This is part of the thread from the post: Islam causes wars: reason #7. This has been an excellent discussion.
Anonymous replied:
"Correct, why such bad translations even coexist is an issue but that doesn't automatically label the whole religion as falsehood or warlike. That is what some humans take it as. Like you said "the mind sees what it wants to see".
Warfare is for that matter called for when no other solution is seen fit. You say as though the US is the only nation trying to solve this issue. There are many other Islamic nations trying to rid of these extremists with armed forces. It's not like we are just sitting around and letting bloodshed happen. The elimination of such a group is compulsary in order to once again show the true face of Islam. The US has been in the middle east for years now trying to fight of terrorism. What if there is another solution? As you know many groups are against the fact that the US continues to occupy the middle east. Why is that? There seems to be no more of a threat as it used to be during 9/11 so why are countless innocent lives of both sides lost everyday? Hopefully if we are out of the middle east the issue might settle down." (End comment)
I am certain that withdrawal is the incorrect thing to do. The people and organizations that attacked the United States are not going to stop their aggression. It is generally not best to give in to aggressors. It is generally better to confront, as painful as this is. These same people believe in the idea of Islamic nationalism. That Muslim land and ‘waters’ can and should be defended as if Islam is a government, in and of itself.
I like to use the example of a Catholic Church in New York. A group of militants take it over. (Take your pick of militant groups, it does not matter) Even though the church owns the land that the church is built upon, a group of Catholics from Canada, New Jersey, Brazil and Mexico do not move in and retake Catholic ‘land’. The U.S. government or local government authorities send in the proper forces to settle the issue. In other words, the Catholic Church does not physically defend the land that it owns. The national government whose sovereignty is responsible for that land has that responsibility.
The very idea of a religion fielding an army is one that faded away with the rise of the modern national government, nationalism and the professional army. The groups who are challenging this today are challenging the concept of the sovereignty of the modern national government.
Just look at the relationship between the militant Islamic organizations and the host governments. To allow this to continue is to accept the constant warfare and violence that such an arrangement must lead to. Sovereignty cannot be shared. Many wars have been fought to determine which side is to exercise sovereignty over what land. As is occurring today. This will continue until the concept of Islamic nationalism is gone and the entire world accepts the authority and responsibilities of the modern national government. This applies to ALL militant groups. Islamic groups are ones that get the most attention because they have an international reach far beyond the national borders. This makes them the greatest international threat.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Islamic argument and my response
An Anonymous person left the following comment following my post of ‘Islam causes war: Reason #7’. I believe that this comment reveals much of the problem when dealing with Islam.
"Interesting, I understand your POV of this present conflict but I respectfully disagree. For starters you are judging religon by those who follow it. As humans we are corrupt beings and yes there are those that misinterpret the teachings of their religon. If you are going to accuse the religon or Islam in this case, have enough sense to open it's holy scripture, the Qu'ran and see for yourself what the religon has to say on the matter of war. You just like the millions of others look at the small group of people that follow Islam who are disgracing the name of the religon. Yet the majority of muslims in the world are ready to convey our message with peace as it had from the start when it began. At the time when Islam flourished the church lagged behind in the middle ages, and Pope Urban II launching the crusades against Islam. If you research what happened during the time, what difference would you find from the term you take as 'Jihad' and 'Crusade'. Yes I do agree there are those that as of now are misusing humane rights to get a message across, but as a muslim I dont considered them my brothers. So the next time you try to blame Islam for the actions of corrupt individuals, research both sides before blogging biased opinions."
Seeing that the vast majority of Muslims are good and peaceful, if I was judging Islam by those who follow it, I would not be focusing upon the warfare that Islam causes. I would be focused upon the good and constructive leadership that the Muslim world is personally demonstrating to the rest of us. This is not the case. I am judging Islam by the governance that Islam created and maintains. An example: In 1944, the vast majority of Germans and Japanese were good people. This was irrelevant. We were forced to kill millions of them to put an end to it. A small ‘minority’ of people was in control and we were at war against them. However, the population DID in fact, support the armies and fought very hard and well.
