View Full Version : Obama at odds with Petraeus over identifying enemy as "Islamic"
From Robert Spencer:
Obama at odds with Petraeus over identifying enemy as "Islamic"
This argument has been going on for years. We have addressed it here many times. What Obama's approach essentially amounts to is an attempt to pretend that things are other than what they are. As such, Obama's approach is doomed to fail. "Obama at odds with Petraeus doctrine on 'Islam,'" by Rowan Scarborough in the Washington Times, July 11 (thanks to all who sent this in):
The White House's official policy of banning the word "Islam" in describing America's terrorist enemies is in direct conflict with the U.S. military's war-fighting doctrine now guiding commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan.
John O. Brennan, President Obama's chief national security adviser for counterterrorism, delivered a major policy address on defining the enemy. He laid out the White House policy of detaching any reference to Islam when referring to terrorists, be it al Qaeda, the Taliban or any other group.
But Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the man tapped by Mr. Obama as the new top commander in Afghanistan, led the production of an extensive counterinsurgency manual in December 2006 that does, in fact, tell commanders of a link between Islam and extremists.
The Petraeus doctrine refers to "Islamic insurgents," "Islamic extremists" and "Islamic subversives." It details ties between Muslim support groups and terrorists. His co-author was Gen. James F. Amos, whom Mr. Obama has picked as the next Marine Corps commandant and Joint Chiefs of Staff member.
Mr. Brennan on May 26 told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that "describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism, that the United States is somehow at war against Islam. The reality, of course, is that we have never been and will never be at war with Islam. After all, Islam, like so many faiths, is part of America."
In a speech that also severed the Obama administration from President George W. Bush's "war on terror," Mr. Brennan also said: "The president's strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind and, as Americans, we refuse to live in fear. Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself of one's community."
Asked about the discrepancy between the White House policy and the military's counterinsurgency doctrine, Michael Hammer, Mr. Brennan's spokesman, said "We don't have anything to add to John's speech."
Larry Korb, a military analyst at the Center for American Progress, said Mr. Brennan is correct to avoid linking Islam to terrorism.
"Once you attach a religious thing, you're basically saying somehow or other this is caused by the religion," Mr. Korb said. "Most Muslims are not that way."
He added, "If you put that term [Islamic terrorist] on there, it causes you more problems in the long run. You don't want to see this as a war on quote unquote the Muslim world. If I took a look at all the people, for example, who killed abortion doctors and I said they're Christian terrorists, or something like that, and they are all who have done that. That is their interpretation of the Bible. But most people are not. Some of these people will quote the Bible and say I had to go after this doctor because he's killing innocents."
Over 15,000 Islamic jihad attacks since 9/11. Half a dozen abortionists killed. No mainstream Christian sect endorses murdering abortionists. No Islamic school of jurisprudence doesn't teach jihad and Islamic supremacism.
Asked how to define the enemy, Mr. Korb answered, "Al Qaeda. That's what we went in there for."
Mr. Brennan said that describing the enemy as Islamists "would actually be counterproductive. It would play into the false perception that they are religious leaders defending a holy cause, when in fact they are nothing more than murderers, including the murder of thousands upon thousands of Muslims."...
But of course, they portray themselves as religious leaders defending a holy cause, and they are widely perceived as such among Muslims, and have Islamic texts and teachings to establish their case. Is it really wise to pretend that that isn't the case?
The Petraeus counterinsurgency manual takes the position that, to understand the enemy, commanders must recognize terrorist links to Islam -- its leaders in some cases, its fundraising and its infrastructure. Forces must fight "Islamic extremists," it says, differently from the Viet Cong or followers of Saddam Hussein.
"Islamic extremists use perceived threats to their religion by outsiders to mobilize support for their insurgency and justify terrorist tactics," the manual states.
In a section on the ideological source for Islamic terrorists, the doctrine says, "For many Muslims, the Caliphate produces a positive image of the golden age of Islamic civilization. This image mobilizes support for al Qaeda among some of the most traditional Muslims while concealing the details of the movement's goal. In fact, al Qaeda's leaders envision the 'restored Caliphate' as a totalitarian state similar to the pre-2002 Taliban regime in Afghanistan."
The manual also discusses support networks for "Islamic extremists:"
"A feature of today's operational environment deserving mention is the effort by Islamic extremists, including those that advocate violence, to spread their influence through the funding and use of entities that share their views or facilitate them to varying degrees. These entities may or may not be threats themselves; however, they can provide passive or active support to local or distant insurgencies."
Among these support groups, it says, are "religious schools and mosques." [...]
That is simply and demonstrably true. What advantage do we gain by ignoring it?
