Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIt's a mistake to see President Obama's June 4 speech in Cairo merely as a repudiation of George W. Bush's wrecking-ball approach to the Middle East.
It's certainly true that during the eight years of the Bush administration, the United States lost a great deal. Bush's War on Terror, which in a moment of candor he called a Crusade, was widely viewed by Arabs, Iranians, Afghans, Pakistanis, and others as an assault on Islam itself, a conclusion that was reinforced by right-wing US Christian denunciations of Islam as a religion of violence and by neoconservative and pro-Israeli efforts to exaggerate the importance of Al Qaeda in the broader Muslim world. The Bush administration's policy of regime change -- applied in its ugliest form in Iraq -- was originally intended to include Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, and Sudan, as well, creating the image of the United States as a born-again imperial power in a region still recovering from the British, French, Italian, and other colonial powers that exited the region only recently. And Bush and Co. lumped together all of the region's anti-Western political forces, rolling Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Iran's Shiite clergy, Saddam Hussein, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Arabia's Wahhabis, and the Syrian Baath party into one big "Islamofascist" ball of wax.
It is, of course, easy to find advocates for all of that, still, in the neocon-linked thinktanks and in the pages of the National Review, the Weekly Standard, the New Republic, and the Wall Street Journal editorial pages.
So the first thing Obama can do is to officially renounce that, all of it. If I were writing the speech, here's a line I'd put in it. "There is no Clash of Civilizations. There never was. Instead, I suggest that, working together, we can create a Partnership of Civilizations."
But Obama will have to do a lot more than be not-Bush.
The tricky part of Obama's speech is navigate the intricate relationship between (1) the need for the United States to establish strong, state-to-state relationships with autocratic and less-than-democratic leaders in the region, from pro-Western military strongmen like Egypt's Mubarak to the conservative and kleptocratic Arab royal families of the Persian Gulf to Syria's secular regime and Iran's clerical one; (2) the challenge posed by the rise of political Islam, from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Jordan, and Kuwait to the power of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine to Iraq's Shiite fundamentalist government and on to Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan; and (3) the question of democracy, elections, and representative government.
Let's take those in reverse order.
The Bush administration, especially in its first term, made democracy the center of its rhetoric. For Bush, "democracy" was a code word for "regime change." Bush argued, falsely, that lack of democracy fostered Al Qaeda-type, anti-US terrorism. Spurred by neoconservatives, who touted the model of the Soviet Union's dramatic transformation, Bush argued that peaceful revolutions in the Middle East were inevitable, and that the United States stood ready to encourage them. Obama will have to make clear in his speech that while the United States supports progressive, democratic reform in the region, he recognizes that such change is likely to be evolutionary, not revolutionary, and that the United States will not try to impose a democratic form of government anywhere in the world. And certainly not by force of arms. Here's another line for Obama's speech: "While we support the ideal of democracy in government, we will never, ever attempt to impose democracy by force."
An issue directly related to democracy is the rise of political Islam. In this, Bush was hoist by his own petard. While he supported democracy in principle, he refused to acknowledge the real-world victories of Islamist formations in Palestine (Hamas), Lebanon (Hezbollah), and Egypt (the Muslim Brotherhood). Bush dealt easily with Turkey, but he never acknowledged the frankly Islamist character of the ruling AK party. And, of course, Bush never acknowledged the real, if flawed, nature of Iran's electoral system. This is an area where Obama, over the next year or so, can take steps toward opening explicitly to all of these movements, one by one. Just as it doesn't mean that the United States embraces the Egyptian or Saudi autocracy when it deals on a realist, state-to-state basis with those regimes, it doesn't mean that the United States embraces religious-fundamentalist political movements when it deals with them, either. And when they win elections, as they did in Palestine (and as Hezbollah is likely to do next week in Lebanon), then the United States will have to swallow hard and accept them as duly elected.
Here's a quote, cited in my book, Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam, from a 1992 speech by Edward Djerejian, then the assistant secretary of state for Near East Affairs, who made the first effort by a US official to address the rising power of political Islam:
"Much attention is being paid to a phenomenon variously labeled political Islam, the Islamic revival, or Islamic fundamentalism. ... We detect no monolithic or coordinated international effort behind these movements. What we do see are believers living in different countries placed renewed emphasis on Islamic principles and governments accommodating Islamist political activity to varying degrees and in different ways."
Added Djerijian:
"The US government does not view Islam as the new 'ism' confronting the West or threatening world peace. ... The Cold War is not being replaced with a new competition between Islam and the West. The Crusades have been over for a long time."
