There is nothing in history which would lead any rational person to conclude that all men everywhere at all times are only interested in material wealth.
Free market, global villagers offer an almost cogent (charitably speaking) yet still irrational war strategy as a response to those of us who have criticized the President’s Build Democracies approach as ideologically flawed. Our criticism of the President’s war strategy is that it is failing and will fail because it is predicated upon an ideology of democracy that has no basis in our understanding of man or Islam. Islam and faithful Muslims reject democracy on principle and there is no human imperative which suggests that man is more apt to choose democracy and “freedom” over fidelity to divine law. Islam demands the Muslims rule the world. Democracy precludes that option, unless of course it is exercised in a world controlled by a Muslim majority. To suggest, as does the President’s war strategy, that we are not at war with traditional Islam, its law, and its faithful, but rather some violent variant of this peaceful religion, and that if we can curtail the violence long enough to establish democracies among the Muslim faithful they will embrace it, is foolish at best, dangerous at worst.
The more rational, less ideologically charged among us have criticized the President for not calling a spade a spade: We are at war with historical, traditional Islam and the Muslim faithful who adhere to the orthodox authoritative Shari’a or Islamic law. What I will call the Free Market (Luke Warm [versus Hot or Cold]) War Strategy — has been proffered to counter this more rationally based war strategy in an effort to save us from this “War of Civilizations.” While this latest proposal suffers from the same kind of utopianism afflicting most ideologies, it is a marginal improvement over President Bush’s approach, which succeeds or fails based upon the notion that democracy as an ideology will supplant traditional Islam in the hearts and minds of the Muslim faithful if given half a chance. I have dispensed with the Democracy as Ideology War Strategy previously. Here I will respond directly to this new Free Market as Ideology variant. But first let me present again in a nutshell the time tested rational war strategy I have proposed previously:
Beginning with the facts that Islam was a world-state ideology at its founding, has continued as such for its continuous 1400-year history until the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, and remains today a religious ideology based in Islamic law in search of a one-world Islamic regime, this approach to defeating Islam is not unlike the approach used effectively to defeat fascism during World War II. One, outlaw the support or practice of historic and traditional Islamic law as a conspiracy to incite world-wide violence. Two, identify the nation-states that support or harbor the enemy and destroy them.
In World War II, the enemy was fascism and the enemy states were Germany, Japan, and Italy. Later, it included Vichy France and the other occupied states of Europe. The West in the political-military alliance known as the Allied Powers went to war to destroy the enemy with but scant attention paid to “collateral damage” or building democratic states after the war because we – the US and Britain — understood that first and foremost it was a war of national existence that must be won on the battlefield. Fire bombing, carpet bombing, and atomic bombing were all used to end the threat and the war. Only then, after total destruction and surrender, did we marshal the Marshall Plan.
In the War Against Islam, I have argued strenuously that we must use the same proven strategy for it is the only one that works in a war against a world-state ideology prepared to use, and capable of mustering, world wide violence and mass destruction to achieve its ends. Quite different from President Bush’s two-legged war strategy, this war strategy is based on reality and mankind’s history of what wins wars. First, identify the enemy. As we did in World War II, the enemy was not the Nazi or the Bushido Imperialist but the nations of Germany, Italy, and Japan and everyone within their political or ideological sway. Second, destroy the enemy, its society, its infrastructure, its ability to pick up another weapon. We knew the war was over when the enemy surrendered unconditionally for no reason other than the brute fact that the death and destruction engendered by our war strategy had rendered any further warring impossible.
The War Against Islam should be no different. The enemy is historical and traditional Islam and its advocates. The nations which support the enemy are not difficult to identify. Thus, the first step should be to outlaw traditional Islamic law. The second step should be to inform all nation-states which permit Islamic law in any de jure or de facto form that they will be considered an enemy state and subject to attack. Then, go about destroying the enemy. If that means using tactical nuclear weapons, so be it. We developed these weapons for precisely this purpose.