"If it's not our intent to paint everyone with the same brush, then certainly we should think seriously about just characterizing them as criminals, because that is what they are," Muneer Fareed, who then headed the Islamic Society of North America, told The Washington Times....
ISNA has links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Mr. Brennan, in a June 24 meeting with reporters and editors of The Times, said that the administration's goal of not describing al Qaeda and its allies in Islamic terms is aimed at denying them legitimacy.
A 2008 U.S. Central Command "Red Team" report, or contrarian analysis, warned that divorcing Islam from jihadist terrorism is a mistake.
"The sources of Islam (Quran, Hadith, Shariah) claim divine origin and include a large body of Islamic jurisprudence on warfare that is detailed, instructive and directive," the report said. "A balanced, intellectually critical approach must be taken in order to deconstruct the prime underpinnings and language of the concept of jihad, which rest firmly in the sources of Islam and not solely as contrivances within the criminal minds of a small number of violent extremists."
Posted by Robert on July 12, 2010 2:07 PM
Source (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/obama-at-odds-with-petraeus-over-identifying-enemy-as-islamic.html)
Green Light
07-12-2010, 18:06
Obama at odds with Petraeus over identifying enemy as "Islamic"
He can say that Americans are clinging to their religion and their guns, but you can't say the same thing about the enemy? Our president is one of three things: a moron, a bigot, or a stooge for the other side.
Peregrino
07-12-2010, 18:09
Or a bigotted moron stooging for the other side.
Or a bigotted moron stooging for the other side.
I will go with this option.
Larry Korb {anti-Iraq war pundit, who works for a left wing pro-Democrat think tank}, a military analyst at the Center for American Progress, said...
That's an interesting think tank Korb works for, serving as principal advisers to the Obama administration...
"The Center for American Progress" > George Soros, Morton Halperin, John Podesta, Hillary Clinton, Harold Ickes, Debbie Berger, Sandy Burglar, "Media Matters"
> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6709
IMO, Obama, Holder, Soros, Clinton, and "The Center for American Progress" (the Soros gang) are the real "Man Made Disasters" of our lifetime who are not cognizant enough to recognize Islam as an enemy of freedom.
The Reaper
07-12-2010, 19:50
What will America's epitaph be?
"They lacked the moral courage as a people to identify and speak the name of those who would kill them, much less to take the necessary measures to assure their own safety, and that of their children. Here they lie, after being subjugated and enslaved."
I prefer to go down fighting.
TR
Thomas Paine
07-12-2010, 20:04
Nice avatar T-Rock.
Cynical Voice of Arabic Muslim Critic of the US:
"The United States thinks they're so great.
The United States could land a man on the moon.
But could they land a Muhammed on the moon?
I think not!"
You may have single-handedly just solved the Israeli Palestinian problem...send them to the moon.
The Petraeus doctrine refers to "Islamic insurgents," "Islamic extremists" and "Islamic subversives."
Asked how to define the enemy, Mr. Korb answered, "Al Qaeda. That's what we went in there for."
That is simply and demonstrably true. What advantage do we gain by ignoring it?
SF-TX,
IMHO Obama is on his own side only, and will go down as the worst POTUS to date.
My question for Mr. Spencer is on the contrary, what do we gain by inflammatory rhetoric from the White House? Domestically, the FBI should still be tracking down the same subversive elements. Overseas our troops will still carry out the COIN mission, and must kill the same insurgents, extremists, and subversives, with or without the Islamist prefix whether we call them Afghans, Islamists, Pathans or Pashtuns. I don't know what a US Central Command "Red Team" report entails, I do however know a recurring theme from successful military commanders is to trust the men on the ground. The message I'm reading from such men, Major Gant for example, is the tribe is their most powerful cultural tie, yet Islam is the predominant faith in that part of the world, shared by both those we are trying to win over and those we must terminate. A general rule of thumb in polite company is avoid talk of politics or religion, this is well beyond that as you know, a brutal war of insurgency. If we need to secure the trust of the villages to beat the insurgency and win this war, how does criticizing their shared faith help anyone but the enemy? If I interpreted Major Gant's paper correctly, These villagers don't want to hear our critique of Islamists any more than they believe a strong central government will fix everything. AQ preys on Muslims the most.
Let's say Mr. Spencer got his wish. Zero wakes up one morning and blasts Islamists from the pulpit, While Nancy Pelosi keeps jumping out of her chair clapping like a rabid seal, and Joe Biden goes on the record with "kebabs give me gas". Personally I would feel better, Right On! However, any satisfaction I derive from this, should be subordinate, and rightly so, to any potential difficulty our troops going in to secure these potentially hostile villages incur from such statements by our government.
