Obama: We’re not at war with Islam
posted at 10:30 am on April 6, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Expect Barack Obama to get a lot of flack for this statement, but I won’t be one of the critics. Instead, I’ll focus my criticism on the media that treats it as some sort of sea change for American statesmanship. We’ll start with Tom Raum of the AP:
Barack Obama, making his first visit to a Muslim nation as president, declared Monday the United States “is not and will never be at war with Islam.”
Calling for a greater partnership with the Islamic world in an address to the Turkish parliament, Obama called the country an important U.S. ally in many areas, including the fight against terrorism. He devoted much of his speech to urging a greater bond between Americans and Muslims, portraying terrorist groups such as al Qaida as extremists who did not represent the vast majority of Muslims.
“Let me say this as clearly as I can,” Obama said. “The United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical … in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject.”
Here’s the objectionable part:
The U.S. president is trying to mend fences with a Muslim world that felt it had been blamed by America for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Yes, because George Bush spent the last seven years blaming the entire Muslim world for the 9/11 attacks, right? Right? Er, no, as this collection of Bush quotes regarding Islam makes excruciatingly clear. In fact, Bush emphasized friendship with Muslims from the very start of the war:
- “I’ve made it clear, Madam President, that the war against terrorism is not a war against Muslims, nor is it a war against Arabs. It’s a war against evil people who conduct crimes against innocent people.” — Remarks by President George W. Bush and President Megawati of Indonesia The Oval Office, Washington, D.C. September 19, 2001
- “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace. They represent evil and war.” — Remarks by the President at Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. September 17, 2001
- “All of us here today understand this: We do not fight Islam, we fight against evil.” — Remarks by President George W. Bush to the Warsaw Conference on Combating Terrorism November 6, 2001
- “I have assured His Majesty that our war is against evil, not against Islam. There are thousands of Muslims who proudly call themselves Americans, and they know what I know — that the Muslim faith is based upon peace and love and compassion. The exact opposite of the teachings of the al Qaeda organization, which is based upon evil and hate and destruction.” — Remarks by President George W. Bush and His Majesty King Abdullah of Jordan The Oval Office, Washington, D.C. September 28, 2001
- “Islam is a vibrant faith. Millions of our fellow citizens are Muslim. We respect the faith. We honor its traditions. Our enemy does not. Our enemy doesn’t follow the great traditions of Islam. They’ve hijacked a great religion.” – Remarks by President George W. Bush on U.S. Humanitarian Aid to Afghanistan Presidential Hall, Dwight David Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. October 11, 2002
And so on; there are plenty of examples to make the point. Obama spoke in the tradition established by Bush over the last seven-plus years of emphasizing that America did not declare war on Islam. That’s been obvious through our partnership with Islamic nations, such as Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, just to name a few. And he’s right; the last thing we would want to do would be to declare war on a billion people just on the basis of their religion. The more we can keep the Muslims on the sidelines, the better off we are in fighting against the radicals.
However, the AP wants to pretend that this is some new effort by the US to assure Muslims of our intentions. It decidedly is not, and perhaps a mention that Bush tried making these same assurances for almost his entire presidency would be in order here.
Update: Jules Crittenden declares “Jinx!” and assesses Obama a Coca-Cola on behalf of Bush.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Si somos.
pabarge on April 6, 2009 at 2:17 PM
We also have this now: “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation”
Michael in MI on April 6, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Which leads to another rather obvious question, doesn’t it?
drunyan8315 on April 6, 2009 at 2:19 PM
OT
Is it me… or does the British press REALLY not like Obama?
With a rocket, Obama’s hope is shot back down to earth
Kai on April 6, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Chamberlain: We’re not at war with Nazism.
Here was the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message.
- Winston Churchill (equating Adolf Hiler’s “Mein Kampf” to Mohammad’s Koran in his book the “The Gathering Storm”)
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
The influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science – the science against which it had vainly struggled – the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
- Winston Churchill
Mosques are plenty, graveyards are plenty, but morals and whiskey are scarce. The Koran does not permit Mohammedans to drink. Their natural instincts do not permit them to be moral.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on April 6, 2009 at 2:21 PM
It is entirely true that Bush was very, very, very good at being crystal clear that he meant only the a$$hole extremists.
Perhaps “The U.S. president is trying to mend fences with a Muslim world that felt it had been blamed by America for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.” is in reference to the millions of Americans who demonstrated (and continue to demonstrate) through word and deed that they have huge problems with all Muslims and not just the extremists.
Dave Rywall on April 6, 2009 at 2:26 PM
He (FDR) devoted much of his speech to urging a greater bond between Americans and Germans, portraying fascist groups such as the Nazis as extremists who did not represent the vast majority of Germans.
Oh wait.
MB4 on April 6, 2009 at 2:27 PM
progressoverpeace on April 6, 2009 at 11:38 AM
EXACTLY!!
His past and his present fit with each other. The Muslim world has called him a Muslim all along – Qaddafi, Hamas, Indonesians, all over the world they recognize him as a Muslim.
And what would a Muslim aligned with Qaddafi, Hamas, etc do? Piss off all our freedom-loving friends and kiss up to all the freedom-hating thugs. Destroy capitalism so Sharia-compliant and/or communist economy prevails. Destroy our military. Get non-Muslims to abort themselves out of having a majority so Muslms can hit the 10% mark, at which they have a duty to try to take over the country. Bow to the Saudi king. Give someone the NATO chairmanship only if he will apologize for supporting freedom of speech…
I wish he’d just forget the taqiyya and come out with it. By their fruits you shall know them…
justincase on April 6, 2009 at 2:30 PM
People of all faiths do not reject the ideology of Mohammad (Islam’s “perfect man”), you fracken degenerate!
