Article

2006-03-28 Home Front: WoT

Rummy sez US doing a crappy job at counter-propaganda

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2006-03-28 00:40|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1
Well, at least one of them gets it.

Posted by Master of Obvious 2006-03-28 00:55|| 2006-03-28 00:55|| Front Page Top

#2 "They currently lack only the means - not the desire - to kill, murder millions of innocent people": ergo the DemoLeft wants Washington to take over everything and anything vv deficit-happy SOCIALISM, while failing overseas. Americans can fight and die for newfound global empire, just NOT govern nor control either itself as a country nor its own new Empire. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, iff Bill was himself, he wouldn't believe himself nor trust himself ERGO VOTE/LISTEN TO HIM!?

Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-03-28 00:59|| 2006-03-28 00:59|| Front Page Top

#3 But the US did very well against Soviet aggression. Why? Because Communism was accepted as a moral evil. Islamism - which is the essence of Islam - is treated as an instrument for democraticization.

Question: what's wrong with the Muslim world? Answer: a handful of extremists are attempting to hijack the noble faith. If you believe otherwise - as I do - then you are very much in the minority.

Posted by Listen to Dogs 2006-03-28 01:44|| 2006-03-28 01:44|| Front Page Top

#4 LtD...

Shazzam, we have a Werd Wizard in our midst!

Look, Wizard, Islam isn't treated as an instrument for democratization - that's manufactured bullshit you crafted out of whole fantasy cloth so you can make your asinine self-aggrandizing argument. It's simplistic tripe worthy only of a grasping simpleton trying to sound self-important.

The effort to democratize would've been made regardless of what brand of barbarity existed. It's the American way. That Islam has held sway in the shitholes of the world for centuries where the current grief is centered is one of the obstacles we are trying to overcome.

It's simple. Try to stay with me... An effort is being made to divide Islam, to give those who would choose peace from those who choose war, rather than having to fight the whole 1.2 billion, or whatever the number is, at once. Maybe it will work. Maybe it won't. It's certainly worth a shot. Any part of that elude you? You don't like it? Tough, fuck off.

You have no answers, just pontification and severe mental and gastric indigestion.

You are a pretentious ass. That certainly diminishes whatever you might, otherwise, contribute.

Posted by Juck Spise1911 2006-03-28 03:56|| 2006-03-28 03:56|| Front Page Top

#5 BTW - your type is a dime a dozen. All sound and fury, but little else.

Posted by Juck Spise1911 2006-03-28 03:58|| 2006-03-28 03:58|| Front Page Top

#6 Because Communism was accepted as a moral evil.

That's too simplistic a description of what happened and doesn't do justice on the ideological war being waged: On the ideological level you were confronting communism with capitalism and collectivism with calls for freedom, even if you sometimes pretended you didn't see what allies of yours were doing. You may have been hypocritical quite often, but ideologically atleast you were clear.

But modern-day America seems unwilling to confront religious fascism with a true and clear embrace of its opposite, which is secularism, unwilling to battle faith-driven murderers with humanistic reason. Even today you get to hear American conservatives insult secularism and humanism, dismiss separation of church and state, insult Europe for being supposedly "over-secular" (whatever the hell that means). A natural disaster happens, and your president calls for "A Day of Prayer".

Prayer to what god? A prayer to Poseidon of the angry seas, a prayer to Allah who punished America for its infidel ways, or a prayer to a Yahwe that simply repeated its Sodom and Gomorrah example? Which one of these you think is gonna help you in your war?

Even in Afghanistan and Iraq you failed to insist that the new constitutions should contain an iron wall of separation between mosque and state, that the new constitutions should *enshrine* secularism as a fundamental characteristic of the state. You merely made do with weak and ineffective calls at "religious freedom" -- ones that are meaningless when put alongside other constitutional passages that name Sharia as a source of law.

The Iraqi constitution is even less secular than it was under Saddam. Can you imagine invading a country during the Cold War, and having the regime you install use an even more communist constitution than the one it had previously? No? And yet that's exactly analogous to what occured in Iraq.

Arguing whether Islam is merciful or violent is utterly irrelevant. Why should we choose interpretation of Islamic scripture as our battlefield? The various Mullahs and Imams are gonna end up on top if we choose such a battlefield.