War is a foreign policy. The Koran specifies in many places when and where war is justified and is to be waged. The Koran also specifies when truces should be implemented. (Please note ‘truce’ as being ‘cease fire’ as opposed to permanent peace) The Koran specifies many functions of a government. Examples: The death penalty, economic policy, foreign policy, exemption from conscription and a complete legal system. These are functions of a modern national government.
Yes, the Crusades were nasty. As wars tend to be. However, the Crusades were a response to the constant pressure from the south and eastern part of the Roman Empire. Much of those parts of the empire had already been overrun by Islam long before the Crusades began. The Crusades were a reaction to this, not the initiator. And speaking of religions mustering armies:
I find it interesting that Muslims keep bringing up the subject of the Crusades. The Crusades are a classic example of a religion fielding an army. This was not uncommon prior to the rise of the nation-state, nationalism and the professional army. This practice disappeared long ago. (Exception: Islam) Today, Islam is the only ‘religion’ that still fields it’s own army. These terror organizations are the modern version of the Middle Age concept of a ‘religious’ army. And they enjoy popular support.
Islam has no ‘lands’ nor ‘waters’ to defend anymore than the Catholic Church can defend the land that a church sits on in New York. Nations do. National armies are what defend them. Yet we hear constant comments about ‘occupation’ of Muslim land. No nation on Earth is willing to commit its armies against the ’occupiers’, yet irregular warfare is still being waged to lift the ‘occupation’. And this concept enjoys popular support throughout the Muslim world. This must end, TODAY. This concept starts wars and will require warfare to end. Islamic nationalism is the cause.
On a side note, stoning people to death has no place in the modern world. This practice is still being followed in numerous places throughout the Islamic world. Want to start a war? Do not allow enforcement of just this one concept and watch what happens.
As for my being biased, YES! As is Anonymous. We all are. One problem here is that anonymous does not see that he/she is biased as well. This can blind a person in many ways. This Anonymous person has not read the entire Koran (Or is ignoring much of it) yet he/she is stating that I need to read the entire thing through. I need to research both sides beforehand. I guess I need to ignore the 90% of the Koran that talks about warfare and governance and focus upon the ‘nice’ 10% that specifies how there is no compulsion in religion. Yes, I still need to study Islam and history more. However, Anonymous is far behind. He/she needs to study history far more than I do, and not just one version of it. He/she needs to widen the view. I like to think that I am pretty good at seeing the other side. And we as a country are pretty good at setting our differences aside. Example: The U.S.-Japanese war 1941-1945 was one of the most brutal our country has ever engaged in. Yet, 60 years later, my wife is Japanese. This is not uncommon in our country and ‘Religion’.
"Interesting, I understand your POV of this present conflict but I respectfully disagree. For starters you are judging religon by those who follow it. As humans we are corrupt beings and yes there are those that misinterpret the teachings of their religon. If you are going to accuse the religon or Islam in this case, have enough sense to open it's holy scripture, the Qu'ran and see for yourself what the religon has to say on the matter of war. You just like the millions of others look at the small group of people that follow Islam who are disgracing the name of the religon. Yet the majority of muslims in the world are ready to convey our message with peace as it had from the start when it began. At the time when Islam flourished the church lagged behind in the middle ages, and Pope Urban II launching the crusades against Islam. If you research what happened during the time, what difference would you find from the term you take as 'Jihad' and 'Crusade'. Yes I do agree there are those that as of now are misusing humane rights to get a message across, but as a muslim I dont considered them my brothers. So the next time you try to blame Islam for the actions of corrupt individuals, research both sides before blogging biased opinions."