MB4 on April 6, 2009 at 2:31 PM
People of all faiths do not reject the ideology of Mohammad (Islam’s “perfect man”), you fracken degenerate!
MB4 on April 6, 2009 at 2:31 PM
———
He didn’t say that.
He said FRINGE IDEOLOGY, meaning extremist interpretation and distortion of the religion.
Dave Rywall on April 6, 2009 at 2:33 PM
BO-”We’re not at war with Islam,just the Constitution of the United States.”
Bush was as bad as Obama on this though to be fair. Sixteen of the nineteen highjackers were Saudis, and it was conveniently swept under the rug. I supported President Bush’s going to war, and still do. The only thing I would have done differently would’ve been to nuke Riyadh and take the Saudi oilfields by force and exterminate the Saudi Royal Family. They hate us, and are funding Islamists to take over the world. They are the ones funding a future Caliphate..Yes, I am insensitive………
adamsmith on April 6, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Prior to the election I asked people not to underestimate the speed and extent of the damage that would be done by electing a liberal, socialist lawyer to the office of POTUS. The Brits who lived through the Blair years and who are living through the Brown years might find that easier to grasp.
Not only is Mr Obama a liberal and a socialist, he also has also possibly the least experienced person ever to be POTUS.
People like Messrs Obama and Blair do not act alone, they also bring a whole cabal of incompetents into government with them. They are like children partying at the controls of an LPG tanker coming into port.
YiZhangZhe on April 6, 2009 at 2:36 PM
I would not qualify myself as a free man. Four and a half years ago I lost my freedom. I am under guard permanently, courtesy to those who prefer violence to debate. But for the leftist fan club of islam, that is not enough. They started a legal procedure against me. Three weeks ago the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered my criminal prosecution for making ‘Fitna’ and for my views on Islam. I committed what George Orwell called a ‘thought crime’.
You might have seen my name on Fitna’s credit role, but I am not really responsible for that movie. It was made for me. It was actually produced by Muslim extremists, the Quran and Islam itself. If Fitna is considered ‘hate speech’, then how would the Court qualify the Quran, with all it’s calls for violence, and hatred against women and Jews?
Mr. Churchill himself compared the Quran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Well, I did exactly the same, and that is what they are prosecuting me for.
I wonder if the UK ever put Mr. Churchill on trial.
The Court’s decision and the letter I received form the Secretary of State for the Home Department are two major victories for all those who detest freedom of speech. They are doing Islam’s dirty work. Sharia by proxy. The differences between Saudi-Arabia and Jordan on one hand and Holland and Britain are blurring. Europe is now on the fast track of becoming Eurabia. That is apparently the price we have to pay for the project of mass immigration, and the multicultural project.
Ladies and gentlemen, the dearest of our many freedoms is under attack. In Europe, freedom of speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural component of our existence is now something we again have to fight for. That is what is at stake. Whether or not I end up in jail is not the most pressing issue. The question is: Will free speech be put behind bars?
We have to defend freedom of speech.
For the generation of my parents the word ‘London’ is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my country men listened to it, illegally. The words ‘This Is London’ were a symbol for a better world coming soon. If only the British and Canadian and American soldiers were here.
What will be transmitted forty years from now? Will it still be ‘This Is London’? Or will it be ‘this is Londonistan’? Will it bring us hope, or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery?
The choice is ours.
Ladies and gentlemen,
We will never apologize for being free. We will never give in. We will never surrender.
Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail.
- Geert Wilders MP, Chairman, Party for Freedom (PVV), The Netherlands
MB4 on April 6, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Uh, yeah… there is question about it.
Last time I checked, he (or at least his Administration) was carrying out Hunter-Killer type attacks using Predators in Waziristan, with even greater frequency than the Bush Administration. Now, you can argue (successfully I think) that the table was set for him to do this by the previous Administration. But to call that “aid and comfort” is doublespeak worthy only of an Orwellian state.
You know, I’d be able to get my hackles up over this a lot easier if the Bush Administration hadn’t done it first.
As I’ve said before, Sinclair Lewis worried that when Fascism came to this country, it would be wrapped in a flag, carrying a cross. The corollary to this is that when socialism came to this country, it was dressed in a grey flannel suit, wearing a GOP lapel pin.
Stop the histrionics. Just stop.
The defense budget submitted to Congress was in excess of a half a trillion dollars. You may not think it’s enough. Personally, I think it is way too much. But either way, to call it “unilateral disarmament” is, once again, Orwellian nonsense.
First of all, there is not, nor was there ever, a War on Terror, any more than there was a War on Drugs or a War on Poverty. War, as I said earlier, is a state that exists between nation-states. Terror is a tactic. You can’t have a war on terror, anymore than you can have a war on scorched earth.
Second of all, the ditching of that ridiculous term is one of the few good things the Obama Administration has done. The U.S. was never going to try to wipe “terrorism” off the face of the Earth. We were never going to invade Sri Lanka to go after the Tamil Tigers. We were never going to station troops in Belfast to go after the Provos. In fact, we weren’t even going to rid our own military of terror tactics.
The U.S doesn’t practice terrorism, you say? Nonsense. What do you think “shock-and-awe” was? It was an attempt to terrorize the Iraqi population into overthrowing their government, or at least to get them to refrain from joining the war effort. And, IMHO, it is a tactic that we should not surrender out of our arsenal.
