QUESTION: Do you think this or do you know this?(italics in original). After seeing that nonsense, I was reading Vanishing American and left that as a comment there. Looks like Lawrence Auster was given the 'heads up' on this as well. And he being a much better writer than I, fleshed it out. I've been thinking about all the hyperventilating that occured before March 20, 2oo3 in regards to Iraq. So I googled the phrase ''smoking gun mushroom cloud'', here is what I got (dated 9/8/2002):
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think I know it.
QUESTION: You think you know it?
SECRETARY RICE: I think I know it.
White House sources also tell CNN that Saddam has in recent months met several times with Iraq's top nuclear scientists and encouraged them to continue their work.Say what you will about CNN, but I did remember the phrase "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." I knew this came from a member of the administration (when I googled it I thought it was either cheney or rumsfield). Turns out it came from rice.
Sources say Iraqi defectors who used to work for Iraq's nuclear weapons "industry" tell administration officials Iraq's top priority is acquiring nuclear arms.
Rice acknowledged that "there will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
The comedian was approached by the Smothers Brothers with the idea of running for President in 1968. His reply, he was later to recount, was: "Why not? I can't dance — besides, the job has a good pension plan and I'll get a lot of money when I retire."Belive it or not I respected his runs for President. But I never voted for him either.
Paulsen's campaign that year, and in succeeding years, was grounded in comedy, while not bereft of serious commentary. He ran the supposed campaigns using obvious lies, double talk, and tongue-in-cheek attacks on the major candidates, and responded to all criticism with his catch phrase "Picky, picky, picky".
It is an axiom of politics that the candidate who finds himself trailing going into the home stretch of a campaign must “go negative” in order to make up the deficit before election day.I agree, it's merely 'a cheap shot' (as The Malkin Family Blog also notes). It's a liberal ''win at all costs'' mentality that is dishonest and brings nothing to the debate on the issues we all must face. If I lived in VA I could not bring myself to vote for US Senator. Just like the US Senate race here in FL I cannot in good concience vote for either canidate. ''Hold my nose and vote R?'' No, I can't bring myself to do that anymore.
The thinking behind this strategy is not to get voters to change their minds necessarily but rather so disgust the supporters of your opponent that they stay home on election day.
Congratulations, George Allen. You’ve hit the jackpot.
Issuing a press release that quotes a character from one of Webb’s saucy war novels doing unspeakable things to his own son (sorry – find the damn link somewhere else. I don’t link to porn.), Allen may very well have sealed his victory by “outing” Webb’s fictional day dreams but he has lost his soul in the process.
You know, you and Tom Cruise would have been perfect together. He makes his asinine comments toward Brook Shields and postpartum depression and you ask that the health of your baby take a backseat to your jealous insecurities. Absolutely disgusting. Need to feed your ego more? [Think] of your baby and your partner. Step outside yourself. I’m sure your partner was incredibly uncomfortable letting he[r] milk dry up while. Just selfish. You should have thought of not nursing the baby before it was born if anything. That way two people wouldn’t have had to adjust to fit your needs.Between that and o'donnell's very public spiral into outright psychosis my opinion is those children will wind up whackjobs as well. Might even grow up to be downright ''homophobic'' adults. Wouldn't even suprise me if that's what winds up happening.
I think it is unbelievably sad that you would force your partner to stop breastfeeding. Nevermind the benefits for your child, the fact that you would take the benefits away from your partner boggles my mind.
I think your insecurity as a parent cause you to do a great disservice to Kelli. You stated that this is America and you can chose to breastfeed if you want, I guess that just doesn’t apply to Kelli, you forced the decision for her.
