Posted on 02/06/2007 12:28:47 AM PST by neverdem
Hillary Clinton recently said:
"If I had been president in 2002, I would not have started this war."
"If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will."
The noted 19th century Arabic lexicographer E.W. Lane, who studied the etymology of the term, observed,"Jihad came to be used by the Muslims to signify wag[ing] war, against unbelievers". The origins of the Muslim institution of jihad are found in the Qur'an. Sura (chapter) 9 is devoted in its entirety to war proclamations. There we read that the Muslim faithful are to "slay the idolaters wherever you find them. . . . Fight against such as those who have been given the scripture as believe not in Allah. . . . Go forth, light-armed and heavy armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah. That is best for you, if ye but knew."From such verses in the Qur'an and in the hadith, Muslim jurists and theologians formulated the Islamic institution of permanent jihad war against non-Muslims to bring the world under Islamic rule (Sharia law).
The consensus on the nature of jihad from major schools of Islamic jurisprudence is clear.
Summarizing this consensus of centuries of Islamic thought, the seminal Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun, who died in 1406, wrote:In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty because of the universalism of the mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.
Since the Fall of 1992, there has been a significant increase in Islamist terrorism, subversion and violence in such diverse countries as India, Pakistan, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, Nigeria, Somalia, and many others. Despite the different circumstances of these incidents, they do not appear to be isolated events. Rather, they are the first incidents in the escalation of an Islamic Jihad against the "Judeo-Christian world order". Thus, the climax of this struggle could well be an increase in terrorism throughout the West. [emphasis added]
This group and its leader - a person named Osama bin Laden - are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries. They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan, where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction.
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
PM Winston Churchill First Statement in House of Commons, May 13, 1940 put it this way,
"Victory, at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.""We will have no truce or parley with you [Hitler], or the grisly gang who work your wicked will. You do your worst - and we will do our best."He did not pretend that war would proceed according to plan:
"No one can guarantee success in war, but only deserve it.".He was realistic and resolved:
"Death and sorrow will be the companions of our journey; hardship our garment; constancy and valor our only shield; we must be undaunted, we must be inflexible."He had faith in the ability of the British people, once awakened, to persevere:"We have not journeyed all this way across the centuries, across the oceans, across the mountains, across the prairies, because we are made of sugar candy."
Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
National security adviser Stephen Hadley said the administration plans to release a report detailing its evidence of Iranian involvement in Iraqi fighting but is withholding it "to try and put out the facts as accurately as we can."
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said administration officials "want to make sure that the briefing ... is dominated by facts: serial numbers, technology and so on. And so we just want to make sure that the briefing that is provided is completely reliable.
This alone could doom her chances of being elected.
If the Democrats had their way, we'd issue an indictment for every terrorist who attacks us, and then pray that the terrorist walks into a police station and turns himself in.
Sure... The Democrats are about as sane as King George.
jihad bump
"If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will."
She better hope things are REAL quiet between now and then. That statement was a BIG gamble - and not a bright one. It really has no significant up side but a potentially huge downside.
Only way I can see her calculation on this is that any Democrat will be elected in Nov. and her real task it to win the Dem Primary.
And she's willing to run far left to get it.
Either that or she figures she can always change her mind - again.
:)
I think in Hillary's eyes, it's no gamble at all. She's intimately aware of just how short the memory of the American public is. She's not so much making campaign "promises"...she's running up trial balloons to gauge a response and to see who wants to hear what so she can shovel it to them. (Same thing with the whole take-the-obscene-profit-made-by-Big-Oil-and-spend-it-on-alternative-fuel-development.) She learned a thing or two from Mr. Rodham Clinton about governing by the polling data!
But soon enough it will apparent for all to see.
Even Ms. Clinton.
BUMP
Hillary intends to be our Commander In Chief. That's all folks !
What she said:
"If I had been president in 2002, I would not have started this war."
What she meant:
"But since I was in the Senate instead, I did vote for this war."
bump...rto
"She better hope things are REAL quiet between now and then. That statement was a BIG gamble - and not a bright one. It really has no significant up side but a potentially huge downside."
Reverse it. If she is elected President and she doesn't bring the troops home, the MSM will never bring to light her original statement. What they will bring to light is her vote for the war.
Hillary never says anything that hasn'r been scripted, polled and tested.
Actually, Hillary was president, or at least co-president, when the "war" started.
The "war" was started by Islamic terrorists during the first Clinton administration. Hillary's husband did nothing, and it escalated to the point where America had to act.
During the second Clinton administration (heaven forbid!), will Hillary sit idly by as Islamic extremists continue to extort and terrorize their way to greater world power? Let's hope we never have to find out.
Hillary might follow Kennedy's advise and seek to resolve everything with diplomacy!!! Big success HUH.
Hillary is smarter than the other Democrats, and tougher than the other Democrats -- I'd still infinitely prefer any Republican to her, but if she were elected I wouldn't expect the government to just roll over and surrender, as it would if any other Democrat were elected.
Eventually, the country is going to wake up and realize that we are at war with ISLAM itself (I don't like this conclusion, but the almost universal silent acquiescence to the jihadists' rhetoric by the "moderate" Muslims EVEN IN THIS COUNTRY WHERE THEY ARE PHYSICALLY SAFE TO SAY WHAT THEY WANT forces me to it).
When that happens, it will rapidly become clear that we do NOT face an existential threat as we did in WWII or the Cold War. It may well take the loss of 1 or 2 U.S. cities, but once that happens it will all be over for the Muslims. The West is enervated and frivolous right now, but it retains, deep down, a bred-in-the-bone capacity for overwhelming violence. Even the wimpy liberals who had been unable to imagine that those motivated primarily by religion could possibly become powerful enough to threaten their modern lifestyle will be just as fierce when the war comes home to them.
Once the U.S.A. comes together on this, it will all be over very quickly indeed.
I'm still waiting for the Victory in the Cold War parties, the Ticker-tape parades, the national holiday...
The Left lost the Cold War so dont look for any joy from them on that
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.