OT: Obama is Conservative

[gandalf]

Let’s talk specifics, no labels:

What do you make of the Bush Administration sending a representative to participate in discussions with Tehran? Isn’t that supposed to be off-limits? (They even quote Bolton, so you know this is relevant.)

The Bush Administration is tacking away from positions advocated for by Bolton and the neocon community and gravitating towards positions advocated for by Obama.

It’s been a fascinating month.

(Rant away, partisans…)

[surveyor]

gandalf:

I’m not sure what the rationale is for the Bush administration to move towards positions advocated by Obama.

For example, Iran.

I’m not sure what talking to Iran with Bush will accomplish. Certainly the Iranians have moved into a “dormant” position because they feel they will be getting better treatment from a (supposedly) inevitable Obama administration.

If I had to guess why Bush is doing these things, I would say that it would be to say that hey, we tried it, it didn’t work. A stealing of ideas, similar to how Clinton did welfare reform to preempt the issue from the republicans. Maybe by trying these things, they can outmanuever Obama.

[surveyor]

gandalf:

I’m not sure what the rationale is for the Bush administration to move towards positions advocated by Obama.

For example, Iran.

I’m not sure what talking to Iran with Bush will accomplish. Certainly the Iranians have moved into a “dormant” position because they feel they will be getting better treatment from a (supposedly) inevitable Obama administration.

If I had to guess why Bush is doing these things, I would say that it would be to say that hey, we tried it, it didn’t work. A stealing of ideas, similar to how Clinton did welfare reform to preempt the issue from the republicans. Maybe by trying these things, they can outmanuever Obama.

[surveyor]

gandalf:

I’m not sure what the rationale is for the Bush administration to move towards positions advocated by Obama.

For example, Iran.

I’m not sure what talking to Iran with Bush will accomplish. Certainly the Iranians have moved into a “dormant” position because they feel they will be getting better treatment from a (supposedly) inevitable Obama administration.

If I had to guess why Bush is doing these things, I would say that it would be to say that hey, we tried it, it didn’t work. A stealing of ideas, similar to how Clinton did welfare reform to preempt the issue from the republicans. Maybe by trying these things, they can outmanuever Obama.

[surveyor]

gandalf:

I’m not sure what the rationale is for the Bush administration to move towards positions advocated by Obama.

For example, Iran.

I’m not sure what talking to Iran with Bush will accomplish. Certainly the Iranians have moved into a “dormant” position because they feel they will be getting better treatment from a (supposedly) inevitable Obama administration.

If I had to guess why Bush is doing these things, I would say that it would be to say that hey, we tried it, it didn’t work. A stealing of ideas, similar to how Clinton did welfare reform to preempt the issue from the republicans. Maybe by trying these things, they can outmanuever Obama.

[surveyor]

gandalf:

I’m not sure what the rationale is for the Bush administration to move towards positions advocated by Obama.

For example, Iran.

I’m not sure what talking to Iran with Bush will accomplish. Certainly the Iranians have moved into a “dormant” position because they feel they will be getting better treatment from a (supposedly) inevitable Obama administration.

If I had to guess why Bush is doing these things, I would say that it would be to say that hey, we tried it, it didn’t work. A stealing of ideas, similar to how Clinton did welfare reform to preempt the issue from the republicans. Maybe by trying these things, they can outmanuever Obama.

[urbanrealtor]

I will get to Surveyor’s assertions in our back and forth in a minute. I can feel your nervous anticipation. Whee.

Regarding the current approaches of the Bush administration, I disagree. I think it is more likely that they take the approaches that they take because those approaches seem like the best option at the moment. This is not me trying to say that somehow Bush has “seen the light” but instead that their actions are not as bound by political concerns as they were before. Nobody running wants their endorsement. Nobody is going to try to pivot off their policies in the next few months in a positive way. It has been the assertion of several former insiders that a disproportionate amount of policy has been guided by political considerations. Maybe this is the administration actually not caring about how it looks. I think their aversion to previous negotiations was genuine. This makes me wonder what changed behind the scenes (if anything).

Any suggestions?

I am curious what the gallery thinks.

Now back to the crap.

In response to Surveyors last missive to me:

As I understood it your assertions were as follows:

1:Obama is uninformed on foreign policy.