Seeing that the vast majority of Muslims are good and peaceful, if I was judging Islam by those who follow it, I would not be focusing upon the warfare that Islam causes. I would be focused upon the good and constructive leadership that the Muslim world is personally demonstrating to the rest of us. This is not the case. I am judging Islam by the governance that Islam created and maintains. An example: In 1944, the vast majority of Germans and Japanese were good people. This was irrelevant. We were forced to kill millions of them to put an end to it. A small ‘minority’ of people was in control and we were at war against them. However, the population DID in fact, support the armies and fought very hard and well.
War is a foreign policy. The Koran specifies in many places when and where war is justified and is to be waged. The Koran also specifies when truces should be implemented. (Please note ‘truce’ as being ‘cease fire’ as opposed to permanent peace) The Koran specifies many functions of a government. Examples: The death penalty, economic policy, foreign policy, exemption from conscription and a complete legal system. These are functions of a modern national government.
Yes, the Crusades were nasty. As wars tend to be. However, the Crusades were a response to the constant pressure from the south and eastern part of the Roman Empire. Much of those parts of the empire had already been overrun by Islam long before the Crusades began. The Crusades were a reaction to this, not the initiator. And speaking of religions mustering armies:
I find it interesting that Muslims keep bringing up the subject of the Crusades. The Crusades are a classic example of a religion fielding an army. This was not uncommon prior to the rise of the nation-state, nationalism and the professional army. This practice disappeared long ago. (Exception: Islam) Today, Islam is the only ‘religion’ that still fields it’s own army. These terror organizations are the modern version of the Middle Age concept of a ‘religious’ army. And they enjoy popular support.
Islam has no ‘lands’ nor ‘waters’ to defend anymore than the Catholic Church can defend the land that a church sits on in New York. Nations do. National armies are what defend them. Yet we hear constant comments about ‘occupation’ of Muslim land. No nation on Earth is willing to commit its armies against the ’occupiers’, yet irregular warfare is still being waged to lift the ‘occupation’. And this concept enjoys popular support throughout the Muslim world. This must end, TODAY. This concept starts wars and will require warfare to end. Islamic nationalism is the cause.
On a side note, stoning people to death has no place in the modern world. This practice is still being followed in numerous places throughout the Islamic world. Want to start a war? Do not allow enforcement of just this one concept and watch what happens.
As for my being biased, YES! As is Anonymous. We all are. One problem here is that anonymous does not see that he/she is biased as well. This can blind a person in many ways. This Anonymous person has not read the entire Koran (Or is ignoring much of it) yet he/she is stating that I need to read the entire thing through. I need to research both sides beforehand. I guess I need to ignore the 90% of the Koran that talks about warfare and governance and focus upon the ‘nice’ 10% that specifies how there is no compulsion in religion. Yes, I still need to study Islam and history more. However, Anonymous is far behind. He/she needs to study history far more than I do, and not just one version of it. He/she needs to widen the view. I like to think that I am pretty good at seeing the other side. And we as a country are pretty good at setting our differences aside. Example: The U.S.-Japanese war 1941-1945 was one of the most brutal our country has ever engaged in. Yet, 60 years later, my wife is Japanese. This is not uncommon in our country and ‘Religion’.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
The Nation State of Islam
Osama Bin Lauden has announced that U.S. prisoners will be executed if the U.S. executes the accused mastermind of 9/11. Osama is wielding the authority of the ‘Nation of Islam’ and is speaking to the U.S. government as an equal. If this is not a major reason for open warfare, I do not know what is.
President Obama
I heard on the radio today a quote from a politician who was saying how Obama is being fought so hard because at least in part because he is African-American. Yea, right. The race issue again.
I know and have known plenty of African-Americans. I admire several of them. This has nothing to do with the fact that I am against everything President Obama does. I do believe that President Obama is the most fundamentally anti-American President we have ever elected. Not even close. By Anti-American, I am referring to the fact that he thinks that capitalism is bad. Capitalism is the economic bedrock upon which all our culture has been based and from where our ingenuity has come from. President Obama wants to end this. His administration has taken over close to 50% of the free market economy of the United States in only 14 months. Fundamental change indeed.
