TCS Daily


Beyond Farce

By J. Peter Pham & Michael I. Krauss - August 24, 2006 12:00 AM

The following is not the outline of a rejected screenplay by an aspiring Hollywood writer trying to outdo 24. Nor is it product of a freshman political science student's imagination, concocting a term paper after a weekend of partying. It is merely an introduction one of the most stunning aspects of contemporary international relations in the real world: the United Nations' relentless campaign to undermine the security of Israel.

Consider the following:

  • Israel receives actionable intelligence concerning a specific shipment of weapons from Iran to Hezbollah near Bekaa Valley. This shipment is in flagrant violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 (August 2006), and also of predecessor resolutions, including Resolution 1559 (2004). It is also a clear breach of the Taif Agreement (1989), which ended Lebanon's civil war. Finding that neither the 2,000 "peacekeepers" of the old, hapless UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) nor the new Lebanese forces deploying there are willing to interdict the shipment, Israel sends a crack commando unit to do the job. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan denounces the raid, of course, as a blatant Israeli transgression of the ceasefire resolution.

  • France, which supplies the general in command of the old UNIFIL force that allowed Hezbollah to rule over South Lebanon (as we previously documented), now agrees to lead the expanded and robust international force meant to implement 1701. After agreeing to spearhead the new force, what does President Jacques Chirac deem an appropriate contribution? A laughable contingent of 200 combat engineers who, according to French defense minister Michele Alliot-Marie, will remain in Lebanon for at most six months.

  • One nation that has volunteered forces for the new UNIFIL is Malaysia. But Malaysia refuses to recognize the legitimacy of Israel. The Malaysian government has been a major sponsor of Murabitun, an Islamist sect headed by former actor Ian Dallas (a.k.a. Sheikh Abd al-Qadir al-Murabit) and headquartered in a mansion in Scotland. Murabitun celebrates Hitler as a "great genius" one of the foremost jihadists of all times. In 2003 Prime Minister Mohamad distributed copies of Henry Ford's anti-Semitic classic, The International Jew, to tens of thousands of delegates attending his party's annual convention. [Even Ford himself ultimately recognized his book was a fraud and apologized to the entire world for it.] This is one of the neutral "peacekeepers" that Israel is supposed to trust to enforce 1701.

  • Not only is the UN delinquent, the Lebanese government appears utterly uninterested in fulfilling 1701's foremost obligation, the disarming of the terrorist group that was using Lebanese territory to invade Israel. President Émile Lahoud, a Syrian-installed lackey and the constitutional commander-in-chief of the Lebanese Army assigned to secure the border with Israel, has stated that it would be "disgraceful" to disarm Hezbollah. Lebanese Defense Minister Elias Murr, another Syrian hanger-on in the patchwork quilt of Beirut's coalition government, also declines to "strip Hezbollah of weapons and do the work that Israel did not."

  • Meanwhile, Secretary-General Annan informs an Israeli television station that "dismantling Hezbollah is not the direct mandate of the U.N., which could only help Lebanon do the job." One analyst told Britain's Guardian (hardly a pro-Israeli publication), "All intelligence gathered by the [Lebanese] army is put at the disposal of Hezbollah, but Hezbollah does not offer the same transparency to the army. In a sense, military intelligence in the south [of Lebanon] is operating on Hezbollah's behalf."

This sequence of events is neither "reality television" nor "virtual reality." It is reality, a question of life and death for millions of Israelis, Lebanese, and others. The deeper tragedy is that, over time, men and women of good faith get used to such absurdities and accept it as "normal." This is the international equivalent of the infamous "soft bigotry of low expectations" so aptly decried by President Bush as regards aspects of our domestic policy. Slowly but surely, the West gets used to Arab states in particular (and the UN in general) flagrantly breaking their word. Gradually some come around to defining, as Richard Cohen did recently in an infamous Washington Post op-ed, Israel itself as an historical mistake, because its creation assumed that Arab populations could be able to coexist with modernity. What an incredible insult to Arab Muslims this is.

