democratic Party's warnings of defeat and saved the Union. In 2004, the American people, North and South, East and West, need to reject the cynical lies of John F. Kerry and vote to support our troops and save Iraq.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."

[johnb]

While politicians cannot control who endorses them, it is instructive to see who does endorse them. Kerry claims he will be tough on terrorism, Hezbollah thinks differently. My analysis is there are two things at work. One, they hate Bush because he is responsible for a vigorous counterattack on the Islamofascists which is being mirrored by the Israelis and both nations have seen terror attacks on their respective nation either completely foiled or tailed off significantly. Second, they perceive Kerry as being a weaker commander in chief of the US armed force and far less likely to put the bombers up and the troops on the ground to barbeque their bloodthirsty soulmates.

I know this story is from an Israeli newspaper so any of you with a bias or hatred of Jews will dismiss the analysis out of hand. However, the quotes from Nasrallah cannot be disputed.

http://www.haaretz.com (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=324481&contrassID=2&subContrassID=15&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)

News Updates Fri., September 24, 2004 Tishrei 9, 5765 Israel Time: 22:12 (GMT+3)

Nasrallah pulls no punches

By Zvi Bar'el

For the first time since the start of the war in Iraq, the leader of a large and recognized Shi'ite religious organization has publicly called for a jihad against the U.S. forces. Meanwhile, American pressure on Syria is mounting

"This administration is the stupidest and most violent of all the American administrations ... We are suffering from a range of American pressures that are the heaviest since - well, I don't know, I wasn't alive in the 16th century." That was the message of Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Shara this week, in a meeting he held with Syrian journalists to mark the country's Press Day. Al-Shara may not be living in the 16th century, but he seems to have been Syria's foreign minister from time immemorial, and part of the Syrian problem.

Sunday was apparently "America Day" in Syria and Lebanon. In addition to al-Shara's evaluation of the U.S. administration, the secretary-general of Hezbollah had a few important things to say to President George Bush. For example, he invited all the Muslim religious sages in the entire Islamic world "to do something together about the situation in Iraq, so that the Americans will not be able to take advantage of the split in the Muslim leadership. Let us adopt the Iraqis to our hearts so that they will be able to unify their choice: opposition in the form of a war of jihad, making sacrifices for the cause [or suicide attacks - Z.B.]."

This was the first time since the start of the war in Iraq that a Shi'ite religious leader of a large and recognized religious organization called for a jihad against the American forces. Neither the Shi'ite leadership in Iraq, which is far from being a monolithic body and contains fierce opponents to the United States, or even the Shi'ite leaders in Iran, dared to say what Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah did in precise terms, pulling no punches, and in public before a crowd of thousands of his followers.

"The resistance movement [against the U.S. in Iraq] may not be able to remove the U.S. from Iraq within a year, but it will be able to remove Bush, [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld and [National Security Adviser] Condoleezza Rice, together with their Zionist friends, from the White House," Nasrallah assured his listeners. Nasrallah's scenario requires no deep understanding: Suicide attacks and sabotage operations against the American forces in Iraq will cause American public opinion to turn against the president and not re-elect him, thus bringing about the disappearance of this group of leaders from the White House.

Contrary to what is usually thought in Washington or Jerusalem, Nasrallah does not coordinate all his actions, still less his speeches, with Syria. By the same token, not everything that Syria or Hezbollah does or says is necessarily related to Israel. This time Nasrallah seems to have placed even the Syrians in a particularly tough position. In the face of American pressure on Damascus to shut down the offices of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, prevent Saddam Hussein's supporters from giving him assistance and disarm Hezbollah - that is, to neutralize the military threat it poses to Israel - the last demand is the most difficult of all and perhaps even impossible. To get around it, Syria maintains that Hezbollah in particular, and the actions of the government of Lebanon in general, are an internal Lebanese matter and that Syria has no control over Hezbollah's activity.

[Anonymous]

I am not endorsing his methods. Period.

Next thought. Is it wrong to support to ouster of a man, and his handpicked administration, that you believe is the cause of much suffering and whom you believe is more likely to kill you or people you know than will his primary opposition?