2:Islam has violence and homicidal intent as a requirement of piety.

3:Not widely credited authors should be widely credited and treated as widely credited by me.

4:That diplomacy is unhelpful if weak and not backed up.

5:That I have not responded to your assertions.

So here we go.

1:Obama is uninformed on foreign policy.

If the assertion that somebody graduating with honors in international relations is not knowledgeable in international relations well then I think you need more than verbal misspeaks to prove that point. You have rehashed Bolton pieces on this and not actually given evidence that I can see. I have only seen your assertions using the assertions of others as support for yours.

2:Islam has violence and homicidal intent as a requirement of piety.

As I understand it, Islam has a component that suggests struggle in the way of God (the 25th Sura being one of the best examples–as I recall). It is not explicitly a call to violence. This has lots of interpretations. How it is preached makes a difference. It can be a Southern California Imam teach how to remain pure and pious while living in San Diego or it could be a Madrasa instructor in Waziristan discussing explosive martyrdom.
This interpretative quality is why followers of Judaism and Christianity do not regularly follow the explicit teachings of Leviticus. It is why it would be prejudiced to state that these religions are inherently against menstruating women or homosexuals.

And yes, I do think that making disdainful assertions about an entire religions and/or its followers (like being homicidal) is bigoted. That means I believe you are propagating bigotry.

3:Not widely credited authors should be widely credited and treated as widely credited by me.

Again, if you are going to make claims that contradict currently accepted common understandings, you need more than just more claims as your support. Trying to back up your claims with the claims of others is not evidence. When Galileo claimed that he had a better theory, he was backed up by good evidence. He did not just use somebody random to make a similar claim. If he had, he probably would not have been arrested. He probably would have been discounted as a nut.

4:That diplomacy is unhelpful if weak and not backed up.

This is actually correct. I agree with you. However, its intuitive. Please show me this quote about him saying he would never use force against Iran. I am curious of the context. Also, giving access to our markets as a part of normalizing relations is very different from giving away Czechoslovakia. You have proven a point that nobody disagrees with.

5:That I have not responded to your assertions.

Still not clear that you had really much in the way of assertions. You made claims that are not widely recognized and then claimed similar assertions from others as the factual backup and “proof”.

[urbanrealtor]

I will get to Surveyor’s assertions in our back and forth in a minute. I can feel your nervous anticipation. Whee.

Regarding the current approaches of the Bush administration, I disagree. I think it is more likely that they take the approaches that they take because those approaches seem like the best option at the moment. This is not me trying to say that somehow Bush has “seen the light” but instead that their actions are not as bound by political concerns as they were before. Nobody running wants their endorsement. Nobody is going to try to pivot off their policies in the next few months in a positive way. It has been the assertion of several former insiders that a disproportionate amount of policy has been guided by political considerations. Maybe this is the administration actually not caring about how it looks. I think their aversion to previous negotiations was genuine. This makes me wonder what changed behind the scenes (if anything).

Any suggestions?

I am curious what the gallery thinks.

Now back to the crap.

In response to Surveyors last missive to me:

As I understood it your assertions were as follows:

1:Obama is uninformed on foreign policy.

2:Islam has violence and homicidal intent as a requirement of piety.

3:Not widely credited authors should be widely credited and treated as widely credited by me.

4:That diplomacy is unhelpful if weak and not backed up.

5:That I have not responded to your assertions.

So here we go.

1:Obama is uninformed on foreign policy.

If the assertion that somebody graduating with honors in international relations is not knowledgeable in international relations well then I think you need more than verbal misspeaks to prove that point. You have rehashed Bolton pieces on this and not actually given evidence that I can see. I have only seen your assertions using the assertions of others as support for yours.

2:Islam has violence and homicidal intent as a requirement of piety.

As I understand it, Islam has a component that suggests struggle in the way of God (the 25th Sura being one of the best examples–as I recall). It is not explicitly a call to violence. This has lots of interpretations. How it is preached makes a difference. It can be a Southern California Imam teach how to remain pure and pious while living in San Diego or it could be a Madrasa instructor in Waziristan discussing explosive martyrdom.
This interpretative quality is why followers of Judaism and Christianity do not regularly follow the explicit teachings of Leviticus. It is why it would be prejudiced to state that these religions are inherently against menstruating women or homosexuals.