Once again, stop the histrionics.
Although I disagree with the closing of Guantanamo/Camp X-Ray, as I disagree with the granting of (most) of those people Geneva rights, they’re not going to be “turned loose” on the streets of America. What I suspect is most likely is they will be repatriated to their home countries.
Once again, American sovereignty has been flushed by Administrations both Republican and Democrat for decades. GATT, UN, WTO, IMF, and a whole alphabet soup of internationalism has been bowed down to by a host of alleged conservatives. Treason should be made of stronger stuff.
The Founders would have rolled in their graves over what GWB did to this nation. But I doubt I could find one example of you calling him a traitor.
Increased Predator strikes. Getting rid of the Orwellian term “War on Terror”. Other than that, no, I really can’t point to where he has furthered US interests. But failure to advance our interests does not a traitor make.
You are entitled to your opinion, as grossly politically uninformed though it might be.
Well I agree with that.
Of course, it is a long jump from bad-mouthing the US to out-and-out treason. And if you disagree, wait until there is a conservative president who the left accuses of bad-mouthing the US for saying welfare-statism is bad, or for talking about ditching the UN. Would you grant them the power to execute him for treason?
JohnGalt23 on April 6, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Sorry, I believe he is a muslim. Anyone that can so effectively do this much damage to America in 3 MONTHS clearly is the enemy within. You don’t have to agree with me.
ErinF on April 6, 2009 at 11:37 AM
—–
See? Here’s someone who thinks ALL Muslims are the enemy.
How appallingly ignorant.
Dave Rywall on April 6, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Our president talks meekly and carries a limp stick, he is a coward and the world knows it.
workingforpigs on April 6, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Obama is becoming Bush II, Nixon II, LBJ II, Chamberlain II, Hover II, Mussolini II, Marx II, the list is almost endless; combining the worst traits and characteristics of the worst heads of state throughout modern history.
MB4 on April 6, 2009 at 2:42 PM
I agree. Not all Muslims are the enemy. I taught adult education in Dearborn, Michigan. I met many Muslims that were genuinely nice people and loved America.
The thing I am wondering is, if we are not at war with terrorists, and we are not at war with Muslims, who is it killing our guys in Afghanistan?
Hawthorne on April 6, 2009 at 2:45 PM
EXACTLY!!
His past and his present fit with each other. The Muslim world has called him a Muslim all along – Qaddafi, Hamas, Indonesians, all over the world they recognize him as a Muslim.
And what would a Muslim aligned with Qaddafi, Hamas, etc do? Piss off all our freedom-loving friends and kiss up to all the freedom-hating thugs. Destroy capitalism so Sharia-compliant and/or communist economy prevails. Destroy our military. Get non-Muslims to abort themselves out of having a majority so Muslms can hit the 10% mark, at which they have a duty to try to take over the country. Bow to the Saudi king. Give someone the NATO chairmanship only if he will apologize for supporting freedom of speech…
I wish he’d just forget the taqiyya and come out with it. By their fruits you shall know them…
justincase on April 6, 2009 at 2:30 PM
———-
OMG OMG OMG SOMEONE FOLLOW THE PRESIDENT ALL DAY TO SEE IF HE GETS ON HIS KNEES AND DOES HIS DHUHRS OR ASRS OR MAGHRIBS OR ISHAS SOMEONE DO IT QUICK AND LET’S OUT THIS MUSLIM GUY IT WILL BE SO AWESOME
Dave Rywall on April 6, 2009 at 2:45 PM
In Islam the radicals are the apostates. The radicals in Islam are the good guys.
One will never be victorious if one can not even identify friend and enemy properly.
MB4 on April 6, 2009 at 2:47 PM
I agree. Not all Muslims are the enemy. I taught adult education in Dearborn, Michigan. I met many Muslims that were genuinely nice people and loved America.
The thing I am wondering is, if we are not at war with terrorists, and we are not at war with Muslims, who is it killing our guys in Afghanistan?
Hawthorne on April 6, 2009 at 2:45 PM
—–
Don’t be so obtuse. You know it’s small groups of a$$hole extremists who are funded by…well, now. Who exactly is it that funds them?
Dave Rywall on April 6, 2009 at 2:47 PM
JohnGalt23-Thanks for showing it takes two sides to Tango. That’s why both right and left fringes are in a constant state of uproar, due to the ineffectiveness of “their” guys when they get into power. The Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin-POLITICIANS!!!!
When there is a candidate who is for the U.S. Constitution being reinstated to its rightful place in out government,that’s when America comes back. Not when a Democrat Progressive takes over from a Republican Progressive….
adamsmith on April 6, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Imagine there’s no Islam
It’s hard but you can try
No suicide hijackers coming down at us
Above us only sky
Imagine all those people
Still alive today…
Imagine there’s no Islamic countries
It’s hard but you can try
No Mohammad for them to kill or die for
And no Imams too
Imagine all the Christians, Jews and Infidels
Living life without them…
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday all dhimmis will join us
And the non-Islamic world will be as one
Imagine no Burkhas
I wonder if you can
No need for Medina or Meca
A brotherhood of non-Islamic woman and man
Imagine all the people
Living without Sharia…
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday all dhimmis will join us
And the non-Islamic world will be as one
MB4 on April 6, 2009 at 2:52 PM
As a woman, I believe that women in general, that is thinking, conservative women, have much more of a problem with the Muslim religion. If we were ever to give in to their hatred, we would not give up some of our rights, but as women, we would have no rights at all.