I welcome the support of every terrorist organization that wants Bush out. Yes, I said it. It signals hope. It is a sign that the hatred isn't so entrenched, but rather, at least in some cases, a reaction to specific policy choices. These people are not stupid, they know that Kerry cannot do too much differently than Bush has already done - they'll find him nearly or just as objectionable; so it shows that a little bit of change on our end can go a long way towards change on theirs. I don't support them, but I think their willingness to place blame on the Bush administration for the current woeful state of international affairs can only mean good things for the rest of us.

You say "weaker commander in cheif" I say "more rational, human, person."

Totally off topic. I was thinking today that the best possible outcome for this election would be a scenario where Kerry loses the popular vote but wins the college. Then, finally, there might be bipartisan support for doing away with it - or at least getting the issue out to the states (where, granted it would likely die, but here's to trying).

[Mark]

(looks up sheepishly)

[dhyatt]

I welcome the support of every terrorist organization that wants Bush out.

It's a good thing I'm a tolerant administrator. That's **** close to be deleted - permanently.

[Anonymous]

I vote for deletion

[johnb]

To any of you who may think *I* am a hard@ss ..... think again ... I just know who the enemy of my nation, my people and myself is and who that enemies supporters are.

You've clarified things quite succinctly Mark.

[johnb]

It signals hope. It is a sign that the hatred isn't so entrenched, but rather, at least in some cases, a reaction to specific policy choices.

This is the flaw in your "logic". You cannot bring yourself to admit that the motivational forces behind the jihadist terrorists are inherent within Islam itself. It has nothing to do with us except that we are a target. We are a target because we 1-individually reject Islam and 2-our society rejects subservience to Islamic authorities and finally 3-our nation rejects the application of shari'a in our land. That makes us rebels against the "true religion" and a target for jihad. The use of aggression and terrorism to conquer then legal and religious persecution to repress, marginalize and finally liquidate non-Islamic religions is clearly laid out an mandated within the foundational sources (Koran, Haddith's, and the sacrilized biographies of Mohammed) of the Islamic religion. These are irreformable and unrefutable within Islam from a theological perspective.

Mark, you intense desire to make everything America's fault is more illustrative of your mindset than it is illuminating of anything else. It is also arrogant in a negative sense. Islam has it's own internal motivations which are quite separate from us. Jews are hated within the Islamic world because Mohammed hated them. He branded them the descendants of "monkeys and pigs" and a source of evil in the world. Todays Muslims cannot dispute that. That's the religion. Likewise, the ways they interact with the rest of the world is framed, not by us, but by the internal theology and dynamics of their religion. They choose their actions based on the "took kit" they have available, named, the Koran, the Hadeeths', and the biographies. The tools available to them are quite simple-jihad, repression, and violence.

There is a reason there are so few Christians and no Jews left in most Islamic lands. Their playbook ends with the extermination of both in the countries where Islam is dominant.

[johnb]

Typical.

A leftist lobs an rather offensive anti-American bomb then when pressed on the specifics regarding their meaningless platitudes they disappear. While Mark is the guilty party in this thread it is actually SOP.

I'm still waiting to hear how Islam is going to reform itself, how America in general and American individuals specifically are supposed to defend themselves, and how Islamic aggression is to be understood. The left basically insists that it's all America's fault and insists that any military action we take is, by definition, militaristic/bad, while the Jihadii AllStars run wild decapitating people and blowing stuff up. It's quite an intellectual quandry they're in.

I suppose the fact that the left's basic understanding of Islam, it's demand that America accept blame for all evil in the world, and a strange insistance that we never take action to defend Americans and American interests are all indefensible positions derived not from thoughtful consideration but from meaningless bumper sticker slogans is the logjam here.

[Mark]

I'm sorry, was there a question or call for clarification in there?

I've never claimed to know precisely the sequence of events that will transpire that will bring Islam into the modern progressive world, only the general framework in which it will do so. That framework is the same as the historical pattern for the world's other major religions that have managed, not so easily at times, to divorce their politics from their spirituality. It's been done before, and it's started from roughly the same point and met with nearly as much resistance before, and I haven't any reason to believe this one will pan out any differently.