While she has not -- at least so far -- gone to the latter extreme, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has traveled quite a distance down this path. First, like her predecessor Colin Powell, she has fallen for the well-worn French diplomatic trick of promising a future strong Security Council resolution in exchange for America's accepting a weaker one now. Secretary Rice then played an important role in compelling Israel to accept the watered down 1701 just as the Israeli Defense Forces were beginning to seriously degrade Hezbollah.

Rice then lowered expectations further by telling USA Today's Susan Page last week that she didn't "think there is an expectation that this [UN] force is going to physically disarm Hezbollah." Thus did the Secretary of State put the lie to her own remarks at the Security Council one week earlier. At that time she had declared that the new UNIFIL "will have an expanded mandate, a greater scope of operations, better equipment, and much larger numbers" and would ensure that there were "no foreign forces, no weapons, and no authority in Lebanon other than that of the independent Lebanese government."

In the same USA Today interview, Secretary Rice gave voice to a perilous preference of process over policy that deserves an extended quotation:

"You have to have a plan, first of all, for the disarmament of a militia, and then the hope is that some people lay down their arms voluntarily. You have cantonment areas where heavy arms are -- but the disarmament of militias is essentially a political agreement and the Lebanese Government has said that it intends to live up to its obligations under Resolution 1559 and ... the Taif Accord...-- that they will not have any groups in Lebanon carrying arms that are not a part of the central security forces of Lebanon. So the political agreement is in place. Now the plan for disarmament is to be worked out. Kofi Annan is to present a plan. This will have to be worked with the Lebanese Government, it'll have to be worked with the Lebanese armed forces, and I'm sure to the degree that support is needed for that, the international forces can help."

Rice seems almost content to let the farcical scenario orchestrated at Turtle Bay -- including the suggestion that the IDF commando raid was a threat to peace -- play itself out. Unfortunately, this time the victims will not only include Israeli and Lebanese, but also the tattered diplomatic credibility of the United States. Our nation must stand on principle and insist, even when the UN itself won't, that promises are promises and rules are rules -- even when the promises are made by Arab states.

Currently, Israel is the canary in the coal mine. It fights mano a mano a battle that the entire West, diplomatic denials notwithstanding, is waging at a distance against terrorists and their state sponsors. If our foes sense that our will to fight is gone and that we are ready to accept lower standards for that region of the world, or if our allies sense a weakening of our commitment, then truly we are at the edge of the abyss.

Michael I. Krauss is professor of law at George Mason University School of Law. J. Peter Pham is director of the Nelson Institute for International and Public Affairs at James Madison University. Both are adjunct fellows of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

51 Comments

...all the way to tragedy
Of course western liberals will see it all as good diplomacy this wimping out to the terrorists, the biased-UN, the anti-Israli and anti-american French, etc. But the enemies do certainly see it as more example of western weakness, and will act on it as such. They always figure, if we can get away with this, how much more will the west back down?

Mamma's boy
When the UN decides against Israel, you start crying about bias in the UN. Most of the world with access to real news, as opposed to the AIPAC approved drivel served on Fox, understand that Israel also is at fault.

Small examaple: "Israel receives actionable intelligence concerning a specific shipment of weapons from Iran to Hezbollah near Bekaa Valley..." This is a lie. Israel was trying to assassinate a Hezbollah leader and failed.

Without US support and money ($20,000/year/Israeli), Israel would not be able to flout international standards of justice.

...all the way to tragedy II
Of course western conservatives will see it all as liberals' fault this wimping out to the terrorists, the biased-UN, the anti-Israeli and anti-American French, etc. But the enemies do certainly see it as more example of western weakness, and will act on it as such. They always figure, if we can get away with this, how much more will the west back down?


And who has all the power in the American government?

as usual, LG declares anything that disagrees with his dogma to be nothing more than a lie
Oh yes, any news source that disagrees with his dogma is right wing propaganda.

