Jihad and Islamic Law

[WilliamC]

You did not declare war in WW2 either. You were a neutral country bombed by the Japanese at Pearl Harbour. The Axis powers declared war on you, not the other way round. Learn some history.

This statement is so factually incorrect it needs not be refuted. But just to be pedantic.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/germwar.shtml

US Historical Documents
US Declaration of War against Germany

December 11, 1941
The President's Message

To the Congress of the United States:

On the morning of Dec. 11 the Government of Germany, pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against the United States. The long-known and the long-expected has thus taken place. The forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere. Never before has there been a greater challenge to life, liberty and civilization. Delay invites great danger. Rapid and united effort by all of the peoples of the world who are determined to remain free will insure a world victory of the forces of justice and of righteousness over the forces of savagery and of barbarism. Italy also has declared war against the United States.

I therefore request the Congress to recognize a state of war between the United States and Germany, and between the United States and Italy.

Franklin D. Roosevelt
The War Resolution

Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/japwar.shtml

US Historical Documents
Congressional Declaration of War on Japan

December 8, 1941

JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared;
and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan;
and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m. E.S.T.


Notice that last sentence "all the resources of this country..."

Madam, I respectfully suggest that you have NO IDEA what war would look like if the USA got well and truly angry. I sincerely hope you never find out.

There is actually no candidate standing on that policy. Learn some politics, too.

Well if your politics are as factually incorrect as your history I suggest it is you who needs more education. Unfortunately your point is lost on me due to the format of this discussion. I can't see exactly what words of mine you are responding to and I don't have the motivation to go back and look.

Oh, here it is from the ABC debate last night. Good 'ole Governor Romney talking about his foreign policy ideas.

"ROMNEY: Let me continue with my own thoughts on the issue of do we follow his policy or create a new one.

He did the right thing in responding and reacting to the fact that we got attacked. And people now recognize: You attack America and there is a response.

But we're going to have to move our strategy from simply being a respond to military threat with military action to an effort that says we're going to use our military and nonmilitary resources -- nonmilitary resources -- combined with other nations who are our friends to help move the world of Islam toward modernity and moderation.

It's something that former Prime Minister Aznar of Spain spoke about. The new mission for NATO and for other nations is to help provide the rule of law, education that's not through madrassas, agricultural and economic policies that can be instilled in various Islamic countries, so the Muslims are able to reject the extreme and the terrorists. "

Yes indeedee it does look to me like there are candidates running on a policy of trying to turn Muslim nations into more westernized, democratic countries.

That's two for two you missed Ms. Sally. But please, keep trying, you may actually learn something.

As I am not American, I'm not sure its even my business to comment on what your tax payers money is spent on. Spend it on whatever you like, but I hope you spend it wisely.

Thank you. Maintaining military bases in >100 countries and policing the world is not, IMHO, very wise.

For example, don't forget that part of the money your government spends in the Middle East is being wisely invested. There is one country in that region which acts as the canary in the mine for the rest of us. And whether you pull out of Iraq or not, you will still be a target for jihadists - so you will still have need of that canary.

I would presume you speak of Israel, but I really don't know who you are or what your agenda is so that's probably not wise of me.

Israel can defend herself. In the event of an attack or invasion of Israel then Congress can deliberate and, if it feels that it is in the best interest of the USA to do so, can declare war on her attackers. Just like it supposedly didn't do against Germany or Japan eh?

 

[RuyDiaz]

IT WAS NEVER DECLARED. The declaration was voted down. Therefore a King is born.

So, Bush will not leave office in January 2009? Oh, no! Run everybody, run for your lives!

 

[Sally]

IT WAS NEVER DECLARED. The declaration was voted down. Therefore a King is born.

Oh, yes it was declared. It wasn't declared by you, or your country. You are on the receiving end of the war declaration yet again. You are sadly not able to learn the right lessons from your history.

 

[forsmant]

In that final sentence you are absolutely right. But holding great influence does not translate into sole influence, which means that your currency's problems are not necessarily the world's problems. Some countries are prosperous enough to weather the storm, and mine is one of them.

Not that I don't also hope the best for the US too.

Since you haven't told me what country you are from I will assume that you and your country is irrelevant to the Ron Paul cause. Thank you for an obscure debate.

 

[Sally]

I would presume you speak of Israel, but I really don't know who you are or what your agenda is so that's probably not wise of me.

I had a funny feeling you would presume that. I was actually referring to Saudi Arabia. And for the record I am neither Israeli, nor Jewish. So you can relax now.

 

[Sally]

Since you haven't told me what country you are from I will assume that you and your country is irrelevant to the Ron Paul cause. Thank you for an obscure debate.