And yes, I do think that making disdainful assertions about an entire religions and/or its followers (like being homicidal) is bigoted. That means I believe you are propagating bigotry.

3:Not widely credited authors should be widely credited and treated as widely credited by me.

Again, if you are going to make claims that contradict currently accepted common understandings, you need more than just more claims as your support. Trying to back up your claims with the claims of others is not evidence. When Galileo claimed that he had a better theory, he was backed up by good evidence. He did not just use somebody random to make a similar claim. If he had, he probably would not have been arrested. He probably would have been discounted as a nut.

4:That diplomacy is unhelpful if weak and not backed up.

This is actually correct. I agree with you. However, its intuitive. Please show me this quote about him saying he would never use force against Iran. I am curious of the context. Also, giving access to our markets as a part of normalizing relations is very different from giving away Czechoslovakia. You have proven a point that nobody disagrees with.

5:That I have not responded to your assertions.

Still not clear that you had really much in the way of assertions. You made claims that are not widely recognized and then claimed similar assertions from others as the factual backup and “proof”.

[urbanrealtor]

I will get to Surveyor’s assertions in our back and forth in a minute. I can feel your nervous anticipation. Whee.

Regarding the current approaches of the Bush administration, I disagree. I think it is more likely that they take the approaches that they take because those approaches seem like the best option at the moment. This is not me trying to say that somehow Bush has “seen the light” but instead that their actions are not as bound by political concerns as they were before. Nobody running wants their endorsement. Nobody is going to try to pivot off their policies in the next few months in a positive way. It has been the assertion of several former insiders that a disproportionate amount of policy has been guided by political considerations. Maybe this is the administration actually not caring about how it looks. I think their aversion to previous negotiations was genuine. This makes me wonder what changed behind the scenes (if anything).

Any suggestions?

I am curious what the gallery thinks.

Now back to the crap.

In response to Surveyors last missive to me:

As I understood it your assertions were as follows:

1:Obama is uninformed on foreign policy.

2:Islam has violence and homicidal intent as a requirement of piety.

3:Not widely credited authors should be widely credited and treated as widely credited by me.

4:That diplomacy is unhelpful if weak and not backed up.

5:That I have not responded to your assertions.

So here we go.

1:Obama is uninformed on foreign policy.

If the assertion that somebody graduating with honors in international relations is not knowledgeable in international relations well then I think you need more than verbal misspeaks to prove that point. You have rehashed Bolton pieces on this and not actually given evidence that I can see. I have only seen your assertions using the assertions of others as support for yours.

2:Islam has violence and homicidal intent as a requirement of piety.

As I understand it, Islam has a component that suggests struggle in the way of God (the 25th Sura being one of the best examples–as I recall). It is not explicitly a call to violence. This has lots of interpretations. How it is preached makes a difference. It can be a Southern California Imam teach how to remain pure and pious while living in San Diego or it could be a Madrasa instructor in Waziristan discussing explosive martyrdom.
This interpretative quality is why followers of Judaism and Christianity do not regularly follow the explicit teachings of Leviticus. It is why it would be prejudiced to state that these religions are inherently against menstruating women or homosexuals.

And yes, I do think that making disdainful assertions about an entire religions and/or its followers (like being homicidal) is bigoted. That means I believe you are propagating bigotry.

3:Not widely credited authors should be widely credited and treated as widely credited by me.

Again, if you are going to make claims that contradict currently accepted common understandings, you need more than just more claims as your support. Trying to back up your claims with the claims of others is not evidence. When Galileo claimed that he had a better theory, he was backed up by good evidence. He did not just use somebody random to make a similar claim. If he had, he probably would not have been arrested. He probably would have been discounted as a nut.

4:That diplomacy is unhelpful if weak and not backed up.

This is actually correct. I agree with you. However, its intuitive. Please show me this quote about him saying he would never use force against Iran. I am curious of the context. Also, giving access to our markets as a part of normalizing relations is very different from giving away Czechoslovakia. You have proven a point that nobody disagrees with.

5:That I have not responded to your assertions.

Still not clear that you had really much in the way of assertions. You made claims that are not widely recognized and then claimed similar assertions from others as the factual backup and “proof”.