I don't give a damn whether Islam is peaceful or not -- either way it doesn't have the slightest bit of right to impose upon my life, any more than any other theistic fairy tale does. The "peaceful" Christianity doesn't have any right to try and limit my reading habits any more than the "violent" Islam does.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2006-03-28 04:00|| 2006-03-28 04:00|| Front Page Top

#7 LOL. Can't please anyone.

Posted by Juck Spise1911 2006-03-28 04:32|| 2006-03-28 04:32|| Front Page Top

#8 Oh, look, Asshat's back.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2006-03-28 05:16|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-03-28 05:16|| Front Page Top

#9 With arguments such as yours, Robert, how can I do aught but hang my head in humble acknowledgement of an intellectual and moral defeat in your hands?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2006-03-28 05:32|| 2006-03-28 05:32|| Front Page Top

#10 Aris- you free from National Service yet matey? Any more pics??

Posted by Howard UK 2006-03-28 05:33|| 2006-03-28 05:33|| Front Page Top

#11 Not yet but soon. Early May. And I do have some photos from my time in Samos that I've not posted. Will get around to posting them in my livejournal eventually I'm sure, but I'm not in any hurry.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2006-03-28 05:40|| 2006-03-28 05:40|| Front Page Top

#12 Best of luck!

Posted by Howard UK 2006-03-28 06:17|| 2006-03-28 06:17|| Front Page Top

#13 Just a thought... If the enemy is using the 24-hour news cycle to his advantage, wouldn't it make sense for us to have 24-hour press offices in the White House, DoS, and DoD? Instead of one press conference a day, have three? Have guys in the press center 24/7 that can give substantive answers to questions , not just deflect questions until the first team comes on duty at 8:30 AM?

I think that at least if we did that, we could get up from a D- to a C.

Posted by 11A5S 2006-03-28 07:23|| 2006-03-28 07:23|| Front Page Top

#14 I'm used to barracking for the other side of an Aris attack but this time Katsaris, I gotta hand it you, you make sense.

All of what you just said is spot on.

We should be sticking up for secularism against fascist religion.

But we're not.

Why? Multiculturalism is one reason. We have a fifth column who use our legal system and internal political fault lines against us and it has worked to limit the range and expression of foreign policy.

We have imported the enemy within.

Another reason is if we are too forwardly secular we might alienate the moderates and yes we'd have to fight the whole 1.2 billion at once: a fight which could only end one way. Glowing craters.

Meanwhile, #4 that was unnecessarily harsh response. Make your point but you don't need such an ad hominem attack to go with it. Logic and facts are enough.

Posted by anon1 2006-03-28 07:34|| 2006-03-28 07:34|| Front Page Top

#15 What gets me is that Father Superior keeps coming back, calling us all barbarians, vowing never to return, then repeats the cycle.

Yeah, we Americans refuse to kick religious people in the face; we actually acknowledge that people have faith, and don't treat it as a disease. How horrible!

Europe has no room to lecture us. Europe's rabid secularism has done how much to protect it from radical Islam? Where, exactly, are people putting forward blasphemy laws? Where, exactly, are their ghettoes effectively run under sharia?

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2006-03-28 07:36|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-03-28 07:36|| Front Page Top

#16 #4 sounds like someone with a history. Someone who's been spending time with the ladies. Someone who's away from home.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-28 07:37|| 2006-03-28 07:37|| Front Page Top

#17 Part of the problem is the old guard in your own services don't understand the media. From the Mudville Gazette -

What do you think the future holds for milblogging?
The Navy has a great approach to blogging, can't cite chapter and verse but essentially a simple disclaimer on the site regarding "views expressed are those of the author", no OPSEC or Privacy Act violations, and off you go. If the Army adopts a similar policy (they won't, if for no other reason then it's the Navy policy, and thus reeks of sea air) they will benefit from the best possible PR they could ever hope for (or pay big bucks to civilian PA firms for! - but that's another miserable failure story for another day...) If not, see "more from bitter extremists" comment above.

Maybe if you apply a 2x4 on the side of the CoSA, you can get him to pay attention to one of your more effective means of communications with the people in this war.

Posted by Flomort Glereter9048 2006-03-28 08:24|| 2006-03-28 08:24|| Front Page Top

#18 15# (snigger) I've noticed that pattern too :)

It has been recurring for years now. Europe is no example to hold up - their Islamist problem is worse than the US though not worse than Britain.

Still, we should really be sticking secularism up their craw, it's their weak point. Absence of science rationality and logic are their weak point.