Sir, isn't our mission in Afghanistan and the GWOT to destroy AQ, and any Taliban/insurgents who support them. Why do we need to say anything beyond this? Is the key variable here our rhetoric or giving our troops the time and resources they need to accomplish this mission?
Nice avatar T-Rock.
Thanks Mr. Paine - was going to call him "Muzz Lightyear" but the name's already taken by rage boy :D
> http://www.thenoseonyourface.com/just-plain-old-nuts/to-sharia-and-beyond-disney-pixar-to-collaborate-with-obamas-nasa-muslim-outreach-program/
My question for Mr. Spencer is on the contrary, what do we gain by inflammatory rhetoric from the White House?
Islamic Reformation - a vast and dangerous challenge, but one that is required if we ever hope to scale down the rising tide of Islamic Terrorism.
Like most all tyrannical ideologies, its first target is free speech, without criticism, how can a radical ideology change?
What do we gain by government enforcing Sharia, and an Administration hell-bent on assaulting the first amendment?
Does enforcing Sharia take precedence over the Constitution?
IMHO, as Spencer and others have proposed, the only hope for an inkling of reformation to occur in Islam is sustained critical scrutiny, educating the masses of the myths of Islam, undercutting the claims of Islams divine sanction, and exposing the limits of Islams wisdom. It will take centuries, do we have the time?
"Until you get pricipled leadership in the United States of America that is willing to say that, we will continue to chase our tail because we will never clearly define who this enemy is, and then understand their goals and objectives....and then, come up with the right and proper goals and objectives to not only secure our Republic, but to secure western civilization"
~Lieutenant Colonel Allen West~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkGQmCZjJ0k
SF-TX,
IMHO Obama is on his own side only, and will go down as the worst POTUS to date.
My question for Mr. Spencer is on the contrary, what do we gain by inflammatory rhetoric from the White House? Domestically, the FBI should still be tracking down the same subversive elements. Overseas our troops will still carry out the COIN mission, and must kill the same insurgents, extremists, and subversives, with or without the Islamist prefix whether we call them Afghans, Islamists, Pathans or Pashtuns. I don't know what a US Central Command "Red Team" report entails, I do however know a recurring theme from successful military commanders is to trust the men on the ground. The message I'm reading from such men, Major Gant for example, is the tribe is their most powerful cultural tie, yet Islam is the predominant faith in that part of the world, shared by both those we are trying to win over and those we must terminate. A general rule of thumb in polite company is avoid talk of politics or religion, this is well beyond that as you know, a brutal war of insurgency. If we need to secure the trust of the villages to beat the insurgency and win this war, how does criticizing their shared faith help anyone but the enemy? If I interpreted Major Gant's paper correctly, These villagers don't want to hear our critique of Islamists any more than they believe a strong central government will fix everything. AQ preys on Muslims the most.
Let's say Mr. Spencer got his wish. Zero wakes up one morning and blasts Islamists from the pulpit, While Nancy Pelosi keeps jumping out of her chair clapping like a rabid seal, and Joe Biden goes on the record with "kebabs give me gas". Personally I would feel better, Right On! However, any satisfaction I derive from this, should be subordinate, and rightly so, to any potential difficulty our troops going in to secure these potentially hostile villages incur from such statements by our government.
Sir, isn't our mission in Afghanistan and the GWOT to destroy AQ, and any Taliban/insurgents who support them. Why do we need to say anything beyond this? Is the key variable here our rhetoric or giving our troops the time and resources they need to accomplish this mission?
I do not see islam as a religion but more as an ideology.
Religion:a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
Ideology: the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.
Groups like the taliban and aq rely on the fact that the good majority of these villagers that help US and others are very ignorant and illiterate. Their knowledge of the quran is only what the imams teach them. They are not allowed to question or critique. So wouldn't it be helpful to them and US to teach them? And if by teaching them, there is critique, then so be it. Trying to negate the use of the word islam or muslim when it comes to describing these terrorists...aq and taliban is like saying that the garbage man is not picking up the garbage. One cannot negate the fact that these terrorist(s) acts committed are done by muslims. Look at the terrorist from Time Square with the carbomb that didn't explode...the slimeball media was soooo scared to even mention that he was a muslim, they were hoping he was some angry white guy who was a vet and had joined a Tea Party.
Mr. Spencer is very well known and very well respected. His knowledge of islam is deep and trustworthy. And because he has the courage to speak out against the atrocities that are committed in the name of islam, he is under constant death threat. Not to mention many of our soldiers who have had bounties placed on their heads for doing their jobs to fight in A-Stan and Iraq.