Obama could do worse than to quote those lines in his speech.
As for relations with the autocratic, monarchical, and kleptocratic regimes, Obama will have to acknowledge that, for the foreseeable future, they're not going anywhere. We can deal productively with each and all of them, without sacrificing American principles.
At the core of his speech, of course, Obama will have to succeed not just in rhetoric, but in concrete policy terms.
He's made a start by ordering a drawdown in US forces in Iraq, and it would help his case to reiterate that, to accelerate it, and to make it clear that the United States has no designs on Iraq and its oil and that the US will not seek to establish permanent military bases in Iraq.
What makes Israel's right-wing government nervous, and what is worrying the center-right Israel lobby in Washington, of course, is the fact that in order to make his approach to the Muslim world credible, he will have to sustain his already robust effort to roll back Israeli settlements and to pressure Israel into accepting a state in Palestine. Virtually all of the neoconservative commentary on Obama's Cairo speech focuses on their preference that Obama tell the Muslim world to look inward, to correct its flaws, to get its own house in order, to suppress extremism, and so on. And no wonder -- because they desperately want to change the subject from the Israel question.
More than anything else -- more, even, than the invasion of Iraq -- it was Bush's unquestioning embrace of Israel, his refusal to deal with Yasser Arafat, his endorsement of Israel's 2006 war in Lebanon and its 2008-2009 war in Gaza that angered Muslims around the world. True, those actions were exploited by Muslim autocrats seeking to divert their populations from problems at home. True, those actions were used by Al Qaeda and its allies to recruit angry, desperate young men to violence. But that's the point. America's blind support for Israeli expansionism and intransigence bolsters the power of autocrats and provides recruiting slogans for Al Qaeda et al. It also is a stumbling block to better relations with Iran.
By committing the United States to an unwavering, international effort to rally support for a deal between Israel and Palestine, Obama can put the capstone on the break not only with the Bush administration, but with decades of American policy that put Israel first. King Abdullah of Jordan -- no radical, the son of king who was literally on the CIA payroll -- has suggested that peace will be a "23-state solution," i.e., peace between Israel, Palestine and the 21 members of the Arab League who support the Saudi-inspired Arab Peace Initiative. Not only that, but such a deal would include the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), who've broadly endorsed the Arab plan.
This is a lot to put on one speech. And, of course, the speech is just the beginning, not the end. As it turns out, I'll be in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates on June 4, on my way to Iran to cover the June 12 presidential elections there for The Nation. I plan to blog from Tehran regularly during my visit -- so stay tuned. It will be interesting, to say the least, to learn Iranians' reaction to Obama's speech first hand.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Obama's doormat behavior with Netanyahu bodes not well for his Cairo speech amounting to much more than fine rhetoric.
The Islamic world might not prove as susceptible to self-deception as the US electorate has.
Posted by sloper at 06/01/2009 @ 10:32am
Well, so many places to take issue w/your posting....one central rebuttal is the encroachment of democracy in the ME that your side will never give any credit to the gutsy moves by Pres. Bush! Even Pakistan is now a full-time player against political Islam.
By the way, I find it juvenile as to your suggestion for Magic to proclaim: "There is no Clash of Civilizations. There never was. Instead, I suggest that, working together, we can create a Partnership of Civilizations."
Facts are, throughout human history, there has always been "Clash of Civilizations"....some which are violently ended while most are fought at low settings....think of the resistance of the ME to the Hollywood "Civilization". Also, there has always been "Partnership of Civilizations as well......and Obama isn't to be given supernatural credit for `inventing' the next wheel.
More, you said: "More than anything else -- more, even, than the invasion of Iraq -- it was Bush's unquestioning embrace of Israel, his refusal to deal with Yasser Arafat, his endorsement of Israel's 2006 war in Lebanon and its 2008-2009 war in Gaza that angered Muslims around the world."
Is that so? I thought it was our troops in Saudi Arabia that was at the root of "angered Muslims"....or even cartoons and Dutch films! I don't recall much street protests after we went into Iraq....but lots of rioting for cartoons. If that's ain't "Clash of Civilizations", over cartoons and films, then what could it be?
Posted by Happy at 06/01/2009 @ 10:49am
I am a proud Zionist, but am saddened and betrayed by Netanyahu's refusal to move towards peace now. The settlers who attacked the Palestinians are thugs and should be harshly judged as criminals. I still trust that the Israeli people will soon see that Netanyahu is a dead end, and will return to the peace negotiations under Obama's committed resolve and leadership.
Shalom. Salaam.