I have an American born, Catholic friend who married an American Muslim, and recently moved to the Middle East with her family. She did not dress in traditional Muslim garb when she was here except when going to the Mosque, nor was she treated any differently from what I saw, and what she said, from the typical American wife, but I imagine that has changed now that she is a resident in a Muslim country.
My point being, that Most American Muslims do not practice their religion with hate and control, as do many of their Middle Eastern counterparts, however, they do not defend our Country against the rest of the Islamic Fascists with their actions or words. What choice do we have in a world situation like this? We must defend our Judeo/Christian country, religion and freedom, or we will lose it to people like them, therefore we must be at war with Islam.
Susanboo on April 6, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Obama: I am at war with America!
MB4 on April 6, 2009 at 2:54 PM
You’re absolutely right about the relationship between the Founders/Constitution and John Locke, and that Locke was a Christian man. But there are a couple of points that you fail to address.
First of all, while Locke is most obviously an influence on the Founders when crafting the Constitution, he was clearly not the only one. Machiavelli’s fingerprints, through his discussion of the building of institutions, and the use of ambition to check ambition, are all over the Constitution. While Machiavelli was at least nominally a Christian, the altar he really worshiped at was the altar of power.
Second is the Founders’ deliberate omission of Christian message, or even the mention of the Creator, in the Constitution. Do you really think that this omission was an accident? Did they just forget?
Or is it more likely that there were certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution that were decidedly un-Christian? take for example the inclusion of the Second Amendment. If I remember the scripture properly, Jesus advised his followers to turn the other cheek to those who slap you. It would appear that the Founders’ advice to such a transgression is to blow your attacker away.
Christian values clearly influenced the founding. But let’s not overstate it.
JohnGalt23 on April 6, 2009 at 2:59 PM
You don’t know a whole lot about Mohhamad, Islam’s “Perfect man”, do you.
The fringe, the extremists, the distorters, in Islam are the apostates. They are the good guys.
MB4 on April 6, 2009 at 3:00 PM
As a woman, I believe that women in general, that is thinking, conservative women, have much more of a problem with the Muslim religion. If we were ever to give in to their hatred, we would not give up some of our rights, but as women, we would have no rights at all.
I have an American born, Catholic friend who married an American Muslim, and recently moved to the Middle East with her family. She did not dress in traditional Muslim garb when she was here except when going to the Mosque, nor was she treated any differently from what I saw, and what she said, from the typical American wife, but I imagine that has changed now that she is a resident in a Muslim country.
My point being, that Most American Muslims do not practice their religion with hate and control, as do many of their Middle Eastern counterparts, however, they do not defend our Country against the rest of the Islamic Fascists with their actions or words. What choice do we have in a world situation like this? We must defend our Judeo/Christian country, religion and freedom, or we will lose it to people like them, therefore we must be at war with Islam.
Susanboo on April 6, 2009 at 2:54 PM
———
Yeah, but you still buy oil from them, so I guess you really don’t have that big a problem with them after all.
Dave Rywall on April 6, 2009 at 3:00 PM
You don’t know a whole lot about Mohhamad, Islam’s “Perfect man”, do you.
The fringe, the extremists, the distorters, in Islam are the apostates. They are the good guys.
MB4 on April 6, 2009 at 3:00 PM
——-
Hey – I’ll be the first to say I hate Islam the religion (along with all the other religions). But I can’t tell people what to believe or not believe. No country has the balls to truly isolate Muslim countries who treat women like garbage and/or commodities. And I guess freedom of religion only applies to the ones you guys like.
Dave Rywall on April 6, 2009 at 3:04 PM
The battle in Afghanistan/Pakistan is just one part of the war. In the overall war he is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is inertia in the Afghan theater that he could not stop. I’m unimpressed by his moves there, but that was not what I was talking about.
Bush made a huge mistake by starting the bailout, but Bush was trying to fix the situation (in his mind). That is different from The Precedent, who is actively NOT FIXING the banking crisis so that he’ll have a crisis existing to push through his other plans. That is treason and there is no comparison with that (holding HOSTAGE – do you understand the hostage part?) and what Bush did.
Again, that is not the disarmament I am talking about. Do you think he could have submitted a smaller defense budget? Or do you understand that he submitted the smallest he was able, without just freaking out too many people?
Now you’re just being silly. I guess there were no World Wars, since the whole world wasn’t really at war, or you might take the tack that we weren’t at war with the world. Likewise, the Gulf War must have sounded silly to you. Who would fight a war against a gulf?
Give me a break. War on Terror is a name, not a description.
I agree with part of what you say here. We aren’t at war with just anyone who uses terror, but we are at war with people that we traditionally call “terrorists”, which happen to be arab/persian/muslims who have been attacking the west for a long time and have traditionally been called “terrorists” (even when their actions use different tactics) because terrorism formed the core of their tactics. I don’t mind changing the name, if one changes it to something more accurate. The idiot messiah didn’t do that. He just likes to pretend that the war doesn’t exist (and I have news for you, wars can exist without nations). Any two groups can be at war.
When did I ever say that the US doesn’t use terror? Please show me the quote where you picked that up. You are just making sh!t up, now. Evidently, you have not a clue what I think about the situation if you could say something idiotic like this. Go look up some of my old posts instead of just assuming this sort of cr#p.