President Obama stated that he wants to ‘fundamentally change’ America. He must not have been pleased with what we were prior to his administration. So he takes over half the private sector of our country. Private wealth is being converted to public funds. This will be more efficient and fair for all. This is why I am against President Obama. I am against Democrats in general for this same reason. However, President Obama is far more persistent and effective in his pursuit of the destruction of private wealth in this country. I would see this as a threat no matter what or who he/she is.
I know and have known plenty of African-Americans. I admire several of them. This has nothing to do with the fact that I am against everything President Obama does. I do believe that President Obama is the most fundamentally anti-American President we have ever elected. Not even close. By Anti-American, I am referring to the fact that he thinks that capitalism is bad. Capitalism is the economic bedrock upon which all our culture has been based and from where our ingenuity has come from. President Obama wants to end this. His administration has taken over close to 50% of the free market economy of the United States in only 14 months. Fundamental change indeed.
President Obama stated that he wants to ‘fundamentally change’ America. He must not have been pleased with what we were prior to his administration. So he takes over half the private sector of our country. Private wealth is being converted to public funds. This will be more efficient and fair for all. This is why I am against President Obama. I am against Democrats in general for this same reason. However, President Obama is far more persistent and effective in his pursuit of the destruction of private wealth in this country. I would see this as a threat no matter what or who he/she is.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
President Obama's foreign policy
I am not certain how the success with Health Care reform will impact the foreign policy of the United States. President Obama may want to shift his attention to overseas affairs but I do not think that this will be the case. I believe that President Obama wants to have the United States out of both Iraq and Afghanistan well before the presidential election cycle begins near the end of 2011. So he does not seem to need to spend much attention on this simply because the wars will just wind down until they go away. After all, it was because we ‘occupied’ land that was not ours that has triggered so many to become ‘new terrorists’. What he fails to realize is that this is the calm before the storm.
The war is much, much too large to just go away. Far to many people and their ways of life are invested in the issues that are the basic cause of the war. A few years may go by at least in part because our enemy got a real black eye in Iraq. However, they will be back.
It is generally best to be on the offensive during wartime. If you lack the capability then assumption of the offensive will just burn out your resources. The U.S. does not lack resources. We have more than enough resources today if they are used properly. The problem is that President Obama believes that the strategic defensive is the best course. He will watch as the war winds down and does not even have to pay all that much direct attention to it. This will leave him (And our country) open to surprise attack. This may take a few years, but in any case, President Obama will not react well if and when the war explodes again.
The war is much, much too large to just go away. Far to many people and their ways of life are invested in the issues that are the basic cause of the war. A few years may go by at least in part because our enemy got a real black eye in Iraq. However, they will be back.
It is generally best to be on the offensive during wartime. If you lack the capability then assumption of the offensive will just burn out your resources. The U.S. does not lack resources. We have more than enough resources today if they are used properly. The problem is that President Obama believes that the strategic defensive is the best course. He will watch as the war winds down and does not even have to pay all that much direct attention to it. This will leave him (And our country) open to surprise attack. This may take a few years, but in any case, President Obama will not react well if and when the war explodes again.
Friday, March 19, 2010
The army of death
"We love death more than you love life." Yes, so you inflict death upon us. Well, seeing as they complain about how our military is so evil because it is more effective than what they have indicates to me that in the end, death is where they are headed and we are well equipped to help them. Japan found that out back in the 1940’s. We even used atomic weapons on them, as I am afraid that we will be forced to do again.
The army of the "Nation of Islam" is in fact, the Islamic terrorist organizations. They operate on a system of governance that no other modern nation can accept. The ‘parent’ government must be held accountable. To do otherwise is to invite attack from these organizations that hold themselves to Islamic law and foreign policy. As it has historically, Islam is fielding an army.
