Posted on 11/29/2002 9:49:16 PM PST by knak
President Bush finds himself in a rare disagreement with conservatives in his party over his efforts to portray Islam as a peaceful religion that is not responsible for anti-American terrorism.
In a score of speeches since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the president has called for tolerance of Muslims, describing Islam as "a faith based upon peace and love and compassion" and a religion committed to "morality and learning and tolerance."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
A pointless comparison.
Equivalency doesn't work here.
Haven't you noticed that no atrocities have been commited lately in the name of a Christian "God"?
Hurting my maintenance guy because Muslims attacked the WTC is the most absurd thing I think I ever heard.
It's wrong morally, politically and tactically. It's doomed to failure, but I guess some people are determined to keep repeating history as opposed to learning from it.
You're not buying that either? LOL...
You mean Joos aren't exploding all over the place and killing wholesale and flying airplanes into building?
Why do you quibble over such a small thing... ?
Still I don't see how he could get the words out of his mouth. One would think "Islam" and "Peace" would catch in one's throat worse than a pretzel...
Ironic isn't it? You accuse someone of being a Nazi, while adapting the tactics of Nazi's. Bill Clinton was really good at that also.
That tactic has already been tried here, Jammal, and it doesn't work.
Back to the talking points book and a new approach...
Moral equivalency isn't my argument.
I was referring to Islamic "leaders" using Islam as a binder and a vehicle to attain their goals.
Look at Yassir Arafat for example, who would run to his aid if he cried: "Come and help me fight the Jews to provide me with a nice, big palace and millions of dollars! Come my friends and assure me a cushy life while you do mortal combat over bread crumbs!"
Not very inspiring, is it?
Personally, I don't think these loons are al Queda supporters; but the fact is they are busy carrying their water for them.
That won't work either.
Saying that the aggressor is "defending his faith" is such a blatant joke that even normal kids can laugh at that one.
We were attacked by a handful of guy's. We know who they are, we sent a bunch of them to Allah already and we are hot after the rest.
Osama knows he is in big, big trouble and he would like nothing better than to bring every Muslim on the face of the earth in to do his fighting for him. By drawing a distinction between Islam as a whole and Islamic Terrorists in particular we have denied him the opportunity to do this.
It was a good move tactically, politically and morally.
I fail to see what's so difficult about this for some FReepers.
Soothing platitudes are a pretty crude (and now useless) means of Psychops.
Apologists are having a hard time coming up with something that doesn't sound pathetically "arab".
When do you haul out the "baby milk factory" and the dead puppies?
I know it's absurd. But that's what Osama is selling.
It's all he has left. Try to morph our righteous wrath against terrorism into a full blown "attack on Islam by the infidels!"
Put it in the context of an attack on religion as opposed to punishment for a horrible act.
What? Hey, look.. some people here have advocated hurting people like Lamonte just because he is a Muslim.
That is no better than targeting Jews in general.
They didn't deserve it then and Lamonte doesn't deserve it now. There is no moral justification for that kind of thing.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Hmmm... I better save this to disk fast, as it's likely to have the thread pulled.
Some folks here frown on attacking the emperor's new clothes...
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.