Posted on 11/04/2005 5:55:17 AM PST by SJackson
"We in America know the benevolence that is at the heart of Islam," declared Condoleezza Rice, addressing assembled Muslim dignitaries at the annual Ramadan dinner at the State Department — and provoking a second, consecutive examination in this column of the rhetoric of the most important US official next to the president.
The secretary of state's annual Ramadan dinner at the State Department is not to be confused with the president's annual Ramadan dinner at the White House, although it's easy to get mixed up. The legacy of September 11 has left us with: an open-ended war abroad; the introduction of homeland hyper-insecurity; and the open-ended introduction of Ramadan celebrations all over official Washington. Which is worth a question or two on its own, beginning with: "Why"? Why has it become the post-September 11 function of the U.S. government to celebrate Ramadan? The buzzword of "Muslim outreach" comes to mind, but, as the Judeo-Christian culture hit by Islamikazes on September 11, haven't we got it exactly backward? That is, wouldn't Muslims better outreach themselves if the Saudi Embassy, for example, celebrated Christmas and Hanukah?
But I digress. Getting back to Miss Rice's shindig, Ramadan wouldn't be Ramadan without Nihad Awad, the executive director of the notorious Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). His invitation alone deserves separate mention — and maybe an investigation into whether security concerns arose over bringing into the State Department someone from a Hamas-linked group boasting five current or former officials arrested, convicted or deported on terrorism-related charges. Oh well. In the holiday spirit, let's just recall, as bestselling author Robert Spencer did at www.jihadwatch.com, the words of CAIR's former board chairman, Omar Ahmad: "Islam isn't in American to be equal to any other faiths, but to be dominant."
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Ok. Those dozen people are excluded.
Lets return to the other Millions.
Sorry. Will get with the program.
NUKE 'EM ALL!
Is that better?
Those examples you sent me are examples of Muslim heretics who collaborate with the infidels.(Hey that's us!) - tom
Islam seems to do very well at creating lots and lots of twisted psycho-fascist murdering lunatics. I say kill 'em all. And fast.
But if I really thought the whole bunch were irredeemable psychos then I would hardly support a war launched to set them free, would I?
Do you support our mission in Iraq?
Guess what? The War was not launched to set anyone free. The war was launched to fight an enemy. The presumption when the war started that it was the beginning of dominos falling. None of that has happened or will happen.
You and Bush can both wait for some sort of Democracy - that Americans recognize- happening in Iraq. I'll buy a Lotto ticket and wish just as hard. My odds of winning are better.
As to establishing democracy, I think she'd do a great deal of good by acknowledging that terrorist groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the al Aska Martyrs Brigade (Fatah) are not appropriate participants in the democratic process. Failing in that simply encourages groups like al Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood offshoots who, per US policy, should have been represented in the process. That aside, an expanded al Qaida presence in Gaza and the Sinai endangers Iraq. And Egypt.
As to benevolence, perhaps she could temper her remarks. Personally I don't think most Americans who think about Islam, most don't, consider it benevolent. This is a serious problem for the benevolent Muslims, all the invitees I assume, who risk being tarred by the actions of the presumably few non-benevolent ones. Perhaps she could have suggested we ALL have to loudly condemn jihadism, benevolent Muslims included.
Yep, and then some. I don't think Condi should have dissed all muslims but I found her reference to Islam as "benevolent" strange. I think she could have found a better description without insulting peoples all over the world who suffer at the hands of this benevolent religion.
There are many fine muslims in the world, but Islam has the heart of Mohammed...and he wasn't benevolent.
I actually think we are in WWIII (or WWIV depending on how one counts) and the enemy is Islamic jihad. There may come a day when muslims are placed in internment camps (just as were innocent German and Japanese citizens were in WWII). That doesn't exactly fit with Condi's use of the word "benevolent."
If history is any guide, 25%, at least, actively or passively support terrorists and several will be indicted within three years.
The State Dept will then disavow any knowledge that the smiling gentlemen next to Rice in the group hug picture is the Al Quida regional commander for the American Southwest.
Giving the State Dept the benefit of the doubt. As the author points out, some of these people shouldn't be anywhere near government officials. Saudis excluded, of course, as future employers.
Relax people - As Sec of State - Condi has to say BS like this.
I find it amazing she is able to do so with a straight face.
Really? Why? What happens if she stops lying? Chirac lies all the time about Islam. Much good it is doing France.
Perhaps she could have suggested we ALL have to loudly condemn jihadism, benevolent Muslims included.