How is the U.S. and its citizens supposed to defend themselves? In accordance with the Constitution of the U.S. which holds legally enacted international treaties to be the law of the land. So, in short, we may defend ourselves by whatever means are not excluded from the spirit of current international law, the most significant currently of which is the series of UN charter documents, relevant alliance treaties, and other accords and conventions to which the U.S. is part. I think that is reasonable, no? I'm quite certain that list does not include provisions for preventative war, which is objectionable in every case imaginable.

The U.S. must always defend itself and its citizens, but only defend them, never attack others on their behalf. The U.S. is not to blame for all evil in the world, not even close, though I will hold the U.S. to the highest standard of conduct of any state and when it runs afoul of its own principles I will be twice as critical because of it.

[johnb]

That framework is the same as the historical pattern for the world's other major religions that have managed, not so easily at times, to divorce their politics from their spirituality.

That's the point where clarification is needed. Your course of action is predicated upon that comment being a viable scenario in the real world as opposed to it's actually being just a meaningless platitude.

Where in the historical record has Islam, not some generic, "other religion", demonstrated the ability to so "transform" itself? The fact that the other major religions have does not mean that it is inevitable that Islam will transform itself from within. That merely means the other religions have "transformed". Your assertion fails on several points here aside from the inability to demonstrate that Islam can actually transform itself.

Christianity, for example, had a built in theology which contradicted the actions of the Roman Catholic Church when it ran the Inquisition. Christ's own words in the Gospels was a direct contradiction of that activity. Rome didn't have to "reform" any foundational doctrines of the Christian religion, it merely had to reform practices of church government and discipline. Expecting Islam to "reform" Mohammed's example and the words of the Koran would be akin to expecing Rome to "reform" dogmas declared ex cathedra. It can't happen without destroying the whole theological structure.

But it fails also because there is no way to reform. Lay aside for a moment the theological problems inherent in this "reform", one has to ask how this would be done? Who in Islam would be able to humanize the more odious doctrines? Who has standing to repudiate Mohammed's example and words? Since Mohammed is exalted as the "perfect man" who, short of God or another "perfect man" has standing to do this?

I've asked repeatedly how the irreformable and irrefutable words of al-Illah can be "reformed" or "refuted". You keep responding with generic platitudes that have no substance to them Mark. Your assertions indicate you believe Christianity is a religion, Islam is a religion. Christianity has reformed, hence Islam will reform. What happened within Christianity with respect to church governance and freedom of conscience happened because of unique conditions within Christianity itself, it is not a universal template for what must happen.

This is the frustrating part of even bothering to converse with you, you deal in vagueries and platitudes, not in history, logic, or fact.

[Cathy]

H@## NO Don_ DO NOT delete that comment!
It needs to be seen by any rational person browsing this forum so they can see the true colors of the leftist hate filled partisans who have let good sense be overwhelmed by their childish resentment that their leftist candidate in 2000 is not currently the President of the US.
Back in 2000, my feeling was "the worst choice would be Gore", but it still didn't drive me to vote for Bush, because I had too many reservations about him at the time. And I SURE as SH*T didn't vote for GORE!

GW's performance as President over the last 4 yrs. has not been stellar in all respects, but I respect him for many of the things he has done, like not throwing our national sovereignty under the feet of the U.N. to trample, (yes, "pearls before swine" is how I feel about that) and NOT giving the "Gang Green" enviro-kooks everything they demand.
Mark and other leftists may see our national sovereignty as nothing but an obsolete obstructionist attitude (sadly), but it's preservation is important to me!
Bush has certainly not done enough wrong in my opinion to send me running into the arms of a candidate who is the likes of John Kerry! The high-jacked Democratic Party has picked a LOSER to run, (yes, I'll say that with some hope and confidence six weeks before the election) and I feel sorry for all of the sensible American Democrats who no longer have a voice in the political debate.

Thanks for posting that article. The author has expressed much that I can agree with.
And like you said, John, about those who endorse the candidate, it does say something about them. The Communist Party is also endorsing John Kerry.

Cathy

[Mark]

The Communist Party is also endorsing John Kerry.

Not true, well, not the CPUSA anyway. Their position is precisely the same is mine (though, for the record, I am not a communist). Kerry is something of a hack and not particularly liberal. Bush is, obviously, worse. So, while their, and my own, views go substantially beyond Kerry's they are nevertheless grounded in the fact that any progressive change is much more likely to come during a Kerry administration than during a Bush administration. The CPUSA has not fielded its own or endorsed any other candidate for the 2004 presidential election.