It makes me sick to wake up every morning and read of more U.S. military men and women shot or blown up ... for nothing except a failed ideology George W. Bush can't let go of.I couldn't agree more. This dream of ''bringing freedom to the iraqi people'' is just that, a dream. It has become like the old joke:
As an Air Force pilot noted in an e-mail to me, he doesn't recall hearing the president define "victory" for Iraq or Afghanistan. Me neither. Terms like "security" and "stabilization" just aren't substitutes. Guided by the false god of democracy, blind to the zealotry of Islamic culture, we have locked onto a course with no rational endpoint.I agree, what the hell is ''victory'' in Iraq (or Afghanistan)? I can only speculate on how that word is defined. If we can't even properly define ''victory'' it becomes impossible to actually achive it!
The same lieutenant steps to the podium and announces: "Folks, I have an update. They are now on the base and in-processing. Turning in their M-16, etc. They should be here in 30 minutes. When we close the doors on the far side that means that the buses are in back and they are assembling in the parking lot. I recommend you round up the loose children and grab your seats. They are almost here."In a chat room I said ''When a muslim boards a plane with a bomb smuggled ''in a body cavity'' what will that mean to US?''. The answer is plain; WE have to be strip and be body cavity searched ''so we don't offend muslims''. And the muslims ARE FREE to avoid those strip and body cavity searches ''so as not to offend them''.
Well, here we are. Down to 30 revolutions of the second hand. I stand up and stretch to dissipate the anxiety that permeates my every bone.
Suddenly the doors close. There is a succession of metallic latches snapping into place. One. Then two. Then three. Finally, the fourth door is closed. There is a hush punctuated by the crying of tired babes. Five hundred people breathe in and hold. All eyes focus on the doors. The warm gym air crackles with emotion
I know that sometimes a Palestinian state living side by side in peace with Israel must seem like a very distant dream. But I know too, as a student of international history, that there are so many things that once seemed impossible that, after they happened, simply seemed inevitable. I've read over the last summer the biographies of America's Founding Fathers. By all rights, America, the United States of America, should never have come into being. We should never have survived our civil war. I should never have grown up in segregated Birmingham, Alabama to become the Secretary of State of the United States of America.Secretary Rice describes herself as a student of history, though she herself seems to be dreaming here. She is dreaming, perhaps, of Yasser Arafat's January 2002 remarks in which Arafat likened himself to George Washington. When she wakes up, I wonder if she'll identify a few active Palestinian political figures who dream of a Palestinian state living side by side in peace with Israel rather than dream of a Palestinian state in its place. Dreamers of the latter dream seem to constitute a conspicuous majority of the followers of Hamas and Arafat's Fatah Party. In any event, perhaps Secretary Rice can contemplate how the latter dream is also one of those that may seem impossible before it happens and inevitable afterward.
retire05 Said:I admit I could not leave that alone. I responed thusly:
You gotta love it. We can’t win so just pick up our marbles and bring our troops home. Never mind that General Giap, North Vietnamese Army, said very plainly that the Americans could not be defeated on the battle field but we could be defeated in the streets of our own cities. And so we were.
Never mind that once we pull out of Iraq, the terrorist faction will take over. But maybe they will stop trying to kill us there and just make a harder effort to kill us here. Maybe? And maybe the terrorists won’t take possession of the Iraqi oil fields to finance their terrorism against the United States and Israel. Maybe? And maybe they will decide to quit killing their own who practice a different sect of Islam and all the civilian deaths by suicide bombings and IEDs will end. Maybe? And maybe the Kurds will be killed in mass numbers again? Maybe? But so what? We have lost almost three thousand troops and for some any number lost in Iraq would be too great.
Never mind that the Islamofascists have been planning the killing of infidels for 1500 years. Never mind that they really don’t care if we are Republican, Democrat or Independent. Never mind that they want all of us converted to Islam or dead. Never mind that Osama Bin Laden himself said that winning the war in Iraq was important to them. Never mind that the killing of infidels is part of their religion and that jihad is the requirement of every Muslim. Never mind that we saw Muslims marching in our own streets during the Israel/Lebanon conflict carrying signs with the Star and Crescent flying over the White House.