Agree with that 100 per cent. My point is that sometimes you have to use rhetoric to win your battles. I think some of the comments here assume that Condi is somehow a big fan of Islam when all she's doing is making nice noises in order to make our job in a Iraq a little easier. That's just smart politics.
The difficulty with this is that nearly all of the benevolence is directed inward - charity is one of the Five Pillars, for instance, but it applies only toward other Muslims. And those restrictions specified for outward violence - forcible conversion never being applied to "peoples of the Book," i.e. Christians and Jews and in some interpretations, Zoroastrians - are largely ignored by Islam as it is practiced today.
It's a classic dichotomy - do you consider Islam as the theoretical structure built over the centuries by thousands of ulema? If so you must admit that there are many admirable aspects. Or do you consider it as the motivation behind fanatics who murder and the source of an inveterate and undying hostility directed at the non-Muslim? It is that as well.
Only one of those two interpretations is inherently non-benevolent. Unfortunately it's the one trying to kill us. It's that one we're having to deal with. It's the one that is being so heavily funded by oil and the one whose adherents are, in fact, currently driving the religion. Can the West live in peace with Islam? It did for a very long time - from a position of strength. Can the West live with the Islamists? I do not think so. They're actually going to have to be killed in numbers that will make their power over the people they've parasitized diminish to the non-threat it has been in the past. I'm not being particularly blood-thirsty here or acting as yet another keyboard commando. They're actually going to have to be killed or they will kill us.
In the long term I think it is oil funding that will prove the Islamists' Achilles heel. It doesn't take a great deal of cannon fodder to continue a low-level terrorism war, as we are finding in Iraq. It does take money.
"The War was not launched to set anyone free. The war was launched to fight an enemy."
The two ends are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, our victory depends on exporting freedom. As Blair said (a lib, but a smart one), "The spread of freedom is the best defense for the free" - something like that anyway.
You will find- to our sorrow- that fighting a war while being nice to enemy sympathizers will win neither the war nor the sympathizers hearts and minds.
"I think she could have found a better description without insulting peoples all over the world who suffer at the hands of this benevolent religion."
That's fair comment.
OK. Let's agree to disagree about the wisdom of the Iraq war. I take it that you did not support it? Or at least, don't now?
I'm curious, though - if trying to spread democracy won't stop Islamofascist terrorism, what strategy do you suggest?
I supported the war with a hope that my fears would not be realized. But I predicted the current situation as soon as I knew my faint hope that we would tackle the source- Saudi Arabia and Iran- would not be realized.
It is no secret to how to win a war. It's been done before. You start with knowing you're at war. You don't appease the enemy. You don't fight terrorists and hold hands with the Saudis. You don't fight terrorists in one arena and give them Gaza and more in another. You do what you have to do. You spread Democracy- after the war is won. You do what the US did in Japan post WWII.
If France is teaching us anything today it is the consequence of continuing on the present course.
TheShaz: Relax people - As Sec of State - Condi has to say BS like this.fragrant abuse: I think some of the comments here assume that Condi is somehow a big fan of Islam when all she's doing is making nice noises in order to make our job in a Iraq a little easier.
Perhaps I’m the only person on FR who doesn’t consider pandering part of the Secretary of States job description. White House, fine, but State should be there to represent American interests, period.
In that vein, let me note that the White House already had a Ramadan dinner. Why a second at State? To my knowledge State doesn’t do that for the holidays of other faiths. Isn’t that a defacto recognition that Islam is, in fact, a world political force? And as a political force, Islam isn’t benevolent. Do you really think terrorist
Billthedrill: Only one of those two interpretations is inherently non-benevolent. Unfortunately it's the one trying to kill us. It's that one we're having to deal with.
As I noted above, this is the State Dept., not the WH entertaining the American Muslim community. From that perspective I don’t think we should be concerned about Islam at all, other than their actions on the world stage, as you note the one trying to kill us
"You don't fight terrorists and hold hands with the Saudis."
That's fair. I agree that we will have to eventually confront the Saudis and other states that nurture Islamofascism. But I thought - still do - that it's a tall order to take them on all at once. And I think the administration always knew, even before 9/11, that the Saudis needed to be dealt with but that we were constrained by our reliance on their oil. Taking out Saddam and getting Iraq - home to the world's second-largest oil reserves - was just part of the strategy. We need stable, plentiful alternative oil supplies coming out of Iraq before we can really confront the Saudis, militarily or otherwise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.