As for me..I have no problem calling a duck a duck, if it walks and quacks like one.
Islam isn't the problem. Sick, evil mother f****** who use Islam as a rallying cry for their political agenda are the problem.
Robert Spencer and his Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades wouldn't know scholarly writing if it bit him in the ass.
I have no problem in making the connection that our enemies use Islam and consider themselves acting upon it's behalf. But for us to give legitimacy to them doing so is not only stupid, it is actively giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
To some how imply that our enemies are "being true to the 'real' Islam", and that the moderates are just "bad Muslims", only supports the wrong side in an ideological struggle we must win.
Furthermore, people's tendency to lump all of Islam, or all Muslims into the same category, as being all the same, or all working from the same sheet of music, will eventually alienate the moderate muslims into the radical camp, and cause us to lose vital allies we need in fighting these bastards.
YMMV
Islam isn't the problem. Sick, evil mother f****** who use Islam as a rallying cry for their political agenda are the problem.
What part of Islamic doctrine, codified by Islamic Sharia Law, are those sick, evil mother f****** violating ?
I do think the people, the average Muslim, deserves to be separated from Islamic ideology, similar to the separation of average Germans vs Nazis.
Islam isn't the problem. Sick, evil mother f****** who use Islam as a rallying cry for their political agenda are the problem.
Robert Spencer and his Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades wouldn't know scholarly writing if it bit him in the ass.I have no problem in making the connection that our enemies use Islam and consider themselves acting upon it's behalf. But for us to give legitimacy to them doing so is not only stupid, it is actively giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
To some how imply that our enemies are "being true to the 'real' Islam", and that the moderates are just "bad Muslims", only supports the wrong side in an ideological struggle we must win.
Furthermore, people's tendency to lump all of Islam, or all Muslims into the same category, as being all the same, or all working from the same shit of music, will eventually alienate the moderate muslims into the radical camp, and cause us to lose vital allies we need in fighting these bastards.
YMMV
What exactly makes you more of an expert on islam than Mr. Spencer? Do you know anything about the man to make such a statement?
How is that giving aid and comfort to the enemy? I see denying that islam is on a holy jihad against anyone not FOR THEM, is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Moderate muslim? What exactly is a moderate muslim?
Let me ask you this, at the end of the day who do you think they will choose a loyalty to? You, their faithful friend who they go drinking with on the weekend? Or their ideology? Hhhmm? :eek:
What do we gain by government enforcing Sharia, and an Administration hell-bent on assaulting the first amendment?
Does enforcing Sharia take precedence over the Constitution?
IMHO, as Spencer and others have proposed, the only hope for an inkling of reformation to occur in Islam is sustained critical scrutiny, educating the masses of the myths of Islam, undercutting the claims of Islams divine sanction, and exposing the limits of Islams wisdom. It will take centuries, do we have the time?
T-Rock,
This administration will pass, and no Sharia absolutely does not take precedence over the constitution, nor should it ever. The separation of church and state is a cornerstone of our republic. Islam like any faith will either evolve or perish, yes it will take time, but centuries? Japan outlawed war and is among the most peaceful pacifist nations on the planet. It took time, but what happened to the Feudal Bushido code, suicide attacks, blind ideological devotion to the emperor, was it centuries? Japanese kids run around now with orange hair, eat Mcdonalds and listen to bad music just like American kids. If you recall we had to nuke them twice to surrender. The Japanese started a fight they couldn't win in 1941, and their culture was reformed as a result, that's nature the dominant culture wins out. Just as the Roman's exported their culture centuries ago. If Islam is incompatible with secular democracy, how does one explain away Turkey since Ataturk? Not a perfect place, but a secular democracy since 1923, people are herds animals, and will follow a strong leader for better or for worse. There are synagogues and Churches there, women are doctors and lawyers with rights and education, were it not for the adhan, you could easily think you were in Greece or Italy. Lets say the Republic of Turkey is overthrown, this would be be bad, but the existence of a secular Muslim democracy for 87 years is proof it is possible.
So IMHO it will take time yes, but centuries no. Not once the people get a taste of rights, education and freedoms. The one wildcard, the one game changing threat is nuclear proliferation by our enemies. An EMP attack or One Second After scenario is the one threat we can't simply spoil away.