Geneva is a joke that was never taken seriously by anyone. It is a fantasy that people are making pretend, now, that the world ever followed the Geneva conventions. And he certainly will turn as many detainees loose in America as he can. You live in la-la land if you don’t acknowledge that. Yeah .. he’ll “repatriate” them … I’m sure.
That’s all true, but this is a level well beyond anything before. You do understand the big difference, here?
I called for Bush to be impeached if the shamnesty had passed and he had signed it. But thanks for putting (incorrect) words in my mouth, again. You seem to have a habit of doing that. It’s pretty annoying. I’ll stop this here, as this is more than enough to get a feeling of where you’re coming from, and it ain’t pretty.
progressoverpeace on April 6, 2009 at 3:04 PM
A very disingenuous statement by you. I am an atheist, but I can tell the difference between basically good religions and an evil one. Would you rather people be Christ like or Mohammad like?
MB4 on April 6, 2009 at 3:11 PM
I don’t think Christ would have had much a problem with us defending ourselves against attack. If someone says something bad to you, you can turn the other cheek, but do you really think he meant to turn the other cheek if someone came into your house at night and raped your wife and daughter at gunpoint? Or, connecting it to the founders, if the British came in and decided we had no God-given rights, in fact, and that the divine rightist king was ultimately in charge?
I think the founders had no idea at the time what would become of this nation and it’s foundations. I don’t think most of them had any reason to try to push through overtly religious ideas into codified law, as it was just common sense in their era that these values were almost strictly Christian in origin. The whole idea that rights were given to all free man from God and not given merely to a divine rightist king to rule harshly over free men who weren’t truly free (the basis of our declaration and constitution) is, in my view, an overtly Christian view, especially knowing the Christian background of most of the leaders of the time in the colonies.
TheBlueSite on April 6, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Just for everyone’s enlightenment, I present the following:
courtesy adherants.com
kingsjester on April 6, 2009 at 3:20 PM
A very disingenuous statement by you. I am an atheist, but I can tell the difference between basically good religions and an evil one. Would you rather people be Christ like or Mohammad like?
MB4 on April 6, 2009 at 3:11 PM
——
Obviously I would rather people be neither. Both have ludicrous/appalling stances on a wide variety of subjects that continue to harm a great number of people every moment of every day. But I digress.
The best you can do is hunt down and kill as many extremists as you can and lose as few soldiers as you can while hoping that doing this doesn’t create too many more extremists that you also have to hunt down and kill.
Dave Rywall on April 6, 2009 at 3:22 PM
I believe that would be primarily by those in the country who’s King Obama very recently bowed to.
MB4 on April 6, 2009 at 3:24 PM
First of all, what you call extremists are supported by the majority of muslims. They are only extremists to the West. They are mainstream in the islamic world.
Secondly, the arab/persian/muslim world does not become aggressive as a reaction to their getting beaten to a pulp, even if many of their civilians are killed. They understand that and stop being aggressive. Take a look at governments in the islamic world to see what sort of behavior that world is used to and likes. What makes them aggressive is appeasement and displays of weakness, not bombs and death. Many in the West can’t seem to understand this simple dynamic, because it is very un-Western.
progressoverpeace on April 6, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Wonderful. Every day, something new.
capitalist piglet on April 6, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Again, I am an atheist, as I would surmise that you also are, but don’t let that blind you to what a huge difference there is between Islam and the other religions of today, I certainly don’t.
MB4 on April 6, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Excuse me, “I buy oil from them”? I, like the other sensible people in this country, want us to drill our own oil, in Alaska, off our own Southeast and West coast, etc. If I had it my way, we would get zero oil from these countries.However, I am living under a President right now that wants to control our every move by eliminating our own sources of fuel, (when we do not have enough alternatives, and are not ready to do so, ie: lack of nuclear plants), by taxing us (cap & trade), and telling us what cars we can and can’t drive,(future of GM, and part of the reason they are struggling), and talking a good talk about how we need to use less oil from the Mideast, yet doing nothing about that. Obama and Congress talk out of both sides of their mouths about this, so you can give them the credit, or blame for buying oil from “not so friendly” Mid-East countries
And to make myself clear, I have nothing against Middle Eastern Muslims or anyone else in any country that leave us alone to practice our brand of freedom and religion, but once they start killing and maiming their own citizens and citizens from other countries, they should be stopped. No one should have to suffer under these tyrannical Mullahs, and especially not when it against their will, and again to my point, Women, and their female children are the ones who suffer the brunt of the atrocities
Susanboo on April 6, 2009 at 3:41 PM
You certainly do digress. What are those ludicrous/appalling stances that do a great number of people harm every moment of every day? Must be that darned church daycare, or the “feed the homeless” kitchen. Maybe the “abortion alternative” programs that provide free adoption services. Maybe those medical missionaries? The cold weather shelter in the church basement? Maybe the alcohol and drug counseling? Might be the teens from local churches that do volunteer yardwork for the elderly. Yep…I can certainly see all the harm done. Nothing good…only harm.
sdd on April 6, 2009 at 3:45 PM
The Prostration, Pander and Apology Tour rolls on.
At some point this flower must return to his hothouse.
moxie_neanderthal on April 6, 2009 at 3:49 PM
So, I guess you would feel the same way if they were treating men and boys like they do women? Ha! I doubt that! Then they would be committing horrible atrocities!
I am not a women’s libber by any stretch, but no religion,or organization anywhere should be allowed to treat anyone like the Muslims treat women. Any man that believes otherwise needs to think about what is really going on here. Muslim women in Islamic countries, where the religion restricts them so heavily, are slaves. There is no nicer word for it.
