Wednesday, February 18, 2015

So We Are Not At War With Islam?

"No religion is responsible for terrorism, people are responsible for violence and terrorism."  So says the Muslim-sympathizer a majority of American elected president. 

It almost sounds like "guns don't kill people".  I wonder if Obama is going to join the NRA. 

In that a "religion" is a set of beliefs and practices that forbid or condone certain activities and by which people define their culture and identity, that is a false statement.  It is true that creeds do not behead people of other religions.  Since the worship of Zeus or Baal has pretty well died out, the associated religions are not going to attack anyone.  The acts of religions are all the acts of those who hold the beliefs.

Jimmy Swaggert was/is a Christian, but he was also a pervert.  Jim Bakker and many, many other Christian ministers, some of whom I know personally, have gotten involved in scandals.  Christianity doesn't commit adultery, but many Christians do.  In the case of Christians involved in immoral behavior, we are clearly talking about something that the Bible, Christians of all makes and models, as well as our traditions, creeds, and confessions identify as wrong and openly condemn.

But, if some church builds a Christian school and, in science class, insists on teaching "young earth creationism", even though I, as a devout believer in Jesus Christ and God as Creator, think that is not a valid interpretation, I would hardly be correct in denying that it is a Christian school. 

I disagree with YEC, but it is a belief held by some Christians, and it certainly does not mean the people who hold that belief are not Christians.  Now, it is often the case that YEC adherents will say that people like me are undermining Christianity or that we are not, perhaps, true Christians.  Again, the YEC Christians are still Christians and virtually no other Christian would deny that they are part of the faith.  We may question their interpretation and understanding of that passage in Genesis, but if they acknowledge the deity of Christ Jesus, His virgin birth, sinless life, atoning death, bodily resurrection, and so on,  they are Christians.

It seems to me it would be the same with Islam, jihad, and the caliphate.  There are many Muslim believers, perhaps the majority, who reject the violence, the brutal tactics, and the methodology of ISIS.  Nonetheless, the stated goals of ISIS, to create a new Islamic state, a caliphate, through jihad does not contradict the teachings of Islam in the same way that similar violent acts on the part of Christians would violate the teachings of Christ.

Obama is correct in that we are not at war with the words in the Koran.  Further, at the moment, we do not appear to be at war with anyone.  Rather, those who hold to certain interpretations of the Koran are at war with us, with Israel, with the secular nations of Europe, with Christians, and with more secular Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa.

I would be more than a little defensive if the prime minister of Turkey or even the prime minister of Israel told the world that Pentecostals or Catholics or Presbyterians or the people who attended Jeremiah Wright's church are not really Christians (OK, maybe not that last one).  It's one thing for the Pope or the president of the Southern Baptist Convention to say what it means to be a Christian -- and those two are going to have some disagreement.  It's another thing for a non-Christian to tell us whether we meet the criteria or not.

The thugs in ISIS who are trying to build themselves a nice little oil-rich, anti-Israel Islamic state where they can institute Sharia and be in charge are doing so in the name of their deity, their religion, and their prophet.  Obama is an apologist for Islam.  Brendan explained why a couple of weeks ago

Slander in Islam, unlike the west, is not necessarily saying something that is untrue about someone, simply saying something they dislike is considered slanderous even if it is true.
If you go one step further and say something about Islam that Muslims in general dislike, then you have slandered not just one Muslim but up to 1.6 Billion Muslims on the planet.
Essentially what we have here is Obama denying something that is obviously true to anyone -- including Obama -- whose IQ exceeds that of a turnip because to acknowledge that truth, i.e., that the ISLAMIC State is ISLAMIC, would be disliked by the Muslims of the world.  

We are in a mess.


  1. Excellent post, Mush!
    Obama and many leftists are more concerned aboutan imaginary backlash against peaceful muslims than they are about actual attacks by muslims on everyone who doesn't submit to their brutal, fundamental Islam.

    One can't reason with savages, only submit, die or fight back.

  2. Nonetheless, the stated goals of ISIS, to create a new Islamic state, a caliphate, through jihad does not contradict the teachings of Islam in the same way that similar violent acts on the part of Christians would violate the teachings of Christ.

    That's the nut of it.