[Mark]

John, that last post of yours was a good one, honestly. It's midnight now, I'll get back to it in the morning.

[johnb]

Mark,

I'll throw something to you....the Mahdi is predicted to return and bring to fruition a host of Islamic prophecies...he is hidden now according to Islamic theology and will have that power....there are specific conditions described which will be in existance when/for the Mahdi to return...the Mahdi could do what you propose, ie, "reform" Islam.

There is some thought that bin Laden styles himself as the Mahdi...if he were to explicitly make that megalomaniacal claim it may ignite a very fiery confrontation within Islam. Especially provoking the Shi'a to even greater orgies of rhetorical and physical violence than they're normally given to.

I cannot imagine any so called "moderate" Muslim would every think of touching that one, it would be akin to a Christian declaring himself Jesus Christ returned to wrap up history.

Seriously though, given the age and reverance Muslims have for the source texts of their religion there isn't the flexibility to bend them to accomodate modernity. Where Christian texts spoke to universal generalities on human behaviour and motivations Islam was much more explicit especially in areas relating to relations with non-Muslims. The devil is in the details and when Muslims claim all questions on faith, law, government, and politics can be answered through their ancient books there are a lot of devils.

[johnb]

Breaking News (http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2003/12/25/news/breaking_news/7ed3357c5be848ed86256e070013feee.txt)

Howard Dean supporters give John Kerry flip-flops as Christmas gift

DES MOINES -- Howard Dean supporters gave John Kerry a peculiar Christmas gift -- flip-flop sandals.

Iowans for Dean delivered the "present" to the Massachusetts senator's Iowa campaign headquarters on Wednesday. Both Dean and Kerry are among nine candidates seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

"Sen. Kerry has been flip-flopping on issues throughout his career and campaign, and we thought we could make things a little more comfortable for him," said Dean spokeswoman Sarah Leonard.

Kerry has flip-flopped on issues including the war in Iraq, Social Security, intelligence resources and taxes, Leonard said in a news release.

A telephone message left for Kerry spokesman John Norris Wednesday night was not immediately returned.

[Wuptdo]

John Kerry and flip-flops. Please see attached for additional enlightenment:

http://www.kerrycore.com/ad_flipflight_game.htm

http://www.johnkerryflipflopper.com/

And doesn't flip flops remind you of the 60's TV Show "Flipper?"

http://www.kerrycore.com/ad_flipper.htm

http://boortz.com/nuze/200409/09012004.html#vets

Enjoy!

Wuptdol B-)

[Mark]

My apologies for taking so long with this, real life had priority this past week.


That's the point where clarification is needed. Your course of action is predicated upon that comment being a viable scenario in the real world as opposed to it's actually being just a meaningless platitude.

Where in the historical record has Islam, not some generic, "other religion", demonstrated the ability to so "transform" itself? The fact that the other major religions have does not mean that it is inevitable that Islam will transform itself from within. That merely means the other religions have "transformed". Your assertion fails on several points here aside from the inability to demonstrate that Islam can actually transform itself.

True. It is not a logical necessity that since other major religions have reformed that Islam must, or even will, too. However, your general line of thinking does conceal the fact that Islam is not quite as monolithic as you paint it. Islam has indeed changed over the years, and in ways that parallel major changes in other religions. The mere fact of the division of Sunni and Shia, which is not merely a political battle over lines of succession at this point, partially illustrates this. So too does, again, the existence of many reasonably moderate states with Muslim populations. If, as you claim, Islam must have strict scriptural support than the divisions in the religion could not be, and the states where moderates live without killing non-Muslims must not be "real" followers of Islam. So, while I grant that there is not actually a path known a priori that Islam will follow to moderate itself, it does currently exist in forms that feature significant variation. It is therefore, at least possible for reform.


Christianity, for example, had a built in theology which contradicted the actions of the Roman Catholic Church when it ran the Inquisition. Christ's own words in the Gospels was a direct contradiction of that activity. Rome didn't have to "reform" any foundational doctrines of the Christian religion; it merely had to reform practices of church government and discipline. Expecting Islam to "reform" Mohammed's example and the words of the Koran would be akin to expecting Rome to "reform" dogmas declared ex cathedra. It can't happen without destroying the whole theological structure.