I have been criticized for suggesting that the war should be against all Muslims. But I have never suggested that. What I have suggested is that the enemy is, and we should war against, all faithful Muslims. A Muslim who believes in adherence to historical and traditional Islamic law believes in a violent jihad against the West and all infidels. (According to a recent Pew survey, in the Islamic world, more than half of the population favors the violent imposition of Islamic law as the law of the land.) The rejection of Islamic law separates the peaceful Muslims from the violent or potentially violent. And, here, we mean not the typical Muslim’s non-observance of all of the strictures of Islamic law; we mean its wholesale theological rejection.
The specific criticism of the rationally-based war strategy boils down to a “biting off more than we can chew” argument. It is not unlike the argument raised prior to our entry into WWII and one that continues to be made by the Buchananites today. That is, we might have contained the Nazis better by simply letting Hitler take what he wanted of Eastern Europe. Better the Nazis and the Holocaust than the 50 million war dead and the Stalinists who ended up filling the vacuum in Eastern Europe after the war ended. Thus in World War II, we might have taken the position, and indeed many did at the time, that we need not war against all Germans and Japanese but rather make an effort at containment.
The idea of containment (otherwise known as appeasement) was an effort to “understand” the enemies’ grievances and to limit the war, if there must be one, to the specific bad actors and to conduct the war in a fashion to limit the destruction. Except for the Buchananites who take the view that the world-state ideology of the Stalinists (and of the Soviets who followed) made possible by Hitler’s defeat was a greater threat than the regional hegemonic designs of the Nazis, most careful observers view the Allied response to the Axis Powers the correct one, and one that could have been far less destructive and could have saved tens of millions of lives had it been taken earlier.
The Free Market War Strategy now presented as an alternative to the rationally based war strategy is that we need not war against traditional Islam to defeat the terrorists. A war against the active terrorists combined with a free market assault on the petro-oligopolies that finance terror will suffice. The argument rests on two premises. One, Islamic terror is not an existential threat to the West unless an Islamic state such as Iran goes nuclear. Two, without nuclear weapons, Islamic terrorists have only the power of an oil profits-generated war machine. From these two premises, the argument suggests that the globalization of markets and the capitalistic exuberance and innovativeness of the West, duly exported around the world, will invariably if not inevitably beat the oil rich sheiks and the terrorists they fund at their own game.
The first obvious problem with the Free Market War Strategy is the first premise. Iran will be nuclear soon. Pakistan is already nuclear and but for the continued well being of its general-president-dictator Pervez Musharraf, its nuclear weapons would be in the hands of the Muslim terrorists. Egypt, the Arab world’s most populous state, is one day away from Hosni Mubarak’s demise and an Islamic revolution which will only be halted if the Egyptian army has not been infiltrated too heavily with faithful Muslims — a very big if. Assuming away the nuclear problem is quite problematic indeed.
While it is true that our good friend Pat Buchanan argues that we need not war against Iran to prevent its going nuclear – he argues for a Cold War containment as was used against the Soviet Union – the problem this position has is that Iran’s mullah’s are not communists. The mullah’s and their followers are true believers in the after life fully dedicated to Allah’s and Mohammad’s instructions for jihadist martyrdom. They support mass murder and mass suicide around the world and they used it quite effectively in their war against Iraq by sending children out with bombs strapped to their backs. The Soviets were petty dictators looking to control as much of the world as they could but they were quite dedicated to a this-worldly existence. Indeed, the idea of a religious heaven or hell was all but outlawed. The use of regional wars by the West to contain the Soviet advance, a threat of mutually assured destruction, and our economic prowess all combined with the looming Strategic Defense Initiative in the final years and the good fortune that Mikhail Gorbachev decided to throw in his candidacy for Time’s Man of the Decade to defeat the Soviet enemy.