I realise that as a non-American, I am a guest here, and I will behave accordingly. I also realise that you are my hosts, and I hope you will behave accordingly too. Let us not be rude to each other, please.

 

[WilliamC]

Greetings All,

Unfortunately the format of this forum is not conducive to lengthy debates as I can only see the words from the immediate post I am replying to, and not the context they are in. I do not have the time or motivation to go back and reconstruct the argument, so my responses are limited.

It is also a slogan that has exactly nothing to do with this debate.

Ah, I see that facts aren't very important to you. Every adult human is responsible for his/her own behaviour. It's this thing called free-will. Even the jihadists have it.

On what do you base your belief? Hope? "The vast majority of Muslim" line is misleading anyway. It doesn't take "a vast majority" of true believers to wage war on us. It takes a moderate minority, and a sympathetic or passive majority.

Yes but that small minority who are willing to use violence can't make much headway in recruiting from the sympathetic majority if there are no immediate provocations. Unless you think all Muslims are just waiting for an excuse to go out and kill?

And you still have to deal with the long-term consequences of leaving the World a Jihadi playground.

Yes, let's have them play with China and Russia for a while eh? Both are much closer targets than the USA and, last time I checked, weren't Muslim nations either.

Pray, do tell, how are we trying to take over the entire Middle East? We have taken over a country, Iraq, and we have a strong presence in another, Afghanistan. How is this taking over the entire region? This is rather weak, even for a strawman.

Well let's see, what other Middle Eastern countries do we have military bases in?

http://www.ppu.org.uk/pm/usbases.html

Notice all the red countries? Looks like Iran is quite surrounded doesn't it? Why might they be....hostile towards the USA?

Now, I wonder how many foreign nations have military bases in the USA?

Why, ZERO!

Amazing, isn't it. No, we aren't trying to take over the Middle East, but it sure is easy to see how those ignorant Muslims might get that impression now isn't it? They just don't realize we are over there for their own good, that they aren't mature enough to handle their own internal affairs, and that they definitely aren't wise enough to decide what to do with all that oil and natural gas.

We weren't occupying any countries before 9/11.

And here I thought we had been whooping up on Iraq since the 1st Bush administration. No, that's not occupying, that was just telling them where they can fly, what they can do, who they can trade with, and how they can behave.

That is not history, but pseudohistory. The killed innocent people. They raped their women, and raised their children as muslims in some instances, like they've done in southern Sudan (the US's fault I supposse.) In other instances, they subjugated the populations, and the populations slowly faded away under the restrictions, the sporadic violence, the humilliation. What you say happenned only happenned in your dreams. The civil wars of Islam did not stop the Jihad.

But they did not threaten the USA either did they? It was a handful of criminals sponsored by a nationless terrorist organization that caused the 911 attacks, not a Muslim country. Even still, given the aid and comfort given to the terrorist by the government of Afghanistan that was good enough reason even for a non-interventionist like Ron Paul to vote to authorize military actions on their soil. But what happened? The current administration got so caught up in trying to remake Afghanistan into a democracy we let the leaders of the terrorists escape. Into the country of our supposed ally Pakistan. Oh well, that's ok, they got to invade Iraq as a condolence prize.

Let me get this--you expect us to be that shiny city upon the hill the rest of the world imitates?

Us? Didn't you already tell us here in this thread you aren't from the USA? Or was that another poster arguing your same position? But yes, we should be the example of freedom and individual liberty for all the world to see.

Things do not work that way. Both rulers and peoples are corrupt. They desire power as well as wealth. Reason is not exactly what rules them, and imitating us is but unthinkable, since that would require to recognize we are superior. They'll try to overtake us.

Let them try. We will out compete them. If we are smart we will take the high ground and further establish our presence in Earth orbit, on the moon, and beyond. Hopefully we can invite the Russians, Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, and South Koreans to participate. The future is bright.

No thanks to isolationism.

No, thanks to non-interventionism. If you are confused about the difference no wonder you don't like Ron Paul's policies.

What if they decide to undermine us instead? Do you expect the enemy to conform to your expectations of him? What if they opportunistically reach an agreement with powerful countries, and begin to conquer the smaller ones?

Wait, didn't you just get finished trying to tell us that they aren't capable of reason and only want to kill the infidel? So now you tell us they will make deals with the infidel Russians or Chinese or Indians? Now why would they do that? Gee, could it be because the Russians, Chinese, and Indians aren't trying to estblish military bases in their countries and decide who gets to govern them? Nah, it couldn't be that, it has to be that they hate us because we are free, right?