Posted by gren at 06/01/2009 @ 11:49am
Netanyahu rejects US calls for settlement freeze - AP - Today - Excerpt
'HAVAT GILAD, West Bank – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday rejected President Barack Obama's demand for a freeze on West Bank Jewish settlement construction, but his government's move to dismantle some squatter camps set off a rampage by Jewish settlers against Palestinians.'
This should be cause enough to cut off all subsidized funding of Israeli bonds (loan guarantees). And, since US military aid frees up money for Israeli domestic spending, including infrastructure and subsidized Israeli housing costs in the West Bank, that should be cut off as well.
Nice bon voyage to BO from our "bite the hand that feeds you" best ally. BO should bite back - for once.
Posted by OneVote at 06/01/2009 @ 11:52am
posted by ROBERT DREYFUSS on 06/01/2009 @ 10:11am
I appreciate your fairly heavy weblog entries, there is always a lot of information not just sitting in newspaper headlines there to digest.
On the topic of the need to roll back Israeli "settlements" - I think that we can expect the regime in Israel soon to do something very desperate, if Mr. Obama continues to pressure the regime to cease the expropriation of Palestinian land and recognize the Palestinians' right to exist. The Israeli nation is expansionist and their regime is going to do something intended to make it impossible for a peace plan to move forward while Obama is President. This must be the calculus of the Israeli leaders - the Palestinians are no threat to the expansion, but an uncooperative US President is a big threat to the status quo slow takeover of the West Bank. So I speculate that the Israelis will have to pull a game-changer soon.
Posted by syfriendly at 06/01/2009 @ 11:58am
Pro Western? If that means the commonly understood set of US dominant strategic interests and alliances, while imagine there is plenty of room for the kind of policy changes mentioned, there is little that addresses the structural problems market globalization has brought to the Middle East, the economic and social dislocations it has meant for these recently decolonized nations who have yet to settle on stable political, social and economic relationships. A lot of angry young find themselves with few options because of the destruction of traditional indigenous economies and the accompanying social relations as they also find themselves in South America and Africa. The appeal of militant Islam may derive because it claims to provide a defense of a traditional order and meaning. Which can be understood as another form of colonial control
If so, a lot more will be needed before this region achieves its own forms of democratic development and peace.
Charlie M
Posted by cmsandia at 06/01/2009 @ 12:08pm
HAPP, I think I can prove one of Mr Dreyfuss' points-
"...was widely viewed by Arabs, Iranians, Afghans, Pakistanis, and others as an assault on Islam itself, a conclusion that was reinforced by right-wing US Christian denunciations of Islam as a religion of violence and by neoconservative and pro-Israeli efforts to exaggerate the importance of Al Qaeda in the broader Muslim world."
Even supporters of Bush's policies....showed they hated Islam-
"Of course I hate Islam. It is the work of the devil designed to steer people away from the true G-d. It is a religion based upon hate. It is a religion who's doctrines require the murder or subjugation of others."----Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/06/2008 @ 1:16pm
Smearing Obama (The Sequel) posted by Ari Berman on 10/06/2008 @ 11:18am
Posted by Mask at 06/01/2009 @ 12:10pm
I am not a big fan of Missionary foreign policies. Anyone who thinks that they are going into another country with a thousand years of traditions, and, in a few years, make them a carbon copy of the U.S. is out of their mind. We may lead by example, but not employ force to create a mirror image of ourselves. Our oldest Middle Eastern ally has been Saudi Arabia, and not Israel. It is arguably one of the the most conservative religious states in the region, but, by respecting their traditions and religion, we have maintained a relationship that has served both of our national interests. We will have to deal with many countries who have a different points of view regarding government and religion, but, as with Saudi Arabia, they must be treated with respect, and work with them to reduce the tensions that fuel conflicts. Foreign policy is not about yelling at people and calling them names. It is about working with people to reduce the tensions that cause conflicts and the need for nuclear weapons!
Posted by pjcasey at 06/01/2009 @ 1:31pm
<So the first thing Obama can do is to officially renounce that, all of it. If I were writing the speech, here's a line I'd put in it. "There is no Clash of Civilizations. There never was. Instead, I suggest that, working together, we can create a Partnership of Civilizations.">
With so many absurd comments in this posting by Mr Dreyfuss, I selected one of the most inane.
There has been a clash of civilizations with Islam since 632 AD. Islam from it's inception has sought to conquer the globe.
As I posted recently on another Dreyfuss thread, it was Islam, not Europe and/or Christianity which launched continued waves of agression from the start.
It is Islam, not Christianity that proclaims a physical war against other nations and faiths.