How quickly we forget the desires of those who want to conquer us. How quickly we forgot how we felt that Hitler would never be a threat to us. How quickly we forgot how many Cambodians died because we did not have the will to win the war in Vietnam.
The terrorists possess one thing we do not. Patience. They patiently wait to fly planes into our buildings killing 3,000 Americans. They patiently wait for us to lose our will and pull out, giving them a victory in Iraq. But of course, if we just leave them alone, maybe they will leave us alone. Maybe? Never mind that they are telling us, loud and clear, what their intentions are. Conversion or death. They could not be more explicit.
But then maybe some of us realize that while the Islamofascists have had 1500 years to figure out how to kill us infidels, we have only had 5 years to figure out how to fight them. And maybe some of us realize that if we don’t fight them, where ever we find them, and win, the way of life we have always known will eventually be controlled by the Religion of Perpetual Outrage, Islam. Take a look around you. A Muslim man in Australia kills his wife because his daughter announced she was going to become a Christian and he blamed his wife, according to Islamic law. Taxi drivers are refusing to take fares that (might) have alcohol in their suitcases. What is next? Refusal to take a fare because a woman is not wearing a burka? Muslims in England raising hell because the Olympics in 2012 coinside with Ramadan.
So the next time you have to go through a search in an airport, remember why you have to go through that search. Remember, that it is because 3,000 Americans were killed because they don’t care where they kill us. They just want us dead. And remember, if we give up Iraq to the terrorists, and that is what will happen if we leave, their next target will be the United States, again.
So quit your gritching. Make up your mind that we have to win this war. Quit undermining our troops who are putting their lives on the line every day to keep you from having to worry about fighting Islamfascism in our own streets. We are fighting an enemy that values death more than life, Islam more than any nation and follow a prophet that gave them clear directions to conquer the world for Islam.
So for those of you who feel that this war in Iraq has ceased to be important, just go ahead and convert to Islam now. Not that it will do you much good in the end. Because one sect or another will decide you, as an American, cannot understand the real Islam and will want to see you dead anyway.
Thank God the colonists did not feel the way you do. We would be sending our taxes to London.
Your Image Here Said:I stand behind that comment (the links were added to the repost here). There is nothing we can accomplish in Iraq. NOTHING. Iraq is a muslim country and WE CANNOT ''bring freedom'' to muslims. THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY WANT. The koran says so in no uncertain terms. I've read the koran, I know what it says. IT makes it clear that ANY attempt ''to bring freedom'' to muslims is impossible. And yes, I do indeed advocate leaving Iraq to it's own misery.
‘’Never mind that the killing of infidels is part of their religion and that jihad is the requirement of every Muslim. Never mind that we saw Muslims marching in our own streets during the Israel/Lebanon conflict carrying signs with the Star and Crescent flying over the White House.’‘. From a comment above.
I’m quite aware of that. ‘’Thank God the colonists did not feel the way you do. We would be sending our taxes to London.’‘. From the same comment.
How do you propose to deal with the muslim colonists in OUR country? You acknowlege that is what they are. We CANNOT ‘’bring freedom’’ to muslims. That is not what they want. What they want is the ‘’freedom’’ to rule over non-muslims with an iron fist. Look throughout europe, that’s exactly what they are doing.
Remember the so-called ‘’cartoon riots’‘? Remember that almost no newspaper or TV network would display those cartoons? Or in the case of CNN showed them ‘blurred out’? True, many blogs (including my own) displayed them but most newspapers WERE AFRAID TO.
Why? Because they were afraid of violence by muslim colonists IN OUR COUNTRY.
Would we have allowed the construction of Japanese Shinto shrines in the US in 1942? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
Muslims REJECT freedom, they make that quite plain every day. So how can we ‘’bring freedom’’ to a muslim country? Why are we wasting American (and British) lives and resources trying to ‘’westernize’’ them while allowing muslims to colonize US?