Getting them to admit you cannot prove or disprove metaphysical theories (ie religion) and thus while free to have personal faith have no right to impose that belief system on others... that would win the war overnight. When they accept that all else flows from that. Then sharia as a legal system evaporates as does the need to colonise.

But we're never going to get them to understand this so better just nuke em I reckon! and stop buying their oil. Gas, methanol/ethanol, non-ME oil is the way to go. Brazilian cars run on methanol no reason ours can't.

Posted by anon1 2006-03-28 08:27|| 2006-03-28 08:27|| Front Page Top

#19 Hey! We all have to agree with broadcaster Dennis Prager, that Islamism is a greater threat than Nazism and Communism ever were. Get that Texas school marm airhead, Karen Hughes, out of public diplomacy, and put Dennis in charge.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/dennisprager/2006/03/28/191502.html

And I want to see Condi's stilleto-heel side. She should work juiced, to reduce her diplomatic sensitivity to the enemy.
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/homepage/hp2-25-04c.jpg

Posted by Listen to Dogs 2006-03-28 08:31|| 2006-03-28 08:31|| Front Page Top

#20 I wonder how Verlain in Iraq's press conference went yesterday -- he mentioned they were discussing opnely correcting the more egregious errors of fact promulgated by the local and international news media.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-03-28 08:34|| 2006-03-28 08:34|| Front Page Top

#21 Still, we should really be sticking secularism up their craw, it's their weak point. Absence of science rationality and logic are their weak point.

You're assuming they care. The reality is, they don't. Rationality and logic are tools to ferret out answers; they already have all the answers.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2006-03-28 09:12|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-03-28 09:12|| Front Page Top

#22 Watch it Rummy, you're giving me a bad name.

Posted by Crap 2006-03-28 09:19|| 2006-03-28 09:19|| Front Page Top

#23 NO, you've got the right name.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-28 09:38|| 2006-03-28 09:38|| Front Page Top

#24 Good point RC. From the Islamist point of view our weaknesses are our spiritual vacuum (especially in Europe), societal division (stemming from years of multiculti and all that implies), and lack of political will (probably closely related to the first two). Why does he need science, rationality, and logic? His own people are conditioned from milennia of tyranny to respond meekly to his threats. His analysis consists solely of finding the cracks in our social and political structures that he can exploit to drive wedges and pry bars into and wrench the whole thing apart. After that, he doesn't give a crap. Agriculture? Infrastructure? Education? Infant mortality? None of that matters as long as everyone faces the qibla once a day and prostrates himself to Allah.

The legacy of Islam can be seen across North Africa, through the Levant, Mesopotamia, Persia and to the Indus valley before 1900. Desertfication. Starvation. Depopulation. Only Western techniques reversed the trend. But that's just a thin overlay. The same process is occurring in the Sahel right now as the Muslims consolidate their hold. What's going on in sub-Saharan Africa is what happens to the whole world if they win.

Posted by 11A5S 2006-03-28 09:46|| 2006-03-28 09:46|| Front Page Top

#25 The "peaceful" Christianity doesn't have any right to try and limit my reading habits any more than the "violent" Islam does.

Nice diatribe of a pro-EU guy. EU the place where politically incorrect blogs get closed, where there is legislation restricting free speech, wherte the failed constitution (the one Aris was partisans of) allowed to legislate against free speech and where there are propositions of law afor banning critics agsint Islam.

So Chruistianism doesn't ahev the right to restrict Aris speech but he through the EU wants to have the rifght to restrict other people's thoughts.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2006-03-28 09:57|| 2006-03-28 09:57|| Front Page Top

#26 Amongst all the major religions, Islam is the only one that does not allow anyone to leave it freely.

It is a cult of the coercers and the coerced.

Islam must be reformed or eradicated.

Its that simple.

Mainstream Christianity faced this same choice in many smaller waves, and reformed from within, and later from the outside.

Islam, with its access to the destructive powers of modern weaponsry will not be allowed the same slow timetable, and has no mechanism for internal reform. The only hope lies in external pressures.

The west, both secular and religious, will either fight Islam, forcing its destruction or reform, or succumb to its coercion.

Time to choose is coming, for Islam and for the West.