The second less obvious problem but a serious shortcoming nonetheless is the second premise. Succinctly put, Islam as an evil world-state ideology can be defeated by the free market West in a Flat-earth globalized markets-based free-for-all. This is essentially the Thomas Friedman Flat Earth view of the world (otherwise known as his Lexus-Olive Tree analysis). One version of this view focuses on the assumption that free market innovation, energy conservation, development of our own energy resources, traditional and alternative, and a few well-placed tariffs will drive the price of oil down and bankrupt the oil tycoons now financing terror.
Where to begin? First, while it is true that the Saudis and the Iranians are using oil revenue to finance terror – the Iranians to promote their own active foreign policy and the Saudis as a bribe to keep the Wahhabis in Saudi happy and focused on the West – Islamic terror is not dependent on oil money. And, even if it were, are there not sufficient oil revenues from Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq – assuming Iraq goes democratic and becomes a Shia-dominated regime – even at $20 per barrel? And, if Iran and Pakistan are nuclear with mullahs in charge, how much time and oil money does it require to destroy the Eastern Seaboard?
By the by, I ignore Israel’s peril because that should not be the main concern of US foreign policy, even though Israel is America’s best ally in the region. Let Israel defend her own borders and people. The Israelis are more than capable if the US permits it and Israel somehow treats itself as a nation-state for the Jewish People with no “We are the World” rationalizations for its existence.
Finally, what evidence is there that the Muslim masses would sell their faith and ideology for a bowl of free market libertine pottage? The European Muslims don’t on balance seem so impressed with their freedoms. What leads any rational person to conclude that all men everywhere at all times are only interested in, at the end of the day, material wealth? Even assuming you can bribe one or two generations, do you think you can suppress the Islamic ideological urge, now 1400 years strong and backed by Mohammad’s revelations, life and law, with capitalism? We can’t even get the Liberal Elite in this country to support America’s national existence over a world state. Why would the Muslim faithful with so much history, ideology and fanaticism be any different?
In the end, we see that the Flat Earth or Free Market War Strategy is predicated upon the same kind of ideological dream world as the one conjured up by President Bush and his advisors. If it were true that Islam and the Muslim faithful could be defeated with a counter ideology, a world-class PR spin game, we could have avoided World War I and II and quite possibly all wars of such magnitude for all times. The End of History. Maybe Pat Buchanan is right after all. Maybe Islam and the angry Muslims all over the world, including those in our Homeland, will forgive and forget all about this Islamic world-state they long for and live in, if not peaceful coexistence, at least a détente with the decadent West.
Given the nuclear option, the ideologues among us are taking a world class risk and gambling our very existence on it.
Congratulations on a profound and correct essay. I have no idea how long it will take
U.S. citizenry to become hawkish enough to accept the realities you presented so well,
but U.S. late entries into WW 1 and 2 is indicative of collective constricted thinking here.
We act when we must, and fight a tougher war than we should have been required to do.
One characteristic in favor of GWB is the preemptive strike, something no previous
president in modern time has been willing to do. I believe he will use it again on Iran
before he leaves office. We’ll see.
Yup, all those purple fingers really prove your point, don’t they?
Mr. Yerushalmi, it really isn’t about democracy or the free market, although those seem to be the buzzwords, an unfortunate choice of language. It’s about liberty. All people want to be free, all people want to make their own choices. It’s human nature.
Religion is a choice, even Islam. Liberty may not make much of an immediate difference, particularly regarding the men of muslim societies, but watch what happens to the women. Muslim men are the ones with power, so they have little reason to make changes. But when muslim women get a taste of freedom, there will be no stopping them. They will be the transformers of their societies.
Freedom is never about those in power. It is always about those who are oppressed and marginalized. The downtrodden are the ones where freedom make its grand impact.
If we allowed Israel to defend herself as earnestly as necessary there would be no need to spend so much time ruminating about lunatic regimes. The Neo-Cons have it wrong with regards to “freedom” and the attendant license that accompanies the current Western Culture. Democracy comes from the core of a people. It can never be imposed. Heaven is no democracy.
Mountain Man: all men want liberty but then you tell us not men but women.