That was ALSO the point of British Army Chief of Staff General Sir Richard Dannatt. After July 7th 2005 no sane Brit can legitimately conclude that British involvement in Iraq has done anything to make them safer. And our involvement in Iraq has done nothing to make US safer. Not with muslim colonists in our midst.
Our military has done it’s job (reducing Iraq to ruins). Staying there in a futile attempt to ‘’nation-build’’ a new Iraq is not their job.
We don’t have the manpower or resources to ‘’commit’’ to stabilize Iraq. Nor should we even try. Israel finally got it right, isolate the muslims and stand back and let them tear each other apart. See what is happening in Gaza now.
Go to Jihad Watch and read the writings of Hugh Fitzgerald. Use the propensity of violence that muslims clearly demonstrate as Jujitsu against them.
You are aware of what Jujitsu is are you not?
Use our enemies force as a tool to help defeat it.
It’s why I advocate leaving Iraq. Just get our people out of the way and allow ‘’the iraqi people’’ to rip each other to shreds. Which is EXACTLY what they are doing anyway with or without our help.
The purpose of The Military is NOT to be ‘’an international meals-on-wheels’’ the purpose of The Military is ‘’to kill people and break things’‘.
Shock and Awe AND LEAVE. NOT Shock and Awe AND STAY.
Yourimagehere, I agree with you when it comes to allowing the enemy to run free among us. Why is CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) allowed to still operate? One of their leaders, a CAIR representative from Dallas, was just recently sentenced to a 7 year prison term for aiding and abetting. Yet, we have TWO Democrats running for congress that is accepting campaign money from these slugs.
I am not stupid and am fully aware of Jihad Watch as well as the writings of Daniel Pipes. I just finished Islam Unveiled by Robert Spencer. I realize that the Islamic faith is still in the 6th century. So your solution is to leave them to themselves? How would you propose to do that when a following of a violent religion stuck in 6th century war mode has 21st century technology?
Perhaps we cannot bring “freedom” to an Islamic nation but we can damn sure bring capitalism. And capitalism is a great motivator as is greed. People who have never had anything besides living in fear will have a change of heart about a lot of things, including their oppressive religion, when they see their bank accounts increase. Japan was once a very religious nation. Would you say that now? Would you say that religion plays the same important part in their society now as it did in 1941?
You say it is not our place to “nation build”. I ask you, what did we do in Germany and Japan? Did we not nation build? Why do we still have troops in Germany? The threat of the Cold War has ended, yet we still maintain troops in Germany. Japan is now an ally, but we still have troops in Japan. North Korea has a force in the hundreds of thousands, but we still maintain a force of 29,000 there.
And why are we afraid of Muslim retaliation over some stupid cartoon? Because we know that the Muslims, who subscribe to the Religion of Perpetual Rage, will retaliate. Are you suggesting that we just submit to their demands and leave them alone and that will make everything all honky dorie? I don’t think so. And if you think Israel got it right, then you must think that having Katusa rockets lobbed at you on a daily basis is “getting it right”.
We are in this fight alone. Europe is rapidly becoming an Islamic continent. More riots (not well covered by the MSM) in Paris, Catholic priests having their heads lopped off, etc. Maybe you are willing to sit back and see if, when we pull out of Iraq, they will just limit their killing spree to each other, but I am not.
And when the terrorists have control over Iraq’s vast oil wealth and can buy newer, fancier, deadlier weapons from North Korea or Iran, will you feel safer then knowing our troops are home to catch a rocket like a fast ball pitched over home plate? Or will you be living with a higher fear level just waiting for the next subway bombing, a bridge to be taken down, or a nuclear weapon released in Houston?
When we realize that these terrorists value death more than life, when we realize that Islam is not a religion of peace but a religion of war, when we realize that turning against their own can bring death to a Muslim, when we realize that leaving Iraq will not stop their desire to kill us, then maybe we can start fighting this war to win.