On a side note, I would like to add that war is merciless enough without the enemy ignoring the white flag or other accepted rules of modern warfare. Torture of the type that is witnessed throughout the Islamic world combined with the abuse of prisoners leads me to see that Islamic warfare is straight out of the 7th century. This must end today. And it will take open warfare to resolve. It is always better to be the attacker than the defender. (Unless you lack the capability, which the U. S. does NOT lack)
Once again, it is only a matter of time before an Islamic terrorist group obtains and deploys and effective WMD. The instigator will then certainly be the ‘army of death’.
The army of the "Nation of Islam" is in fact, the Islamic terrorist organizations. They operate on a system of governance that no other modern nation can accept. The ‘parent’ government must be held accountable. To do otherwise is to invite attack from these organizations that hold themselves to Islamic law and foreign policy. As it has historically, Islam is fielding an army.
On a side note, I would like to add that war is merciless enough without the enemy ignoring the white flag or other accepted rules of modern warfare. Torture of the type that is witnessed throughout the Islamic world combined with the abuse of prisoners leads me to see that Islamic warfare is straight out of the 7th century. This must end today. And it will take open warfare to resolve. It is always better to be the attacker than the defender. (Unless you lack the capability, which the U. S. does NOT lack)
Once again, it is only a matter of time before an Islamic terrorist group obtains and deploys and effective WMD. The instigator will then certainly be the ‘army of death’.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Health care and representation government
The topic of this blog is warfare. However, I do go off the path once a year or so. This is one of those exceptions.
I remember Presidents who suggested what I believed to be good changes to help make Social Security solvent. The American public was dead set against it. We moved on. This example is not a particularly good one because just about everyone agrees that Social Security DOES need change, whereas the health care system in this country has been and is leading the world. (One of the few things where we still do so)
What concerns me the most is that today, our leadership is not accepting NO. They believe that the long-term benefits will be better for our country, we just have to get through the rough patch. A few years from now, everyone will see how much better off we are. I had believed that this was the case for Social Security, but I had accepted the fact that the U.S. public did not want it.
So now, if a President believes what he wants to do is really in our long term best interest, and even if the American public says NO, he/she should be able to go ahead and do it anyway? This is not representative government. He/she can change Social Security without congressional (Public) approval? He/she can take over the energy industry without our approval? How about waging war without the Congress spending the money and/or approval? If this is the case, what do we need Congress for?
A good friend of mine suggested that we would save a ton of money by cutting the number of Senators and Representatives in Congress by ½. We don’t need them as much and it will not change the representation.
What if the public and Congress disagree with the President on this issue? It should not matter because it is in our long-term best interest. The foundation of our Republic is based upon the Constitution and representative government. I guess that he really meant it when President Obama said that he wanted to ‘fundamentally change’ America. Pushing health care through against the public wishes will do just that.
I remember Presidents who suggested what I believed to be good changes to help make Social Security solvent. The American public was dead set against it. We moved on. This example is not a particularly good one because just about everyone agrees that Social Security DOES need change, whereas the health care system in this country has been and is leading the world. (One of the few things where we still do so)
What concerns me the most is that today, our leadership is not accepting NO. They believe that the long-term benefits will be better for our country, we just have to get through the rough patch. A few years from now, everyone will see how much better off we are. I had believed that this was the case for Social Security, but I had accepted the fact that the U.S. public did not want it.
So now, if a President believes what he wants to do is really in our long term best interest, and even if the American public says NO, he/she should be able to go ahead and do it anyway? This is not representative government. He/she can change Social Security without congressional (Public) approval? He/she can take over the energy industry without our approval? How about waging war without the Congress spending the money and/or approval? If this is the case, what do we need Congress for?
A good friend of mine suggested that we would save a ton of money by cutting the number of Senators and Representatives in Congress by ½. We don’t need them as much and it will not change the representation.
What if the public and Congress disagree with the President on this issue? It should not matter because it is in our long-term best interest. The foundation of our Republic is based upon the Constitution and representative government. I guess that he really meant it when President Obama said that he wanted to ‘fundamentally change’ America. Pushing health care through against the public wishes will do just that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