Obama probably will make that or a similar comment; however, he will be lying.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/01/2009 @ 4:05pm
Well, its been a busy day, and the end of the post is off....
"Pro Western? If that means the commonly understood set of US dominant strategic interests and alliances, while imagine there is plenty of room for the kind of policy changes mentioned, there is little that addresses the structural problems market globalization has brought to the Middle East, the economic and social dislocations it has meant for these recently decolonized nations who have yet to settle on stable political, social and economic relationships. A lot of angry young find themselves with few options because of the destruction of traditional indigenous economies and the accompanying social relations as they also find themselves in South America and Africa. The appeal of militant Islam may derive from its claims to provide a defense of a traditional order and meaning, a defense from an another form of colonial control. No accident it was the Shiite Khomeini, from Paris, who gained the loyalty of Iran's poor and rural to lead the movement that overthrew the dictatorial Shah instead of the competing secular alternatives.
If so, a lot more will be needed before this region achieves its own forms of democratic development and peace, and would be helped by an alternative progressive political economy. Sort of the kind at work democratically in Central and South America."
Charlie M.
Posted by cmsandia at 06/01/2009 @ 7:00pm
Miscellaneous comments:
1. Mr. Dreyfuss wants the Obama administration to pressure Israel to accept a state in Palestine. Since the Israelis had no problem with this back in 1948, perhaps a better approach would be for the Obama administration to pressure the Palestinians and the Arab world to accept the existence of the State of Israel.
Why not give that a try?
2. Mr. Dreyfuss is all bent out of shape because he perceives that Islam was portrayed as a religion of violence. Mr. Dreyfuss must have missed how, after 9/11, many people went way overboard to portray Islam as a "religion of peace".
3. If you walk out of J&R Computer World, through St. Paul's Chapel, and out the other side, you can look across the street at the product of the work of "the Religion of Peace"....
There is nothing there... nothing to see... no 110 story office buildings now..... brought to you courtesy of the "Religion of Peace".
Just how pro-active have those Muslims who profess that they are for peace been in stopping that kind of behavior. How outspoken have they been, how much have they really tried for peace? The answer is that too many tolerate it or even agree with it, but won't say so publicly.
4. Quick Quiz - Name the Islamic individuals who actually spoke out for peace and acted for peace.
Answer: Only one, the late Anwar Sadat. Note the "late" part... he became "late" because he did speak out and act for peace. The Religion of Peace apparently punishes those who speak out for peace.
5. I am tired of the instant throwing of the "Islamophobia" card by libs at any criticism of the Islamic world, a world who disproportionally spews hatred. (No Mask, I do not have the Percentage for you). In Europe it has gotten bad, people cited for "Islamophobia" as Islam overtakes Europe.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/01/2009 @ 7:39pm
Is that so? I thought it was our troops in Saudi Arabia that was at the root of "angered Muslims"....or even cartoons and Dutch films! I don't recall much street protests after we went into Iraq....but lots of rioting for cartoons. If that's ain't "Clash of Civilizations", over cartoons and films, then what could it be?
Posted by Happy at 06/01/2009 @ 10:49am | ignore this person | warn this person
Apparently Happy "Mohammad Prophet of DOOM" isn't one of the sites the left visits since it fully reveals the teachings of the koran and the underlying themes of verses advocating and supporting islamic terrorism, murder of any unbelievers etc.. Guess it is discomforting to reveal the truth about the "religion" of hate and death!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/01/2009 @ 9:01pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/01/2009 @ 4:05pm
Now, Larry, flip the record over and tell us how you believed in neo-con'ism and Bush's plan to "democratize the Middle East" because 80-85% of "so-called Muslims" really weren't devotees of Islam and therefore what you said at 4:05pm doesn't apply to them!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/01/2009 @ 10:08pm
mr. obama should announce a pan-arab bailout.
that usually fixes everything.
oh, and a czar. always need a czar.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/02/2009 @ 12:07am
How can Obama rise to the challenge??? It is an important question, well articulated in this post.
Hopefully Obama himself is asking, "What would Sasha Baron Cohen do?"
Posted by winyahn at 06/02/2009 @ 12:56am
Maybe Obama could borrow the wings, and drop in -
http://tinyurl.com/n8p686
Posted by winyahn at 06/02/2009 @ 01:00am
Now, Larry, flip the record over and tell us how you believed in neo-con'ism and Bush's plan to "democratize the Middle East" because 80-85% of "so-called Muslims" really weren't devotees of Islam and therefore what you said at 4:05pm doesn't apply to them!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/01/2009 @ 10:08pm
Since Islamist countries are not democracies, the 80-85% are not making the decisions. The Mullahs, those pressured by them, and those leaders who believe that Islam directs them to conquer the world, they are making those decisions and have been since 632 AD.