But it fails also because there is no way to reform. Lay aside for a moment the theological problems inherent in this "reform", one has to ask how this would be done? Who in Islam would be able to humanize the more odious doctrines? Who has standing to repudiate Mohammed's example and words? Since Mohammed is exalted as the "perfect man" who, short of God or another "perfect man" has standing to do this?

It's good that you employed Catholicism in your example because it seems to me that Islam is current much more like a Christian Catholic than some other Christians. It's true that the bible, containing the true words of God and Jesus, at least in spirit seemed to undercut the acts if not the motives of the Inquisition. So, for that period the Church was essentially making the political decision to carry out its interpretation of the book.

Now, the question is, currently are there things in the bible that Christians don't believe, don't practice or don't follow and are there organized Christian churches that emphasize things not in the bible, or neglect things that are? The answer is, of course, yes on all counts.

In the first case you have the political wing of the religion persecuting others. In the second you have factions of the religion and individuals deciding that the word of God and the teachings of Jesus and his followers might in some cases not really apply. The foundation of the religion is really the same for these people however. Those things that they don't agree with are still there, they're still written in stone, as it were. What's happened over time is a falling away from the orthodoxy imposed by the political religion. Catholics have even done it themselves. I'm arguing that what you see, the terrible repression today, as the foundation of Islam because it is written down is actually more akin to the political decisions of the Church. I'm making that argument because the objectionable things in Christianity and other religions, those things at their foundation, are still there, they've simply been refined out of practice politically.

So, can the foundational texts of Islam in some cases seem to endorse what is effectively Islam's Inquisition and other ill practices? Yes. Granting that, is that the sole message, is that the entire spirit of Mohammed's teaching? No. Can the foundational texts of Christianity in some cases seem to endorse the Inquisition and other ill practices? Yes. Granting that, is that the sole message, is that the entire spirit of Christ's teaching? No.


I've asked repeatedly how the irreformable and irrefutable words of al-Illah can be "reformed" or "refuted". You keep responding with generic platitudes that have no substance to them Mark. Your assertions indicate you believe Christianity is a religion, Islam is a religion. Christianity has reformed, hence Islam will reform. What happened within Christianity with respect to church governance and freedom of conscience happened because of unique conditions within Christianity itself, it is not a universal template for what must happen.

It is irreformable and irrefutable that the Earth was created in six days. That God created Man and them all the animals or, a few chapters later, all the animals and then Man. God, apparently, is a flip flopper. Do I think there is anyone on this board that believes this? Maybe a handful, but more likely there are more people that think of themselves as good Christians who will just let this one slide. They may not be totally on board with evolution, but I don't think many would spend too much time defending this. Now, the cosmogony of any religion isn't going to withstand much scientific scrutiny, but it does underlie the point... there are foundational doctrines that are simply overlooked. There does not need to be an infallible source to tell us this, there does not need to exist another prophet to challenge the existing doctrine - all that need happen is the religion fails to effectively mirror the reality of the majority of its adherents for substantive changes to begin to be made. That's it.

This will be an unsatisfactory explanation for you, I am sure.

As an aside, do I think moderate Muslims should be doing more to denounce the brutal practices of their brethren? Yes I do. They should be standing up to the threats from their own community and actively, actively, campaigning for a more just and widely held system. Letting the persecution take place simply because it doesn't pose much of a problem to you is nearly as odious as committing it in the first place. The entire religion would do well to speed up the process by which it internally debates not which people it may kill, but why they should continue to kill at all. The reason that debate is not happening is not due to the strength of the hardliners, but the passivity of those who, they think, are simply living their lives in a moderate way. They are falling victim to the sentiments of the quote I have as my signature. If the U.S. wants to see a more effective war on terror, it should be emphasizing the need for moderate intervention, supporting it and fostering it with at least as much resources as fighting the fascists. I acknowledge that the results of such a process might take a longer term to materialize, but am confident that they will yield better results. Further, I lament that both political parties and candidates, shackled to the tyranny of elections and quick returns will forgo this option and instead interminably focus on failed short term options.