What empirical or even wholly logical argument can you make to establish that men desire liberty and not obedience? You are a western personality so for you liberty is second nature. But men have long accepted and yearned for obedience and stability and certainty. To this day, most Russians over the age of 50 still yearn for the order of communism. That is why the strong man Putin is so popular. They don’t want new elections. They want order and stability. The Muslim seeks world order.
Now, it seems that Yerushalmi proved his point with evidence and based it upon the written and historical record of Islam — all 1400 years of it.
Where is your evidence that people will trash their religious beleif that denies “liberty” and embrace the culture of the West?
Your polemics aside, you are just wishing like any good ideologue. That is fine as long as it doesn’t risk our national existence.
Phil
Phil,
Do you not understand the literary use of “men” as synonymous with “mankind,” “humankind,” “people?”
Liberty is not solely a western idea. The Bible is eastern in origin, and it reads in Isaiah 61:1, “He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners…”
In the Quran it says in Al-Baqara, “2:177 True piety does not consist in turning your faces towards the east or the west [143] – but truly pious is he who believes in God, and the Last Day; and the angels, and revelation, [144] and the prophets; and spends his substance – however much he himself may cherish – it – upon his near of kin, and the orphans, and the needy, and the wayfarer, [145] and the beggars, and for the freeing of human beings from bondage; [146] and is constant in prayer, and renders the purifying dues; and [truly pious are] they who keep their promises whenever they promise, and are patient in misfortune and hardship and in time of peril: it is they that have proved themselves true, and it is they, they who are conscious of God.”
I did not suggest that anyone would trash their religious belief. Quite the contrary, they need to embrace the freedom contained in it.
People who have known only bondage do not understand liberty. How would a blind person describe what a tree looks like? But if the blind person were healed, and then shown a tree, he would not recognize it. But once the concept is associated in his mind, he embraces what the tree looks like.
I did not state support for any current political policies. I simply pointed out that the desire for liberty is a universal human condition. Our declaration of independence confirms my thesis.
I just read this post. I’m sorry but anyone that recommends nuclear bombs on all faithful muslims because they are faithful is simply put a fool. No other comment needs to be made. Dear David here is bloody crazy. I sincerely hope some of the responders are joking. If not this planet is in deep trouble……………
Let’s begin with Mountain Man. Your selections from the Qur’an are a bit selective are they not? What you quote is what has long been termed the pre-Medina time of Mohammad’s “revelations”. These were uttered while he lived in Mecca under the control of the pagan Arab tribes. Once he gain political power, his revelations “opened” up quite a bit. He found the need for Jihad as war and conquest. This is also part of the jurisprudence of Islam. And, as you know, unlike Christianity, and more like Judaism, Islam is a religion based upon law, not creed. You might read Andrew Bostom’s book on Jihad which has gone to great lengths to translate from the authoritative legal schools — there are five of them in Islam.
Finally, the “liberty” Islam preaches is hardly Western liberty. It is the liberty to surrender their body and soul to the Umma in the service of Allah. Now, if you happen to be an infidel you will not fare well under that form of liberty I dare say.
In other words, you conflate an Islamic liberty with a Western one, the latter of which comes from a synthesis of Judeo-Christian faith and Greek Philosophy. Granted, the Enlightenment came along and changed the Western notion of liberty — some might say stood it on its head — but the West in either its pre-modern or modern time has quite a different view of liberty than your Muslim friends.
So now, rather than quoting selectively, make the case that under Shari’a – authoritative Islamic law – Muslims will embrace liberty. If you can do that, I won’t ask you to demonstrate how liberty is “universally” desired by mankind. That you could not demonstrate because the history of man suggests quite the contrary. (By the by, even modern political theory a la Hobbes-Locke-Rousseau suggests that mans “liberty” in the state of nature is in fact not “liberty” at all. For these “Enlightened” thinkers, man was reduced to material being living in nature “freely” not by choice but by necessity and without soul. That he formed political societies was for Hobbes out of fear and for Locke, quite the lesser thinker, out of a social contract in order to acquire his material pleasures, says much about even modern liberty. The liberty of the Judeo-Christian and even the ancient Greek (Socrates-Plato-Aristotle) was a liberty to pursue truth given to each soul to exercise or not by Free Will.