And I notice you don't even bother trying to refute history, so I applaud your recognition of the reality that it is Islam that has been attacking the world since 632 AD.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 09:54am
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 09:54am
Right, Larry. It's all the "mullahs" since 632...and the poor deluded majority of "Muslims" don't REALLY believe in their "religion of evil".
That resolves the contradiction quite nicely, doesn't it?
BTW, none of that applies to CHRISTIANITY in the Middle Ages or even upto today, right?
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 10:01am
Right, Larry. It's all the "mullahs" since 632...and the poor deluded majority of "Muslims" don't REALLY believe in their "religion of evil".
That resolves the contradiction quite nicely, doesn't it?
BTW, none of that applies to CHRISTIANITY in the Middle Ages or even upto today, right?
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 10:01am
You just can't deal with truth it seems. You are eager to ignore history because it runs counter to your liberal beliefs.
The facts are that it was Islam, not Christianity that began this war and continued it for centuries. They were so decimated by the defenses of Western Civilization that they were docile until the later half of the 20th century.
I believe that the revenue from oil is what allowed Islam to consider that a viable door of opportunity was given to them to resume their onslaught against the rest of humanity.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 11:01am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/01/2009 @ 7:39pm
"3. If you walk out of J&R Computer World, through St. Paul's Chapel, and out the other side, you can look across the street at the product of the work of "the Religion of Peace"....
There is nothing there... nothing to see... no 110 story office buildings now..... brought to you courtesy of the "Religion of Peace". " .. Your arguments show your ignorance. So many terrible things have been done in the name of religion. Christianity is supposedly also a religion of peace, but that didn't stop the christian states of Europe from waging nine separate crusades to capture Jerusalem. What this and many other events show, is that there is a disjuncture between the doctrine of religion and the politics of religion.
So by judging a religion, you are no better than any ignorant person who lays down a stereotype. To throw a mask over people whose only "crime" is to have faith in a particular religious teaching.
A bigot is a bigot is a bigot.
You argue that the followers of this religion of peace did nothing to stop these people. Think of all the terrible things that might have been done by people like you. They might have the same religion, be the same age group, or gender, why didn't you stop them doing these terrible things?
Why didn't they speak out? Well, they did. In April 2002, the 59 states represented at the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers voted unanimously to pass a declaration condemning terrorism. One quote from which goes as follows,
"We reaffirm our commitment to the principles and true teachings of Islam which abhor aggression, value peace, tolerance and respect as well as prohibiting the killing of innocent people"
There are many more examples, this is just the most stark example of it's unanimous nature.
Posted by rappscal at 06/02/2009 @ 11:11am
That should have been 56 states, not 59.
Posted by rappscal at 06/02/2009 @ 11:14am
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 11:01am
Wasn't my entire point, Larry. Certainly I expected you to take up the "The Crusades weren't OUR fault...they started it!" angle...
I mean I expect you to point out that all those wars even BETWEEN Christian countries in the Middle Ages weren't examples of "real Christians".
See your "easy out" is pretty standard. Any aggression by a Muslim leader/nation "proves Islam is a religion of war".....any aggression by a Christian leader/nation shows they weren't a "real Christian". Right?
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 11:34am
And I notice you don't even bother trying to refute history, so I applaud your recognition of the reality that it is Islam that has been attacking the world since 632 AD.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 09:54am
yep.
why, just yesterday they sold me cigarettes.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/02/2009 @ 1:42pm
Wasn't my entire point, Larry. Certainly I expected you to take up the "The Crusades weren't OUR fault...they started it!" angle...
I mean I expect you to point out that all those wars even BETWEEN Christian countries in the Middle Ages weren't examples of "real Christians".
See your "easy out" is pretty standard. Any aggression by a Muslim leader/nation "proves Islam is a religion of war".....any aggression by a Christian leader/nation shows they weren't a "real Christian". Right?
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 11:34am
I fully expected you to continue to sidestep acknowledging the fact of history; very predictable
Most of the wars in Europe in the Middle Ages were not about Christianity, they were about power with the excuse sometimes, of using Christianity.