[johnb]

True. It is not a logical necessity that since other major religions have reformed that Islam must, or even will, too. However, your general line of thinking does conceal the fact that Islam is not quite as monolithic as you paint it. Islam has indeed changed over the years, and in ways that parallel major changes in other religions.

The comparison breaks down quickly here. Let's examine it. From the time Saint Luther nailed his 95 Theses on the cathedral door going forward the next 150 years the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics were at each others throat. After that they settled down and admitted the other side had the right to breath. Lately, they've even been effusively complimenting each other over their shared faith and blah...blah....blah.... Nicely ecumenical.

For the past thousand years Sunnis and Shi'ites have worked themselves into a lather over the question of whether the Shi'ites were real Muslims or evil Jew *******s that should be killed. Last month in Pakistan a Sunni, fervently practicing his religion assasinated a Shi'a scholar. Iraq will inevitably degenerate into a Shi'ite-Sunni civil war as soon as the US troops are pulled out. Guaranteed. Saudi Arabia persecutes them to include late night arrests and destruction of their mosques. This is still a very unsettled question within Islam. This split goes back over a millenium and it has been violent from it's inception. Exactly when are these people going to concede that the other guy has a right to breathe? This begs the follow on question: how can we conclude this is anything but a flaw inherent in Islam? Not the division, but the refusal to come to grips with it in anything but the most violent fashion. As Mohammed himself supposedly said "the religion is how the people live their lives". What does that say of Islam? It's intolerant? Incapable of coming to grips with internal divisions peacefully? Okay. So it is quite different from Hinduism and Christianity in that respect.

So too does, again, the existence of many reasonably moderate states with Muslim populations.

Which states are those? Turkey? A nation which in which the Turkish General Staff has the ultimate veto over the civilian government? Where the Kemalist ideology is violently and openly hostile to Islam? These "reasonably moderate states" you speak of- which ones are they? Specificially.

If, as you claim, Islam must have strict scriptural support than the divisions in the religion could not be, and the states where moderates live without killing non-Muslims must not be "real" followers of Islam.

Be careful what you are saying Mark. Which Muslim states are tolerant and what do you mean by "tolerant"? Indonesia? A state which turned the jihadii terrorists loose against the Roman Catholics of East Timor and now against the Evangelicals in the Spice Islands? Egypt? A state that allows and encourages the persecution and forced conversions of the native Coptic Chrisitans? Morocco? A state which imprisons Muslim apostates in psychiatric hospitals?

So, while I grant that there is not actually a path known a priori that Islam will follow to moderate itself, it does currently exist in forms that feature significant variation. It is therefore, at least possible for reform.

What I find interesting is the flip side to that. That in spite of these minor variations that Islam has been unceasingly hostile and intolerant towards non-Muslims. The Christian majority that once existed from Morocco to Iraq and Turkey to Jordan has been outright exterminated or reduced to insignificance through persecution and extermination. That Buddhism was exteriminated from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India by Islamic holy warriors. That the once prosperous and numerous Jewish populations that existed from Fez to Tehran have been exterminated or expelled almost 100%. Yes there is variation, but there is also a shocking and violent conformity existing between Shi'ite, Sunni, Druze, and Alawite.

Now, the question is, currently are there things in the bible that Christians don't believe, don't practice or don't follow and are there organized Christian churches that emphasize things not in the bible, or neglect things that are? The answer is, of course, yes on all counts.

No, the important question with respect to Christian theology is is there anything in the New Testament that would explicitly condone physical violence against non-believers? Or anyone for that matter? Did Christ command his followers to cut the heads off their opponents? Did Paul tell the early Christians to conquer other lands and enslave the women and children? *IF* they had said that Christians would have some theology to worry about. Mohammed said those very things. Whether Christians ignore Paul's directive that women cover their hair in church is irrelevant. No one is hurt either way. Especially not non-believers. Whether Muslims ignore Mohammed's directive to decapitate non-believers is relevant and of a whole different type and class than the other question.

I'm arguing that what you see, the terrible repression today, as the foundation of Islam because it is written down is actually more akin to the political decisions of the Church. I'm making that argument because the objectionable things in Christianity and other religions, those things at their foundation, are still there, they've simply been refined out of practice politically.