Posted by OldSpook 2006-03-28 11:22|| 2006-03-28 11:22|| Front Page Top

#27 1. During the cold war, we clearly identified communism as the enemy - NOT anything that wasnt free market capitalism. In fact we worked closely, sometimes publicly, sometimes not, with a range of non-Communist leftists, including Social Democrats, Christian Socialists, etc. And we certainly didnt decide to make our own society less collectivist at the time - in fact that was a time when organized labor was particulalry strong, and when the new deal welfare state was widely accepted. By analogy, theres no reason we should not work with moderate muslims, and no reason to become more secularist at home - at least no WOT reason.

Prager - ive met him, at a Jewish Community event where he was speaker. He didnt impress me all that much, though hes a clever speaker.

I suspect we did well against Communism partly cause the situation was different - we could play on historical eastern european hatred of the Russians. And cause we had enough in common culturally to understand. And cause we were willing to put pretty serious resources into it.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-03-28 11:25|| 2006-03-28 11:25|| Front Page Top

#28 " Islam is the only one that does not allow anyone to leave it freely."

"I. Laws of Constantine the Great, October 18, 315: Concerning Jews, Heaven-Worshippers,* And Samaritans

We wish to make it known to the Jews and their elders and their patriarchs that if, after the enactment of this law, any one of them dares to attack with stones or some other manifestation of anger another who has fled their dangerous sect and attached himself to the worship of God [Christianity], he must speedily be given to the flames and burn~ together with all his accomplices.

Moreover, if any one of the population should join their abominable sect and attend their meetings, he will bear with them the deserved penalties."

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-03-28 11:31|| 2006-03-28 11:31|| Front Page Top

#29 rtwt

Mainstream Christianity faced this same choice in many smaller waves, and reformed from within, and later from the outside.

315 is a long time age. Shall we quote Deuteronomy 20?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-28 11:44|| 2006-03-28 11:44|| Front Page Top

#30 I would like to challenge your argument on a number of points, Aris.

But modern-day America seems unwilling to confront religious fascism with a true and clear embrace of its opposite, which is secularism, unwilling to battle faith-driven murderers with humanistic reason. Even today you get to hear American conservatives insult secularism and humanism, dismiss separation of church and state, insult Europe for being supposedly "over-secular" (whatever the hell that means). A natural disaster happens, and your president calls for "A Day of Prayer".

Prayer to what god? A prayer to Poseidon of the angry seas, a prayer to Allah who punished America for its infidel ways, or a prayer to a Yahwe that simply repeated its Sodom and Gomorrah example? Which one of these you think is gonna help you in your war?

First of all, secularism has two meanings: hostility to religion and neutrality in religion. The vast majority of American conservatives embrace the latter if not the former - regardless of what you may believe, no one is calling for the imposition of a theocracy in the United States. Indeed, the very type of conservative coalition that currently exists in the US would render such a system impossible - if a theocracy were set up in the US, which religion would be the state church? As far as far as calling for a day of prayer in the wake of a natural disaster, this is part of a long tradition of civic religion (also termed ceremonial Deism) in the US that has been an element of American culture for over 200 years. It isn't going away any time soon and the vast majority of Americans seem to support it, so if you see it as being every bit as oppressive as a Salafist theocracy I would suggest you reevaluate your sense of perspective here.

As far as fighting religious fascism with "humanistic reason," if as you admit such things have proven thoroughly unimpressive here in the West, why do you see it working out so well in the Islamic world? Or what basis? I am always extremely suspicious of arguments that the US must remove openly religious conservatives from the public sphere in order to best win the war on terrorism, it sounds too much like a sleight-of-hand for those for whom Christian conservatives protesting against abortion in the US will always be more of a threat than the Islamists in London planning to do far more than just protest to implement their political agenda.

Even in Afghanistan and Iraq you failed to insist that the new constitutions should contain an iron wall of separation between mosque and state, that the new constitutions should *enshrine* secularism as a fundamental characteristic of the state. You merely made do with weak and ineffective calls at "religious freedom" -- ones that are meaningless when put alongside other constitutional passages that name Sharia as a source of law.

Except that the US didn't write the constitutions for either Iraq or Afghanistan, the people of both nations with our input. This is kind of a key difference Aris. Contrary to all the self-styled "anti-imperialists," the US doesn't think of its own society as being a utopia (I certainly don't) and we aren't going to force people of Iraq or Afghanistan to conform to what we think is best for them. It's their countries now and they're free to be as stupid and uncivilized as they want to be - that's the risk you take with a democracy and if you want things to be run perfectly all the time, then you want a dictatorship that'll make sure that the dumb rabble will never make any mistakes. We can advise, we can lobby, and we can push, but at the end of the day unless you want a real good old-fashioned empire the US is going to have to defer to the will of the people in both Afghanistan and Iraq as far as what they want their countries to look like.

