Posted on 09/19/2006 1:42:14 AM PDT by LibWhacker
President Bush told a group of radio talk show hosts that the war on terror must be framed in terms of values, not religion.
Coulter found herself in the uncharacteristic position of being upstaged by her introducer, Mike Gallagher. He told the audience he was fresh back from an hour-and-45-minute session which President Bush held in the Oval Office Friday afternoon with him and four other conservative talk show hosts: Atlantas Neal Boortz, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Michael Medved. Rush Limbaugh couldnt make it, he said.
Though he said this session was supposed to be off the record, Gallagher described it at some length, including Bushs observation to the right-wing radio jocks that the War on Terror has to be about right versus wrong, because if its about Christianity versus Islam, well lose.
Remind me never to invite you to an off-the-record session, Coulter said after his introduction.
Indeed.
Still, if Bush said what Gallagher said he did, hes right. Islam is, of course, a big piece of the puzzle. But the battle over ideas has to be fought by finding common moral ground, not bashing Islam in general.
Its no small irony that this was revealed while introducing, Ann invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity Coulter.
While Muslims can be political allies, were the Shiites allies against the Iran government (aren't they Shiite)?
The speed with which people advocate genocide is a bit alarming.
"the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate;"
I was thinking of Orwell's "1984" while reading your post, and you are correct on every point.
Agreed.
How do you know this? Because -- as they insist -- Islam is a "religion of peace"?
Maybe not every Muslim wants to be a jihadi, but how many support the jihadis?
"If President Bush said "if its about Christianity versus Islam, well lose", he is probably not up to the challenge"
Correct, since that is precisely and exectly the basis of the enemy's animus toward the West. Not "issues", not "policies", but religion. Pure and simple. They wat to destroy us so that they can be dominant and in accord with the teachings of Islam.
Personally, I feel like Christians and Americans are on the receiving end of advocation of genocide.
After reading news articles about jihadis who want to kill the Pope and destroy the Vatican, I don't have a lot of love in my heart, sorry.
Islam is fundamentally irrational and has a concept of a god who is arbitrary and irrational and bound by no interior consistency, and who can be known only through his draconian laws.
Oddly enough, secularism has the same view of an irrational, meaningless universe, which runs on laws somehow mysteriously produced and imposed by matter itself, but which also is fundamentally without a purpose or rational direction.
Excellent. Well said!
Japan definitely had its imperialist ambitions supported by and justified in Shintoism, but I don't think it was quite a religious war of the same type as the centuries-long conflict with Islam. Shintoism itself was an exaggerated, militant nationalism (hence, more accurately, a type of fascism). Islam is a trans-national cult which, while it may have a particular ethnic group at its heart (Arabs), is not specifically nationalistic but instead is focused on extending the cult and pulling all the world into its system.
However, other than that, I do think it is a religious war, and while Islam hates all other religions, it particularly hates Christianity and Judaism and we will be on the front lines in the fight against it. Bush is right that it cannot be seen as a religious battle only between Christians and Muslims, but at the same time, I think he could have expressed it a little better.
I'm not sure which was worse -- Gallagher's loose lips or Rush's snub.
Would you support the killing of 1 billion people merely because some of their number are attacking your people? As other freepers on this thread have already pointed out, the United States has had, and has, some Muslim allies. Is Islam a religion which should be stopped? Yes, it is. Should it be stopped via massive nuclear bombardment and murder? No, it shouldn't.
Can't imagine what you are alluding to. Would you care to explain what parallel you see.
You have every right to feel angry, but there is a middle ground. And, frankly, I'm a bit cool on the idea of killing of a billion people in a global religious war.
We want to put ourselves in the position of ascertaining reality, and acting on it.
Your formulation is a peculiar, postmodern way of self-expression.
Whether or not your "billion adherents" are our enemies or not is a question of fact. What we say, or what we even do, is not determinative of their emnity, except insofar as they come to realize that we won't be converting or submitting.
In that sense, what we say is determinative.
But seeing the enemy for what he is does not constitute "putting ourselves" into a position.
We're IN that position. Allwe can do is see it, and fight for our lives, or deny it, and lose.
I don't advocate bombing Mecca or "turning Saudia Arabia into a parking lot" or glass, or any of the other figures of speech you may see here and there.
But I do believe that the only way to deal with militant Islam is to contain it.
They've got control of the lands of the former Caliphate, a swath of land from Turkey to Pakistan, and I don't advocate interfering there.
But there they stop, and they will go no further by the use of violence. Thus say, not only I, but the rest of Christendom, and our allies, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Sikhs, the Jews, the Jains, the Bahai, the Animists, and the secularists, and the rest of the world.
I have difficulty believing the alleged statement regarding the relative positions of the USA and the Muslims.
How anyone can say we are less able to defeat the Muslims than was Spain when they defeated the Muslims, who had occupied and controlled Spain for centuries, is beyond my comprehension.
To say that this war on terror is only a battle of Christianity vs Islam, ignores the key role that the Israelites play. We cannot overlook the sacrifices that they go through on a daily basis.
It's about truth vs. lie, freedom vs. slavery, individual vs. collective, life vs. death.
I don't want to kill them all, per se. Just stop them from killing others.
Thus, the number who die are within their control. If they want to risk all, then all are subject to death.
I hope it won't come to that. I doubt it will come to that.
They only attack when they have numeric superiority or some other advantage, like sneaking up on the unsuspecting.
Islam does seem to be an enemy, but not all Muslims. Many of the supposedly moderate ones are not out to kill all nonMuslims. They could be only nominal Muslims. They can disagree with nonMuslims, and Americans and others can simply accept that and try to change them through dialogue. It is only when they pose a physical threat that they should be attacked. That attack, in turn, should not be Christians attacking Muslims, but rather people defending themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.