Susanboo on April 6, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Take a look at time 1:05 on the clip of Obama in Turkey:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIVd7YT0oWA
.
Obama says, “..we are a secular nation…”
.
WOW! What’s next?
JeffVader on April 6, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Hey Drywall, check this out.
Compare the hits of this to this. Pay attention to multiple listings for the same charities. They are exactly alike right? Riiiight.
The truth is, without Christian charities, the world would be hurting far more than it does.
You lefties share a common allergy. You all seem to be allergic to truth.
Guardian on April 6, 2009 at 3:55 PM
If there was one message we got from George Bush after 9/11, it was that all Islam wasn’t to blame.
He pounded that into us night and day.
I don’t think there is an American alive who can honestly tell himself otherwise. You have to be deluded to think otherwise.
(Ergo, Obama is either deluded, or a liar. I happen to think it’s both.)
Thing is, though, despite all that pounding of the message (and I don’t blame “Islam” for 9/11), the more I learn of this religion, the less I believe it is a religion of peace.
Alana on April 6, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Hey Drywall. Ever heard of a Catholic hospital? Of course you have. Now name a single Islamic charitable hospital. Go on. Take your time.
Guardian on April 6, 2009 at 3:59 PM
One more point for Dave: If the Methodist church, my religion, persecuted women, or children, whoever, I would be just as critical of them. Falling under the guise of “it’s my religion”, does not excuse anyone from this sort of behavior.
Susanboo on April 6, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Hey Drywall. Ever heard of the Christian children’s fund?
I’m having a little trouble finding the Islamic children’s fund. Maybe you can help me out.
Guardian on April 6, 2009 at 4:01 PM
First of all, what you call extremists are supported by the majority of muslims. They are only extremists to the West. They are mainstream in the islamic world.
progressoverpeace on April 6, 2009 at 3:26 PM
—————
No, sir. They are not.
Secondly, the arab/persian/muslim world does not become aggressive as a reaction to their getting beaten to a pulp, even if many of their civilians are killed. They understand that and stop being aggressive. Take a look at governments in the islamic world to see what sort of behavior that world is used to and likes. What makes them aggressive is appeasement and displays of weakness, not bombs and death. Many in the West can’t seem to understand this simple dynamic, because it is very un-Western.
progressoverpeace on April 6, 2009 at 3:26 PM
————
Bombs and death are nowhere as effective as you claim they are.
A huge part of the problem is the Muslim religious leaders: they’re the most ball-less humans on the face of the planet. They refuse to speak out against any and all the violence and destruction committed by the extremists.
Dave Rywall on April 6, 2009 at 4:01 PM
I am no fan of Barack Obama, but IMO, he’s getting a bum rap on this one. Here’s his FULL quote, from Michelle Malkin’s website: “And then he [Obama] said:
“But we will not forget 9/11 or WTC 1993 or the USS Cole bombing or Madrid or London or Bali or the Khobar Towers or the African embassy bombings or the Millenium plot or the NYC landmarks plot. And we will not turn a blind eye toward the misery that the sharia enforcers have caused around the world. The United States is not at war with Islam. But Islam’s warriors remain hell-bent on destroying our way of life. And that, let me say this as clearly as I can, will not stand.”
Now, with the ENTIRE remark by Obama, it’s a far less appeasing statement. In fact, it’s as forthright as much of what Dubya ever said.
DavePa on April 6, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Hey Drywall. Ever heard of a Christian woman’s shelter?
I don’t suppose you know of an Islamic woman’s shelter by chance? No?
Guardian on April 6, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Many of them are the ones committing the violence, or at least it is done with their blessing.
Susanboo on April 6, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Bush was wrong.
Obama is wrong.
The dead, who will be sacrificed to Islamic expansionism because of them in the years to come, will curse these purblind, simpering, ignorant, damnable fools.
profitsbeard on April 6, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Hey Drywall. Ever heard of the Christian children’s fund?
I’m having a little trouble finding the Islamic children’s fund. Maybe you can help me out.
Guardian on April 6, 2009 at 4:01 PM
—–
Hmmm, no I haven’t. But then again I have of the Dumbass Fund that helps people who make sweeping baseless generalizations about Islam.
Dave Rywall on April 6, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Many of them are the ones committing the violence, or at least it is done with their blessing.
Susanboo on April 6, 2009 at 4:06 PM
——
Well I’m not so sure they’re ever the ones doing the violence, but they’re either too scared or too deep to speak out against it.
Dave Rywall on April 6, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Really? Provide a link or quit your lying.
Guardian on April 6, 2009 at 4:08 PM
“But we will not forget 9/11 or WTC 1993 or the USS Cole bombing or Madrid or London or Bali or the Khobar Towers or the African embassy bombings or the Millenium plot or the NYC landmarks plot. And we will not turn a blind eye toward the misery that the sharia enforcers have caused around the world. The United States is not at war with Islam. But Islam’s warriors remain hell-bent on destroying our way of life. And that, let me say this as clearly as I can, will not stand.”
Now, with the ENTIRE remark by Obama, it’s a far less appeasing statement. In fact, it’s as forthright as much of what Dubya ever said.
DavePa on April 6, 2009 at 4:02 PM
———
Now why would you go and ruin the Hotair party with the truth?
Dave Rywall on April 6, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Agreed, but note that he kind of sneaks it in at the end, does not re-emphasize it, and rarely makes remarks such as this. He is usually too busy giving us, instead of them, the blame for something they did.