T-Rock,
This administration will pass, and no Sharia absolutely does not take precedence over the constitution, nor should it ever. The separation of church and state is a cornerstone of our republic. Islam like any faith will either evolve or perish, yes it will take time, but centuries? Japan outlawed war and is among the most peaceful pacifist nations on the planet. It took time, but what happened to the Feudal Bushido code, suicide attacks, blind ideological devotion to the emperor, was it centuries? Japanese kids run around now with orange hair, eat Mcdonalds and listen to bad music just like American kids. If you recall we had to nuke them twice to surrender. The Japanese started a fight they couldn't win in 1941, and their culture was reformed as a result, that's nature the dominant culture wins out. Just as the Roman's exported their culture centuries ago. If Islam is incompatible with secular democracy, how does one explain away Turkey since Ataturk? Not a perfect place, but a secular democracy since 1923, people are herds animals, and will follow a strong leader for better or for worse. There are synagogues and Churches there, women are doctors and lawyers with rights and education, were it not for the adhan, you could easily think you were in Greece or Italy. Lets say the Republic of Turkey is overthrown, this would be be bad, but the existence of a secular Muslim democracy for 87 years is proof it is possible.
So IMHO it will take time yes, but centuries no. Not once the people get a taste of rights, education and freedoms. The one wildcard, the one game changing threat is nuclear proliferation by our enemies. An EMP attack or One Second After scenario is the one threat we can't simply spoil away.
Akv
As much as I would love to believe that little tidbit, we are living in a country with a POTUS that could careless about the constitution. His actions, thus far, have been evident of that. Furthermore, sharia has already crept into out country in the financial world, so it will only be a matter of time before Lil Barry allows it to move further into the "cornerstone" of our constitution.
As far as it evolving or perishing ....HERE, I certainly don't see it perishing and I for one will not live in a country where somebody else's ideology will be robbing me of the very freedoms that I swore to uphold and defend. I may not be a soldier anymore but I will fight to the death to make sure we don't lose them!!!
Maybe Robert Preston is just trying to stir up trouble where there isn't any. And if the President thinks he is above the constitution (I don't think he does), maybe he is just trying to appease Good old Dick Cheney!! Funny how little discussion there was of his attempt to shred the constitution.
T-Rock,
This administration will pass, and no Sharia absolutely does not take precedence over the constitution, nor should it ever. The separation of church and state is a cornerstone of our republic. Islam like any faith will either evolve or perish, yes it will take time, but centuries? Japan outlawed war and is among the most peaceful pacifist nations on the planet. It took time, but what happened to the Feudal Bushido code, suicide attacks, blind ideological devotion to the emperor, was it centuries? Japanese kids run around now with orange hair, eat Mcdonalds and listen to bad music just like American kids. If you recall we had to nuke them twice to surrender. The Japanese started a fight they couldn't win in 1941, and their culture was reformed as a result, that's nature the dominant culture wins out. Just as the Roman's exported their culture centuries ago. If Islam is incompatible with secular democracy, how does one explain away Turkey since Ataturk? Not a perfect place, but a secular democracy since 1923, people are herds animals, and will follow a strong leader for better or for worse. There are synagogues and Churches there, women are doctors and lawyers with rights and education, were it not for the adhan, you could easily think you were in Greece or Italy. Lets say the Republic of Turkey is overthrown, this would be be bad, but the existence of a secular Muslim democracy for 87 years is proof it is possible.
So IMHO it will take time yes, but centuries no. Not once the people get a taste of rights, education and freedoms. The one wildcard, the one game changing threat is nuclear proliferation by our enemies. An EMP attack or One Second After scenario is the one threat we can't simply spoil away.
It has already been centuries. The Islamic world has been at war with the western world for over 1000 years. The First Crusades began in 1071 A.D., and those were not the first battles.
greenberetTFS
07-13-2010, 11:41
T-Rock,I thought they were the first,and now your avatar proves it......... :rolleyes: And here we are being shown a movie by some big time movie studio company claiming we had done it first........:p Just goes to show you,who can you trust???? :eek:
Big Teddy :munchin
It has already been centuries. The Islamic world has been at war with the western world for over 1000 years. The First Crusades began in 1071 A.D., and those were not the first battles.
Rdet1,
Yes, war is a prevalent feature of mankind. You could just as easily make the argument the Western world or even the Christian world, has been at war with itself and others for even longer. Was the battle of Hastings in 1066 fought between Normans and Saxons, English and French, or just Christians, which interpretation is incorrect?
The Crusades were fought in the middle east, not in France or England. From the Arab perspective, when they are facing European knights in the Levant, how would they perceive this as anything other than invasion? Whether you choose to call it a Crusade or Jihad, it is still just war, motivated as always by the desire for power, land, or resources. A cynic would question the motivations of both the Popes and Mullah's, using their influence to manipulate the masses towards their respective agendas.
