Bush Mangles History to Force Feed More Lies to America

[Rohirrim]

Excellent piece by Michael Hirsh of Newsweek dismantling more Bush lies.

This was the “harsh” aftermath that George W. Bush attempted to describe this week when he warned against pulling out of Iraq as we did in Vietnam. His remarks to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Kansas City on Wednesday were an abuse of historical fact—no surprise, perhaps, coming from a president who is just now catching up with the Political Science 101 reading he shrugged off at Yale.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20411171/site/newsweek/

The president would like to make the argument that Iraq is about the same struggle. It’s not, for several important reasons. In contrast to the Soviet and Chinese communists, or for that matter the fascists of the 1930s and '40s, Al Qaeda and its ilk have no universalist program, no persuasive alternative ideology to globalization and some brand of democracy. They are nihilists, and they have failed to capture half the world’s attention as communism and socialism once did. So, yes, while a U.S. pullout would no doubt inspire a great deal of Al Qaeda propaganda about how they succeeded in forcing the Americans to withdraw from Iraq as they forced the Soviets to do in Afghanistan, the majority of the world’s elites won’t buy it. And the truth is, the slow bleed of America’s might and prestige on the streets of Iraq makes for a far more compelling picture of U.S. weakness than any Al Qaeda propaganda could ever do. If we leave, Al Qaeda will rant triumphantly on the Web sites and perhaps win more adherents, but that won’t get them any closer to “victory” over us than they are now.


------------------------------------

Even some very smart people don’t seem to understand that Bush’s larger idea of a “war on terror” has always been a fraudulent concept ginned up to justify his invasion of Iraq by broadening the enemy beyond the handful of Afghanistan-based bad guys who attacked us on 9/11.

[yavoon]

al qaeda aren't nihilists. they are sharia advocates. infact al qaeda's sense of morality is very stringent, and highly developed. its just not our sense.

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton081907.html

"The documents in the first section make a sustained, coherent argument for offensive jihad based on the Koran, the Hadith (the traditions of the words and deeds of Mohammed), and the Ulema (past and present scholars of Islam). Indeed, as Ibrahim notes, “Zawahiri’s writings especially are grounded in Islam’s roots of jurisprudence; in fact, of the many thousands of words translated here from his three treatises, well more than half are direct quotations from the Koran the Sunna [words, habits, and practices] of Mohammed, and the consensus and conclusions of the Ulema.” "

[Rohirrim]

al qaeda aren't nihilists. they are sharia advocates. infact al qaeda's sense of morality is very stringent, and highly developed. its just not our sense.

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton081907.html

"The documents in the first section make a sustained, coherent argument for offensive jihad based on the Koran, the Hadith (the traditions of the words and deeds of Mohammed), and the Ulema (past and present scholars of Islam). Indeed, as Ibrahim notes, “Zawahiri’s writings especially are grounded in Islam’s roots of jurisprudence; in fact, of the many thousands of words translated here from his three treatises, well more than half are direct quotations from the Koran the Sunna [words, habits, and practices] of Mohammed, and the consensus and conclusions of the Ulema.” "

He's using "nihilist" in the sense that they reject all forms of modern secularism, ethics, economics, modernity, aesthetics, morality, politics, etc. etc. They are reactionary fringe dwellers and their methods and concepts are purely nihilistic. They rewrite their so-called "morality" whenever it suits their purposes as in every time they kill innocent non-combatants (say, children on airplanes) which is directly contradicted by Islam. The entire philosophy of terrorism is itself, nihilistic. It can win no ground. Take no land. Conquer no people. Install no government. It is attack for the sake of the attack. It is the essence of nihilism.

[defenseman]

al qaeda aren't nihilists. they are sharia advocates. infact al qaeda's sense of morality is very stringent, and highly developed. its just not our sense.

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton081907.html

"The documents in the first section make a sustained, coherent argument for offensive jihad based on the Koran, the Hadith (the traditions of the words and deeds of Mohammed), and the Ulema (past and present scholars of Islam). Indeed, as Ibrahim notes, “Zawahiri’s writings especially are grounded in Islam’s roots of jurisprudence; in fact, of the many thousands of words translated here from his three treatises, well more than half are direct quotations from the Koran the Sunna [words, habits, and practices] of Mohammed, and the consensus and conclusions of the Ulema.” "

So, is Al Qaeda moral or immoral?....dman

[yavoon]

So, is Al Qaeda moral or immoral?....dman

they have a set of moral rules that they follow and enforce heavily. they're just warped, ****ed up, violent moral rules.

[defenseman]

they have a set of moral rules that they follow and enforce heavily. they're just warped, ****ed up, violent moral rules.

Whatever they are, their moral rules (and the punishment for violation of them) are distinct violations against man kind throughout the rest of the world, from our point of view, agree or disagree...???...dman

[Bronco Bob]

Here is Vietnam's take on Bush's remarks:

Bush Iraq War analogy strikes a nerve in Vietnam

The Associated Press
Published: August 23, 2007




HANOI, Vietnam: U.S. President George W. Bush's latest effort to rally support for his Iraq policy has touched a nerve in Vietnam, where a previous American military intervention led to the deaths of millions of people.
In a speech to U.S. war veterans on Wednesday, Bush invoked the Vietnam War, saying that widespread death and chaos would envelop Iraq if the U.S. troops left too quickly, as he said happened when the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam three decades ago.
But people in Vietnam, where opposition to the U.S. intervention in Iraq is strong, said Thursday that Bush had drawn the wrong conclusions from the Southeast Asian conflict.
"Doesn't he realize that if the U.S. had stayed in Vietnam longer, they would have killed more people?" said Vu Huy Trieu of Hanoi, a veteran who fought against the U.S. troops in Vietnam. "Nobody regrets that the Vietnam War wasn't prolonged except Bush."
Vietnam's official government spokesman offered a more measured response during a regular media briefing Thursday.
"With regard to the American war in Vietnam, everyone knows that we fought to defend our country and that this was a righteous war of the Vietnamese people," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Le Dung. "And we all know that the war caused tremendous suffering and losses to the Vietnamese people."

Dung said Vietnam hoped that the Iraq conflict would be resolved "very soon, in an orderly way, and that the Iraqi people will do their best to rebuild their country."

Although Vietnam opposed the U.S. intervention in Iraq, Dung stressed that ties between Hanoi and Washington have been growing closer since the former foes normalized relations in 1995.

In his remarks to U.S. military veterans in Kansas City, Missouri, on Wednesday, Bush said that a hasty retreat from Iraq would lead to terrible violence.

"One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields,'" Bush said.

Many people in Vietnam said Bush's comparison was ill-considered.

The U.S. could not have overcome the will of the Vietnamese people no matter how many bombs it dropped, said Trieu, the Vietnamese veteran.

"Does he think the U.S. could have won if they had stayed longer?" Trieu asked. "No way."

The only way to restore order in Iraq is for the U.S. to leave, said Trinh Xuan Thang, a Hanoi university student.

"Bush sent troops to invade Iraq and created all the problems there," said Thang, adding, "Suicide bombing was unheard of before."

If the U.S. withdraws, he said, the violence may escalate in the short term but the situation will eventually stabilize.

"Let the Iraqis determine their fate by themselves," Thang said. "They don't need American troops there."

Bush was unwise to stir up sensitive memories of the Vietnam conflict, said Ton Nu Thi Ninh, former chairwoman of the National Assembly's committee on foreign affairs.

"The price we, the Vietnamese people on both sides, paid during the war was due to the fact that the Americans went into Vietnam in the first place," Ninh said.

[Rohirrim]

"Nobody regrets that the Vietnam War wasn't prolonged except Bush."

The one man who never had to fear going to Nam.

[Bronco Bob]

"Nobody regrets that the Vietnam War wasn't prolonged except Bush."

The one man who never had to fear going to Nam.

Interestingly none of the Republicans that favor prolonging the war
in Iraq have any relatives over in Iraq either. Mitt Romney goes so
far as to boast that his sons efforts to get him elected president
are doing just as valuable a service to the country as the GIs
fighting in Iraq are.

[defenseman]

Interestingly none of the Republicans that favor prolonging the war
in Iraq have any relatives over in Iraq either. Mitt Romney goes so
far as to boast that his sons efforts to get him elected president
are doing just as valuable a service to the country as the GIs
fighting in Iraq are.

I don't think he was boasting, I'm thinking it was just a matter of fact delievered in an upbeat manner...dman

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"Nobody regrets that the Vietnam War wasn't prolonged except Bush."

The one man who never had to fear going to Nam.

:oyvey:

God, how embarrassing is it to have this clueless jackass representing America on the world stage?

It's going to take a long time to repair the damage this mindless, morally retarded, drug-addled twit has done to America's reputation and image.

[yavoon]

He's using "nihilist" in the sense that they reject all forms of modern secularism, ethics, economics, modernity, aesthetics, morality, politics, etc. etc. They are reactionary fringe dwellers and their methods and concepts are purely nihilistic. They rewrite their so-called "morality" whenever it suits their purposes as in every time they kill innocent non-combatants (say, children on airplanes) which is directly contradicted by Islam. The entire philosophy of terrorism is itself, nihilistic. It can win no ground. Take no land. Conquer no people. Install no government. It is attack for the sake of the attack. It is the essence of nihilism.

they don't rewrite morality. they reject modernity for sure, but they replace it w/ a different and in many ways much more strict morality. and terrorism has conquered/cowed many ppl, thats just a weak meme used to "prove" that terrorism can't win. terrorism can, and does, win.

[yavoon]

Whatever they are, their moral rules (and the punishment for violation of them) are distinct violations against man kind throughout the rest of the world, from our point of view, agree or disagree...???...dman

yes, u silly man. they are evil bastards w/ warped sensibilities trying by violence to oppress all who disagree w/ them.

[Rohirrim]

What the American people should realize about these terrorists is that they do not represent the 1 billion muslims in this world. They have taken Islam and warped it to serve their own purposes, similar to what Pat Robertson does with Christianity when he said America deserved 911 because we allowed gay marriage in some places. Same kind of warped sensibility. There are muslim newspaper editors in Europe and the ME who live with fatwas hanging over them because they are fighting back against the fundamentalists.

[alkemical]

What the American people should realize about these terrorists is that they do not represent the 1 billion muslims in this world. They have taken Islam and warped it to serve their own purposes, similar to what Pat Robertson does with Christianity when he said America deserved 911 because we allowed gay marriage in some places. Same kind of warped sensibility. There are muslim newspaper editors in Europe and the ME who live with fatwas hanging over them because they are fighting back against the fundamentalists.

You know what the F'd up thing is too - the expansion of the EU is dependant on terrorist attacks - it would validate the need for the EU even more.

It's a f'd up way of thinking - like saying "be scared of terrorists" - but then don't do simple things like close the boarder.

[yavoon]

What the American people should realize about these terrorists is that they do not represent the 1 billion muslims in this world. They have taken Islam and warped it to serve their own purposes, similar to what Pat Robertson does with Christianity when he said America deserved 911 because we allowed gay marriage in some places. Same kind of warped sensibility. There are muslim newspaper editors in Europe and the ME who live with fatwas hanging over them because they are fighting back against the fundamentalists.

there are many muslims/ex-muslims who live w/ fatwa's, actually gov't warrants against them for saying things against islam. the terrorists may go overboard, but that doesn't make islam cuddly. the world over islam is not tolerant of, well, anything. apostasy, criticism, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, all big no no's in islam.

[W*GS]

the world over islam is not tolerant of, well, anything. apostasy, criticism, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, all big no no's in islam.

Wrong.

[yavoon]

Wrong.

Wrong.

[W*GS]

Christianity "the world over" is no better than Islam.

[yavoon]

Christianity "the world over" is no better than Islam.


Wrong.

[W*GS]

the world over islam is not tolerant of, well, anything. apostasy, criticism, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, all big no no's in islam.

Replace "islam" [sic] with Christianity, and the above remains true.

[yavoon]

Replace "islam" [sic] with Christianity, and the above remains true.

we could run experiments. I'll goto 10 christian cities and carry around something blasphemous. perhaps "jesus's mom was a whore." or something.

you can goto 10 islamic cities and carry around something blasphemous like say, "mohammed was a dirty pedophile."

and see what happens. but at any rate, there is no comparison in freedoms granted by islamic nations and those granted by christian ones. in terms of blasphemy, religious freedom, freedom of speech, whatever you want to pick.

and its a disservice to any attempt to ferret out intolerance w/ this myopic politically correct race to a tie. as any real comparison between the two would end up in a ludicrous landslide.

[W*GS]

we could run experiments. I'll goto 10 christian cities and carry around something blasphemous. perhaps "jesus's mom was a whore." or something.

you can goto 10 islamic cities and carry around something blasphemous like say, "mohammed was a dirty pedophile."

and see what happens.

Depends on the cities chosen. Try the Vatican.

but at any rate, there is no comparison in freedoms granted by islamic nations and those granted by christian ones. in terms of blasphemy, religious freedom, freedom of speech, whatever you want to pick.

Where do folks like Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, da Pope, and the late-but-unlamented Jerry Falwell fit?

and its a disservice to any attempt to ferret out intolerance w/ this myopic politically correct race to a tie. as any real comparison between the two would end up in a ludicrous landslide.

It cracks me up to see pro-Christianity folks try to say how much better they are than Muslims...

[yavoon]

Depends on the cities chosen. Try the Vatican.



Where do folks like Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, da Pope, and the late-but-unlamented Jerry Falwell fit?



It cracks me up to see pro-Christianity folks try to say how much better they are than Muslims...

I'm not pro-christianity anymore then I am pro-buddhism. but as it turns out most ppl like to play the "you too" game w/ christianity, so I end up asking for atleast a modicum of intelligence to discern differences. if they played the "you too" game w/ buddhism my replies would end up largely the same.

I like how now that any analysis of islams violent repression of everything now equates to "thinking ur better than the muslims." that is an intellectually insulting leap to make.

[alkemical]

I'm not pro-christianity anymore then I am pro-buddhism. but as it turns out most ppl like to play the "you too" game w/ christianity, so I end up asking for atleast a modicum of intelligence to discern differences. if they played the "you too" game w/ buddhism my replies would end up largely the same.

I like how now that any analysis of islams violent repression of everything now equates to "thinking ur better than the muslims." that is an intellectually insulting leap to make.

Or it makes you look like racist....

[RkyMtnThunder]

Bush mangles the english language. No surprise to me he would mangle history as well.

Lets face it, the man isnt exactly what you would call 'intellectually gifted'. Almost everything that has come out of this Administration has either been proven incorrect, or a out and out lie.

The support he still has comes from a minority of people desperately trying to save face. Its become a matter of personal pride now, more so than loyalty to party - just look at Washington Republicans who are distancing themselves from this administration. If some of these people could take a clue from their elected officials, they would be following suit as well. (and several have)

Thats what tells me its no longer about politics so much as personal pride and refusing to admit they backed the wrong guy.


Hey - crap happens. It doesnt reflect on you as an individual, these people need to stop taking it so personally when they see the virtually constant tar and feathering of this guy. He and his associates brought it on themselves.


Its more honorable to say 'damn, I was let down. I expected better.' than to turn a blind eye and say 'Everything is just peachy!'

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The support he still has comes from a minority of people desperately trying to save face.

http://memewatch.com/thelist/archives/pix/morans.jpg

[yavoon]

Or it makes you look like racist....

thats usually the slander that comes out. maybe thats why the "you too" is always christian and never buddhist. sets up the that retort more effectively.

[bcbronc]

we could run experiments. I'll goto 10 christian cities and carry around something blasphemous. perhaps "jesus's mom was a whore." or something.

you can goto 10 islamic cities and carry around something blasphemous like say, "mohammed was a dirty pedophile."

and see what happens. but at any rate, there is no comparison in freedoms granted by islamic nations and those granted by christian ones. in terms of blasphemy, religious freedom, freedom of speech, whatever you want to pick.

and its a disservice to any attempt to ferret out intolerance w/ this myopic politically correct race to a tie. as any real comparison between the two would end up in a ludicrous landslide.

but to be fair you'd have to go back in time about 500-600 years and then choose your christian city. how do you think your sign would go over in Medieval Europe? Christianity has a few centuries on Islam, but they seem to be following a similiar time line.

and if you are going to claim it is the religion of Islam itself that is violent, and not the work of a few individuals who are perverting the message to gain personal power and prestige, how do you expain the centuries of peaceful co-existence muslims had with their neighbors of all religions?

and how do you explain the thousands, if not millions, of muslims that live in countries like canada or the US and believe strongly in our ways of life, including democracy, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech?

besides all that, the overwhelming majority of violence in Islam has political roots, not religious. even the shia vs sunni violence in Iraq is about political gain and has nothing to do with religious denomination.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Lets face it, the man isnt exactly what you would call 'intellectually gifted'. Almost everything that has come out of this Administration has either been proven incorrect, or a out and out lie.


http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/O/L/bush_villageidiot.jpg

[yavoon]

but to be fair you'd have to go back in time about 500-600 years and then choose your christian city. how do you think your sign would go over in Medieval Europe? Christianity has a few centuries on Islam, but they seem to be following a similiar time line.

and if you are going to claim it is the religion of Islam itself that is violent, and not the work of a few individuals who are perverting the message to gain personal power and prestige, how do you expain the centuries of peaceful co-existence muslims had with their neighbors of all religions?

and how do you explain the thousands, if not millions, of muslims that live in countries like canada or the US and believe strongly in our ways of life, including democracy, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech?

besides all that, the overwhelming majority of violence in Islam has political roots, not religious. even the shia vs sunni violence in Iraq is about political gain and has nothing to do with religious denomination.

the muslims in canada are very similar to the muslims in saudi arabia or malaysia, only they aren't in control. canadian apostates get beat up, veiled threats are always made. does it matter how anecdotally nice say, a malaysian muslim is when the sharia courts in malaysia steal the children of women who try to apostate? or if there are nice muslims in iran where apostate carries the death penalty? is the person being executed feel better because "thousands if not millions of muslims maybe would not have killed him?"

islam itself has never supported freedom of religion or freedom of speech, and this goes directly back to mohammed. mohammed murdered poets for political dissent, as well as being the driving force behind sharia law. so while I can not say that all muslims don't believe in freedom of speech or religion, I know for an absolute certainty that mohammed was VIOLENTLY opposed to both.

[Bronco Bob]

islam itself has never supported freedom of religion or freedom of speech, and this goes directly back to mohammed. mohammed murdered poets for political dissent, as well as being the driving force behind sharia law. so while I can not say that all muslims don't believe in freedom of speech or religion, I know for an absolute certainty that mohammed was VIOLENTLY opposed to both.

Islamic Spain: History's refrain

It's a model for interfaith ties, and a warning about religious division.

By Alexander Kronemer

The past sometimes provides examples of glory and success that serve as models. Other times, as the philosopher George Santayana said, it warns of impending calamity for those who do not learn from it.

For the past several years, I've been immersed in a history that does both. As one of the producers for an upcoming PBS documentary on the rise and fall of Islamic Spain, I've witnessed its amazing ascent and tragic fall countless times in the editing room, only to go home and watch some of the same themes playing out on the nightly news.

Islamic Spain lasted longer than the Roman Empire. It marked a period and a place where for hundreds of years a relative religious tolerance prevailed in medieval Europe.

A model for religious tolerance

At its peak, it lit the Dark Ages with science and philosophy, poetry, art, and architecture. It was the period remembered as a golden age for European Jews. Breakthroughs in medicine, the introduction of the number zero, the lost philosophy of Aristotle, even the prototype for the guitar all came to Europe through Islamic Spain.

Not until the Renaissance was so much culture produced in the West. And not until relatively recent times has there been the level of pluralism and religious tolerance that existed in Islamic Spain at its peak. Just as the vibrancy and creativity of America is rooted in the acceptance of diversity, so was it then.

Because Islam's prophet Muhammad founded his mission as a continuation of the Abrahamic tradition, Islamic theology gave special consideration to Jews and Christians. To be sure, there were limits to these accommodations, such as special taxes levied on religious minorities. But in the early Middle Ages, official tolerance of one religion by another was an amazingly liberal point of view. This acceptance became the basis for Islamic Spain's genius. Indeed, it was an important reason Islam took hold there in the first place.

When the first Muslims crossed the straits of Gibraltar into Spain, the large Jewish population there was enduring a period of oppression by the Roman Catholic Visigoths. The Jewish minorities rallied to aid the Arab Muslims as liberators, and the divided Visigoths fell.

The conquering Arab Muslims remained a minority for many years, but they were able to govern their Catholic and Jewish citizens by a policy of inclusiveness. Even as Islam slowly grew over the centuries to be the majority religion in Spain, this spirit was largely, if not always perfectly, maintained.

Pluralistic though it was, Islamic Spain was no democracy. After years of enlightened leadership, a succession of bad leaders caused the unified Muslim kingdom to fragment among many smaller petty kingdoms and fiefdoms.

Though they competed and fought, the spirit of pluralism continued. Indeed, it thrived as rival kings sought the best minds in the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish worlds for their courts. This was just as true in the Christian petty kingdoms, as the Muslim ones. Christian and Muslim armies even fought alongside each other against mutual rivals of both faiths.

It is at this point that the darker parallels to our time begin. Into the competition for land, resources, and power, some leaders on both sides began to appeal to religion to rally support for their cause. Wars became increasingly religious in nature. Into this tinderbox a match was thrown: the Crusades – the same term that many Arabs use today when referring to America's adventure in Iraq.

The Crusades deepened Spain's religious divide. Minorities in both Christian and Muslim kingdoms become increasingly suspect. Persecutions, expulsions, and further warfare ensued. Nothing could stop it, not even the black plague.

Ultimately, Christian kingdoms gained the upper hand as the Muslim kingdoms of Islamic Spain fell. Spain's Muslims and Jews were forced to either leave or convert. This led to the rise of the Inquisition, whose purpose was to verify the loyalty of suspect converts. The expulsions and inquisitions racked Spain economically, culturally, and morally. Its power was severely compromised. The fall of pluralism in Spain was the fall of Spain itself.

Dark parallels with today

This fall directly links to events today and raises many of the same stakes. Though few Americans note it, one of Osama bin Laden's justifications for the 9/11 attacks was to avenge the "tragedy" of Islamic Spain.

So far, the post-9/11 world and the policies it has spawned seem to be heading in the same dangerous direction as witnessed before. The religious intolerance that engulfed and overwhelmed medieval Spain threatens the increasingly beleaguered pluralism of our own time.

At its best, the history of Islamic Spain is a model for interfaith cooperation that inspires those who seek an easier relationship among the three Abrahamic faiths. At its worst, it's a warning of what can occur when political and religious leaders divide the world. It reminds us what really happens when civilizations clash.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0822/p09s02-coop.htm

Ironically this is an article from The Christian Science Monitor.

[yavoon]

Islamic Spain: History's refrain

It's a model for interfaith ties, and a warning about religious division.

By Alexander Kronemer

The past sometimes provides examples of glory and success that serve as models. Other times, as the philosopher George Santayana said, it warns of impending calamity for those who do not learn from it.

For the past several years, I've been immersed in a history that does both. As one of the producers for an upcoming PBS documentary on the rise and fall of Islamic Spain, I've witnessed its amazing ascent and tragic fall countless times in the editing room, only to go home and watch some of the same themes playing out on the nightly news.

Islamic Spain lasted longer than the Roman Empire. It marked a period and a place where for hundreds of years a relative religious tolerance prevailed in medieval Europe.

A model for religious tolerance

At its peak, it lit the Dark Ages with science and philosophy, poetry, art, and architecture. It was the period remembered as a golden age for European Jews. Breakthroughs in medicine, the introduction of the number zero, the lost philosophy of Aristotle, even the prototype for the guitar all came to Europe through Islamic Spain.

Not until the Renaissance was so much culture produced in the West. And not until relatively recent times has there been the level of pluralism and religious tolerance that existed in Islamic Spain at its peak. Just as the vibrancy and creativity of America is rooted in the acceptance of diversity, so was it then.

Because Islam's prophet Muhammad founded his mission as a continuation of the Abrahamic tradition, Islamic theology gave special consideration to Jews and Christians. To be sure, there were limits to these accommodations, such as special taxes levied on religious minorities. But in the early Middle Ages, official tolerance of one religion by another was an amazingly liberal point of view. This acceptance became the basis for Islamic Spain's genius. Indeed, it was an important reason Islam took hold there in the first place.

When the first Muslims crossed the straits of Gibraltar into Spain, the large Jewish population there was enduring a period of oppression by the Roman Catholic Visigoths. The Jewish minorities rallied to aid the Arab Muslims as liberators, and the divided Visigoths fell.

The conquering Arab Muslims remained a minority for many years, but they were able to govern their Catholic and Jewish citizens by a policy of inclusiveness. Even as Islam slowly grew over the centuries to be the majority religion in Spain, this spirit was largely, if not always perfectly, maintained.

Pluralistic though it was, Islamic Spain was no democracy. After years of enlightened leadership, a succession of bad leaders caused the unified Muslim kingdom to fragment among many smaller petty kingdoms and fiefdoms.

Though they competed and fought, the spirit of pluralism continued. Indeed, it thrived as rival kings sought the best minds in the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish worlds for their courts. This was just as true in the Christian petty kingdoms, as the Muslim ones. Christian and Muslim armies even fought alongside each other against mutual rivals of both faiths.

It is at this point that the darker parallels to our time begin. Into the competition for land, resources, and power, some leaders on both sides began to appeal to religion to rally support for their cause. Wars became increasingly religious in nature. Into this tinderbox a match was thrown: the Crusades – the same term that many Arabs use today when referring to America's adventure in Iraq.

The Crusades deepened Spain's religious divide. Minorities in both Christian and Muslim kingdoms become increasingly suspect. Persecutions, expulsions, and further warfare ensued. Nothing could stop it, not even the black plague.

Ultimately, Christian kingdoms gained the upper hand as the Muslim kingdoms of Islamic Spain fell. Spain's Muslims and Jews were forced to either leave or convert. This led to the rise of the Inquisition, whose purpose was to verify the loyalty of suspect converts. The expulsions and inquisitions racked Spain economically, culturally, and morally. Its power was severely compromised. The fall of pluralism in Spain was the fall of Spain itself.

Dark parallels with today

This fall directly links to events today and raises many of the same stakes. Though few Americans note it, one of Osama bin Laden's justifications for the 9/11 attacks was to avenge the "tragedy" of Islamic Spain.

So far, the post-9/11 world and the policies it has spawned seem to be heading in the same dangerous direction as witnessed before. The religious intolerance that engulfed and overwhelmed medieval Spain threatens the increasingly beleaguered pluralism of our own time.

At its best, the history of Islamic Spain is a model for interfaith cooperation that inspires those who seek an easier relationship among the three Abrahamic faiths. At its worst, it's a warning of what can occur when political and religious leaders divide the world. It reminds us what really happens when civilizations clash.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0822/p09s02-coop.htm

Ironically this is an article from The Christian Science Monitor.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=4205&sec_id=4205

islamic spain was tolerant, for a very short period of time. and do you know, by chance what ended that "islamic" tolerance? invasion by muslims.

"Muslim Spain, nominally subject to the rulers (caliphs) in Damascus and Baghdad, eventually broke free from any foreign subservience. Around the years 930-1000, Cordoba excelled as the most cultured city in Europe under a stable and prosperous rule, especially during the reign of Abd-al Rahman III (proclaimed Caliph in Cordoba in 929). This enlightened ruler built a sumptuous palace, Medina Azahara, named for his favorite wife Azahara. Its magnificence in ivory, jade, ebony and alabaster rivaled or exceeded that of the Taj Mahal and yet it was totally destroyed and sacked not by the “barbarian Christians” attacking from the North but by the fanatical Muslim Berber invaders in 1010. They left hardly a stone standing.

During a few months in 1009, five different rulers succeeded each other and lost control of much of the provincial territories. A rebellion against loyalty to the Omayyid dynasty led to civil war and the descent of Muslim Spain into chaos. Within a generation, approximately 40 independent Muslim mini-kingdoms or emirates called taifas proclaimed their independence and enabled the Christian kingdoms to organize and make major advances in the reconquest of the peninsula.

The Native Jewish population of Spain (many and perhaps most Sephardi Jews were native born converts rather than migrants), always a barometer of tolerance, quite clearly preferred the Christian North to the Muslim South from the beginning of the 11th century. Severe anti-Jewish disturbances began first in Granada and the Muslim South under the Almoravids and Almohades. The great palaces, artistic achievements and part of the sophisticated irrigation works of the Omayyids and Abbasids were largely destroyed by the new invaders. By the time of the final conquest of Granada - the last remaining Muslim kingdom in 1492, almost no Jews resided there whereas more than 225 Spanish towns had their distinctive Jewish quarters (juderías) still intact on the eve of the expulsion."

but I notice that instead of answering the question as it was posed, u gave a mincing anecdotal retort. that I GUESS is suppose to override islamic theology, the actions of mohammed, and the principles of sharia. how exactly all these are overridden is left up to the imagination of the reader.

[Bronco Bob]

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=4205&sec_id=4205

islamic spain was tolerant, for a very short period of time. and do you know, by chance what ended that "islamic" tolerance? invasion by muslims.

"Muslim Spain, nominally subject to the rulers (caliphs) in Damascus and Baghdad, eventually broke free from any foreign subservience. Around the years 930-1000, Cordoba excelled as the most cultured city in Europe under a stable and prosperous rule, especially during the reign of Abd-al Rahman III (proclaimed Caliph in Cordoba in 929). This enlightened ruler built a sumptuous palace, Medina Azahara, named for his favorite wife Azahara. Its magnificence in ivory, jade, ebony and alabaster rivaled or exceeded that of the Taj Mahal and yet it was totally destroyed and sacked not by the “barbarian Christians” attacking from the North but by the fanatical Muslim Berber invaders in 1010. They left hardly a stone standing.

During a few months in 1009, five different rulers succeeded each other and lost control of much of the provincial territories. A rebellion against loyalty to the Omayyid dynasty led to civil war and the descent of Muslim Spain into chaos. Within a generation, approximately 40 independent Muslim mini-kingdoms or emirates called taifas proclaimed their independence and enabled the Christian kingdoms to organize and make major advances in the reconquest of the peninsula.

The Native Jewish population of Spain (many and perhaps most Sephardi Jews were native born converts rather than migrants), always a barometer of tolerance, quite clearly preferred the Christian North to the Muslim South from the beginning of the 11th century. Severe anti-Jewish disturbances began first in Granada and the Muslim South under the Almoravids and Almohades. The great palaces, artistic achievements and part of the sophisticated irrigation works of the Omayyids and Abbasids were largely destroyed by the new invaders. By the time of the final conquest of Granada - the last remaining Muslim kingdom in 1492, almost no Jews resided there whereas more than 225 Spanish towns had their distinctive Jewish quarters (juderías) still intact on the eve of the expulsion."


So what? All that proves is one group of Muslims was less tolerant than
another group. You think a more repressive Christian army never
conquered a more tolerant Christian country and forced their version
of Christianity on the people living there?



but I notice that instead of answering the question as it was posed, u gave a mincing anecdotal retort. that I GUESS is suppose to override islamic theology, the actions of mohammed, and the principles of sharia. how exactly all these are overridden is left up to the imagination of the reader.

I answered your claim that "islam itself has never supported freedom of religion or freedom of speech" by proving you to be a liar.

[bcbronc]

[QUOTE]the muslims in canada are very similar to the muslims in saudi arabia or malaysia, only they aren't in control. canadian apostates get beat up, veiled threats are always made. does it matter how anecdotally nice say, a malaysian muslim is when the sharia courts in malaysia steal the children of women who try to apostate? or if there are nice muslims in iran where apostate carries the death penalty? is the person being executed feel better because "thousands if not millions of muslims maybe would not have killed him?"

every great world religion has had their period of conversion through violence. Islam is the baby of the lot and experiencing their growing pains.

islam itself has never supported freedom of religion or freedom of speech, and this goes directly back to mohammed. mohammed murdered poets for political dissent, as well as being the driving force behind sharia law. so while I can not say that all muslims don't believe in freedom of speech or religion, I know for an absolute certainty that mohammed was VIOLENTLY opposed to both.

I don't know enough about sharia law, especially it's formation, to comment on it. I do know that many consider the iranian revolution to be the birth of the modern fundamentlist strain of Islam. just another example of a man using a religion to gain political power.

and I can easily post plenty of quotes attributed to mohammed that have him stressing tolerance and forgiveness. it's also expressedly written in the qu'ran that christians and jews should be tolerated. hard to say islam has never supported freedom of religion when it's written right into their scriptures, no?

I agree that there are some violent verses but that can be said about every religion. for example, I'm currently reading the Bhagavad Gita, a part of the Hindu "scriptures". in it Krishna (God) tries to convince Arjuna it's Arjuna's duty to slaughter his family members in a war. I haven't finished it yet, so I don't know how it ends but the point is that a few violent verses in a religious text don't necessarily make a religion violent.

anyways, consider the first 1000 years of Islam's existence. if there wasn't a certain element of violence permitted in the religion, what do you think the odds of islam still existing would be? if you're not sure, head down to your nearest Native Indian house of worship, and ask their head shaman how they faired against the introduction of christianity.

the problem today isn't Islam, it's the perversion of Islam by people with political goals coupled with overwhelming ignorance of western nations.

[W*GS]

It's interesting that the folks who believe Islam has never been of value, in any realm, don't know their history. If it wasn't for Islamic intellectuals and their respect for reason and knowledge, what was learned by the ancient Greeks would have been lost to us entirely. Remember, it was the Muslims who kept alive the knowledge of Socrates, Aristotle, and all the others while Europe was backsliding tremendously during the Dark Ages - which, BTW, was the zenith of Christian power...

[yavoon]

It's interesting that the folks who believe Islam has never been of value, in any realm, don't know their history. If it wasn't for Islamic intellectuals and their respect for reason and knowledge, what was learned by the ancient Greeks would have been lost to us entirely. Remember, it was the Muslims who kept alive the knowledge of Socrates, Aristotle, and all the others while Europe was backsliding tremendously during the Dark Ages - which, BTW, was the zenith of Christian power...

yes interesting those folks, where are those folks btw? or is this u setting up a strawman then beating it down. wap it down good wags!

[yavoon]

So what? All that proves is one group of Muslims was less tolerant than
another group. You think a more repressive Christian army never
conquered a more tolerant Christian country and forced their version
of Christianity on the people living there?




I answered your claim that "islam itself has never supported freedom of religion or freedom of speech" by proving you to be a liar.

islam, ie the religion. not any particular muslim country. what I meant is that mohammed, the koran, the hadith, sharia, and every important islamic scholar has come out AGAINST freedom of speech and religion. and btw that islamic tolerance in spain wasn't modern tolerance. it was tolerance in the manner that they didn't actively persecute the minorities, not that they for example accepted any post enlightenment concept of freedom of speech.

so in reality, u didnt prove me wrong factually. nor did u even dent the general idea.

[yavoon]

[QUOTE=yavoon;1687998]

every great world religion has had their period of conversion through violence. Islam is the baby of the lot and experiencing their growing pains.



I don't know enough about sharia law, especially it's formation, to comment on it. I do know that many consider the iranian revolution to be the birth of the modern fundamentlist strain of Islam. just another example of a man using a religion to gain political power.

and I can easily post plenty of quotes attributed to mohammed that have him stressing tolerance and forgiveness. it's also expressedly written in the qu'ran that christians and jews should be tolerated. hard to say islam has never supported freedom of religion when it's written right into their scriptures, no?

I agree that there are some violent verses but that can be said about every religion. for example, I'm currently reading the Bhagavad Gita, a part of the Hindu "scriptures". in it Krishna (God) tries to convince Arjuna it's Arjuna's duty to slaughter his family members in a war. I haven't finished it yet, so I don't know how it ends but the point is that a few violent verses in a religious text don't necessarily make a religion violent.

anyways, consider the first 1000 years of Islam's existence. if there wasn't a certain element of violence permitted in the religion, what do you think the odds of islam still existing would be? if you're not sure, head down to your nearest Native Indian house of worship, and ask their head shaman how they faired against the introduction of christianity.

the problem today isn't Islam, it's the perversion of Islam by people with political goals coupled with overwhelming ignorance of western nations.

yes lets see what the koran thinks of christians and jews.

2:96 And thou wilt find them greediest of mankind for life and (greedier) than the idolaters. (Each) one of them would like to be allowed to live a thousand years. And to live (a thousand years) would be no means remove him from the doom. Allah is Seer of what they do.

2:61 And when ye said: O Moses! We are weary of one kind of food; so call upon thy Lord for us that He bring forth for us of that which the earth groweth - of its herbs and its cucumbers and its corn and its lentils and its onions. He said: Would ye exchange that which is higher for that which is lower ? Go down to settled country, thus ye shall get that which ye demand. And humiliation and wretchedness were stamped upon them and they were visited with wrath from Allah. That was because they disbelieved in Allah's revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully. That was for their disobedience and transgression.

2:65 And ye know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how We said unto them: Be ye apes, despised and hated!

2:66 And We made it an example to their own and to succeeding generations, and an admonition to the God-fearing.

3:24 That is because they say: The Fire will not touch us save for a certain number of days. That which they used to invent hath deceived them regarding their religion.

4:51 Hast thou not seen those unto whom a portion of the Scripture hath been given, how they believe in idols and false deities, and how they say of those (idolaters) who disbelieve: "These are more rightly guided than those who believe" ?

4:160 Because of the wrongdoing of the Jews We forbade them good things which were (before) made lawful unto them, and because of their much hindering from Allah's way,

4:161 And of their taking usury when they were forbidden it, and of their devouring people's wealth by false pretences, We have prepared for those of them who disbelieve a painful doom.

5:51 O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.

5:53 Then will the believers say (unto the people of the Scripture): are these they who swore by Allah their most binding oaths that they were surely with you ? Their works have failed, and they have become the losers.

you know what, I'm tired. thats about 1/4th. and thats mostly just the jews. though often christians/jews are lumped together for scorn in islam. and of course this doesn't TOUCH the crap that gets hurled against "unbelievers."

[SoCalBronco]

http://memewatch.com/thelist/archives/pix/morans.jpg

This guy was right on, all along. He didn't misspell anything.

He's simply complaining about Ian Moran's constant **** ups on the ice.

(Only Josh will get this.)

[yavoon]

http://memewatch.com/thelist/archives/pix/morans.jpg

This guy was right on, all along. He didn't misspell anything.

He's simply complaining about Ian Moran's constant **** ups on the ice.

(Only Josh will get this.)

is the go usa in that picture photoshopped in?

[alkemical]

http://memewatch.com/thelist/archives/pix/morans.jpg

This guy was right on, all along. He didn't misspell anything.

He's simply complaining about Ian Moran's constant **** ups on the ice.

(Only Josh will get this.)

HAHAHA!

[alkemical]

is the go usa in that picture photoshopped in?

No, the "S"'s are the same -

[gunns]

"One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields,'" Bush said.

I always associated the re-education camps and killing fields to Laos and Cambodia.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/bush-iraq-vietnam.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/the-lesson.JPG

[baja]

I saw a great bumper sticker the other day;

"We are making new enemies faster than we can kill them."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I saw a great bumper sticker the other day;

"We are making new enemies faster than we can kill them."

:thumbsup:

That just about sums up the disaster that is Bush's foreign policy, huh?

http://www.bartcop.com/lesson-of-nam.JPG

[yavoon]

No, the "S"'s are the same -

it just looks like his hand isn't even holding it is all.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

TIME RUNNING OUT FOR BUSH LEGACY WITH IRAQ DEBACLE DETERIORATING

CHIPPAWA, ONT. -- President George W. Bush and his handmaidens attempt to rewrite history before the ink on the first draft is dry. Bush is a great student and lover of history, his departing "brain," Karl Rove, wants us to believe.

That fits right in with the myth that Bush is a 21st-century Winston Churchill, knowing his place in history as he carefully reflects on the events of the past in order to shape the future course of western civilization with wisdom and courage.

At best, Bush is a history dunce; at worst, he's a transparent manipulator who uses the bully pulpit of the presidency to twist historic truths and defend his present-day lies.

Bush never wanted a careful examination of the monumental CIA failures before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Bush hoped that history would remain buried, never revisited by those who thirst for truth, however uncomfortable the truth may make those responsible for the tragic failures.

Bush and his people never wanted America to see the CIA inspector general's report on the agency's bungling and the evidence of "systemic failure" in not doing more to thwart the al-Qaeda attacks.

The report also recommended that former CIA director George Tenet and many of his top aides be held accountable for their actions and failures to act. Tenet and his subordinates never faced discipline for their deeds. Tenet was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor. Tenet's shrewd move in naming the CIA headquarters after President George H.W. Bush, a former director, assured his protection.

The inspector general determined that 50 to 60 CIA officers knew in 2000 of reports that two men who would become Sept. 11 hijackers already were in the United States. No one alerted the FBI that Nawaf al-Hamzi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, both known terrorists, were in the country and should be considered serious threats.

Only a 19-page summary was made public. CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden and his predecessor Porter Goss both resisted making the report public. It's better people don't know how their government failed them, or so their thinking must go.

It took the leadership of Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to get an act of Congress forcing the CIA to release the summary of the report, giving it the public scrutiny it richly merits.

Hayden -- like the president who appointed him -- resists public review of private government errors.

Hayden whined, "It will, at a minimum, consume time and attention revisiting ground that is already well plowed."

This is hardly old ground, and the report contains fresh revelations and details about the horrible mistakes that should never be repeated. While Bush was quick to use the "lessons of 9/11" to ramp up public fear and build support for his disastrous war in Iraq -- a 9/11 disconnect -- he wants the real lessons hushed and hidden from the critical eye of history.

Hayden wants no part of any notion of accountability or discipline for the CIA officers who failed in their duties. Let's name these people, sully their reputations and disturb their comfortable retirements.

Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., a member of the House Intelligence Committee, doesn't buy Hayden's notion of hidden history and protection for those who failed the nation. The New York Times reports Holt denounced the CIA director's stance, arguing, "Accountability is a concept the American people understand. I am stunned that Gen. Hayden still does not get that message."

Sure, he got the message from the White House: "We are never accountable or responsible for our deeds."

Rockefeller also is determined to complete his committee's long-delayed investigation into the use and misuse of intelligence in the runup to the war in Iraq.

Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., the former chairman of the Intelligence Committee, made sure during his tenure that the probe never would be completed. Roberts stalled the investigation at every possible juncture. The American people never would know the truth about the systematic lie-manufacturing the White House used to build the case against Iraq and to create the myth of Saddam Hussein's vast arsenal of deadly weapons.

Bush wants no examination of the dark history of deceit that will be his lasting legacy. He wants us to focus on his latest contortions of history and his desperate campaign to drum up support for the struggle in Iraq.

A "free Iraq" is within reach, Bush assures us, warning that Americans caught in "the allure of retreat" will lose Iraq and bring more suffering to the country the invasion and occupation shattered.

Bush gave a speech last week at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention, a regular forum for Bush's most wretched rhetoric. It always amazes me that the VFW members cheer so wildly when Bush salutes and plays the "commander guy."

When Bush had his chance to serve in a foreign war, he wanted no part of it. The application for the Texas Air National Guard he was joining -- skipping hundreds ahead of him in line -- included the question "Do you want to have an overseas assignment?" Overseas meant Vietnam then. Bush checked the "no" box.

Bush tried a bizarre rewriting of the Vietnam War in his speech, arguing the outcome would have been different had American forces remained there longer. In fact, by 1975, when Americans evacuated Saigon, and South Vietnam fell to North Vietnamese forces, only a handful of troops were there, mostly for embassy security.

After the Tet offensive in 1968, President Lyndon Johnson began withdrawing U.S. troops. President Richard Nixon initiated "Vietnamization," a process in which the South Vietnamese military took over security as U.S. troops went home. President Gerald Ford continued Nixon's policy, and his defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and his White House chief of staff, Dick Cheney, oversaw the order to withdraw U.S. forces.

To buy into Bush's argument, you must agree that Cheney and Rumsfeld "lost" Vietnam because they could not "resist the allure of retreat." Bush forgot to mention that history to the VFW. He did point to the violence and repression in Vietnam and Cambodia following the U.S. withdrawal as an example of what will happen in Iraq if Congress dares to do anything that even slightly veers from Bush's war plan.

Bush's stretched Vietnam parallel didn't sit well with the Vietnamese people.Vu Huy Trieu of Hanoi, a veteran of the Communist forces, told the Associated Press, "Doesn't he realize that if the U.S. had stayed longer, they would have killed more people? Nobody regrets that the Vietnam War wasn't prolonged except Bush."

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a wounded, decorated Vietnam veteran who volunteered for duty overseas, saw right through Bush's hypocrisy and revision of history. Kerry told The New York Times, "Invoking the tragedy of Vietnam to defend the failed policy in Iraq is as irresponsible as it is ignorant of the realities of both of those wars."

Bush never explained how he would have brought victory in Vietnam or why he chose to avoid serving there while now saying others should have stayed longer to die. He is just content to wave the bloody shirt of post-Vietnam War carnage as justification for his failed course in Iraq.

Bush's serial lies and shameless attempts to reshape history distinguish his arguments that "prevailing in this struggle is essential to our future as a nation."

Bush created the struggle in Iraq and did irreparable harm to our national future. That is how history should judge his failed presidency.

http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/gallagher329.html

By Bill Gallagher

[baja]

Will his last desperate measure be a false flag attack to regain support of the congress and the American people - that is my current fear

[TailgateNut]

Will his last desperate measure be a false flag attack to regain support of the congress and the American people - that is my current fear


Although he still has a few, the cheerleaders' fan club numbers are dwindling fast. Even his entourage of yesmen are jumping ship as fast as they possibly can.
His Party is exposing themselves (SOMETIMES LITERALLY) as the hypocrites they really are.

The end is near for the bible thumping, gay bashing, family values HYPOCRITES!

Only a few clueless supporters remain in the wings!

[baja]

I did breath a big sigh of relief when Rove resigned but then I thought maybe this is bigger than Rove and the neocons,like the Illumaniti!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

His Party is exposing themselves (SOMETIMES LITERALLY) as the hypocrites they really are.


Ha! ^5

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Will his last desperate measure be a false flag attack to regain support of the congress and the American people - that is my current fear

Remember what Poppy did in an eleventh hour attempt to salvage his "legacy?"

He sent U.S. troops to Somalia in a "humanitarian aid" mission.

Perhaps Dim Son will try something similar.

I guess this would be the best case scenario.