    I am going back and forth on what to do with ISIS. Go to war? Not go to war? Regarding whether to support US involvement in such an action. Drew M. wrote a nice piece yesterday at Ace's. It seems we are unable to simply execute a limited mission over there and get out. If we kick them out of a region then we have to stay to keep order. Forget it. It's a losing proposition. Are we supposed to be world police? I would defend Israel to the death for religious reasons. But the rest of the region? Let the bordering superpowers have a go at it. Now I will invoke three, well four really, magic words that release me.... I don't care.

  3. John, I think we should've divided Iraq up the first time, among the. Kurds, Shia and Sunni.

    We should definitely help the Kurds, Jordan and Egypt a lot more than we are now.
    If we do need to send in a lot of ground troops we should do eveything to wipe out the terrorists, then we should divide up Iraq between the Kurds and Shia, but most for the Kurds.

    This is the second time that most of the Sunni have sided with terrorists so I would't give them any more chances. Same with the Palestinians, since they actually vote for a terrorist govt..

    We must make it clear we will no longer support any muslims that side with terrorists, rather it's passively or not.
    Oh, and I would tell Turkey to either get onboard or else we will do all we can to kick them outta NATO, and stop all financial aid.

    Since Turkey has joined NATO (bad idea to begin with) they haven't done jack to help us.
    But no more nation-building. Just go in, get the job done and get out, and then reward those, like the Kurds and Jordan who help us eradicate terrorists and show the cajones to fight for themselves.

    Then I would tell the Shia, look, you follow the example of the Kurds or next time we will give it all to them, capisce?

  4. Hey Ben, I agree with those strategies if we decide to intervene. But I'm taking a step back and asking if we should be doing this at all? What are our interests? Is it still oil? I don't care which tribe rules within a country's border. The borders are an artifact of WWI if I recall, so one "nation" taking over another is meaningless to me. I'm thinking of the thousands of vets who lost body parts in the last war and it was for nothing. Sure, we left Iraq too soon. But if we stayed another 10 years would not the same thing have happened when we left? The Shia Sunni fight is as old as Islam. We don't need to mediate that.

    Do we try to stop all the African tribal wars? Nope. Why should it be different there?

    Oil? Nukes? Israel? Giving Russia and China a foothold? Other than protecting Israel, who cares who rules that region? They can go ahead and knock themselves out trying to hold it together.

  5. World police is getting a little old. The problem is that we are geared to fight and win 2nd generation wars against 2nd generation opponents.

    Immigration as war.

    We're not ready for 4th gen war.

    The Air Force doesn't get it.

    Can we get a mulligan on the 20th Century?

  6. I think it's one of those catch-22 things. However, Obama's Arab Spring certainly made everything far worse.

    IMO, I see terrorists such as ISIS as a serious threat to our allies, and to us further down the road.
    Of course, sending ground troops in should be a last resort, only after we seriously attempt, at least to bring others onboard.
    I'd rather we fight them there than here, and one thing we can do is stop the token 8-12 bombing a day and do some serious shock n' awe bombing and missile strikes, but that won't happen with Obama in charge.
    Heck, he's helping Iran get nukes, and his "degrading" of ISIS hasn't stopped them from recruiting more terrorists or gaining more ground for their terrorist state.

    Unfortunately, it will take another major attack on US soil, or more, perhaps before the majority of our citizens get serious enough about the threat of radical Islam to demand a serious response.

    But even then, I know that Obama or Hillary, if she's elected won't have the guts to do a total war.
    I'm not sure a republican President and Congress would, either, but without a total war this won't stop and this includes considering using tactical nukes. All the nation-building, job fairs, "smart" power and winning hearts and minds will do is make it worse and waste lives and money.

    At any rate, I don't agree with Ron or Rand Paul that the US has somehow created these terrorists, or the radical Islamic mindset.
    It was always there, regardless of what we have or haven't done.
    The most dangerous thing we can do is to continue to show weakness.
    Bullies don't stop until you hit them back twice as hard, or, in this case, kill 'em.

  7. but without a total war this won't stop and this includes considering using tactical nukes.

    I didn't want to go there but, yeah, I pretty much agree.

  8. We need, as the West, to understand our enemy, his motivations and his values.

    Germany was a western nation with, basically, western values. We could understand them better than we could understand the Japanese. But we understood the motivations if not the mindset of the Japanese better than we understand the Muslims.

    The regime displayed their total lack of understanding when they talk about economics and jobs. On the other hand, a lot of neo-cons also misunderstood when they thought we could build democracies and little America-like melting pots.