Do you have any evidence that the raid was an assignation attempt, or do you just believe whatever you are told to believe.

assassinating hezbollah leader
What is wrong with IDF and or Mossad tring to assassinate the Hezbollah leader? Do you think Hez or Ham leaders or members will go willingly to prison or peacefully plead their cases at the Knesset? Israelis are severely outnumbered and should probably forcibly remove from power heads of Hamas and Hezbollah as land for peace doesn't always work, and I can't imagine 5 or 6 million Jews leaving for Russia or America to escape the persecution they've endured for years.

This is about as right on the point as it gets
It is also why the U.S. is always beaten up in negotiations; we actually negotiate from good faith and believe others do the same! What a farce!

When is the American government going to learn to go into a negotiation, make it's case and sign nothing that goes against that case?

Burned by the U.N., and our supposed allies, for the upteenth time.

repeating history
Why are we trying to repeat the history of the 1920s and 1930s? The fascists players may have changed names and locations but it is the same game. Why did the League of Nations fail? Why do we believe we can compromise with, placate and appease the Islamofascists? Why have we learned nothing from the many failures of the UN?

It is clear at this point in history based on the UN's own record that the organization is a corrupt failure not even close to some liberal's fantasy as the beginning of a new utopian world government and world global peace. The UN has never stopped a war, the primary reason it was created. What prevented wars like WWI and WWII was MAD not the UN. What many cannot accept is that our present enemies would be quiet happy to blow us and themselves up to achieve paradise.

What the Islamic terrorist want is the complete destruction of Israel and to finish the job Hitler started. How do we know that? Easy they have loudly told us. Why do some still want to believe that they really don't mean it?

A tried and proven tactic
"What is wrong with IDF and or Mossad tring to assassinate the Hezbollah leader?"

Here's one thing. They've already done that, and it didn't work. In 1992 Israel assassinated Abbas al-Musawi, and Hezbollah only grew stronger.

Once people have lost the fear of death they don't behave the way you think they should. They only become more motivated, the more death you throw at them. Hezbollah is stronger now than they were before Israel smashed Lebanon, in everyone's estimate. Continued aggression against them will make them stronger yet.

There are already countless numbers of Hezbollah and Hamas members in prison. Many more have been assassinated. Yet the problem remains the same.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing, each time expecting different results.

So you are claiming that the leaders who replaced the killed ones are all as good?
...

No
You're missing the point. Organizations like Hezbollah or Hamas, that make war on enemies far stronger than they, don't depend on charismatic leaders. They expect their leaders to in time be killed. It only makes them stronger, and new leaders appear to replace the old.

The Chechens are the best example of this kind of warrior. They have been killed by the Russians many times over, and before that they killed one another with equal zest.

Often in the old days, wars would so ravage the mountains that hardly an adult male could be found. To propagate the race the widows would lie on their front stoops at night, with their skirts over their heads. Any surviving male who passed would impregnate them, and so ensure a fresh generation of warriors.

You can't win over people like these.

liberal traitor
" This is a lie. Israel was trying to assassinate a Hezbollah leader and failed."

the fact that you think hitting a member of Irans expeditionary force in Bekka is a bad thing makes YOU part of the problem, one of the enemy. A "useful idiot" as stalin accuratly named your thick type.

you are an idiot
if you don't think leaders are important.
If they weren't important, than there wouldn't be leaders in the first place.
As to your claim that they don't rely on charismatic leaders, as usual, the real world refutes your fantasies.
Do you honestly believe that Al-Queda would have been as strong with someone other than Bin Laden leading it?
Charismatic leaders are the ones who inspire the undecided to join.

roy bean said something SANE (kinda) is it the end of days ?????
"You can't win over people like these."

I agree, but thats NOT the point roy.

YOU need a spine RoyBoy, the rest of us are QUITE happy killing enough that they have to wait a generation or two to wage war again.

what part of your brain did they remove anyway?

