Bush keeps calling Islam a religion of peace - when will he wake up and realize there will never be peace with them?
Alas, it's too late. That is how the Muslims who have declared war, quite explicitly, on Western Civilization, have defined it. The General simply understands that.
Perhaps his language is not very diplomatic. He is not a diplomat. But he is right, this is a struggle against pure, unapologetic evil hiding behind religion. It is up to the Muslims to make a discernable distinction between themselves and the Jihadis, and that means taking sides with us against Militant Islam.
I don't think they will do it. It's against their religion. So the monsters we must crush define the religion in the absence of more moderate voices. So be it.
It’s the right thing to say. We don’t have enough unity, support or troops to convince 1.5 billion people to abandon their religion.
This story is an example of the importance of civilian control of the military. Both have different responsibilities requiring different talents. Words that motivate and sustain men in combat are not the same that persuade a world of envious fence sitters that supporting the war on terror is in their best interests.
And the LAtimes thinks I should worry that this man is a leader ?
I don't think so
I thank God for him.
But I want a guy like this taking the battle to any of them, or any one else, who threatens us.
My SOB is gonna kick the hell out of their's!
And when we are victorious this man will give glory and thanks to God...as it should be!
We will vanquish this foe as long as the devil within our shores is kept out of power. I like the way this domestic battle/war is being coined by Laura Ingraham and others: America is in a domestic war against "the elites".
Now why would they be trying to do that?
Actually, I think this is more than appropriate comparison. If anything, Islamics are worse: they want to _kill_ all non-Islamics, not just run 'em off.
"The phrase 'Judeo-Christian' is a big mistake. It's basically the language of Bin Laden and his supporters," said Cohen, president of the Institute for Middle East Peace and Development in New York
Nope, no mistake. It's _exactly right_. Before the WTC attack, I had come to realize that the defining struggle of the twenty-first century would be that of Islam versus the Judeo-Christian "West". The September 11 attacks were the "Clarion Call" of this conflict: literally, the trumpets hail, the call to the coming battle. Again, the General is correct in his observations, or perhaps he is simply more forthright than the _rest_ of the politicians, bureaucrats and soldiers, many of whom perceive the truth but are afraid to embrace it.
Arkin writes in an article on the op-ed page of today's Times that Boykin's appointment "is a frightening blunder at a time that there is widespread acknowledgment that America's position in the Islamic world has never been worse."
Um, this is a joke, right? If anything, it could be argued that America's "position" in the "Islamic world" has never been _better_. We have overthrown the dangerous governments of both Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran may not be far behind (they must _not_ be permitted to develop nuclear weapons). Even Saudi Arabia may now hold some "free" elections (how "free" can a Saudi election _be_?).
The message to Islam is clear: either change on your own, or you _will_ face change imposed upon you by the West. If Islam doesn't like it, well, tough.
The only problem so far is that we are not being forceful _enough_ with Islam. That increased "forcefulness" won't occur until there's another major attack on the United States.
At one point, immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the president said he wanted to lead a "crusade" against terrorism.
But he quickly retracted the word when told that, to Muslim ears, it recalled the medieval Christian crusaders' brutal invasions of Islamic nations.
Gee, I wish Dubya had held to his guns on that. It suggests that he, too, "gets it", but has had to be restrained by his "handlers" for the sake of politically-correct public consumption.
The "brutal invasions of Islamic nations" are _exactly_ what's required if we want to bring the scouge of Islam to an end.
Islam and the Christian West cannot co-exist. This is Islam's decree, not ours. Islam makes no bones about stating its ultimate goal. Ultimately, if Islam is unwilling to "fundamentally" change into a peaceful religion (well nigh impossible given the reality that - to Islamics - the Quran is unchangeable) by its own doing, then it must be _changed by_ the West into one. If Islam refuses to change, insisting on a struggle to the death, well, as a Westerner, I'd prefer their death to ours. It's that simple.
General Boykin realizes this. More power to him!
Cheers!
- John
It seems like they're on a crusade of their own.
Gee, I thought it was the voters. I missed the newscast where GWB was anointed. Anybody got the video?
The article tries to insinuate that the general said the enemy was Islam. He did not say the enemy was Muhammad, he said the enemy was Satan. This will come as news to the liberal media, but in Christian theology Satan is an equal opportunity corrupter of hearts. And nowhere did the general say all Muslims are servants of Satan - that is only the liberal media's insinuation and not one of his actual statements.
Similarly when he spoke of the Somalia warlord and said my God is a real God and his was an idol, he did not say this of all Muslims but of a particular warlord. You don't have to be a theologian to realize that starving thousands of innocents for worldly power is not the action of a man who believes in a just judge who searches hearts, but someone who believes in power. Nowhere did the general say that no Muslim believes in a just judge who searches hearts - whatever other errors he may ascribe to all of them. That the charge applies to all Muslims was not what the general said but merely the insinuation of the liberal media type writing the article.
Then the article tries to make much of the general's use of the phrase "Judeo-Christian". It calls that Bin Laden's terminology. Not that he has any exclusive right to it, but yes it is naturally Bin Laden's terminology because the general was at that point explaining why our enemies are attacking us. When speaking of someone's motivation you use his terms, as a matter of course. It is one thing to leave open a position for Muslims who repudiate Bin Laden, and another to whitewash the actual fact that Bin Laden and his supporters are bigots who hate entire religious groups. Saying so in no way implies that said bigotry extends to all Muslims. That was again merely an insinuation of the liberal media type writing the article, and not anything the general said.
Then others here want to make it a matter of calling the war a crusade. Notice that the general never did, it is again merely an insinuation. It will come as news to the Judeo part in Judeo-Christian that the crusades were about defending or spreading Judeo-anything. (They began with pogroms).
Some here have said it doesn't matter because the general's religion has no effect on his job performance or on public policy. Of course it does. That effect is just positive. He believes in his cause which he knows is just; he does not underestimate his Adversary; he sees the fight conducted under the eyes of a just judge; he is not afraid to die for that cause; he believes his human opponents are fundamentally misguided by an evil Principle, which only they can freely renounce, by embracing justice instead. All of which are positive pragmatic effects, even if you don't believe a word of the general's religion.
It is indeed possible to make extra recruits for our enemies, unnecessarily, by falling for the same bigotry blinding our enemies. But there is no evidence here that the general has done so. There is evidence that the media are themselves bigots, that they want to paint any Christian as also a bigot, that they want to whitewash the bigotry of Bin Laden and his crew, and in this thread there is evidence that some here would be only too happy to star in the central casting role the media left has scripted for them. Despite the conclusion jumping of previous posters in this thread, however, there is no sign here that the general has that particular part.