Muslims believe that there is glory in dying in jihad but no glory dying in their own beds. They use our laws against us in our own nation. It is time we start reporting that they (the terrorists) found no glory in Allah because they were killed in their own beds.
No, the war in Iraq is not making us safer. It is rallying the Islamic jihadists to their cause. So what? Do you think that all those jihadists were just sitting around with no ideas of ever fighting us before we went into Iraq? Or were they just waiting for the battle cry? Do you really believe that all those goat herders, cart merchants and wheat farmers were just peaceful people who never thought of fighting for Islam until we came along?
So far our own government (and I blame the left mostly) have made us like the Indians who had bows and arrows fighting against the Calvary who had rifles. The Indians were smarter than us, though. They realized that holding on to their “moral” high ground of fighting with the dignity of traditional Indian ways were only making them dead. So they got rifles and fought back. Only by then, it was too late. They did not win, but they at least gave it a hellofa shot and went down fighting.
Personally, I would rather go down fighting like my Indian ancestors than to throw my hands up like the French and give my nation away without so much of a struggle.
You see, I learned from the Indian wars and Vietnam. You cannot win against an enemy if you are not willing to engage them in battle on THEIR terms and throw away the book. The British held on to their Napoleonic ways of warfare, the colonists adopted the Indian method of warfare, changing in their views. Who won?
Your Image Here Said:
First I agree with you on CAIR (actual name HAMAS).
Our troops are facing the brig if they actully fight against muslims in Iraq. Which is precisely why the is no longer any good reason for them to stay there.
Nor is there any connection between capitalism and freedom. Look at China.
We have a Military that is designed for short-term highly effective strikes. (‘’Shock and Awe’‘). That is not effective for long-term use.
The comparison between ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ and post-WWII Germany and Japan is also mistaken.
We decimated Japan then ruled it with an iron fist.
We did not decimate Iraq nor ruled it with an iron fist. We were too busy ‘’winning the hearts and minds of the iraqi people’‘.
You seem to state our leaving Iraq as surrender.
It isn’t. Nor is that my point. Our fantasy of ‘’westernizing’’ Iraq is the problem. The proper way to deal with these threats is the use of Shock and Awe AND LEAVE whenever nessessary. What kind of government Iraq has is not our concern. We can’t make muslims free not there nor here. Get our fellow Americans out of the way and allow ‘’the iraqi people’’ to rip each other to shreds.
Let them waste their manpower and resources tearing each other apart. Instead of US wasting OUR manpower and resources in a futile effort to create ‘’freedom’’ there. Muslims are unsuited for freedom ANYWHERE. Isolate them. Again, note Gaza the muslims there are phyically prevented from entry to Israel. And are turning their rage against one another.
It’s a win-win for Israel, the muslims rip each other to shreds there and the IDF doesn’t have to expend manpower and resources doing it themselves.
Iraq is a bloodbath, get our fellow Americans out the way and allow it to continue. That’s Hugh Fitzgerald’s point. Robert Spencer fully agrees with it and has stated so. It’s also my point.
To date the US has not gotten it right regarding the Israeli/Arab war. Pushing for the “road map to peace” was a terrible mistake. This only rewards terrorism. If we are going to fight against Islamic terrorists, you will need to fight them every where. It makes no snese for the US and its allies to fight them in Afghanistan and Iraq but reward it in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel should be encouraged not engage in any more unilateral withdrawls. They should be encouraged to reoccupy the areas they abandoned and they should be encouraged to expand their territory from there for as long as terrorism continues against them. An expanded Israel will serve as a stronger buffer between the Western world and the Islamic terrorists who want to kill them.
Unfortunately the geo-political realities mean that such a policy cannot be pursued at this time, therefore, they have settled for a policy that the current geo-political realities will allow. They have opted to settle for a strategy that has a chance to work that they can implement. Hopefully the current strategy of trying isolate the “Palestinians” will work. It is not the optimal one but it is the best one that can be implemented at this time.