As an American I want AQ and their subversives destroyed. My question regards the utility of unsubstantiated assumptions of base identity. For example, the Holocaust was horrible. An SS guard at a death camp, he is a German, a Nazi, a soldier, and a Christian. What did he identify with the most? The PC answer is to say he was just an evil Nazi. There were people back in 1944 who just felt the German and Japanese people were evil, that isn't so prevalent anymore. Even fewer people would be comfortable labeling the Holocaust as a crime committed by Christians upon Jews, but what were the prevalent faiths of the participants involved?
Consider this analogy applied to Muslims. Was Saddam Hussein evil because he was a soldier, a thug, an Iraqi, or a Muslim? He certainly wasn't very religious until the end, would he have turned over a new leaf by simply converting to Buddhism? I don't buy that a Muslim is just a Muslim regardless of tribe, sect, ethnicity, culture, or nationality. Iraq invaded Kuwait and fought a bloody war with Iran, Shiites and Sunnis are both Muslims at the end of the day, which is the greater identity for them? This division certainly worked to our advantage in Iraq.
So IMHO it's not as simple as the Muslims, the Muslims, the Muslims.
...So IMHO it's not as simple as the Muslims, the Muslims, the Muslims.
So akv, since you don't believe what we say just what does their book, the Koran, say to do to non-Muslims?
When they say there is only one true religion and it is Islam I belive they mean it. When they say Islam will become the one world religion - again I believe they mean it.
In fact I believe that they believe what is in the Koran.
Many here have a copy of the Koran on their desk. I do - and I read it now and again. It has some very interesting parts for being a religion of Peace.
Pete,
Sir, I just don't believe a "Religion of Peace" exists anywhere. I am not discounting the experiences of folks here, on the contrary I value them highly.
I don't claim to be a religious scholar, but I read the Koran after 9/11, was raised in Catholic School and have read the bible, and the Gita FWIW. By my read I see passages in all three which are ripe for manipulation. Religion can be a powerful force for good or evil, but history has shown it has often been used as a crutch by evil men.
.....I don't claim to be a religious scholar, ..... By my read I see passages in all three which are ripe for manipulation. ........
Sigh, here we go again. Christians will be forever damned because of the Crusades but Muslims get a free pass today because........
Because? Now as I sit here I really can't think of a reason they get a pass on barbaric activities.
So tell me again why it's OK to raise children to become suicide bombers. Have school text books and children's cartoons that call for killing non-Muslims?
Sigh, here we go again. Christians will be forever damned because of the Crusades but Muslims get a free pass today because........
Because? Now as I sit here I really can't think of a reason they get a pass on barbaric activities.
So tell me again why it's OK to raise children to become suicide bombers. Have school text books and children's cartoons that call for killing non-Muslims?
Sir, it is not my intent to blame Christians for the Crusades, deny the good Christians have brought about, or give anyone a pass for barbaric acts, whatever their chosen faith. A good man anywhere knows he isn't supposed to harm innocent children, no matter what a Mullah, scriptures, priest or Rabbi decrees, no matter what sort of reward or salvation is promised in the afterlife. Religion is but one spoke in the wheel of self identity, and not necessarily the default least common motivating denominator, over geography, tribe, ethnicity, nationality, etc.
Raising kids to be suicide bombers is not OK, IMO it's indicative of the desperation tactics of a doomed fundamentalist ideology, what is the future of groups who brutalize their women and kill their children? Sadly, there is no monopoly on barbaric tactics in war. The Red Army lashed German civilians to the front of their tanks outside Berlin, Viet Cong tactics in villages, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans , or a lot of very bad things in Africa to this day.
The word Muslim, encompasses the AQ terrorists and subversives we must eliminate. It also encompasses our Turkish NATO allies, and men from the Arab coalition forces and nations who fought as our allies in Gulf War One, as well as the civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan whose stability we are trying to secure, for our own national interest. IMHO under these circumstances, extreme precision in identifying our enemy is vital.
IMO it's indicative of the desperation tactics of a doomed fundamentalist ideology, what is the future of groups who brutalize their women and kill their children?
Is their ideology doomed? Please forgive me, but I don't see much evidence of that.
Is their ideology doomed? Please forgive me, but I don't see much evidence of that.
Nmap,
Islam like any other faith must evolve with the times or die. Yes, I believe fundamentalist Islam will be die out, it ignores the march of civilization, there is nothing in it for women. Are the countries of the Islamic world moving away from or towards the Taliban model of society?