Do we stay behind your shores as the Philippines and Thailand fall? Do we wait until a resurgent Islam is powerful enough to challenge us?

Well, let's see. If CONGRESS decides that it is in the USA's interest to go to war for the Philippines or Thailand, then CONGRESS can declare war and make it happen. Easy enough yes? Or is war only good for you when a President gets to unilaterally decide to do it all by his or her self?

What ignorant arrogance. They are human beings like you and I.

Thank you for making my point for me. You are ignorant and arrogant and do seem to think that Muslims are less human than you and I.

You cannot count on us maintaining our military advanrage indefinetely.

Then why not declare war now and be done with it eh? After all, how could Iran, Syria, and Pakistan possibly defend themselves against the true might of the USA? THEY CAN'T! And if we don't bankrupt ourselves trying to impose our will on the world they will never be able to.

I most certainly do not; I have criticized non-interventionism because it is, well, a stupid policy. I do not confuse it with the even more stupid policy of pacifism.

No, you would prefer the policy of pre-emptive war against enemies who may someday be a threat to us. Well if you are going to argue this then why not get it over with and come home? It shouldn't take 100 or 50 or 10 or even 5 years. A few hours should be enough to wipe them all out eh?

They are already in Jihad with China. One thing does not preclude another. Cowardice does not help either.

Good, then let China whoop on them for a while. They've got lot's more men to sacrifice than we do.

It is not cowardice to not attack countries that haven't attacked us.

What seems to you is not particularly important if it is divorced from reality. Jihad is well established in Islamic doctrine and practice. Your policy, by rewarding Jihadists with victory, makes the ideological victory of Jihad ideology more likely, not less so.

Yes, you continue to live your life in fear of those evil Muslims. Me, I'll just leave them alone unless they are stupid enough to attack us. If they do it through a country then we can declare war and that country will cease to exist. If they do it through terrorist then we can focus our efforts on hunting them wherever they go until they are caught or dead. Repeat as necessary. I want to win the wars, not perpetuate them for my children and grandchildren like you seem to want.

 

[WilliamC]

I had a funny feeling you would presume that. I was actually referring to Saudi Arabia. And for the record I am neither Israeli, nor Jewish. So you can relax now.

Well when you aren't forthright in your positions it's easy to mislead people isn't it?

Saudi Arabia can take care of themselves without US taxpayers dollars. They seem to have quite the bit of oil and such to profit from. Helped in large part by the USA's interventionist foreign policy.

No wonder you are so eager for it to continue, you're getting rich off of it.

 

[WilliamC]

Greetings All,

Ah I haven't had this much fun since the days when I used to get into usenet debates. But it is late and I am tired and there is work to do tomorrow. Goodnight, and thank you Sally and RuyDiaz for making me think about my beliefs for a while. It was fun.

William C Colley

 

[WilliamC]

Oh, yes it was declared. It wasn't declared by you, or your country. You are on the receiving end of the war declaration yet again. You are sadly not able to learn the right lessons from your history.

Madam, you've no idea of what war would be like if the Congress declared it. Sometimes I think the entire world has forgotten what real War is, but maybe the Germans and Japanese remember, as does the Confederacy, and all those Native Americans who never even had a chance.

Jihad doesn't scare me, but the wrath of the United States if aroused surely does. Let there be peace in our time instead.

 

[angelatc]

Oh, yes it was declared. It wasn't declared by you, or your country. You are on the receiving end of the war declaration yet again. You are sadly not able to learn the right lessons from your history.

Which Middle East country has declared war with us, exactly? I think I missed that part.

 

[angelatc]

Yikes - where did they go? I wanted to ask them about the word "jihad" and ask them to explain how the interpretation has changed over the centuries. I always get mixed up about that.

 

[WilliamC]

What? All gone? And I was just getting warmed up Even got back out of bed 'cause I was interested to see what they would say next.

Well, thus is the asymetric nature of an online debate.

And thank you Hamadeh, for an insightful and factual answer. Beats my jingoism any day.

 

[WilliamC]

Which Middle East country has declared war with us, exactly? I think I missed that part.

Methinks they wouldn't want to see what a real war looks like, at least not from the receiving end. I don't even want to see it from the giving end myself.

 

[thisisgiparti]

Because I am not running for POTUS. I want to know how Ron Paul's policies will affect this war, if it is not too much trouble.

Thank you.

I think that's a fair question, since even the present administration has not fully explained this. Most Americans think we are "fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here." Do you believe this? Do you believe the Iraqi people are potential enemies?