The Iraqi constitution is even less secular than it was under Saddam. Can you imagine invading a country during the Cold War, and having the regime you install use an even more communist constitution than the one it had previously? No? And yet that's exactly analogous to what occured in Iraq.

Except that "religious" or "Islamic" isn't synonymous with what "communist" meant during the Cold War in this current conflict anywhere except online. As I've noted before, the administration has a far more charitable view of Islam than many of its supporters one encounters online in that they believe that since the Middle East and much of the Islamic world has been the Weimar Republic for the last 80 years and subject to a Saudi-sponsored totalitarian indoctrination campaign for at least the last 30 allows for some mitigating circumstances as far as just how crazy their political, religious, and social views are. A lot of people disagree with this, including many Rantburgers, but those aren't the presuppositions that the administration is working under because they believe at the end of the day that Islam is compatible with democracy and that bin Laden isn't correct when it comes to the Koran.

Arguing whether Islam is merciful or violent is utterly irrelevant. Why should we choose interpretation of Islamic scripture as our battlefield? The various Mullahs and Imams are gonna end up on top if we choose such a battlefield.

I don't give a damn whether Islam is peaceful or not -- either way it doesn't have the slightest bit of right to impose upon my life, any more than any other theistic fairy tale does. The "peaceful" Christianity doesn't have any right to try and limit my reading habits any more than the "violent" Islam does.

If reading habits are all you're worried about, I would seriously doubt you understand what is at stake here. As far as choosing the interpretation of Islamic scripture as our battlefield, from a purely tactical perspective doesn't it make more sense to engage the most dangerous aspects of Islam (Salafism, Khomeinism) rather than declaring war on the religion as a whole (in the name of secular humanism no less! I can't wait to see the support that idea is going to generate ...) and more or less vindicating everything that bin Laden has said. I'm not nearly bloodthirsty enough to want to go to war with a billion people all at once, particularly when so many of them have shown such an amazing willingness and bravery to fight and die alongside our own troops in Iraq and Afghanistan against al-Qaeda. Are we going to force all of the Kurds to adopt secular humanism or die too?

Bottom line is even if you think that Islam as a whole is irredeemable and has to be gotten rid of, there are excellent tactical reasons if nothing else than not declaring a general religious war that would force the vast majority of Muslims to openly side with bin Laden, including a not-inconsiderable number of governments. Believing that Islam as a whole is the enemy means that we're outnumbered by over 600,000,000 (even more than that in the case of Greece) and whenever one is outnumbered it stands to reason that strategy and tactics should always be a major consideration before extending resources or widening the field of battle, particularly widening it as far as some people seem to want it to in pursuit of what I think will be an extremely dubious cause.

As to the substantive point of the article, the US is losing the propaganda war because most of the national press corps can't separate national security from domestic politics with their all-encompassing desire to go after Bushitler and most of planetary press corps believes that the US (and Israel) are the source of most of the world's problems and the administration has done everything it can to insulate rather than explain the war to the general public in our country, let alone internationally. Most people still aren't making the connections between Basayev and Abdur Rehman (assuming they even know who either is) and al-Qaeda so they can't even begin to conceive of the threat, let alone the slow but steady progress we are making against it. As a result of this status quo, why the hell is it remotely surprising that the Osamanauts, who are quite adept at getting their message out through means fair and foul, are winning the PR war?

Posted by Dan Darling">Dan Darling 2006-03-28 11:58|| http://www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com]">[http://www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com] 2006-03-28 11:58|| Front Page Top

#31 Well, I for one have come to the realization that NO religion is correct. Every one is a manmade attempt at control of the people. Therefore, in order to allow more people to find the right path, assuming there is such a path, the spread of all religions should be prohibited. Mostly, religions only aggrandize those considered pious. They also provide a platform for accumulating funds which can be misused, thus making for a higher standard of living for some. Religions also provide a community among believers in which various activities can flourish. Beyond that, religions are practically useless. They do, however allow one to close his mind forever.
Not something I'd aspire to.