With regards to Iraq I believe we could achieve a stable Western style democracy, if we were willing to commit the necessary resources to secure the country. Then we could work to isolate the Islamic extremists parties that we mistakenly allowed to enter the political process. For better or worse, we will never know if we could have achieved a Western style Democratic Iraq. The proper amount of resources were never commited to the project fromt he start and they are not going to be now. As the top Birtish soldier recently said, our goals will have to be scaled back. As we are unwilling and perhaps unable to commit the necessary resources to Iraq to give us the optimal chance of achieving a stable Western style democratic Iraq, we will be withdrawing soon.
The strategy we will employ will be simillar to the one suggested by “Your Image Here”, however, I predict some modifications to this. It is probably unrealistic to expect a full withdrawl. We will want to be flexible enough to respond, if terrorists should attempt to set up bases in the Iraqi areas we abandon. The mission will change to one that primarily uses special ops who will be based in Kurdish areas or possibly Kuwait. These forces will likely be backed up by air support. Also, an ally in Iraq, even if it is a non democratic one would be most helpful. To this end, we may try to identify a proxy that we can support against the militias but American troops will not be involved in the day to day battle against the “insurgency.” I don’t think they will be home by thanksgiving, however, I expect most of them to be home by Ju;y 2007. By July 2007 I look for only 10,000 or fewer American troops to be in the Iraqi region.
The strategy suggested by “Your Image Here” or the variation that I think will be implemented has a very good chance to work, IF it is properly implemented. The implementation of any strategy cannot be over stressed. If the correct policies are poorly implemented, this is every bit as bad as having bad policies that are executed flawlessly. I hope the policy changes that we will se will work because they are the ones we will get.
I think the optimal strategy for Iraq and the broader GWOT would be to combine both offense and defense. We should go on the offense against terrorists where ever they are, in Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, and “Palestine” and we should work to reform the middle east. A moratorium should be placed on immigration from Arab countries and the mosques should be closely monitored. Our borders should be secured and we should improve the enforcement of our immigration policies. It is my understanding that some of the 911 hijackers were here on expired visas. Had we simply aggressively enforced our immigration policies the 911 attacks probably could have been prevented. The optimal strategy cannot be implemented right now. The challenge of policy makers is to formulate policies that can work and that the domestic political situation, as well as the political situtions of our allies, will allow to be implemented. In other words, the optimal solution cannot always be implemented. In these cases, it would be better to do something else rather than try to implement a solution that cannot be implemented.
Finally, I wish the Iraqis all the best. I hope and pray they can achieve a Western style representative democracy.. For better or worse, unless the Aemrican and allied domestic political situations change, the Iraqis will have to do this without our help. We will be withdrawing in masse very soon. This will happen no matter who wins the elections this November.
Your Image Here Said:The debate at Right Wing Nuthouse is based on the meme ''Can order be brought to Iraq?''. posted by YIH @ 5:10 AM on :
Thank you B.Poster. I also agree on your modifiction:
‘’The strategy we will employ will be simillar to the one suggested by “Your Image Here”, however, I predict some modifications to this. It is probably unrealistic to expect a full withdrawl. We will want to be flexible enough to respond, if terrorists should attempt to set up bases in the Iraqi areas we abandon. The mission will change to one that primarily uses special ops who will be based in Kurdish areas or possibly Kuwait. These forces will likely be backed up by air support.’‘.
You are correct in your position that full withdrawl is unrealistic. We will have to maintain much smaller forces in Kurdistan both for rapid-response needs (Shock and Awe AND LEAVE) and to serve as a buffer between (what will become likely) fully-independent Kurdistan and Turkey. The rest of Iraq will sort itself out on it’s own terms. Without our interferance or our fellow Americans in it’s crossfire. What will happen in ‘’shiastan’’ and ‘’sunnistan’’ after the removal of US forces from those areas? What is already occuring there, a bloodbath. It’s why I refer to it as ‘’Lord of the flies’’ made reality. I’m quite sure the artifical ‘’government of Iraq’’ we celebrated with ‘’purple finger fever’’ will quickly ceast to exist.