Parts actualy seem to work. But something important is missing from you.

real world mark?
Actually Mark, Bin Laden is not a very charismatic guy. He is soft spoken and more of an introvert than a charismatic personality.

Its not surprising in the least that you wouldn't know that. You're not the type to understand your enemy. You're more of a blind lasher than a strategic thinker. In fact, you'll probably label me a terrorist-lover for knowing this.

Al Qaeda could be 10 times as strong with a different leader. Osama was rich and fell in with the wrong ideology, he was driven by Egyptian radicals to the position he is in.
Hes an almost mythical character, inspiring acts versus organizing them. Its his top generals that are the real threat.

Huh, thats actually quite parallel to GW. He's rich and fell in with the wrong ideology and was driven by radicals (Rove, Cheney, Hughes, Cambone, Rumsfeld) to his position. His top advisers are the real threat. But Bush has way more charisma than Osama, even if its fake.

use your brain instead of your testosterone

"the rest of us are QUITE happy killing enough that they have to wait a generation or two to wage war again."

The rest of us call that stupidity.

If you think war is such a good thing perhaps you should join up and join the fight. It doesn't matter how old you are, you can still take point.

Some people never learn. And that makes YOU part of the problem.

"the rest of us" YOU speak for everyone here on this board?
dont think so YOU only speak for spineless fags that have had too much say already and caused this mess by forcing PC BS like "just war theory" on teh military.

Get bent, spineless fools like YOU will get us ALL killed.

NO, I meant MORE brain and LESS testosterone
LOL. Your words make me laugh though, I appreciate that. "spineless fags" is what got me.

Clear the brain fog rivenburg, I even quoted you in that posting, you are the first one who referred to "the rest of us".

I agree with you regarding PC BS. But I don't know what you mean by "caused this mess by forcing PC BS like "just war theory" on teh military.". I get your overall point, you're angry about something, it seems to be at liberals, but you're not clear in communicating the reasons. Apparently you think there hasn't been enough killing going on. You think your enemy is anyone who disagrees that more killing is the way to security. The fear has got you good.

Beg to differ
If Bin Laden dies tomorrow, Al Qaeda will announce they have a new leader. Leaders in such movements are fungible. What keeps them healthy is new adherents searching them out, not some advertising campaign.

How many times over have all the leaders of Hamas been killed? Was that effective?

You think?
I think the part that's missing may be the willingness to kill people for wanting to live free from outside interference.

Nothing's wrong with my killing capacity if someone invades my property, though. I think that's why I identify more with them than with their invaders.

if this situation doesnt get you fearful, you're stupid
No fear != no problem.
No fear == no brain.


Look up "just war theory". you will learn what motivates people like me to talk to people like you.


There is NO way to walk away from this fight, its world wide and mobile. If you think you can appease these freaks in the ME to stay home not bother us, you dont understand Islam. This is NOT about poverty, its NOT about education, its NOT about socialism OR capitolism OR healthcare. its not about the UN and what anyone did or didnt do, you might think you have some kind of control over this situation, you DONT unless you have military force AND the will to use it. Its about a primative, dog-pack society that thinks it should run the world like it did a thousand years ago, with fire & sword.

Its about not giving in just because you dont understand them. You dont like what "I" have to say about killing?

try reading THEIR websites. My speach is a RESPONSE, get it? Im RESPONDING to PROMISED and seen aggression.

the part thats missing is the part that recognizes they are invading us
Do WE have 10 million Christians or Atheists Americans moving permanently to the ME working to change EVERY single law in the land to our way of life?

No.
Ever been to Dearborn Mi Roy?
We have lost it, it will have to be taken back by force.
Really Roy, ever met a REAL moderate Muslim?
I have, they are rare as honest liberals.

Your constant slant against your own culture is something we inherited from the English Roy, a certain institutionalized self loathing that probably stems from either the Roman or Norman devastation of British culture which was much like the Amerindian cultures in many ways. Primitive, but simple.

Do you even know why you despise your own people Roy?