Posted by wxjames 2006-03-28 11:59|| 2006-03-28 11:59|| Front Page Top

#32 Liberalhawk:
Old Spook is correct. Medieval Scholasticists as Aquinas advocated extermination of abandoners, but did so without textual sanction. Old Spook didn't use the connective "was," because he was referring to the present. The Muslim extermination edict is in the Bukhari Hadith, and is a direct quote from the phony "prophet" Muhammad. If the West was out of the way, all Islamic capital punishment laws (Had) would be enforced in earnest.

Western governments need to consider the life and liberty of willing members of Western Civilization, and use any and all means to neutralize Muslim aggression.

LH:
Tell me something. What prevents you from setting aside a few hours to read the Bukhari Hadith? It has been posted at the MSA's USC website since 1999. If you want a basic understanding of the second most important text in Islam, then read only parts: 52,57,81,82,83,84. If you had posted the above on Sept. 12, 2001, then I would have understood your ignorance. Not today. Jump hoops!

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/

Posted by Listen to Dogs 2006-03-28 12:03|| 2006-03-28 12:03|| Front Page Top

#33 ""I. Laws of Constantine the Great, October 18, 315: Concerning Jews, Heaven-Worshippers,* And Samaritans

Constantine was a Roman Emporer. Not the pope. And thats not Dogma, andy more thatn the Russian Pograms nor the Shoah laws in Germany were.

Posted by OldSpook 2006-03-28 12:14|| 2006-03-28 12:14|| Front Page Top

#34 Aris, calling people's religions "theistic fairy tales" is hardly the kind of tolerance we're looking for in the Middle East or elsewhere. It seems that your idea of secular is to be disdainful of all religions. Secular does not mean athiestic, Aris.

Posted by Darrell 2006-03-28 12:16|| 2006-03-28 12:16|| Front Page Top

#35 Dan Darling:
I have read most of your published articles. I am as aware as you that the founders of Constitutional Secularism were: Catholics and Protestants. There was a bloody period in the 16th C that has been referred to as "The Age of Wars of Religion." In the interests of universal peace, it was agreed that no single religion should dominate a State. Secularism was a compromise among competing faiths that actually constitutionalized State protection of religions.

The following should also be said. On the separationist' (church-state integration) charges against GWB's "faith based initiatives," the White House is supporting public goals - feeding the poor, etc - by using willing church enterprises. Even the Geldof group has admitted that church charities are better as getting aid to Africa's poor, and he has used them. Southern Baptists should be the first to complain about Muslim jihad-zakats (terror-aid). Our Muslim's overseas"charities" are anti-religion (especially Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism) and terror-based, and directed at feeding and arming jihadis. That warrants State intervention.

Posted by Listen to Dogs 2006-03-28 12:25|| 2006-03-28 12:25|| Front Page Top

#36 I'm going to be blunt for all the islam is a religion of peace morons.

No other religion calls for the murder of anyone that leaves it. You can quote past history of misguided rules but the bottom line is, no other book demands this. None. And if you don't know what century muhamhead was born in or a surah from a hadith keep this in mind, your opinion is just that.

The bloody history of muhamhead's desert cult was formed in murderous blackmail and his only peaceful time, tolerance, was when he was out manned in mecca before they threw his ass out.

Both Buddha and Christ were firm in their calls for peace. muhamhead on the other hand required his followers to murder.

"Time to choose is coming, for Islam and for the West."

No crap.

Posted by porkoranimals 2006-03-28 12:40|| 2006-03-28 12:40|| Front Page Top

#37 As can be seen later on the Church did correct these (the Scholastics) - and call them out as "Errors", marking them as unacceptable. They are counter to the New Testament and have been identified as such. Long ago. Christianity (Catholicism) has corrective mechanisms built-in. Ever read up on the many Councils the Church has called - the 3 most notable were the Council of Nicea, the Council of Trent and the second Vatican council ("Vatican II").

On top of that there are many societal and governmental limitiation upon religion in general that preclude such things from being done int the west. Not so in Islamic nations.

Here's a good example: The Council of Trent (19th council) happened almost 500 years ago to reform the inner life of the Church in response to the protestant movments and various heresies. Did the Church behead all who left it? No. Here's something I bet you didn't know: a safe-conduct was issued for Protestants who desired to come to the council.

Could you imagine such a thing EVER happening in Islam as it stands today?

Where is the process for such a thing in Islam?

Thats the central isssue: not what Christianity has done in the past - its not a threat to behead those who leave, not now nor much any time since the reformation.