Think of the Roman's, they were a great world empire, with the Greeks the basis for many of our philosophical, political, and cultural beliefs. How many people these days pray to the Pantheon, Zeus or Jupiter if you like, Athena, Mars etc. These religions failed to adapt and became largely irrelevant. Sure it may have been political when the Emperor Constantine claimed he saw a burning cross in the night sky at the Milvian Bridge, but subsequently with his victory the Roman's embraced Christianity and never turned back.
Islam like any other faith must evolve with the times or die.
I would agree with this if it were a dormant political and social force but it's not, the ideology has thrived since 622AD, why?
Are the countries of the Islamic world moving away from or towards the Taliban model of society?
As Turkey, Gaza, Pakistan, and Algeria have all shown, free and fair elections will not necessarily lead to secular governments - given a choice, Sharia is chosen, why?
World Public Opinion Polls, Gallop Polls, and PEW research Polls show that most Muslims want strict Sharia law, Why?
Page 21 > http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:GqUs-0QUn38J:www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/apr07/START_Apr07_rpt.pdf+Less+than+10%25+overall+indica te+that+they+disagree+strongly+with+a+strict+appli cation+of+sharia+(World+Public+Opinion).&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShHubLU5F_C9kVu-iZn6q15xeeLCMRzKpG-v1ZxBf1dTDV57p0oW1rDoMWomdsWJ43h_vUmF2Dt0FmQcSBmvS KCLMB_4QM4_sxCcKL4kPg_i7zHS4oCO7gskD6ItG6Is8dq9B_1&sig=AHIEtbQDeptjMDP85OEJX1HDE99RRo-qVw
In 1094, what was it exactly that caused Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus I to ask western Christendom for help ?
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/the_truth_about_islamic_crusad.html
Nmap,
Islam like any other faith must evolve with the times or die.
All very true. The existing environment in most Islamic countries seems favorable to its continuation. So - which faith will die out?
More pointedly, which faith embraces the notion that if you're a "good person" (whatever that means), you've got a ticket to heaven, and which belief system demands adherence to the particular faith?
Yes, I believe fundamentalist Islam will be die out, it ignores the march of civilization, there is nothing in it for women. Are the countries of the Islamic world moving away from or towards the Taliban model of society?
The march of civilization? The same global civilization that has produced such icons as Pol Pot and Idi Amin? Quite frankly, I see a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, some pro-Taliban tendencies in Pakistan...and in Iran, they contend they need to stone an adulteress.
I see that a mosque will be built in New York. Have I missed the news about a Christian church or a Buddhist temple being built in Mecca?
Think of the Roman's, they were a great world empire, with the Greeks the basis for many of our philosophical, political, and cultural beliefs. How many people these days pray to the Pantheon, Zeus or Jupiter if you like, Athena, Mars etc. These religions failed to adapt and became largely irrelevant. Sure it may have been political when the Emperor Constantine claimed he saw a burning cross in the night sky at the Milvian Bridge, but subsequently with his victory the Roman's embraced Christianity and never turned back.
Old Roman saying: Vox populi, vox Dei. The voice of the people is the voice of God.
In essence, when the public ceased to support a religion it failed. True.
Now let's take a hard look at Islam and it Christianity - and the adherents to those two faiths. Which group at least gives the appearance of greater compliance? Which group is willing to suppose that other faiths provide a viable path to Heaven?
I think we should ask, pointedly, which faith appears to be in retreat, to be unsure of its own validity.
We might also wish to consider the effect that the underlying religious beliefs have on secular culture. Our society's treatment of women may flow from the religious views about the individual, freedom, and the nature of the soul. If this is true, then by implication the same would apply to Islamic culture. Thus, whatever one might believe about the particular religions, we face a clash of civilizations, a fundamental war between how we see the world and our place in it.
One faith or the other must, ultimately, perish. Or, perhaps both must fail. In this instance, the new belief system may carry the old religion's name, but will so differ that it cannot be seen as equivalent. Our problem, IMO, is that Islam is at war. Christendom continues to plead "Can't we all get along?"
My answer? No - we cannot. Please understand that this is not my wish or preference; it is, however, my conclusion. Our challenge is to decide if we are willing to fight for what we believe in - things including the worth of the individual and the rights of women - or not. I will let others form their own conclusions on that point.
I found this to be a thought-provoking reading on the issue under discussion.
Militant about "Islamism"
Harvard Magazine, Jan-Feb 2005
"It's a mistake to blame Islam, a religion 14 centuries old, for the evil that should be ascribed to militant Islam, a totalitarian ideology less than a century old. Militant Islam is the problem, but moderate Islam is the solution."
~Daniel Pipes
http://www.danielpipes.org/2300/militant-about-islamism
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
T-Rock,
Are the countries of the Islamic world moving away from or towards the Taliban model of society?