This is a question with more layers than at first glance. We were supposed to be greeted as liberators. We apparently do not trust the Iraqi people to govern themselves.

So, is you your goal - how you would define victory - to establish a government that will do the US's bidding? Would this not be a puppet government and a cited reason for anti- American sentiment in the Middle East? That sounds like a no-win situation, but I would love to hear how you feel the war should be won.

I'm as patriotic as the next person, and I served in our military straight out of high school. I believe in just wars. This seems to be Ron Paul's philosophy, though he needs to work on getting his points across more effectively. He gets flustered when attacked in debates.

 

[thisisgiparti]

I had a funny feeling you would presume that. I was actually referring to Saudi Arabia. And for the record I am neither Israeli, nor Jewish. So you can relax now.

Saudi Arabia is a canary in a mine shaft? Really? I thought it was the cat that swallowed the canary.

 

[Cinci4RP]

So, what do you think America should do? The war is already in full swing, you cannot undeclare it now. It is far too late for that, you can only either win or lose.

And you can be sure that the jihadis and Islamofascists are working for the victory of the candidate most likely to secure America's defeat. So, which candidate do you think that is?

How do you think Ron Paul's foreign policy will acheive victory for your country?

Thats the point, there is no victory.

Did the US "WIN" Korea? Did they "WIN" Vietnam? No.

We need to get the hell out and reconcile forces to DEFEND this country.

 

[truelies]

So, what do you think America should do? The war is already in full swing, you cannot undeclare it now. It is far too late for that, you can only either win or lose.

..........................

1) Remove our troops from the M.E. immediately.

2) End ALL arms sales to M.E. States

3) Exploit oil and other energy resources within the USA to the max- Greens be Damned.

4) end ALL immigration to the USA by moslems and deport ALL non-citizen moslems immediately. Make it CLEAR to nominal USA citizen moslems that they have a Choice to make the USA or islam............and if their Choice is islam they will need to pack their bags and depart these shores.

5) get to the bottom of what REALLY happened on 911 and if it should turn out that agents of the USA have betrayed their Country- send them before a firing party.........and if the culprit turns out to be Israel, the Congress of the USA needs to debate a Declaration of War.

 

[Cinci4RP]

1) Remove our troops from the M.E. immediately.

2) End ALL arms sales to M.E. States

3) Exploit oil and other energy resources within the USA to the max- Greens be Damned.

4) end ALL immigration to the USA by moslems and deport ALL non-citizen moslems immediately. Make it CLEAR to nominal USA citizen moslems that they have a Choice to make the USA or islam............and if their Choice is islam they will need to pack their bags and depart these shores.

5) get to the bottom of what REALLY happened on 911 and if it should turn out that agents of the USA have betrayed their Country- send them before a firing party.........and if the culprit turns out to be Israel, the Congress of the USA needs to debate a Declaration of War.

Don't think this would help the debate here.

I am right in line with 1,2,3, as long as 3 involves utilizing other technologies, I hope you don't believe that we have more than 60 years worth of oil reseves in the AWNR.

4 We cannot END ALL immigration by muslim nations that is stupid, however, we can enforce visas and actually make checks a greater part. 16/20(? can't find my commission report right now) 9/11 perps had expired visas.

5 I assume you are a 9/11 truther by this last statement, and while I do adknowledge that there are some huge inconsistencies in the official story, it is counterprodutive to the RP campaign to discuss declaring war on Israel, ever.

 

[truelies]

................. I hope you don't believe that we have more than 60 years worth of oil reseves in the AWNR..

Never said that I did, BUT 60 years is a long time to pursue and develop the alternatives. Heck, there is a man right here in my City who can get 35 MPG out of a Hummer with a $5K kit he has designed. Apparently no degree allows him to do things that GM's Engineers swear is impossible.

4 We cannot END ALL immigration by muslim nations that is stupid, .............................

Thats your opinion of course. Regardless Congress could end moslem immigration any time the majority so chooses. I mean really - its not like we NEED their presence.

5 I assume you are a 9/11 truther by this last statement, and while I do adknowledge that there are some huge inconsistencies in the official story, it is counterprodutive to the RP campaign to discuss declaring war on Israel, ever.

Hmmmmmm, the one thing that seems to open an evangelical's eyes is the factually supported realisation that the Official Version of 911 is untrue. If following the facts about that day leads to Mossad's Door Step is followed by hiding a truth that some dislike THAT is just more nidness as usual in American politics and hardly an endorsement for one who follows the PC path. It is REAL leaders who tell people the Truth even when truth pisses them off. A politician who avoids the truth to GET elected will continue to do so AFTER getting elected. That is Reality.