As in ‘’Lord of the flies’’ the most brutal ‘’order bringer’’ will rise to the top. That is how anarchy ALWAYS resolves itself. After it does the ‘’rebuilding of Iraq’’ will procced. With ‘’the iraqi people’’ doing it and not US.
From Hugh Fitzgerald:
‘’After a week or a month of celebration when the regime fell, the Iraqis reverted soon to type. They complained, they whined, they watched and watched as the Americans tried to get them to organize, tried to get them to cooperate with each other and not merely hold out their hands, pushing each other aside in order to claim more, more, more of the endless American funds and goodies, and never satisfied with what those American soldiers, risking their lives even to go from Point A to Point B, did for them. “But where’s the air-conditioning?” said a teacher to a stunned American soldier who had just proudly showed her the building he and his men had totally rebuilt and refurbished, and thought she would be pleased.’‘.
Think about that statement above. That’s what ‘’winning the hearts and minds of the iraqi people’’ has led to.
For over three years and thousands of fellow Americans dead ‘’winning the hearts and minds of the iraqi people’’ has been an abject failure.
Train a unified Iraqi security apparatus to replace our forces? Also mostly unsuccessful. Why should ‘’the iraqi people’’ do ‘’the heavy lifting’’ to stablize their homeland when our forces are there to do it for them? Without our fellow Americans there ‘’the iraqi people’’ will have no choice but to figure out what way of life they want for themselves. WITHOUT ‘’our help’‘.
The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”The rock band Dire Straits (Sultans of Swing, Money for Nothing) said it best in the song Industrial Disease: ''Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong''... posted by YIH @ 8:08 PM on Saturday, October 14, 2006 :
Dude… what part of “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them” don’t you understand? Is there any holy book among world religions, EXCEPT the Koran, which advocates the spread of its beliefs through force of arms?Read all the comments to get the context of what he said. Those who are in denial responded with things like:
''These are obviously the words of a person who doesn't know what he is talking about. Who told you that the Koran says this? You obviously have never read it.''undercover black man'' rebutted that quite well:
You are inventing facts and quoting hearsay to promote your mistaken view of reality.''
Well, it seems I’m busted. The wording I quoted earlier – “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them” – comes not from a scholarly translation of the Koran, but from a polemical anti-Islam website: prophetofdoom.net. And, yes, this customized phrasing has been picked up and spread about the Internet by right-wing bloggers.I maintain ''the customized phrasing'' (his words) of koran sura 9:5 at the top of this blog. And I see no reason whatsoever to remove it. I ''did my homework'' and pulled up the website he posted in URL form. It was a cut'n paste. Three different translations of the koran and the same meaning. And in fact they are consistent with ''the customized phrasing'' that appears above.
Fortunately, the entire text of the Koran is available online. A University of Southern California website even provides verse-by-verse comparisons of English translations by Mohammad Habib Shakir, Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Marmaduke Pickthall – the most widely cited translations in the English-speaking world.
Available online, also, is an English translation by Rashad Khalifa, an Egyptian-born chemist who became a U.S. citizen and founded his own Islamic offshoot, United Submitters International, in Arizona a few decades ago.
Now… the ninth sura (or chapter) of the Koran, Surat at-Tawba (which I’ve seen translated as “the Repentance,” “the Immunity,” “the Dispensation” and “the Ultimatum”), concerns how Muslims are to deal with pagans (or “idolaters”), as well as Jews and Christians, under their jurisdiction.