[urbanrealtor]

I will get to Surveyor’s assertions in our back and forth in a minute. I can feel your nervous anticipation. Whee.

Regarding the current approaches of the Bush administration, I disagree. I think it is more likely that they take the approaches that they take because those approaches seem like the best option at the moment. This is not me trying to say that somehow Bush has “seen the light” but instead that their actions are not as bound by political concerns as they were before. Nobody running wants their endorsement. Nobody is going to try to pivot off their policies in the next few months in a positive way. It has been the assertion of several former insiders that a disproportionate amount of policy has been guided by political considerations. Maybe this is the administration actually not caring about how it looks. I think their aversion to previous negotiations was genuine. This makes me wonder what changed behind the scenes (if anything).

Any suggestions?

I am curious what the gallery thinks.

Now back to the crap.

In response to Surveyors last missive to me:

As I understood it your assertions were as follows:

1:Obama is uninformed on foreign policy.

2:Islam has violence and homicidal intent as a requirement of piety.

3:Not widely credited authors should be widely credited and treated as widely credited by me.

4:That diplomacy is unhelpful if weak and not backed up.

5:That I have not responded to your assertions.

So here we go.

1:Obama is uninformed on foreign policy.

If the assertion that somebody graduating with honors in international relations is not knowledgeable in international relations well then I think you need more than verbal misspeaks to prove that point. You have rehashed Bolton pieces on this and not actually given evidence that I can see. I have only seen your assertions using the assertions of others as support for yours.

2:Islam has violence and homicidal intent as a requirement of piety.

As I understand it, Islam has a component that suggests struggle in the way of God (the 25th Sura being one of the best examples–as I recall). It is not explicitly a call to violence. This has lots of interpretations. How it is preached makes a difference. It can be a Southern California Imam teach how to remain pure and pious while living in San Diego or it could be a Madrasa instructor in Waziristan discussing explosive martyrdom.
This interpretative quality is why followers of Judaism and Christianity do not regularly follow the explicit teachings of Leviticus. It is why it would be prejudiced to state that these religions are inherently against menstruating women or homosexuals.

And yes, I do think that making disdainful assertions about an entire religions and/or its followers (like being homicidal) is bigoted. That means I believe you are propagating bigotry.

3:Not widely credited authors should be widely credited and treated as widely credited by me.

Again, if you are going to make claims that contradict currently accepted common understandings, you need more than just more claims as your support. Trying to back up your claims with the claims of others is not evidence. When Galileo claimed that he had a better theory, he was backed up by good evidence. He did not just use somebody random to make a similar claim. If he had, he probably would not have been arrested. He probably would have been discounted as a nut.

4:That diplomacy is unhelpful if weak and not backed up.

This is actually correct. I agree with you. However, its intuitive. Please show me this quote about him saying he would never use force against Iran. I am curious of the context. Also, giving access to our markets as a part of normalizing relations is very different from giving away Czechoslovakia. You have proven a point that nobody disagrees with.

5:That I have not responded to your assertions.

Still not clear that you had really much in the way of assertions. You made claims that are not widely recognized and then claimed similar assertions from others as the factual backup and “proof”.

[urbanrealtor]

I will get to Surveyor’s assertions in our back and forth in a minute. I can feel your nervous anticipation. Whee.

Regarding the current approaches of the Bush administration, I disagree. I think it is more likely that they take the approaches that they take because those approaches seem like the best option at the moment. This is not me trying to say that somehow Bush has “seen the light” but instead that their actions are not as bound by political concerns as they were before. Nobody running wants their endorsement. Nobody is going to try to pivot off their policies in the next few months in a positive way. It has been the assertion of several former insiders that a disproportionate amount of policy has been guided by political considerations. Maybe this is the administration actually not caring about how it looks. I think their aversion to previous negotiations was genuine. This makes me wonder what changed behind the scenes (if anything).

Any suggestions?

I am curious what the gallery thinks.

Now back to the crap.

In response to Surveyors last missive to me:

As I understood it your assertions were as follows:

1:Obama is uninformed on foreign policy.

2:Islam has violence and homicidal intent as a requirement of piety.

3:Not widely credited authors should be widely credited and treated as widely credited by me.