Susanboo on April 6, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Hey Drywall.
I’ll give you 3 guesses. See if you can figure out which belief system loves this.
Guardian on April 6, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Really? Provide a link or quit your lying.
Guardian on April 6, 2009 at 4:08 PM
——
There are no Arab charities that help children?
You cannot possibly be that stupid.
Dave Rywall on April 6, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Maybe you wouldn’t find that, but no problems finding a school for youing suicide bombers.
Also much easier to arrange “date” with young boys in the muslim world.
Slaves too.
pseudonominus on April 6, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Hey Drywall.
Here’s another great example of Christianity for you. Just kidding.
Guardian on April 6, 2009 at 4:13 PM
drywall-
“…baseless generalizations about Islam“.
Islam preaches: Convert, submit, or die.
The rest is soothing Mo-Muzak.
profitsbeard on April 6, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Name a few genius.
Guardian on April 6, 2009 at 4:14 PM
w said the same thing:
getalife on April 6, 2009 at 4:14 PM
He also said:
“will never be at war with islam”? Never? This is pure crazy-talk and shows how ridiculous his plain, old “is not” qualifier is. This is nothing but unadulterated bullsh!t.
progressoverpeace on April 6, 2009 at 4:18 PM
There’s the Junior Jihadis for Constant Carnage Charity.
The Little Girls Accidentally Sterilized by Female Gential Mutilation Relief Fund.
The Underaged Mentally-Challenged Suicide Belt Wearer’s Health Care Plan.
The list is growing…
profitsbeard on April 6, 2009 at 4:18 PM
Hmmm. Sounds like the logic of the terrorists when they say all Americans support our government and are thus personally responsible for its actions.
maleman on April 6, 2009 at 4:18 PM
Hey Drywall.
I’ll give you 3 guesses. See if you can figure out which belief system loves this.
Guardian on April 6, 2009 at 4:11 PM
——-
Is it the one that lets its priests molest children then covers it up or worse, move the priest to a new parish so he can keep on molesting children?
Is it the one that has a guy cut part of a baby’s penis off then suck the wound?
Is it the one that lets you burn your wife to be if her family can’t fork over the dowry?
Damn. That’s 3. I lose.
Dave Rywall on April 6, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Name a few genius.
Guardian on April 6, 2009 at 4:14 PM
——
Nah. wouldn’t want to ruin your belief system. It’s so perfect and tiny-minded already.
Dave Rywall on April 6, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Hey Drywall. Looky Looky.
I could go on and on and on……
Guardian on April 6, 2009 at 4:22 PM
I don’t care what you think it sounds like and I don’t care what justifications the arab/persian/muslim enemies try to come up with. Most muslims support the war against the West. That’s a fact that has been borne out by a good number of polls in the islamic world. Heck, Bin Laden had something like a 65% approval rating in a large majority of muslim countries (along with similar approval numbers for the other arab/persian/muslim thugs and terrorists).
The Nazi party had less support among the Germans than the arab/persian/muslim terrorists have among their populations. But that didn’t stop us from bombing the living sh!t out of Germany. Because we understood how to fight wars, then.
progressoverpeace on April 6, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Losers usually do.
Guardian on April 6, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Obama has done nothing but apologise since election to his constituents in Islam, since they funded his campaign.
workingforpigs on April 6, 2009 at 4:24 PM
What is it then, since you know, or say you do?
Guardian on April 6, 2009 at 4:25 PM
I could go on and on and on……
Guardian on April 6, 2009 at 4:22 PM
——
Yep these are all despicable.
So are all murderous orders from God in the Bible.
You HAVE read the Bible, haven’t you?
Dave Rywall on April 6, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Obama has done nothing but apologise since election to his constituents in Islam, since they funded his campaign.
workingforpigs on April 6, 2009 at 4:24 PM
——
This is an amazing fact. You called CNN with it, right?
Dave Rywall on April 6, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Nah. wouldn’t want to ruin your belief system. It’s so perfect and tiny-minded already.
Dave Rywall on April 6, 2009 at 4:22 PM
What is it then, since you know, or say you do?
Guardian on April 6, 2009 at 4:25 PM
——-
God says you have to forgive me for refusing to make you look like a fool. Sorry – them’s your rules I’m playing by.
Dave Rywall on April 6, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Name a murderous order from God.
Guardian on April 6, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Name a murderous order from God.
Guardian on April 6, 2009 at 4:33 PM
——–
Sigh.
Kill false prophets
Kill Ethiopians
Kill all of Babylon
Kill babies
Kill Followers of Other Religions
Kill Sons of Sinners
Kill the Midianites
This is to depressing.
Go read your Bible, fool.
Dave Rywall on April 6, 2009 at 4:45 PM
“Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!” So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.” (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)
OOPS GOD DID IT AGAIN
Dave Rywall on April 6, 2009 at 4:46 PM
HERE’S AN OLDY BUT A GOODY
They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves. (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
Dave Rywall on April 6, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Completely off topic, but….
Did I read the headline correctly just now on Drudge that the US gave $50,000 to Italy to help out with the earthquake?
Surely they forgot a zero or something…
Oh nevermind. I forgot…
ssa_in_az on April 6, 2009 at 4:56 PM
What, specifically, is this “aid and comfort”? Just because you say it is “aid and comfort”, doesn’t mean it’s “aid and comfort”.