Oh man you are losing it roy
Your search - "nearly all males dead" - did not match any documents.

Your search - "women lay with dresses over their heads" - did not match any documents.

Your search - "widows lay with dresses over their heads" - did not match any documents

Results 21 - 22 of about 69 for "widows lay". (0.17 seconds) - nothing related

Your search - "widows would often lie" - did not match any documents.

Results 1 - 6 of about 23 for "widows would lie".

Your search - "widows often lay" - did not match any documents

Your search - "widows often laid" - did not match any documents

Roy where did you hear such a thing?

Chechens !!??
"...
The Chechens are the best example of this kind of warrior. They have been killed by the Russians many times over, and before that they killed one another with equal zest.
..."

that is about independence not religion.

I'm glad you asked
There is no rule that says that all knowledge must be found somewhere on the Web.

In fact the anecdote can be found in the pages of Leslie Blanch's great biography of the Imam Shamyl, "The Sabers of Paradise". This ancient custom would be told by Daghestani mothers to their sons, so they would understand their warrior heritage. I included it to give some of the flavor of the mindset of warrior tribespeople. Death does not deter them; they accept it as the destiny of every warrior.

BTW the various tribes of the Caucasus used to be some pretty wild people even before they accepted Islam. See

http://www.mapageweb.umontreal.ca/tuitekj/caucasus/Choppa.htm

A note on searching
All your search terms are far too general. "Nearly all males dead" could refer to anything.

Far more specific would have been searches for such combinations as "chechen war custom" or "caucasus widow" or "daghestan widow custom". These would zero in more specifically on what you were searching for.

Chechens
"that is about independence not religion."

The boxes you put such concepts in are not the same as the boxes tribal peoples put them in. For them, life is just one thing. Allegiance to Allah and to one's tribe, custom and language are all the same. It is about living one's own life instead of the life someone else has in mind for one.

Not all charismatic people are fiery orators. You would know that if you weren't such an idiot.
...

I guess roy doesn't believe leaders make any difference.
He must, he often claims that all CEO's are worthless.

Cultural imperialism
"Do WE have 10 million Christians or Atheists Americans moving permanently to the ME working to change EVERY single law in the land to our way of life?"

Well, actually we did send our armed forces over to totally destroy the government of Iraq. We eliminated the public job sector, which was the major employer in the country, and replaced the existing system of laws with a new constitution we wrote for them. Since then we've been battling the unemployed, angry people we created by doing exactly what you fear Muslims are going to do here.

If you're unhappy living in Dearborn, try moving somewhere else. Muslims in my area are no more than one percent of the population. We do, however, have a lot of Indians, who force us to make diwali with them during their festivals. :)

"Do you even know why you despise your own people Roy?"

I love my people. Just last night my wife and I went to a street fair in town, where we had blocked off Main Street and put in some rides and things for the kids. All ethnicities were welcome. My people include blacks, Mexicans and anyone else who has come to America.

not minding dying
If those guys, and others like the hizb, hamas don't mind death, then why would they complain when they get killed? No excuses for this has ever been given for this curious phenomenon, even by apoligists for terrorism like you.

Complain about getting killed?
When we volunteer for service we hope we don't get our butts shot off so we can go back home again and resume our lives.

When they volunteer they dedicate themselves to the holy war-- meaning they intend to fight until something takes them down. That makes a very big difference, the assumption that you will not survive the war.

Fear of being conquered by Islam
And what odds would you give Islam for being able to conquer the West militarily? Does this seem like a likely outcome? Or is it as it appears-- just a very one sided fight?

Your speech is indeed a programmed response. But I can't quite picture that there is any real emergency.

You've been reading their web sites. Spell out for us how they plan to take over the USG.

complaining
That doesn't explain at all. We constantly hear people complaining that guys that want to martyr themselves, actually do get killed. They should be celebrating their colleagues deaths, and even western liberals shouldn't interfere with that, so if muslims are proud to die, and we oblidge them, there should be no basis for complaint.