4:That diplomacy is unhelpful if weak and not backed up.

5:That I have not responded to your assertions.

So here we go.

1:Obama is uninformed on foreign policy.

If the assertion that somebody graduating with honors in international relations is not knowledgeable in international relations well then I think you need more than verbal misspeaks to prove that point. You have rehashed Bolton pieces on this and not actually given evidence that I can see. I have only seen your assertions using the assertions of others as support for yours.

2:Islam has violence and homicidal intent as a requirement of piety.

As I understand it, Islam has a component that suggests struggle in the way of God (the 25th Sura being one of the best examples–as I recall). It is not explicitly a call to violence. This has lots of interpretations. How it is preached makes a difference. It can be a Southern California Imam teach how to remain pure and pious while living in San Diego or it could be a Madrasa instructor in Waziristan discussing explosive martyrdom.
This interpretative quality is why followers of Judaism and Christianity do not regularly follow the explicit teachings of Leviticus. It is why it would be prejudiced to state that these religions are inherently against menstruating women or homosexuals.

And yes, I do think that making disdainful assertions about an entire religions and/or its followers (like being homicidal) is bigoted. That means I believe you are propagating bigotry.

3:Not widely credited authors should be widely credited and treated as widely credited by me.

Again, if you are going to make claims that contradict currently accepted common understandings, you need more than just more claims as your support. Trying to back up your claims with the claims of others is not evidence. When Galileo claimed that he had a better theory, he was backed up by good evidence. He did not just use somebody random to make a similar claim. If he had, he probably would not have been arrested. He probably would have been discounted as a nut.

4:That diplomacy is unhelpful if weak and not backed up.

This is actually correct. I agree with you. However, its intuitive. Please show me this quote about him saying he would never use force against Iran. I am curious of the context. Also, giving access to our markets as a part of normalizing relations is very different from giving away Czechoslovakia. You have proven a point that nobody disagrees with.

5:That I have not responded to your assertions.

Still not clear that you had really much in the way of assertions. You made claims that are not widely recognized and then claimed similar assertions from others as the factual backup and “proof”.

[surveyor]

So anyways, in no particular order:

2:Islam has violence and homicidal intent as a requirement of piety:

There are 109 verses in the Koran that preach violence. Here are two of them:

Sura (2:191-193) – “And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.”

Sura (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”

The fact is that most muslims recite the Koran in arabic and most do not understand the verses they are reciting. The ones who find out what the verses are actually saying, some become jihadists, some become apostates, and some just continue being muslims. However, there is a pattern of muslims becoming more pious and becoming jihadists.

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.” This extensive grounding weakens the “highjacking” charge apologists use to explain Islamic jihad. On the contrary, al Qaeda’s arguments are unexceptionally traditional — which is why, of course, millions of Muslims accept them. The Al Qaeda Reader by Raymond Ibrahim

Chapter 3 of Spencer’s book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades”:

“Islamic law mandates second-class status for Jews, Christians, and other non-muslims in islamic societies.”

“The idea that jews fared better in islamic lands than in Christian Europe is false.”

“Muslim spokesmen in the United States have worked hard to present a vision of Islam as benign, open, and accepting – worlds away from the fanatical intransigence of Osama bin Laden and his ilk. PC watchdogs, both Muslim and non-Muslim, have virtually ruled out any dissent from the idea that Islam is peaceful, benign, and tolerant to a degree that will present no problem for Western societies. They depict Islam as akin to Judaism and Christian and, like them, liable to be “jihacked” (through no fault of its own) by “extremists”. Most American today accept this as axiomatic – and many would consider rejecting it an act of “racism,” despite the fact that Islam is not a race and most Muslims in the world today are not members of the ethnic group with which they are most often identified – Arabs. But there’s just one problem with this common view: It isn’t true. We’ve already seen how thoroughly Islam is a religion of war; it is also, profoundly, a religion of intolerance.”

Here is the evidence against your “trusted and respected” historians.

3: Not widely credited authors should be widely credited and treated as widely credited by me.