Islam, the Medina phase, Islam transmogrified from a politically powerless (“no man can be forced to believe”) to a politically hegemonic ideology with Mohammad preaching and living by the sword. The whole concept of dhimmitude comes from where? From thin air? Jihad? I just spent some time reading Mr. Yerushalmi’s scholarly book review entitled Knowing the Enemy. You might profit by reading through it.
Now, I turn to Ms. DeBurg in defense of Mr. Yerushalmi, although after having spent the afternoon at his site with reams of argument, logic, and fact, he needs little defense. But since I am here now, I will say a few words. Your quite appropriate feminine response is to be admired as such, but it simply doesn’t rise to the level of discussion or speech proper. You fail to take on the fact that “faithful” Muslims believe in an Islamic law that would kill me or enslave me for being an infidel and do the same for you while you lived a pathetic life as an object to be abused precisely because of your admirable feminine qualities. Now, if you wish to propose a realistic way to avoid a life of 9-11s for the West and even its ultimate destruction by WMD in the hands of the Iranian mullahs who would not let you out of the house alone, much less allow you the Internet to express yourself so emotionally, I am all ears. Would you not have firebombed and carpet bombed Germany to end WWII? Were Churchill and Roosevelt guilty of the abominable sins you accuse Yerushalmi of pursuing? What about the atomic bombs to end the war with Japan and say countless US soldiers’ lives? Were these soldiers’ worth saving or would you have taken the decision to sacrifice several thousands more in hand to hand combat against the remaining suicide soldiers of the Bushido Emperor in order not to kill so many Japanese civilians?
It appears your: “Dear David here is bloody crazy. I sincerely hope some of the responders are joking. If not this planet is in deep trouble……………” remark is already history writ large in the annals of warfare. Do you know why that is so? Because there are men, brave, powerful men that don’t listen to the women and children. They do what they must to fight wars and protect the Homeland. Now, in our times, as in all times, there are women who act with the bravery of men and men who behave as women. But don’t get me wrong. Women should be women. That is how they are wired as it were. And they should remain so so our children will know a mother’s touch and tenderness and not just a father’s strictness and discipline.
May you be blessed to remain the sensitive and kind women you appear to be but may you also find the wisdom to permit the men to fight the wars to protect you and your family.
Phil
Mountain man: so we are both clear. The Quranic passages you site are from a particular Sura that while it is a Medinan sura, most of it was revealed during the first two years after the Hijra. In other words, this is still prior to Mohammad’s launch of militarist jihad. It addresses a wide variety of topics, including substantial amounts of law. A major theme is guidance: urging the pagans and Jews of Medina to become Muslim, and warning them and the “hypocrites” of the fate Allah had visited in the past on those who failed to heed his call. You should know of course that as the prophet of Allah we find that Mohammad dealt with the uncompromising Jews himself and it wasn’t through “liberty”.
And, just so we balance out the actual versers, the post-Hirja-conquest period (meaning later in time and therefore per many authoritative legal traditions, abrogating the earlier “peaceful” verses) finds the following:
From the Sura you quote:
[6] As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.
[7] Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).
[8] Of the people there are some who say: “We believe in Allah and the Last Day;” but they do not (really) believe.
[9] Fain would they deceive Allah and those who believe, but they only deceive themselves, and realise (it) not!
[10] In their hearts is a disease; and Allah has increased their disease: and grievous is the penalty they (incur), because they are false (to themselves).
And if you believe the faithful Muslims will respect the very Western notion of nation-states,
[213] Mankind was one single nation, and Allah sent Messengers with glad tidings and warnings; and with them He sent the Book in truth, to judge between people in matters wherein they differed; but the People of the Book, after the Clear Signs came to them, did not differ among themselves, except through selfish contumacy. Allah by His Grace guided the Believers to the Truth, concerning that wherein they differed. For Allah guides whom He will to a path that is straight.
