Originally Posted by spence
Hence the subtext. What we've seen with the coalition comprised of many Arab states and just recently a Sunni Arab state pretty much declaring war on ISIS gives a glimmer of hope that modern Islam may be prepared to move on as well.
Good. Now that we have established that Obama WAS imputing a moral equivalence between ISIS and the Crusades we can move on to the subtext. That being that Christianity has moved on. That it has cleansed itself from extremists, at least the nasty violent ones who commit atrocities. Perhaps, he could also attend an Islamic prayer breakfast and let the Muslims know about their over 1200 year problem with nasty extremists and that they are taking a wee bit too much time to get it together.
That might, however, be difficult for the Muslims to do. I mean, the bad Christians were not actually being extremists. They weren't taking New Testament, biblical Christian text or teaching or principals to extremes. They were simply using culturally or discriminatorily concocted so-called "Christian" values to justify their dirty work. Rather than their culture being shaped by the basic tenets of biblical Christianity, they transformed the religion into one either based on their culture, or the need of its ruling and/or corrupt clerical classes to control its people. To some extent, that is still going on today. But now the cultural shaping of Christianity is toward social mainstreaming with, of course, the removal of violence. But there are still pesky remnants, and probably a growing number, who feel the need to be "extreme," that is, they want to be true to the word as expressed in their holy text. It is these "fundamentalists" who are depicted as extremists, and therefor to be feared. After all, look at the horrors perpetrated in the name of Christianity. Except, as I mentioned those weren't extreme expressions of Christianity, they were, as you put it, a misuse of it. Extreme expression of Christianity, would be more like that of Mother Theresa, or self mortification, or vows of poverty. But, of course, in our relativistic age, any philosophical, religious, or ideological attempt at doctrinal purity, or faithfulness to principals, is considered extreme--as in the progressive attitude to those who want constitutional government rather than rule by an inconsistent, ad hoc administrative state that is in a constant mode of change (and growing oppression). Constitutionalists are therefor "extremists."
Islam, on the other hand, actually has textual basis for what ISIS is doing. ISIS may, or may not, be extreme in its practice of Islam, but its practice of Islam is fundamental. Those who wish to reform Islam, or wish that it was reformed, may want to depict ISIS and Al Qaida, etc., as being outside of Islam, a perversion of it, but it is the reformers who would be the perverts. To reform is to change. Obviously, the reformers want to change Islam. They must, therefor, believe that there is something wrong with it.
Of course, most of the clerics (including a whole bunch of them who call for the jihad against the west and forceful conversion of those who resist) say that Islam does not need to be reformed. That the so-called "extremists" are perverting or misusing Islam.
Now, in the home bases of Shiites and Sunnis, Iran and Saudi Arabia, the moderate Islam that we say exists, is not practiced. The grand clerics and secular leaders of those countries practice an extremely discriminatory and often harsh and oppressive Islam. This is also true of many if not most of the other Muslim countries.
So it seems that the brewing war between the Muslim Arab states you mention and ISIS is more of a turf war rather than an ideological one. It doesn't seem like the Muslim states are as much offended by what ISIS is doing so much as that it threatens their power and control. The current Muslim states ARE modern Islam. So that "glimmer of hope" you have that modern Islam will move on might be a deceptive flicker.
With everyone clamoring about Obama's lack of strategy here, we seem to have an Iraqi army regrouping to take back Mosul, a Jordanian military out for blood in Syria and a UAE back in the game. With our support the locals appear to be taking matters into their own hands...which I think actually was the strategy Obama laid out some time ago.
His strategy all along? You mean he really wanted Syria, and Libya, and Egypt, and Iraq to be in the condition they are now? And for Iran to keep extending the "negotiations" over their nuclear program (until they finally get the capability they want to wipe out Israel and who knows who else)? And he wanted ISIS to become as pervasive and brutal as it is. Brilliant planning. I can picture him now, bending over the big map with a pointer stick laying out for the generals exactly what he intended to do and ordering them how it was to be done. Hell of a strategist. And, no doubt, this time around, the locals will not be co-opted by the Muslim Brotherhood or some Taliban outfit. Yes, let the conflagration begin, may the best man win, and, of course, the best man will be the one Obama planned to be the winner.
Hey, I'm all for the Muslims doing it themselves. But I don't think it takes a whole lot of strategy to let them. But, if the fundamentals of their religion don't change, who remains standing afterward may not be any less anti-Israel or more pro-Western than they are now. Certainly not if the victors are the Arab Islamic states that exist now.
I think ISIS is going to be purged from Iraqi pretty quickly. It's going to be messy but they've never really had to deal with air and ground campaigns simultaneously. Retreat to Syria will be an attractive option.
The big complication will be what to do with Assad and the Sunni/Shiite implications.
|