Not even close. I am putting up these authors as impeachment to your assertions. I do not expect you to respect them, but I do expect you to at least acknowledge their content. If you say, “according to most historians, christians and jews were treated well in muslim lands” and then I say “Spencer wrote a book on how that’s not true.” you can’t just say, “well Spencer is a whacko so what I said is true.” And this ability to use citation of others? It’s called “research”. You seem to be more than willing to cite your historians view of this issue, but disdain any evidence against it. That’s “close-mindedness.”

I do admit that challenging conventional wisdom is not easy, but that doesn’t mean conventional wisdom has the right to be correct. It is ASSUMED correct until something comes along and challenges it.

And Galileo? He referenced Copernicus. Another whacko.

1: Obama is uninformed on foreign policy.

Here is my assertion: Obama, despite the fact that he graduated with honors in international relations, has a lack of knowledge towards history and that hurts him. One piece of evidence is the Bolton article. In that article, Bolton shows how he totally misunderstands the Kennedy and Krushchev meeting. Obama’s statement was no gaffe.

Here is another article from Bolton, highlighting another shortcoming of Obama’s historical understanding:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-bolton26-2008jul26,0,4549608.story

I even gave you that MSNBC interview which shows Obama not being aware of the ICBMs being off the trigger with Russia.

There is more out there, but I am sure that I’ve proven my point. You ASSUME that just because he graduated with honors in international relations, that he knows history. That is an assumption. The evidence that I’ve laid out says no. Here, you are again letting credentials obscure your perception of Obama.

5: That I have no responded to your assertions.

You have responded to my assertions by name-calling and by assuming that credentials matter more than content. Those are weak arguments. In any debate, using those arguments against mine would result in me making the point. You can’t spout gospel and expect that to be the answer.

[surveyor]

So anyways, in no particular order:

2:Islam has violence and homicidal intent as a requirement of piety:

There are 109 verses in the Koran that preach violence. Here are two of them:

Sura (2:191-193) – “And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.”

Sura (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”

The fact is that most muslims recite the Koran in arabic and most do not understand the verses they are reciting. The ones who find out what the verses are actually saying, some become jihadists, some become apostates, and some just continue being muslims. However, there is a pattern of muslims becoming more pious and becoming jihadists.

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.” This extensive grounding weakens the “highjacking” charge apologists use to explain Islamic jihad. On the contrary, al Qaeda’s arguments are unexceptionally traditional — which is why, of course, millions of Muslims accept them. The Al Qaeda Reader by Raymond Ibrahim

Chapter 3 of Spencer’s book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades”:

“Islamic law mandates second-class status for Jews, Christians, and other non-muslims in islamic societies.”

“The idea that jews fared better in islamic lands than in Christian Europe is false.”

“Muslim spokesmen in the United States have worked hard to present a vision of Islam as benign, open, and accepting – worlds away from the fanatical intransigence of Osama bin Laden and his ilk. PC watchdogs, both Muslim and non-Muslim, have virtually ruled out any dissent from the idea that Islam is peaceful, benign, and tolerant to a degree that will present no problem for Western societies. They depict Islam as akin to Judaism and Christian and, like them, liable to be “jihacked” (through no fault of its own) by “extremists”. Most American today accept this as axiomatic – and many would consider rejecting it an act of “racism,” despite the fact that Islam is not a race and most Muslims in the world today are not members of the ethnic group with which they are most often identified – Arabs. But there’s just one problem with this common view: It isn’t true. We’ve already seen how thoroughly Islam is a religion of war; it is also, profoundly, a religion of intolerance.”

Here is the evidence against your “trusted and respected” historians.

3: Not widely credited authors should be widely credited and treated as widely credited by me.

Not even close. I am putting up these authors as impeachment to your assertions. I do not expect you to respect them, but I do expect you to at least acknowledge their content. If you say, “according to most historians, christians and jews were treated well in muslim lands” and then I say “Spencer wrote a book on how that’s not true.” you can’t just say, “well Spencer is a whacko so what I said is true.” And this ability to use citation of others? It’s called “research”. You seem to be more than willing to cite your historians view of this issue, but disdain any evidence against it. That’s “close-mindedness.”

I do admit that challenging conventional wisdom is not easy, but that doesn’t mean conventional wisdom has the right to be correct. It is ASSUMED correct until something comes along and challenges it.

And Galileo? He referenced Copernicus. Another whacko.