In the very next Sura of Al-Imran:
[10] Those who reject Faith, neither their possessions nor their (numerous) progeny will avail them aught against Allah; they are themselves but fuel for the Fire.
[11] (Their plight will be) no better than that of the people of Fir’aun, and their predecessors: they denied our Signs, and Allah called them to account for their sins. For Allah is strict in punishment.
[12] Say to those who reject Faith: “Soon will ye be vanquished and gathered together to Hell, an evil bed indeed (to lie on)!”
[13] “There has already been for you a Sign in the two armies that met (in combat): one was fighting in the Cause of Allah, the other resisting Allah; these saw with their own eyes twice their number. But Allah doth support with His aid whom He pleaseth. In this is a warning for such as have eyes to see.”
[19] The religion before Allah is Islam (submission to His Will): nor did the people of the Book [the Jews; and in some contexts also Christians] dissent therefrom except through envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them. But if any deny the Signs of Allah, Allah is swift in calling to account.
[20] So if they dispute with thee, say: “I have submitted my whole self to Allah and so have those who follow me.” And say to the People of the Book and to those who are unlearned: “Do ye (also) submit yourselves?” If they do, they are in right guidance, but if they turn back, thy duty is to convey the Message; and in Allah’s sight are (all) His servants.
[21] As to those who deny the Signs of Allah, and in defiance of right, slay the Prophets, and slay those who teach just dealing with mankind, announce to them a grievous penalty.
For 111 separate Jihad verses, you might examine: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1128382/posts#fulltext.
Excerpts:
– Muslims must fight until their opponents submit to Islam (surah 9:29).
– A Muslim must not take a Jew or a Christian for a friend (surah 5:51).
– A Muslim apostate must be killed (surah 9:12).
– Resisting Islam is punished by death, crucifixion or the cutting off of the hands and feet (surah 5:33).
Now which verses will the FAITHFUL Muslim abide by. The ones you’ve cherry-picked or the ones mandated by authoritative Shari’a?
"Now which verses will the FAITHFUL Muslim abide by. The ones you’ve cherry-picked or the ones mandated by authoritative Shari’a? "
Credit that you know stuff. However, there is a big difference between Arab Muslims, Persian Muslims, and Asian Muslims. There is also a big difference between those in power (and use the full force of the nation-state to enforce their power – look at Iran with regard their call to Muslim unity ala Shia, whilst at the same time still having an extreme nationalist leaning – their response to people forgetting that the Gulf should have "Persian" before it).
I will openly admit I have a negative bias towards Arab Muslims. I will also admit that this is because I have largely experience them on an unpleasant basis (helping Indonesian and Malaysian workers who have been exploited – thats the politest way I can put it). In contrast to Arab Muslims, the ones in Asia are considerably more welcoming and friendly. There approach and viewpoint is also very different – not that you would notice if your sole source of information was the international media. You have to be there, spend time there, read the local news – Indonesian news contains very little "international" news – that what they do receive is to put it mildly, biased.
The majority quite simply want to be left alone to lead their own life – pretty the much the same as most in the West. The problems are usually to be found where some ego with delusions of grandeur has complete control of a state.
David Yeryshalmi seems to suggest that declaring total war is somehow acceptable. Something that I find completely abhorent and morally wrong. Responding to total war as happened into WWII is one thing. Starting it is another.
However, before I write off his comments, I will at least read through his site to see how he reasons his stance.
Phil,
I am not a muslim, so I do not have choose which verses to abide by. That is for muslim theologians to work out. It is quite clear that Islam commands violence if necessary to bring conversion. But all I have to do is demonstrate is that the concept of liberty, in some form, is present in eastern thinking. I have done exactly that.
You seem to want to argue theological/cultural constraints in order to suggest that muslims are incapable of embracing liberty. But I don’t care about external factors pressing in on them. These are excuses, and I am not interested in rationalizations for violence, oppression, or evil.