The difference Mask is that the Qu'ran specifically calls for physical war against others and the NT does not. You can continue trying to distort and create a different reality, but you will not be honest if doing so.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 1:45pm
Larry, you deny what I say...and then confirm it-
"any aggression by a Christian leader/nation shows they weren't a "real Christian". Right?"----Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 11:34am
"Most of the wars in Europe in the Middle Ages were not about Christianity, they were about power with the excuse sometimes, of using Christianity."---------Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 1:45pm
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 2:23pm
Larry, you deny what I say...and then confirm it-
"any aggression by a Christian leader/nation shows they weren't a "real Christian". Right?"----Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 11:34am
"Most of the wars in Europe in the Middle Ages were not about Christianity, they were about power with the excuse sometimes, of using Christianity."---------Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 1:45pm
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 2:23pm
I could be mistaken, but it seemed as if you were trying to suggest that these western civilization wars were all based upon some defense of Christianity; which clearly wasn't true.
James the brother of Jesus wrote
<Where do you think all these appalling wars and quarrels come from? Do you think they just happen? Think again. They come about because you want your own way, and fight for it deep inside yourselves. You lust for what you don't have and are willing to kill to get it. You want what isn't yours and will risk violence to get your hands on it.>
obviously far different from wars of self defense. (And yes, I still maintain that the Iraq war was a war of self-defense).
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 2:53pm
obviously far different from wars of self defense. (And yes, I still maintain that the Iraq war was a war of self-defense).
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 2:53pm
Huh? I mean...huh? Really??
The country with the largest military in the history of humanity attacks a country on the other side of the world that was no legitimate threat to it and that attack is somehow a war of self-defense?
Still listening to Cheney's talking points, are u? He too believes that Saddam would have given comfort and aid to terrorists determined to strike the U.S. ...even if the guy in charge of all those terrorists (bin Laden) never asked him for that help. Because bin Laden NEVER would have asked Saddam. Bin Laden was more than happy to build his own mujaheddin army without the good graces of Saddam. Saddam was a secularist, which is why bin Laden hated him! Why do you think Saddam, in his ego-mania, decided to turn against the United States (who fed him quite well during his war with Iran)? It's BECAUSE he was being ignored by both sides in the new "War on Terror" and he wanted to be seen as more than just a thug. But a thug is all he was. A thug with a huge ego...just like bin Laden (who just happens to be smarter and better educated thanks to the bin Laden family). So, we've spent almost a trillion dollars to take out a thug and left the region in a worse state than we found it (and the original thug is still out there) and u call that a war of self-defense? It boggles the mind, I tell ya....
Your entire argument is based upon the presumption that Saddam and bin Laden would "make up and make nice" when ALL the intelligence was stating the exact opposite (and Cheney knew). It was a ginned up war to get America on the ground in Iraq over their huge oil reserves.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/02/2009 @ 6:41pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 2:53pm
No, I was trying to say that you will excuse any war of aggression by a Christian nation or leadership by saying they "weren't really Christian" or "it had nothing to do with Christianity"...
while making the opposite claim for Islam, becasue it suits your religious bigotry.
All "Muslim wars" are an indicator of that religion's "innate evil"....all "Christian wars" are "outside" of Christian dogma...
though you YOURSELF have made the case for Christians participating and SUPPORTING any war that there secular government starts.
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 7:15pm
though you YOURSELF have made the case for Christians participating and SUPPORTING any war that there secular government starts.
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 7:15pm
No, I'm stating out the facts and you are the one attempting to manipulate history to fit into your anti-Christian bias.
1st of all, the only "Christian" nation that I'm aware of is the Vatican.
2nd, I repeat, there is no justification to go to war on behalf of Christianity in the NT. Neither you nor anyone else have cited nay, nor can you.
3rd, the Christian call to support is a requirement to submit to the authority of govts, it is not a religious participation-it means don't be rebellious. The service in war is voluntary unless there is a draft and then Jesus says you should give more than 100% (Matthew 5:41), but again, waiver for a consciencous believer.
4th, Islam does call for war against "unbelievers" and that has been the history of Islam from it's inception
<Sunni Muslim scholar, Professor Bassam Tibi, maintains:
"...The Western distinction between just and unjust wars linked to specific grounds for war is unknown in Islam. Any war against unbelievers, whatever its immediate ground, is morally justified. Only in this sense can one distinguish just and unjust wars in Islamic tradition. When Muslims wage war for the dissemination of Islam, it is a just war (futuhat, literally "opening", in the sense of opening the world, through the use of force, to the call of Islam); when non-Muslims attack Muslims, it is an unjust war ('idwan). ..."
from, Bassam Tibi, "War and Peace in Islam" in "Islamic Political Ethics", Edited by Sohail Hashmi (Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press, 2002,p.178).