1: Obama is uninformed on foreign policy.

Here is my assertion: Obama, despite the fact that he graduated with honors in international relations, has a lack of knowledge towards history and that hurts him. One piece of evidence is the Bolton article. In that article, Bolton shows how he totally misunderstands the Kennedy and Krushchev meeting. Obama’s statement was no gaffe.

Here is another article from Bolton, highlighting another shortcoming of Obama’s historical understanding:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-bolton26-2008jul26,0,4549608.story

I even gave you that MSNBC interview which shows Obama not being aware of the ICBMs being off the trigger with Russia.

There is more out there, but I am sure that I’ve proven my point. You ASSUME that just because he graduated with honors in international relations, that he knows history. That is an assumption. The evidence that I’ve laid out says no. Here, you are again letting credentials obscure your perception of Obama.

5: That I have no responded to your assertions.

You have responded to my assertions by name-calling and by assuming that credentials matter more than content. Those are weak arguments. In any debate, using those arguments against mine would result in me making the point. You can’t spout gospel and expect that to be the answer.

[surveyor]

So anyways, in no particular order:

2:Islam has violence and homicidal intent as a requirement of piety:

There are 109 verses in the Koran that preach violence. Here are two of them:

Sura (2:191-193) – “And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.”

Sura (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”

The fact is that most muslims recite the Koran in arabic and most do not understand the verses they are reciting. The ones who find out what the verses are actually saying, some become jihadists, some become apostates, and some just continue being muslims. However, there is a pattern of muslims becoming more pious and becoming jihadists.

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.” This extensive grounding weakens the “highjacking” charge apologists use to explain Islamic jihad. On the contrary, al Qaeda’s arguments are unexceptionally traditional — which is why, of course, millions of Muslims accept them. The Al Qaeda Reader by Raymond Ibrahim

Chapter 3 of Spencer’s book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades”:

“Islamic law mandates second-class status for Jews, Christians, and other non-muslims in islamic societies.”

“The idea that jews fared better in islamic lands than in Christian Europe is false.”

“Muslim spokesmen in the United States have worked hard to present a vision of Islam as benign, open, and accepting – worlds away from the fanatical intransigence of Osama bin Laden and his ilk. PC watchdogs, both Muslim and non-Muslim, have virtually ruled out any dissent from the idea that Islam is peaceful, benign, and tolerant to a degree that will present no problem for Western societies. They depict Islam as akin to Judaism and Christian and, like them, liable to be “jihacked” (through no fault of its own) by “extremists”. Most American today accept this as axiomatic – and many would consider rejecting it an act of “racism,” despite the fact that Islam is not a race and most Muslims in the world today are not members of the ethnic group with which they are most often identified – Arabs. But there’s just one problem with this common view: It isn’t true. We’ve already seen how thoroughly Islam is a religion of war; it is also, profoundly, a religion of intolerance.”

Here is the evidence against your “trusted and respected” historians.

3: Not widely credited authors should be widely credited and treated as widely credited by me.

Not even close. I am putting up these authors as impeachment to your assertions. I do not expect you to respect them, but I do expect you to at least acknowledge their content. If you say, “according to most historians, christians and jews were treated well in muslim lands” and then I say “Spencer wrote a book on how that’s not true.” you can’t just say, “well Spencer is a whacko so what I said is true.” And this ability to use citation of others? It’s called “research”. You seem to be more than willing to cite your historians view of this issue, but disdain any evidence against it. That’s “close-mindedness.”

I do admit that challenging conventional wisdom is not easy, but that doesn’t mean conventional wisdom has the right to be correct. It is ASSUMED correct until something comes along and challenges it.

And Galileo? He referenced Copernicus. Another whacko.

1: Obama is uninformed on foreign policy.

Here is my assertion: Obama, despite the fact that he graduated with honors in international relations, has a lack of knowledge towards history and that hurts him. One piece of evidence is the Bolton article. In that article, Bolton shows how he totally misunderstands the Kennedy and Krushchev meeting. Obama’s statement was no gaffe.

Here is another article from Bolton, highlighting another shortcoming of Obama’s historical understanding:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-bolton26-2008jul26,0,4549608.story

I even gave you that MSNBC interview which shows Obama not being aware of the ICBMs being off the trigger with Russia.