The issues - issues that you do NOT address, that you keep changing the subject away from - are:

Islam officially sanctions the routine killing of unbelievers and apostates, its in their accepted canon (the Hadiths). Can Islam reform or must it be eradicated?

The case for reform is not good - and hope for reform is slim. There are NO internal mechanisms in Islam to allow reform - its a religion that at its core has an immutable "exact word of Allah" at its core - i.e. God wrote the Qu'ran and nobody is allowed to change it.

This is contrasted by the "inspired" texts of Christianity, or the Traditions and Torah of Judiasm that admit to God's inspiriation in the writing but that they were written by men. All other texts are anciallry and open to doubt and error (especially ones that you quote, which were civil laws, not Church dogma).

So Islam has no solid internal source for reform. Leaving only external pressures.

And thats where my stance comes from. the West will impose reform on Islam or it will succumb to it. Islam seems structurally incapable for being reformed from within.

Its up to the Islamists to decide: do they force the West to eradicate them or do they change under pressure from the West.

And under the blade (or nuclear warhead) of a would-be Saladin, wether or not you are secular or Christian is of little distinction or import. you either submit to their coercion and convert (and there's no going back) or you die.

Posted by OldSpook 2006-03-28 12:44|| 2006-03-28 12:44|| Front Page Top

#38 Bah, accidentallly hit send before I checked it with preview - typos and blew the em close tag. Sorry for the formatting and any unreadability (dyslexia).

Posted by OldSpook 2006-03-28 12:47|| 2006-03-28 12:47|| Front Page Top

#39 Style accepted, comments clear and worthy.
This debate should be going on in Congress or the UN, but the nature of politics is to remain atop at any cost. Bird shit floats too.

Posted by wxjames 2006-03-28 13:16|| 2006-03-28 13:16|| Front Page Top

#40 Its time for some blame-Clinton info, if we are talking about rising Muslim jihad expectations. It was his government that ignored Muslim-Bosnia's oppression of Christian Serbs and Croats, causing the reaction to that ethnic-cleansing. Please read the following article from 2000. Yes, the author is the same CAIR leader who is now a jailed terrorist. Notice how the terrorist celebrates the "Islamization of Muslims" which meant non-Muslims had to accept Islamic public education in Bosnia, or leave. I had already strongly opposed the intervention in Kosovo, but reading this article caused me to adopt a war on Islam posture:
http://www.youngmuslimscanada.org/biographies/display.asp?ID=2

Note-Most Westerners have been brainwashed into believing that Euro-Muslims were happy with Clinton-NATO's obscene protection of the Islamofascist entities of Bosnia and Kosovo. This link should remove all doubt concerning the aggressive ends of Islamofascism. Tragically, the percentage of Euro-Muslims has doubled since this article was written. In large sections of France, over half of all babies are born to Muslim parents. Do the math. Once Muslims reach 20% of any European State, in context of delusionary dhimmism and indulgence of immigration invasion, that country is finished. In the case of France, Muslims will be in control of that country's strategic rocket forces. Then, Europe is over.

During the Kosovo insanity, a Serb friend -anti-Slobo - showed me photos of Orthodox Cathedrals and Monasteries in that province. He said that the national interveners (in the armistice, it was agreed that Kosovo was integral to Serbia-Montenegro) were protecting hundreds of years of Orthodox heritage. When the Islamofascists took over, 100% of the holy sites were destroyed. Lesson: if we indulge Muslim aggression by moral retreat, they will take license to advance.

Please read the link. It could change your way of thinking. Then read this:
http://www.serbianna.com/columns/jevtic/004.shtml
SCREW HILLARY

Posted by Listen to Dogs 2006-03-28 16:43|| 2006-03-28 16:43|| Front Page Top

#41 LtD, Don't look at me when you say that!

Posted by SR-71">SR-71 2006-03-28 17:37|| 2006-03-28 17:37|| Front Page Top

23:56 Crap
23:54 Crap
23:52 BigEd
23:35 Broadhead6
23:23 Fred
23:14 Some Dude
22:45 mac
22:19 RD
22:12 Old Patriot
22:12 Old Patriot
22:10 RD
21:58 Zhang Fei
21:49 Slotle Sloluck9318
21:38 Sleth Hupaise1082
21:33 trailing wife
21:32 trailing wife
21:30 trailing wife
21:28 Anonymoose
21:24 Beau
21:21 Eric Jablow
21:21 Darrell
21:13 Redneck Jim
20:49 Zhang Fei
20:40 Redneck Jim