Except that this question, "Should infidels be put to death?" is one that is a permanent argument within Islam since it comes right out of the source text. This is not the equivalent situtation to the Inquisition. The Inquisition was not grounded in the theology of the New Testament. The equivalent argument in Christianity would be "Are the peacemakers blessed?" That is out of the New Testament.

So, can the foundational texts of Islam in some cases seem to endorse what is effectively Islam's Inquisition and other ill practices? Yes. Granting that, is that the sole message, is that the entire spirit of Mohammed's teaching? No.

Actually, it is a pretty important theme Mark. The "holy" Qur'an is not arranged chronologically or thematically. It is arranged by verse length. When it is arranged chronologically a theme does arise. Once Mohammed had aquired political power the "nice" verses get pretty scarce. The book becomes increasingly intolerant and hateful. Once he acquired the military might to impose his will on others the blood began to flow and infidels and apostates began loosing their lives. The example of the "perfect man" is being re-enacted in Fallujah today. If one were to identify the various themes of the Qur'an one could surmise that it stresses Muslims should be nice to Muslims and there are a lot of political/economic verses there to regulate that behavour. Another theme one finds is that non-believers should be militarily fought, that they can never be trusted, that they should be brutalized during conquest and repressed afterward. It is not theological cul de sac, it is a pretty important component of the religion as it strikes to the very heart of the question "How should society be structed in an Islamic state?"

It is irreformable and irrefutable that the Earth was created in six days.[/b

Actually, that's a question that 1- is quite debated and 2- no one is being killed for answering one way or the other in Christianity.

[b]... there are foundational doctrines that are simply overlooked.

Overlooked? Or doctrines that not all agree on? See, there is no internal enforcement mechanism in Christianity that tells the believers to kill non-believers. So whether a Baptist, Pentecostal, Greek Orthodox, etc..
answers that question one way or the other is moot. For a Muslim to deny a foundational doctrine of the Islam there is an internal enforcement mechanism in the foundational texts. It isn't pretty. That is the contradiction between comparisions of these two religions.

This will be an unsatisfactory explanation for you, I am sure.

Only because it is not accurate.

As an aside, do I think moderate Muslims should be doing more to denounce the brutal practices of their brethren? Yes I do.

That's an easy thing for us to say. I don't diagree with you and this is not a criticism, but what we ask when say that is that they take their own lives in their hands. They're speaking out against Mohammed himself. Mohammed decapitated non-Muslims and ordered his followers to do the same. That's a helluva thing to ask these people to stand up denounce.

The entire religion would do well to speed up the process by which it internally debates not which people it may kill, but why they should continue to kill at all.

That question is settled, it is because their foundational texts command them to. By condeming the practice you condemn the religion. It would be no different than if you were to approach a Christian with the demand that they denounce baptism, a ritual engaged in and commanded by the guy that founded the religion. You'd have better luck than getting a Muslim to denounce the killing and repression of non-Muslims, no Christian sect nor theology endorses or commands the killing of Christian heretics.

The reason that debate is not happening is not due to the strength of the hardliners, but the passivity of those who, they think, are simply living their lives in a moderate way.

That "strength" comes from the fact that the "hardliners" are actually, theologically consistant with the example of Mohammed as laid down in the source texts. I'm not sure how we get around that. How does one remain a Muslim and denounce the example of the "perfect man"? Hell, how does a Muslim remain alive after denouncing the example of the "perfect man"?

[Wuptdo]

I found this while "Blogging" this AM. I hope most of your remember Clinton's last days in office. :roll:

http://spinswimming.blogspot.com/

Food for oil = Money for Saddam. Anyone watch the hearings about the "food for oil" in Congress. To me, it looked like the France, Russians, and Chinese are calling the shots in the U.N. these days.

Recommendation: Move the U.N. Headquaters somewhere that the U.N. can get some real work accomplished and not so focused on parties in Manhatten or not paying traffic fines. How about Iceland or maybe the Azores Island?

Wuptdo B-)

[Wuptdo]

Here are some pictures from Iraq that the media (and the DNC) doesn't want you to see.
(And the kids can view too!)

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=282896

Made my day!

Wuptdo B-)