Originally Posted by spence
I was citing the most recent source I had seen. He didn't make it up...
I was commenting on the general unreliability of "Obama's own words." Even in the instance of your "most recent source" he is weaseling about him wanting to leave residual forces but Maliki not wanting it. If he REALLY wanted to leave behind adequate troops to maintain the new government, he could have worked it out. Maliki would have accepted the forces but didn't want to agree with providing the legal immunity that the status of forces agreement required. Maliki was probably CYAing to satisfy sectors of his population. That could have been worked out in several ways (e.g.--bribery, intimidation, behind doors agreement to be implemented later, or simply agreeing to Maliki's demands and disregarding them if need be, etc. etc.). That's called realpolitik, which progressives would surely understand and subscribe to, as they normally do.
That's a lot of wishful thinking and gross over-simplification. Define "finish". Define "victory". Define the "war against jihadism" in clear and absolute terms.
"Victory"--final and complete defeat of the enemy.
"Finish"--completing, in this case, the victory, the final and complete defeat of the enemy.
"War against jihadism"--in this case, engaging in the war against us by those who desire a victory over us supported by notions of "jihad of the sword" mentioned in the Quran and hadiths.
I realize that these cannot be recognized as "absolute terms" by you since you do not believe in absolutes. But they are absolutely acceptable to me and my mundane use of words to communicate ideas in the functional way language was invented to do.
I've never read that the Koran advocates killing those who don't convert. If that's some bastardization by the militant Islamists perhaps they're not being good Muslims after all. Like the Bible, anything can be spun out of context to fit an agenda.
There are verses which originalists and fundamentalists "interpret" to do so. Of course, later apologists would dispute such interpretation and claim they only refer to specific instances not general commands.
e.g. verse 9:5 Sahih International:
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."
and verse 9:29 Sahih International:
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."
But it is not only the Quran which informs Muslims on their faith, but also the Hadiths. The Quran was supposedly the word of Allah which in turn was expressed by Muhammad. The Hadiths were edicts, words and accounts of Muhammad.
e.g. Sahih Muslim Book 19 Hadith Number 4294:
Chapter : Appointment of the leaders of expeditions by the Imam and his advice to them on etiquettes of war and related matters.
It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet, but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given by you or your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the name of Allah and His Prophet be violated. When you besiege a fort and the besieged want you to let them out in accordance with Allah's Command, do not let them come out in accordance with His Command, but do so at your (own) command, for you do not know whether or not you will be able to carry out Allah's behest with regard to them.
Now if you excuse me I need to go stone my son.
Uh . . . what with the Adrian Peterson's and Ray Rice's, et al. peculiar examples of Western family jihad, go for it.
That's a gem. Had the savages just done what we said everything would be hunky dory. Because non-Muslim or Western philosophies haven't ever had disagreements either right?
I was responding to your "Western conquest" producing dictators. "Western" in that context is merely a geographic notation not a philosophical or political one. As I said, the "conquests" were not intended to "westernize" but to exploit. If the intention was to westernize and the conquests were successful, then, yes, everything in terms of current crusades and jihads would be relatively "hunky dory." Actually, the Iraq war, in my opinion, was more about westernization than WMDs or exploitation. Had it been "victoriously finished" we would have a "hunky dory" relationship. And it was about toppling a dictator not producing one.
And talk about a "gem"--your comment that the first Caliphate was bringing about great advances while western counterparts were sacking neighbors and fending off Vikings was such a "gem." How do you think early Islam spread so fast and vast if not by conquest (including sacking and fending). And, BTW, the western counterparts had preceded the Caliphates by several centuries in bringing about great advances, as well did the Middle Easterners who preceded the Muslims. And much of the "great advances" the Muslims were "bringing about" were informed by those of their western counterparts. And what is the most gleaming gem is the aftermath--what great advances are the Islamists bringing today?
Many of the Crusades were just as much about Christian conquest than anything else. Great book:
So what? Amazing how you don't like nor wish to discuss "old" stuff such as the Constitution (not anywhere near as old as the Crusades) but you want to dredge up "old news" like the crusades.
Again, that's just not reality. The global economies are interwoven and state actors play all sides. There is time for outright violence but the real solution is a much longer proposition.
OMG . . . talk about "wishful thinking, gross oversimplification," and the necessity to "define in clear and absolute terms," your above comment is all of that.
Other interesting books I've read on the subject:
The last one is unique. First off to read about Islam from a Canadian lesbian, but it also has a very good description of what jihad really means.
|