Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Monday, October 10, 2005

More On Bush's Speech

Two critiques of Bush's recent speech I commented on a few days ago. The first is relatively succinct:

Defining The Enemy
Posted 10/7/2005
Over and over, President Bush called the terrorists "Islamic radicals." It was a stunning departure from his usual rhetoric marginalizing the religious aspect of the long-term threat America faces. In past speeches, Bush has described an otherwise amorphous enemy of "evil-doers" motivated by a rather nebulous thing called "evil ideology."

With Thursday's speech, he also abandoned his mantra that Islam is a "religion of peace." He called it a "noble faith," and left it at that.

The president could have gone even further to explain what motivates the terrorists. He left the impression they are all heretics distorting the idea of jihad and defiling their scripture. He said they were "driven by ambition."

Yet self-immolation is the antithesis of earthly ambition. Suicide bombers are inspired not by earthly gain, but by the Quranic promise of endless carnal delights in paradise — rewards that are reserved for jihadists who "slay and are slain" battling the infidels in the name of Allah. No fewer than 26 chapters of the Quran deal with holy war and the rewards for martyrs, or shaheeds.

The unpleasant truth is, Muslim terrorists are getting all these terrible ideas — from violent jihad to self-immolation to even the beheadings we've seen in Pakistan and Iraq — straight out of the text of their holy book.
The second is a point by point rebuttal of Bush peppered with Iraq War skepticism far more rational than anything I've ever heard from anti-war leftists:

News & Views
by Srdja Trifkovic
Friday, October 07, 2005
These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus—and also against Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as heretics.

Contrary to what Mr. Bush seems to be suggesting, “the idea of jihad” does call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus and it is a distortion of that idea to suggest otherwise. “The idea of jihad” is a highly developed doctrine, theology, and legal system of mandatory violence against non-believers. It made Islam the first political ideology, already in Muhammad’s lifetime, to adopt terrorism as a systemic tool of policy, not as a temporary and unwelcome expedient.
Both via Jihad Watch.


Blogger flippityflopitty said...

Interpretation. Another example of how interpretations of texts like the bible, quran and the constitution are widely differing.

I found Srdja Trifkovic interesting enough to glaze over. His "solutions" give more insight to his message:

"To put it bluntly, carefully evaluating the profile of all prospective visitors to America and systematically re-examining the behavior of resident aliens and the bona-fides of naturalized citizens, is an essential ingredient of a serious anti-terrorist strategy. To that end Islamic activism needs to be treated as an eminently political, rather than “religious” activity. Swift and irreversible deportation needs to become a routine tool for dealing with the offenders."

After much more reading, he appears to be a serb-apologist (not to be mixed up with a slobodan-supporter) or at least a Pro-eastern orthodox christian to the point of anti-islamist. One article refers to the "Bosnia War Dead Myth Debunked" - that the 250K figure was exagerrated by the Bosnian muslims and their sympathizers; that the Kosovo "massacres" were not genocide but "crimes of war".

I guess if militia run into towns and shoot un-armed civilians they are "casualties of war" regardless of political, ethnic or religous differences. But, if it all gets covered over by NATO bombings, you cant really call it genocide.

He and the good Rabbi should get together with our military to plan out future invasions.

10/10/2005 08:58:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

If you liked that one you should like this one. Far more sane than the ignorance, dhimmitude, or downright capitulation most infidels are stuck on.

Also, I think you misread Trifkovic. He's not a neocon invasion supporter, he's a nationalist/isolationist.

10/11/2005 09:47:00 AM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

That was another interesting one! You are scaring me Tan - but maybe thats your point.

I didnt misread Trifkovic, he would be good in "planning" the next invasion through propaganda production and still be insulated as a "nationalist/isolationist".

He manipulates vocabularly to suit his view - "islamic activism" & "massacres" as examples. As insightful as he is, he cant mask his distatste (if not despise) for both Islam and secularism.

10/12/2005 08:02:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

You're getting a preview of mainstream thinking if the Jihadis should make another serious attack.

In the meantime it would be good if we all try to learn more about Islam.

10/13/2005 11:47:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home