"We do not seek war with the Japanese Empire, nor do they seek war with us."
Posted on 09/19/2006 11:57:57 PM PDT by MadIvan
President George W Bush last night told Muslims across the world that America did not want a war with Islam as he sought international support for his policies in the Middle East.
In his annual address to the United Nations, Mr Bush was unapologetic about the invasion of Iraq, but overall the tone of his speech was conciliatory.
"My country desires peace," he told the gathering of world leaders at the UN's annual general assembly. "Extremists in your midst spread propaganda claiming that the West is engaged in a war against Islam. This propaganda is false and its purpose is to confuse you and justify acts of terror. We respect Islam."
Mr Bush's audience was packed with opponents of American policy. His most fiery adversary, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hard-line president of Iran, was not in the chamber but was due to deliver a riposte late last night.
Mr Bush, however, sought to appeal over the heads of Middle Eastern leaders with warm words in particular for the people of Iran and Syria, two of America's greatest foes. "The greatest obstacle to this future [of peace and freedom] is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons," he said in a message to Iranians.
He went on to stress that America was working towards a "diplomatic solution" to the crisis over the regime's nuclear ambitions and to insist that he had no objection to Iran having a peaceful nuclear fuel programme. His sharpest rhetoric was reserved for Damascus. He accused the regime of allowing Hamas and Hizbollah to use Syria as a base to destabilise the region, and also of becoming a "tool of Iran".
His speech covered many of the world's most pressing challenges. Announcing the appointment of a special envoy to end the violence in the Sudanese region of Darfur, he said the UN's credibility was at stake over the crisis there.
Andrew Natsios, the former head of the US Agency for International Development, is to try to help implement last month's UN resolution to send 20,000 peace-keepers to Darfur. A far smaller African force has been unable to stop the carnage and the Islamic government in Khartoum is refusing to accept a UN force. But the primary focus of the diplomacy on the sidelines of the assembly was Iran.
Jacques Chirac, the French president, irked US and British officials on Monday when he pre-empted yesterday's speeches by calling for the UN to suspend the threat of sanctions if Iran agreed to halt its uranium enrichment programme.
After meeting the French president, Mr Bush said America would only "come to the table" if Iran suspended the uranium enrichment.
"Should they [Iran's leaders] continue to stall," he said, "we will then discuss the consequences of their stalling." His speech followed a grim valedictory address by Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, who steps down after a decade in office at the end of the year.
"The events of the last 10 years have not resolved, but sharpened, the three great challenges I spoke of [when he took office], an unjust world economy, world disorder, and widespread contempt for human rights and the rule of law," he said. ''As a result, we face a world whose divisions threaten the very notion of an international community, upon which this institution stands."
I'll bet he goes back home and says something different in his own language (Texan).
"We do not seek war with the Japanese Empire, nor do they seek war with us."
Under Islam, apostates may be killed, even if they are nominally Muslim. Good Muslims are not supposed to kill other good Muslims under any circumstance.
That said,
What we would call a 'moderate Muslim' is an apostate. Rejecting jihad, living peacefully with your infidel neighbors and friends, pretty much anything that's not fundamentalist Islam, can be construed to be apostasy. That means that under Islam, it's more permissable for Bin Laden to kill American Muslims than it would be for them to kill him.
My tagline is also instructive on this issue.
"we don't want a war with Islam." - W.
"Oh yes we do." - 'Pod.
History will regard the Bush presidency in some ways visionary, in others, tragically naiive.
I understand the President's point, and to an extent, he's right. But, as the saying goes, you have to fight the war you're in, not the one you wish you were in.
Fundamentalist Islam is what we're at war with. You can call it Islamofascism, militants, extremists, or whatever.
To Muslim ears, however, the message is loud and clear. Apostasy is fine, but if you truly believe in your religion, the way it is written, we are at war. President Bush communicates that message every time he tries to talk around it.
It would be like the President of Iran going on TV and saying "We don't hate Christians, or those who hold Jesus as their Lord. We only hate people that go to church and believe all that Bible stuff."
Do the math on that.
President Bush does the exact same thing when he tries to split 'militant Islam' from 'moderate Islam'. That's why the Muslims, the ones that understand their religion, anyway, know we're at war.
Whether we want it or not, we've had one for what, 1400 years? And specifically for us, since the fall of the Shah...
We're just waiting for our politicians to wake up to what we all know, Mr. President.
Check out post 28. That's why President Bush is having a hard time finding them, as well.
I think our choices here are mass slaughter, or mass conversion to Christ.
The civil authorities have a responsibility to implement the former, if there's to be any defense of freedom at all.
The people of GOD have a responsibility to implement the latter.
There really is no other option that I'm aware of.
Well, not all of them all at once.
We have a much better chance by doing like we are now.
Taking it to them incrementally, so as to provide for a kill ratio that is, thus far, favorable to our side.
LMAO ... Thank you! I'll have to remember that.
Because there are hundreds of thousands of worshipping muslims fighting side-by-side with our heroic men and women of the U.S. Military, FBI and CIA. That is the "why" of it.
LLS
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1704173/posts?page=364#364
Greatest foes? I think not. Iran might be the one with loudest mouth though.
Religions merely reflect the cultures in which they are practiced. If Islam didn't exist, something else would act as a salve for the muzzies' deep seated (and well deserved) sense of inferiority & envy. After all, the entire religion is based on 'taking' ie banditry.
I'm much more optimistic. I think (Western) science will develop a gene therapy that will enable us to both raise their collective IQs & temper their violent tendencies. The mix is quite volatile, as we've seen, so the sooner we discover a cure, the quicker we'll have a more peaceful world.
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.