All people are the same, regardless of religion, upbringing, familial status, country of origin, sexual orientation, or wealth. They are all endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To suggest that some people, because of their status, are unable to embrace their innate characteristics is racist.
Phil Tims,
I’m not a woman and you sound like you need to get out more. I have met many fathful muslims that were not living the extremism a few profess. As a matter of fact you seem an extremist yourself and a pretty far gone one yourself. As for modern day 9-11s the only ones living them these days seem to be muslims. The last 3 years they have been living them. The second war was a real defined war sir. Not this bogus slaughter you have cooked up. As for carpet and atomic bombing the questions of nessessity are still being asked. As for that weird line about brave powerful men, they tend to be killing the women and children don’t they? You tend to sound like you missed the 17th century. Here is a hard fact. If you fire off atomic bombs you will set yourself up for retaliation. Some one some where will get to you. You can’t kill them all. The IRA tried to blow up thatcher once and missed. The british police talked about the averted disaster and the IRA responeded with this missive. ” You have to be lucky all the time. We have to be lucky once.” Are you willing to take such a gamble with the lives of your countrymen Phil.? Kill the children of a people and their children’s children will rise against you.
“I have met many fathful muslims that were not living the extremism a few profess.”
If you know any Muslims who do not consider it their duty to spread the absolute-truths of Islam by force if necessary, you do not know any “faithful” Muslims. It’d be kind of like if you knew a Zen Buddhist who advocated suicide bombings and nuclear terrorism against those who don’t subscribe to Zen Buddhism, or a liberal who advocated free-market capitalism – you’d know they weren’t true believers.
“As for modern day 9-11s the only ones living them these days seem to be muslims. The last 3 years they have been living them. The second war was a real defined war sir. Not this bogus slaughter you have cooked up.”
You’re right, modern Muslims do live with constant death and intimidation, but not by the interventionist United States as you imply – by the religous and political leaders in their own countries! For the second part of that statement, you’ve missed the entire point of this article, as you habitually do. The entire point of this author is that we need to turn our “war on terrorism” into a defined war, like WWII was – because Islamic militants already have. If world leaders at the time had adopted your strategy in regards to Nazism, treating it as a respectable religous idealogy, and therefore beyond reproach (the notable exception in your case, of course, being Judeo Christianity), you and I would not be having this conversation right now, being as how we are not blonde haired, blue eyed Germans of noble heritage.
” As for carpet and atomic bombing the questions of nessessity are still being asked.”
Only by you and leftist idealogues, I assure you.
“Here is a hard fact. If you fire off atomic bombs you will set yourself up for retaliation. Some one some where will get to you… Kill the children of a people and their children’s children will rise against you.”
In regards to your first sentence, I surely hope you are correct, because Iran will fire off nuclear weapons long before the United States does, and I would very much like to see a “proportianate” retaliation when that eventuality does occur. In regards to the rest, if that were the case, then my Hungarian ancestors who were killed in German concentration camps would obligate me to kill Germans today, no? And all those wars we’ve had with Japan since then just go further toward proving your point.
Phil,
Quit moving the goalposts. All I needed to do was to demonstrate that the concept of liberty exists in eastern thinking. It’s not cherry-picking to quote a verse from the Quran in context and in its entirety. You want me to make Muslims choose which verses to obey? Not my job.
It sounds to me like you believe that the cultural and religious constraints of certain groups of people make them incapable of embracing liberty. That position reeks of bigotry.
By way of analogy, if we were living 150 years ago, you probably would have said the same thing about blacks in slavery. Many whites did just that, based on the supposition that blacks were essentially subhuman, and not capable of living productive lives in freedom. Fact is, blacks are entitled to the fullness of all the blessings of liberty, and their condition of slavery simply suppressed their intrinsic worth.
All people yearn to be free. Some don’t know it yet because they have never experienced it. But “all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” is a truism that transcends race, religion, and culture.
By nature no one rules.
EVERY KINGDOM SHALL FALL
The laws of nature is a repeated system.