You are making charges of treason in what you call a time of war. That’s serious stuff. If you are concerned about credibility of your argument, you better be able to name specifics, something you have yet to do. But then again, I wonder if you give a damn about the credibility of your argument. It doesn’t look that way.
Making excuses for the incompetent that led the GOP speaks poorly for you. And that Obama is taking advantage of the banking crisis is not treason… it is politics. Trying to sell it as treason makes you look like a dumbass. And serious conservatives don’t like being associated with dumbasses.
Then what disarmament are you talking about? In fact, what are you talking about?
On second thought, never mind. It is clear you don’t know what you are talking about.
Who’s being silly here?
We were at war in WWII. We were at war with Germany, Japan and Italy. Pretty clear, since we actually had A DECLARATION OF WAR!! Written down, in black and white, naming the appropriate parties.
Now, where is the Declaration of War against this amorphous concept known as “terror”? Who are the appropriate parties?
You are tossing around the term “war” as a concept without a bottom. Such naked manipulation of language is usually a tool of the left. You are more like Obama and his crowd than you would care to admit.
Good. So you admit that we use terror.
Now, should we wage war on ourselves?
Dumbass.
No, they can’t.
You are talking about using US military might to affect foreign policy. To do so, they must use it against other nations.
If you grant the right of extra-national entities to “wage war”, then you have, by definition, degraded the power of the US… that power being the sole entity able to legitimately use force.
Now, that may be fine for the globaloney crowd in London, New York and Zurich, but those of us who believe in US sovereignty respect the current nation-state system. As such, the authority to “wage war” properly belongs solely to nation-states.
So, which side are you on?
Yeah… that’s why there were debates in Congress, and cases filed all over federal courts using Geneva as their basis. A joke that
nobodyonly dumbasses never took seriously.Dumbass.
No, I don’t. Did he give foreign governments a seat in Congress, or in his cabinet? Did he change our monetary standards like Truman and Nixon did? Did he hand over war-making decisions to the UN like the Bush cabal?
Once again, stop the partisan histrionics. Hold Obama to the same standards you would hold members of your own party to.
more after supper
JohnGalt23 on April 6, 2009 at 5:00 PM
That’s from a dream or vision dumbass. If you read it you would know that.
I’ll try again.
Name a murderous order from God Drywall.
You are a typical lefty. All throughout I ask for a simple answers, links or examples and so far…nothing. All you do is ramble aimlessly and copy and paste stuff with absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Put up or shut up.
Guardian on April 6, 2009 at 5:03 PM
“If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.”
Deuteronomy 13:7-12
Dave Rywall on April 6, 2009 at 5:18 PM
more after supper
Dave Rywall on April 6, 2009 at 5:20 PM
“Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you,” says the LORD. “Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction”. Jeremiah 50:21-22
HOORAY
Dave Rywall on April 6, 2009 at 5:22 PM
God didn’t say that. Those words are from Moses.
Try again..
Guardian on April 6, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Actually, I’ve always thought that Christ would be an incredibly poor political leader. Further, I doubt that he would have any opinion on someone coming in to your house and attacking you at gunpoint, as, to the best of my knowledge, gunpowder had not been invented.
And there were Christian sects (most notably, the Quakers, who founded my home state) who would have argued against arming their people. In fact, I suspect the need for self-defense that the 2nd recognizes was put in there to protect the nation from Quaker tendencies, although admittedly i have no proof of that.
And therein lies my point. There was absolutely no mention of the rights recognized by the Constitution as being granted by God in that work. They were recognized, explicitly, but no mention of the Creator, as from the D of I. Why is that?
JohnGalt23 on April 6, 2009 at 5:38 PM
My point is Drywall, you won’t find God telling anyone to murder anyone anywhere in the bible.
Self defense is not murder.
Defeating enemies in combat is not murder. If it was, all of our combat soldiers would be in prison.
Murder would be killing the guy at the liquor store while robbing the place.
You won’t find God ordering murder anywhere in the bible. Especially since he forbids it in the sixth commandment.
I’m glad I got you to read a little of the bible though.
Guardian on April 6, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Yeah, well, Isam’s at war with us. It’s not a war if one does not fight back, it’s a massacre.
Pelayo on April 6, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Well, they’re at war with us! This President is either an idiot or truly the Manchurian President! Is there one enlightened muslim country out there that has true religious freedom for other religions and treats women with full respect? I can’t think of any! These people need to be stopped cold and not acquisced to.
CrusaderPatriot on April 6, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Absolutely. When I heard Obama take up GWB’s stance I just knew the MSM would pretend it was new, not a continuation. Just catching up and it’s exactly what I expected. Major Garrett on Fox did point out GWB said the same but then said “It either fell on deaf ears or was ignored”. Gee, whose fault would THAT be? GWB would say it (over and over and over, as illustrated above) and the media was stuck on his use of “crusade” and fomenting hate against the man. FGS, the media is a disgrace. Complete and utter.
KittyLowrey on April 6, 2009 at 6:38 PM
Uh, didn’t God tell Abraham to kill Isaac? Now I’m no biblical scholar (far from it in fact), but that sure sounds like God pressing a button on someone.
JohnGalt23 on April 6, 2009 at 6:50 PM
Anyone who studied the founding fathers would agree with that.
The problem is not with God but with those who pretend to be able to interpret God … including those who wrote the New and Old Testament. It has been all the killing in the name of religion that makes it nothing that God has requested of us. That includes Christians and Muslims and even Mormons.
Monkei on April 6, 2009 at 7:17 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »