| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Bush's "Religion of Peace" speeches embolden terrorists |
| 2006-11-18 |
| President Bush is undermining criticism vital to the survival of Western civilization and empowering terrorist leaders by proclaiming Islam a "religion of peace," says one of the most outspoken critics to emerge from the Muslim world in recent years. Wafa Sultan, a native of Syria, seized attention worldwide in February when her electrifying interview on Al-Jazeera television spread across the Internet through a video clip produced by the Middle East Media Research Institute. Named this year to Time Magazine's list of 100 influential people in the world, Sultan spoke with WND after addressing a symposium on radical Islam and terrorism in Las Vegas hosted by America's Truth Forum. She understands Bush's position as president and believes he is only trying to be diplomatic, but insists, nevertheless, his words are "empowering" Muslim leaders whose ultimate aim is for Islamic law to govern the world. "I believe he undermines our credibility by saying that," said Sultan. "We came from Islam, and we know what kind of religion Islam is. In her February Al-Jazeera appearance, which has brought her death threats, she asserted the world is witnessing "a battle between modernity and barbarism which Islam will lose." Sultan, who identifies herself as a secular ex-Muslim, told WND she would urge Bush to take a closer look at Islamic culture and its general embrace of violence as a means of establishment and expansion. "Facts are very stubborn things. Facts are facts," she said. "If you are not familiar with Islamic culture, how can you claim Islam is a peaceful religion?" The White House declined WND's request to respond to Sultan's comments. |
| Posted by:Jackal |
| #27 Actually, President Clinton has read several translations of the Bible cover to cover, and has stated preferences. Which doesn't make him a good Christian, just a more knowledgeable hypocrite. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-11-18 23:27 |
| #26 JET LI > movie HERO, yet another NOT-AN-OLIVER STONE film from the 1960's NOT starring MADONNA, Osama's WHITNEY, AEROSMITH, or a TEXAS-SIZED ASTEROID, etal. > "The ultimate/final duty of a Warrior, My Emperor, is to [know when?] PUT DOWN HIS SWORD". or words to tha effect. A true warrior trains for war, but KILLS FOR PEACE, FOR HONOR, FOR JUSTICE. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-11-18 23:15 |
| #25 Zenman, when someone is born again there is this whole forgiveness and acceptance thing, a renewal if you will. We're all sinners and we should forgive and be tolerant...etc. etc. Well, Bush, if he is truly born-again is going to find it very difficult to believe Islam is evil. I'll repeat my (hopefully, logical) argument again to you and Zen (more aimed at Zen) about this whole Bush's "born againism" being the root of all his language. It is NOT, I repeat, NOT the root of him using terms like "the Religion of Peace." I hold out hope that Bush (and I believe he does) knows what Islam REALLY is all about (a death cult intent on world domination). In fact, I'd argue the more "real" he (Bush) is in his Christianity (even without 9/11), the more he truly sees Islam for what it is. In fact, when you get down to it, any religion's fundamentalists would say that all other religions but their own are evil, because they are false. Jesus said it himself, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me." Pretty divisive words, if I say so myself. Listen, I've heard numerous preachers (who have actually spent time with Bush one-on-one or in small groups) say that Bush is the real deal on his belief system. Supposedly, he reads his Bible every morning and spends time with "the man upstairs." I truly believe the he knows how wicked Islam is. The problem comes with pulling the rest of the nation along and waking them up to the threat that Islam wields. He could've said, "Islam is a wicked, false religion who follows a two-bit thief and pedophile that invented a religion to satisfy his earthly lusts." But, he would've lost probably 95% of the nation after spouting off like that. His main problem is being influenced by the P.C. culture that infects and permeates everything inside the beltway. It truly has nothing to do with his religion. To further this logic, let's argue the opposite. Let's say President Clinton had still been in office on 9/11. Even though he appeared to be a "born-again" Christian, his words and deeds say otherwise. I'd imagine everyone here, including you, Zen, would say Clinton's a "fake" Christian who only carried his bible to church in front of the cameras. Could you imagine him saying anything like the above either? Or, heck, let's say some Hindu was President...could you imagine him/her saying anything like the unvarnished truth above? No way! Not in this day and age. Your personal hatred of Bush's religiosity is getting in the way of clear vision, my friend. Again, I've about come to your side of the fence on the results of this PC-speak. I truly believe that when the jihadis get nukes (or other WMDs) they will use them and they will force us to respond in a way that is a lot more painful than if we just "lanced the boil" now. But, your personal hatred of the Christian right is blinding you too, to some logical facts. Again, as a "born-again" believer myself, I truly feel all other religions are evil, because they are NOT of God and are false. Yet, in today's world there's only 1 religion that is the "root cause" of about 99% of the skirmishes going on. And, it ain't Christianity either, my friend. |
| Posted by: BA 2006-11-18 22:55 |
| #24 Careful, you might pique him. Sorry, couldn't resist! :-) |
| Posted by: gorb 2006-11-18 21:36 |
| #23 peek, peak, for Christ's sake, do I correct your spelling? Lighten up! It was meant in a humorous vein. Ever watch the Princess Bride? There's your clue. Oh, and get a dictionary. |
| Posted by: Mick Dundee 2006-11-18 21:16 |
| #22 peek, peak, for Christ's sake, do I correct your spelling ? |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-11-18 19:29 |
| #21 We anti-Islamics reached a peek and now we are ebbing for another surge. This word "peek", it does not mean what you think it does! ;-) |
| Posted by: Mick Dundee 2006-11-18 19:16 |
| #20 I’m interested in how you see Bush’s “born again” syndrome playing into all of this. Do you have the time to elaborate on that? Zenman, when someone is born again there is this whole forgiveness and acceptance thing, a renewal if you will. We're all sinners and we should forgive and be tolerant...etc. etc. Well, Bush, if he is truly born-again is going to find it very difficult to believe Islam is evil. He would rather believe that it is only a small number of followers of an extreme interpretation, versus the reality that the Islamists are following a literal interpretation. Once you accept the scope of the problem(s) related to Islam, how far along it is in achieving its goals, how blind a sizable portion of our culture is and just what it is going to take to pull that fat out of the fire...well it's enough to make you want to bury your head and pretend it is not there. |
| Posted by: Mick Dundee 2006-11-18 19:09 |
| #19 I see Darrell Ethnic Cleasing, with honors... is here... Well, Darrell, perhaps you are aware that "muslim" is not an ethnicity, correct? It is as if you wanted to play a race card, but it is less in fashion nowadays, so you found a good replacement -- "ethnic cleansing". |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2006-11-18 19:04 |
| #18 I thought peeking wasn't allowed. :-) |
| Posted by: gorb 2006-11-18 17:22 |
| #17 Peace bros. In my vast experience, I've noticed that shit happens in cycles. We anti-Islamics reached a peek and now we are ebbing for another surge. The mussies will surge ahead for a moment, causing our inevitable reactions. In Lebanon, the Hezbollah fired numerous rockets into Israel, a peek, then went underground, an ebb. Then, the Israelis reentered Gaza and now they peek. If you chart the peeks and valleys, you can draw a line across the peeks and determine the amount of escalation, and draw a line across the valleys and determine the loss of resolve. Everything is still on the increase. We have to strengthen our resolve, we have to prepare to fight a longer, broader war. Too bad our politicians are such assholes. We don't need a draft, we need a drive to boost our numbers. Too bad our politicians are such assholes. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-11-18 17:13 |
| #16 Perhaps Bush's "Religion of Peace" references are meant as a counterbalance to those who would indiscriminately "off" Islamic clerics, deport all Muslims including U.S. citizens, and threaten the entire Muslim Middle East with genocide as a punishment for any significant terrorist act against the U.S. Such homicidal lunatics hardly need encouragement for their ethnic cleansing aspirations. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-11-18 16:13 |
| #15 SPOD: My advice to some, lurk more, post less, get your own blog. Some people mature faster than others. Someday he'll see why he should use a nym and focus on the topic. Until then, he'll get his rocks off with random sniping and consider the effects important. The trolls out there should put this in their tickle file for review in another 10 years and see what they think of their behavior when they have a better perspective on things. |
| Posted by: gorb 2006-11-18 16:12 |
| #14 "Bush's "Religion of Peace" speeches embolden terrorists" My advice to some, lurk more, post less, get your own blog. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-11-18 16:03 |
| #13 .com - you have fans. Penis envy fans |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-11-18 16:02 |
| #12 Get yourself a real name and maybe you'll be more worthy, Hupoger Thineper3902. Otherwise, you're just a Zenster/Mick wannabe in hiding. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-11-18 16:02 |
| #11 .com, there's a huge gulf that separates painting a false picture by calling Islam "The Religion of Peace" and gratuitously antagonizing the whole of Islam all at once. While Bush may be eschewing the more abrasive pole, that does not require him to rely solely upon the other. The introduction of "Islamofascism", welcome as it was, represented so small a step in such a belated fashion that Bush quite possibly smothered the exact sort of public awareness he needed to propel popular support for the Iraq campaign and the Global War on Terrorism. Broader recognition of this threat might well have resulted in more republican votes or, at least, minimizing the number of those who abandoned the platform. For how strongly you support Bush's agenda, to turn around and ridicule my observation of this discrepancy in the way his message and agenda do not balance is less than amusing. A similar example is his belated jettisoning of Rumsfeld. Intentionally or not, he again quite possibly sabotaged his own party's chances of winning. I don't ask nor do I expect you to explain Bush's own reasoning but it's fairly clear that his political calculus contains some major missteps. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-11-18 16:02 |
| #10 *gasp!* He spoke! Bow down! Bow down! Do not make eye contact |
| Posted by: Hupoger Thineper3902 2006-11-18 15:46 |
| #9 Lol... fuckwit. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-11-18 15:38 |
| #8 The .com has graced us with his presence *bows down* Oh no!!! Fools!!! You have caused Him to run away!!! |
| Posted by: Slinelet Ebbuse4451 2006-11-18 15:35 |
| #7 Of course he does. Sheesh. I'm done. Happy trails. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-11-18 15:26 |
| #6 I would hope that the President holds a realistic assessment of Islam - as it is - but is using diplomacy to keep US troops in the Middle East while preparations to smash Shiite power are put into effect. If not, a future ICBM threat to the US Homeland is a certainty. The fact that the Dems tossed aside Pelosi's bone to Murtha, suggests that there is some bi-partisanship on Iran. Remember: if Iran's Ayatollahs lose power, then so do those in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Then elites in the rest of the Middle East will turn on the Sunni Salafists. |
| Posted by: Sneaze Shaiting3550 2006-11-18 15:19 |
| #5 I'm not Bush's spokesdink. I am, however, an RB resident and am free to respond to posts which lack minimal common sense. My direct, this is all you get, response is... Common sense. It's intuitively obvious to the casual observer that (at least) 2 things are at work: 1) He, and every other world leader, would rather not fight them all, all at once, if it can be helped. They are everywhere, including here, in substantial numbers. Will it make any difference? No one can say definitively - at least not in the real world - which brings us to #2... 2) He lives and operates, as President, in the real world, not in the blogosphere where anyone can say anything, without regard for reality, and there is absolutely no accountability or consequences, no matter how absurd, other than ridicule. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-11-18 15:17 |
| #4 .com, how do you reconcile your own view that “ Islam is a fatal human pathogen ” with your defense of how Bush continues to call it “The Religion of Peace”? One big reason why republicans lost the midterm elections was Bush’s inadequate use of his oval pulpit in clearly delineating what a threat Islam poses to our freedom. You yourself have lamented how it took so many years for the word "Islamofascism" to finally pass his lips. Yet, despite some rather glaring errors in judgment on the president's part, you criticize those who question whether Bush is working with a complete data set or even properly operating upon it. Your own views of Islam closely parallel those of Wafa Sultan with respect to how: She understands Bush's position as president and believes he is only trying to be diplomatic, but insists, nevertheless, his words are "empowering" Muslim leaders whose ultimate aim is for Islamic law to govern the world. "I believe he undermines our credibility by saying that," said Sultan. "We came from Islam, and we know what kind of religion Islam is. In her February Al-Jazeera appearance, which has brought her death threats, she asserted the world is witnessing "a battle between modernity and barbarism which Islam will lose." Many times you have stated that moderate Muslims are of no value in overcoming jihadist terrorism. You described Fjordman’s article, “Why We Cannot Rely on Moderate Muslims” by saying; “ This is the definitive word.” Do you argue against the notion that calling Islam “The Religion of Peace” improperly ameliorates its well-deserved reputation for savagery and barbarism? Is not the time well past and gone for using such overly delicate diplomacy to avoid offending infamously paper-thin Muslim sensibilities? After five long years of thundering silence, haven’t the vast majority of moderate Muslims shown themselves to be nothing more than tacit or covert facilitators of Islamic terrorism? It does not further public awareness of Islam’s threat to freedom when Bush says: "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." In an October 2002 speech in Washington, the president said, "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." While we agree on how people must take Bush at his word with respect to Iran not acquiring nuclear weapons, that promise is not beholden to nor reliant upon intentionally understating the threat that Islam represents to America’s security. In fact, doing so seems, more than anything, to discourage any garnering of public support for the Iran interdiction. Calling Islam “The Religion of Peace” does exactly that and I wonder if you agree with Wafa Sultan that: While many Muslim leaders and non-Muslim apologists insist terrorists have "hijacked" Islam, Sultan asserts people such as those who kidnapped and beheaded Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002 are "true Muslims." Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders are simply following the example of Muhammad, who "committed the most brutal acts against those who opposed him," she said. Mick, I’m interested in how you see Bush’s “born again” syndrome playing into all of this. Do you have the time to elaborate on that? |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-11-18 14:59 |
| #3 Breathing emboldens Islamic terrorists. Nothing new to see... move on. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-11-18 14:13 |
| #2 Yep. He's purdy stupid, not brilliant and insightful like we are. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-11-18 12:40 |
| #1 Sultan, who identifies herself as a secular ex-Muslim, told WND she would urge Bush to take a closer look at Islamic culture and its general embrace of violence as a means of establishment and expansion. "Facts are very stubborn things. Facts are facts," she said. "If you are not familiar with Islamic culture, how can you claim Islam is a peaceful religion?" The White House declined WND's request to respond to Sultan's comments. Repeat: "W", knows exactly what his advisors tell him, and considering that CYA and PC are the names of the game in government employment, you can bet he does not have the unvarnished truth. |
| Posted by: Mick Dundee 2006-11-18 12:27 |