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 7:30pm
More for Mask on the religion of peace
Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
Qur'an:8:39 "Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah."
Qur'an:8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."
Ishaq:324 "He said, 'Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.'"
Ishaq:587 "Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace."
Tabari IX:69 "Arabs are the most noble people in lineage, the most prominent, and the best in deeds. We were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah's helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in the Cause of Allah. Killing him is a small matter to us."
Qur'an:2:193 "Fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief) and religion is only for Allah. But if they cease/desist, let there be no hostility except against infidel disbelievers."
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 7:38pm
dusty old books for dusty old men...
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/02/2009 @ 7:53pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 7:30pm
Larry, again, you're making my point.
Moors invade Spain....proves Islam is evil, right?
Egypt, etc. attack Israel in 1949, 1967....proves Islam is evil, right?
Iraq, though secular, attacks Kuwait in 1991....proves Islam is evil, right?
but if a nation led by a declared Christian, with a Christian populace, declares war...openly aggressive, not defensive....you don't want it noted as a "Christian war".
Why? Simple....you're a chauvinist if not a bigot. And I'm sure it's not JUST Islam. If I were to ask about Hinduism...you'd note India vs Pakistan. Or Confucian even Buddhism, you'd note the Korean War....heheh
"Real Christians" never start wars....it's just a co-inky-dink that due to their "requirement to obey secular governments"....they fight them!
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2009 @ 08:40am
Larry, again, you're making my point.
Moors invade Spain....proves Islam is evil, right?
Egypt, etc. attack Israel in 1949, 1967....proves Islam is evil, right?
Iraq, though secular, attacks Kuwait in 1991....proves Islam is evil, right?
but if a nation led by a declared Christian, with a Christian populace, declares war...openly aggressive, not defensive....you don't want it noted as a "Christian war".
Why? Simple....you're a chauvinist if not a bigot. And I'm sure it's not JUST Islam. If I were to ask about Hinduism...you'd note India vs Pakistan. Or Confucian even Buddhism, you'd note the Korean War....heheh
"Real Christians" never start wars....it's just a co-inky-dink that due to their "requirement to obey secular governments"....they fight them!
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2009 @ 08:40am
1. Your initial statements in this response show that you simply ignore the facts and centrality of my point.
I listed a number of verses from the Qu'ran and Hadith all commanding the killing of non Muslims. Yet you attempt to ignore that and simply go with some the war examples.
You have it completely backwards. The wars are not the root evidence, they are the evidence that confirms the belief in the Islamic scriptures that command them to war against all others.
2. You also continue to ignore my challenge that nowhere in the NT is their a call to religious war against other nations. Instead you launch a strawman about western nations who had wars as somehow being the equivalent of a Muslim religious war that is commanded by their Scriptures.
3. I've never made similar claims against Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, or Taoism because I cannot think of any similar commandments by there holy texts.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 10:02am
Mask,
You continue with Strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks because you know yourself that you have no factual rebuttal to the evidence I've presented on Islam.
Since you are famous for saving others postings, show us some of your own attacks on Islam instead of just railing against Christianity and Judaism.
I've come to suspect that you are more aligned with the Cripthinks and Syfriendly's than you want to admit.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 10:06am
Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 10:02am
I note you ONLY want to include the NEW Testament, Larry.
Old Testament doesn't help your case, does it? Yet...isn't IT also part of "God's word" and infallible and supposed to be an inspiration to Christians?
Or do you just ignore the OT now?....or pick-n-choose when it's "God's word"?
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2009 @ 11:12am
I note you ONLY want to include the NEW Testament, Larry.
Old Testament doesn't help your case, does it? Yet...isn't IT also part of "God's word" and infallible and supposed to be an inspiration to Christians?
Or do you just ignore the OT now?....or pick-n-choose when it's "God's word"?
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2009 @ 11:12am
There is a clear and distinct difference in the application of some elements of the OT for NT followers of Christ. Those difference have nothing to do with it also being the Word of G-d and inerrancy.
G-d chose the Jewish people and proceeded to guarantee blessings of land to them if they would obey Him. This was to introduce to the rest of the world the knowledge of the one true G-d.
When Jesus came, He announced that a new covenant was implemented in and through Him. That covenant was for the life and blessings of His kingdom, which He announced was not of this world. So, wars for land, and the promises of material blessings in the land are specific to Israel and the Old Covenant, and not to the new (despite what many preachers declare falsely). That doesn't mean G-d no longer blesses Christrians. It's that our focus is not on what we can receive in this world.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 12:18pm
There is a clear and distinct difference in the application of some elements of the OT for NT followers of Christ. Those difference have nothing to do with it also being the Word of G-d and inerrancy.----Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 12:18pm
OT not "not the Word of God" or not inerrant...just irrelevant after Jesus, right? God changed His mind?