I read through the entire 2007 WPO polls link you provided in your last post regarding the views of Islamic countries. In response to your answers to the above question,
As the dominant empire, we should expect other counties to envy our success, resent our power, cling to certain stereotypes, and jealously guard against intrusions upon their culture. However, many modern European nations resent US power and influence as well, until they need us. The question is not one of seeking global approval, that is a fruitless endeavor, rather can we find a way to coexist with these Islamic nations?
In support of your argument, certain views of those polled supporting violence against US troops abroad, the merits of sharia law, and opinions on UBL are troublesome and discouraging. This is not good.
However there are several other majority views in this same poll which are frankly encouraging IMHO. By my read the majority of those polled in this survey;
1) Felt it was possible to find common ground with the West.
2) Had very positive views of the merits of democracy.
3) Felt AQ attacks were violating the principles of Islam.
4) Did not support suicide attacks.
5) Did not approve of attacks on US civilians.
6) Felt 9/11 was a negative for the Islamic world.
So, how should we interpret this poll?
However there are several other majority views in this same poll which are frankly encouraging IMHO. By my read the majority of those polled in this survey;
1) Felt it was possible to find common ground with the West.
2) Had very positive views of the merits of democracy.
3) Felt AQ attacks were violating the principles of Islam.
4) Did not support suicide attacks.
5) Did not approve of attacks on US civilians.
6) Felt 9/11 was a negative for the Islamic world.
So, how should we interpret this poll?
All the more reason for devastating critique IMO - educate the masses - we are woefully lagging in this campaign - give no quarter. Sustained scrutiny undercutting the claims of Islam and exposing the limits of Islams wisdom, IMO, will expose the tyrannical ideology rational people are repulsed by - always (their response) taking into account the doctrine of Taqiyya and Kitman. The words of Houari Boumedične as well as Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi should always be considered IMHO: "We will conquer your country with the bellies of our women"
# 6 appears to be a trick question though - think "Stealth Jihad" - demographics, the consequences of appeasement, and why they may be opposed to violent tactics...
"Islamist thinkers began to invest Islam’s growing presence in the West with divine significance. Among other things, some began to interpret the Muslim migration to Europe (and to a lesser, but still significant extent, to North America) as a modern hijra, or migration, that was ordained by Allah in order “to plant Islam in this part of the world.”[10] What’s more, many of the scholar-activists involved with these institutions realized that Europe’s free and open democracies provided a more fertile environment for dawa than their former homelands. European law guarantees a greater degree of freedom of conscience, expression and religion for Islamists than many Muslim states, and these freedoms quickly became understood as preconditions for successful dawa work.[11]"
Sources > http://www.currenttrends.org/research/detail/dawa-and-the-islamist-revival-in-the-west
> http://www.currenttrends.org/docLib/20090411_Merley.USBROTHERHOOD.pdf
> http://www.currenttrends.org/research/ctID.17/ctrend.asp
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2515587181120245843&hl=en#
> http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=oc7PqjD_S3s&feature=related
(1:35-2:20) (4:35-5:20) (5:40-6:00) (9:40-9:50)
> http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=wrgyMZRdmwk
(1:15-1:55) (6:24-6:56) (7:09-7:30) (7:50-8:40)
> http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=NBSvExX_Nhc
(4:50-5:00) (6:55-7:10) (7:50-9:50)
> http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=HXz0B_j9eHI
(1:40-2:30) (2:40-3:10)
> http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=rdpCOaJuBx4
(2:22-2:40) (2:55-3:30 / ABROGATION)
In support of your argument, certain views of those polled supporting violence against US troops abroad, the merits of sharia law, and opinions on UBL are troublesome and discouraging. This is not good.
Edited to add: What's troublesome is that less than 10% didn't want Sharia...
Know Islam - No Sharia.
The president at odds with Petraeus over identifying enemy as "Islamic"IMO, Mr. Spencer has the cart before the horse. Regardless of the comparative merits of the administration's and GEN Petraeus's assessment, the president is the commander in chief.
The headline is from an article in the Washington Times, written by Rowan Scarborough.
The headline is from an article in the Washington Times, written by Rowan Scarborough.With respect, Mr. Scarborough's piece is titled "[President of the United States] at odds with Petraeus doctrine on 'Islam'" whereas Mr. Spencer titled his blog post as "[The president is] at odds with Petraeus over identifying the enemy as "Islamic"."
With friends like these…
Thursday, 29 July 2010 Pew Survey:
Pakistanis overwhelmingly favor killing apostates
Source > http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/28837