There is more out there, but I am sure that I’ve proven my point. You ASSUME that just because he graduated with honors in international relations, that he knows history. That is an assumption. The evidence that I’ve laid out says no. Here, you are again letting credentials obscure your perception of Obama.

5: That I have no responded to your assertions.

You have responded to my assertions by name-calling and by assuming that credentials matter more than content. Those are weak arguments. In any debate, using those arguments against mine would result in me making the point. You can’t spout gospel and expect that to be the answer.

[surveyor]

So anyways, in no particular order:

2:Islam has violence and homicidal intent as a requirement of piety:

There are 109 verses in the Koran that preach violence. Here are two of them:

Sura (2:191-193) – “And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.”

Sura (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”

The fact is that most muslims recite the Koran in arabic and most do not understand the verses they are reciting. The ones who find out what the verses are actually saying, some become jihadists, some become apostates, and some just continue being muslims. However, there is a pattern of muslims becoming more pious and becoming jihadists.

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.” This extensive grounding weakens the “highjacking” charge apologists use to explain Islamic jihad. On the contrary, al Qaeda’s arguments are unexceptionally traditional — which is why, of course, millions of Muslims accept them. The Al Qaeda Reader by Raymond Ibrahim

Chapter 3 of Spencer’s book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades”:

“Islamic law mandates second-class status for Jews, Christians, and other non-muslims in islamic societies.”

“The idea that jews fared better in islamic lands than in Christian Europe is false.”

“Muslim spokesmen in the United States have worked hard to present a vision of Islam as benign, open, and accepting – worlds away from the fanatical intransigence of Osama bin Laden and his ilk. PC watchdogs, both Muslim and non-Muslim, have virtually ruled out any dissent from the idea that Islam is peaceful, benign, and tolerant to a degree that will present no problem for Western societies. They depict Islam as akin to Judaism and Christian and, like them, liable to be “jihacked” (through no fault of its own) by “extremists”. Most American today accept this as axiomatic – and many would consider rejecting it an act of “racism,” despite the fact that Islam is not a race and most Muslims in the world today are not members of the ethnic group with which they are most often identified – Arabs. But there’s just one problem with this common view: It isn’t true. We’ve already seen how thoroughly Islam is a religion of war; it is also, profoundly, a religion of intolerance.”

Here is the evidence against your “trusted and respected” historians.

3: Not widely credited authors should be widely credited and treated as widely credited by me.

Not even close. I am putting up these authors as impeachment to your assertions. I do not expect you to respect them, but I do expect you to at least acknowledge their content. If you say, “according to most historians, christians and jews were treated well in muslim lands” and then I say “Spencer wrote a book on how that’s not true.” you can’t just say, “well Spencer is a whacko so what I said is true.” And this ability to use citation of others? It’s called “research”. You seem to be more than willing to cite your historians view of this issue, but disdain any evidence against it. That’s “close-mindedness.”

I do admit that challenging conventional wisdom is not easy, but that doesn’t mean conventional wisdom has the right to be correct. It is ASSUMED correct until something comes along and challenges it.

And Galileo? He referenced Copernicus. Another whacko.

1: Obama is uninformed on foreign policy.

Here is my assertion: Obama, despite the fact that he graduated with honors in international relations, has a lack of knowledge towards history and that hurts him. One piece of evidence is the Bolton article. In that article, Bolton shows how he totally misunderstands the Kennedy and Krushchev meeting. Obama’s statement was no gaffe.

Here is another article from Bolton, highlighting another shortcoming of Obama’s historical understanding:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-bolton26-2008jul26,0,4549608.story

I even gave you that MSNBC interview which shows Obama not being aware of the ICBMs being off the trigger with Russia.

There is more out there, but I am sure that I’ve proven my point. You ASSUME that just because he graduated with honors in international relations, that he knows history. That is an assumption. The evidence that I’ve laid out says no. Here, you are again letting credentials obscure your perception of Obama.

5: That I have no responded to your assertions.

You have responded to my assertions by name-calling and by assuming that credentials matter more than content. Those are weak arguments. In any debate, using those arguments against mine would result in me making the point. You can’t spout gospel and expect that to be the answer.

[Author]

Posts