BTW, does this mean that JEWS are capable of wars of aggression? Given their basis for belief is JUST the Old Testament?
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2009 @ 12:53pm
There is a clear and distinct difference in the application of some elements of the OT for NT followers of Christ. Those difference have nothing to do with it also being the Word of G-d and inerrancy.----Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 12:18pm
OT not "not the Word of God" or not inerrant...just irrelevant after Jesus, right? God changed His mind?
BTW, does this mean that JEWS are capable of wars of aggression? Given their basis for belief is JUST the Old Testament?
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2009 @ 12:53pm
Why do you persist in distortions? You posted my reply that said that it is also the Word of G-d and inerrant; yet you then question me that I don't believe that.
As to your last, I was very specific that the covenant (agreement) between the Jews and G-d is different than it is for Christians. The Bible is very clear on this. The agreement with G-d and the Jews is still very much in place as far as their blessings.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 2:50pm
Stephen_Carver1,
You say" "....Because bin Laden NEVER would have asked Saddam. Bin Laden was more than happy to build his own mujaheddin army without the good graces of Saddam. Saddam was a secularist, which is why bin Laden hated him! ...."
It has been promoted by many for a long time that bin Laden and Saddam would never have cooperated because bin Laden was religious and Saddam was secular.
You assume too much... I am sure that bin Laden hoped some day a secular Saddam governed Iraq would be changed to some fundamentalist Islamic regime like Iran became.
But that does not mean that in the meantime they would never have pooled resources or cooperated or assisted each other .........
On the one hand, you have someone (Saddam) who ran people through shredding machines.
On the other hand, you have someone (bin Laden) that decreed there was to be nothing across the street from St. Paul's Chapel, and thus one day (9/11/2001) there was nothing at the expense of close to 3,000 lives.
And you think these inviduals had any "morals" or "scruples"?
If there was the possiblity that some combined effort or assistance by one towards the other could result in harm to their common enemy, the United States of America, they would have had no problem helping each other out even while they were hating the person they were helping out, because they hated our country even more than they may have hated each other.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/03/2009 @ 4:02pm
The other problem with antisocialist is that he lies about what the Quran says. It is not difficult to check up on his misdeeds here.
For example, he claims Quran 9:5 reads as "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
Actually, the verses say :- 9:5 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.
Similarly, he claims that 8:39 is "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."
Actually, it says And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers."
Actually, what it says is :- "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do."
Same for Qur'an:2:193 He quotes it as
It actually says "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers."
Posted by ByronRaum at 06/03/2009 @ 6:02pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 2:50pm
You didn't answer either question, Larry.
1. Given your "There's nothing calling for war in the NT", then I guess the Old Testament is irrelevant to Christians...or do you just "pick-n-choose" what you like from the OT?
2. Can Jews engage in a war of aggression given they are governmed ONLY by the Old Testament...if not, why not? If so...why are they different from Muslims?
Posted by Mask at 06/04/2009 @ 08:03am
God, the Rush types ar going to go apoplectic over this trip, Of course, President Obama could threaten to nuke 'em and 'ol Rush would still find something wrong.
One neo-con type guy already came up to me at the office and said a news report quoted Obama as saying to the Egyptians that America was a Muslim nation. Would like to see the real statement to see how much THAT was distorted.
Posted by YEH-LIU-TA-SHIH at 06/04/2009 @ 09:15am
You didn't answer either question, Larry.
1. Given your "There's nothing calling for war in the NT", then I guess the Old Testament is irrelevant to Christians...or do you just "pick-n-choose" what you like from the OT?
2. Can Jews engage in a war of aggression given they are governmed ONLY by the Old Testament...if not, why not? If so...why are they different from Muslims?
Posted by Mask at 06/04/2009 @ 08:03am
Obviously, we will get nowhere on this. I answered you very specifically with 2 posts, except that for some reason I didn't notice your subtle insertion of the term "wars of aggression".
I clearly reject that distortion that you made. The wars of aggression have been the Muslims against the Jews, rather than the other way that you stated. Israel is engaged in trying to continue it's existence against over nations and a religion that is calling for their extermination.
Like the worst offenders of anti-semitism, you seem perfectly accepting of that possibility by your refusal condemn the Muslim calls for the extermination of Israel and the Jewish people.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 12:18pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 2:50pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/04/2009 @ 10:26am