Basically, this chapter gives the pagans three options. Either they “repent” and convert to Islam, or formally submit to Muslim governance and do nothing to oppose Islam. Or, as is written in the third verse, “if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve.” [Pickthall]
Here we come to verse 5 (all parenthetical portions within quotes are from the original text):
“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” [Shakir]
“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” [Yusuf Ali]
“Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” [Pickthall]
“Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.” [Khalifa]
''As for other religious books that command the killing of unbelievers, how about the Old Testament? To wit:The commenter ''Terrahawk'' shot that argument down with:
God commands the Israelites to drive out the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, warning, "You shall make no covenant with them and their gods. They shall not remain in your land, lest they cause you to sin against Me" (Exodus 23:32-33).
Later Moses emphasizes that "you must doom them to destruction: grant them no terms and give them no quarter. You shall not intermarry with them...You shall tear down their altars, smash their pillars, cut down their sacred posts, and consign their images to the fire" (Deuteronomy 7:1-5). The Israelites are also commanded to "blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven" (Deuteronomy 25:19).
When Israelite men start consorting with Midianite women, God orders Moses to "assail the Midianites and defeat them," lest the temptation to pagan practices continue (Numbers 25:16-18). Moses later chastises the commanders of his army for sparing the Midianite women and children (Numbers 31:13-18).
That sounds pretty damn violent to me. Should American Christians fear Jews as well?''
You're missing the point. The commands about war in the OT are limited in time and scope. The Jews aren't commanded to fight until either everyone is a Jew or living according to Jewish law. In Islam, the command is open-ended.The propriator of that blog proves he is indeed sane:
At best you are saying that you can't refute what UBM has clearly pointed out. Since Islam does command those actions, what should we do with that knowledge?
Maybe the majority do condone the actions.
Michael Cohen said...This came to me with the description that this comment section came from ''a left-leaning blog''. These days it sounds more sane than what comes out of the White House on any given day.
Darius H, I will debate facts once I have made clear that you appear to me to be grasping at straws. Liberals hate to be caught on the wrong end of the facts like that because their ideolgy are beliefs are total beliefs that may not be challengeable even though they are all too often, wrong.
You have become desperate and have proceeded to "thrash about" like a creature caught in some trap. This is what you post appears like to me. I am sure others would agree with me and I apologise if it seems unkind.
Undercover black man has raised the issue that there is a perfectly valid basis in the Koran for terrorism. While it is apparent that a fair majority of muslims are nice people, human enough not to desire to fill me with shrapnel, it is hardly relevant. His point has the following implications. While the fact temains that the majority of them do not wish to kill jews and christians, that does not stop the minority who do. Secondly That minority is dangerous and its existence is inherent due to their religion. The former is due to the totalitarian nature of Jihad in Islam as the objectives of Jihad are much wider and deeper in scope than any other major group in existence and the powerful motivations posessed by the Jihadists. This makes comparisons to Mr. Mcveigh irrelevant. The latter point, that the existence inherent of jihadists amongst muslims, is predicated upon the content of their holy text, and the fact is that no muslim, no matter how well meaning is able to use their key holy scripture to attack the actions of the terrorists. To seek to redefine the jihad is heretical, to oppose it is apostasy and there are people living under the threat of death for doing so. Hirsi Ali being the prime example.
This is the Nature of the threat we as the west are faced with.
Returning to my earlier comment on Mr Darius H's comments, having been peresented with the evidence that the Koran preaches a never ending and comprehensive jihad against the non believer, rather than face up to this fact, Mr Darius H's response it not to ask "what one should do about this information?". Instead, he decides that it is much better to blow smoke, by saying that the Christian past of the west doesn't look good. That is mere distraction from the problem. An patently false at that. What does the fact tht we had slaves have to do with the Jihad against us? What does the fact that Charlemagne's response to the Saxon raids upon his territory was to crush them then convert them Christianity have to do with Jihad, which has manifested in 1400 years of attacks, ranging from Piracy to all out invasion? the answer to all this is none at all. The source of all this is the complete arrogance that only liberal Truth exists.