Let me clear this up
"That doesn't explain at all. We constantly hear people complaining that guys that want to martyr themselves, actually do get killed."

We do? Which people?

I think you're missing the point. I wasn't saying that Muslims are proud to die. I was saying holy warriors-- a different subset of the population than "all Muslims"-- are of the true faith. They despise us as infidels because we are afraid to die-- proving that we have no solid relationship with our God. They have faith that their actions on earth will be rewarded, and are not afraid.

This makes them difficult opponents in wartime. All our strategies are predicated on people fearing death.

not cleared up
It's not just some small subset of 'holy warriors'. The terrorists take people like kids, and women and 'civilians' and say that they all will be martyrs and get their 72 virgins(not the women tho). That's not just some small subset, but every muslims killed by infidels. And you're also wrong in that strategy has to predicated on people fearing death, if your enemy has no cares about dying, then you just have to kill them, no problem. But the west has lost the stomach for killing, since they're so fat and lazy and decadent, and that's why they'll probably lose out more to enemies like islamo fa cists. But I realize from other postings by you that you're on their side, so I guess you applaude the wests weakness and lack of backbone.

yeah well
I looked up "Jihad" and it has nothing to do with holy warriors. That apprently is a Christian term.

educated enough to know control isnt always about possesion.
To control something in this world, all you have to do is be able to destroy it.

You need stratigic and tactical training roy, your conversations are boringly one dimesional.

Without understanding what power is & how to use it, you're just another mouthy babe in the woods, all opinion, no lunch.

Power and how to use it
On the contrary, I would offer that it's your view of control, as being the mere power to destroy, that is a one dimensional view.

Let's agrue from the outset that the members of your military force will not be able to murder all 1.3 billion Muslims on earth. So the overwhelming majority will be, in your definition, neither destroyed nor controlled.

Let's also say that at the rate they're going-- 3,000 of us every five years, it will be 100,000 years before Islamist radicals can destroy a number even equal to the present population of the United States.

Therefore it is a KNOWN that neither side will ever control the other side-- using your definition.

That means in order to achieve your aims you are going to have to resort to a backup strategy. And the one I am proferring is a win-win strategy, where the aims of the opposition become linked with your aims. A withdrawal of American military might from the Arab lands, in the name of self determination, would be a good faith first step. It would have the benefit of once again giving us the moral high ground, so we were not just seen as fas cists working toward political and economic domination of the globe.

Of course the problem with that is that's exactly who we are-- aggressors who understand only what power is and how to use it.

Definitions
Jihad is not a Christian term, but an ordinary word in Arabic. Like our word "war" it carries the connotation not only of an actual war, with killing, but a metaphorical war, like our "war on poverty". Thus an Arab scholar can declare his jihad on ignorance, for instance.

The word you're looking for, I think, is shaheed. This is a holy warrior who has dedicated his life to a cause-- thus he is unfulfilled if he does not die in battle.

Once again to the Chechens, before important occasions they dance zikr, to focus themselves on their purpose. The zikr before dedicating themselves for war involves cleansing one's soul by assuming one's death beforehand, so there is nothing left to fear.

After the zikr, they are a pretty tough enemy.

http://www.theoathbook.com/chapter.php

http://www.parvez-video.com/insight/islam/zikr/index.asp

Talk about one dimensional
Roy beat me to it, pointing out the one dimensional nature of your perspective rivenburg. All you're doing is talking tough, war is the only answer type stuff. I could do that if I wanted, but I'm not irrational enough to believe it.

There is a difference between having fear of something and having a fear of something to the point it makes your thoughts irrational. I fear terrorists enough to support the global war on terror, but not enough that I support genocide, or torture, or giving the President a blank check to do what he wants without oversight, or indeed enough to talk like war is all we got and its all that will work.

But maybe you can back it up, which is my next thought.

"try reading THEIR websites. My speach is a RESPONSE, get it? Im RESPONDING to PROMISED and seen aggression."

Why aren't you over there fighting right now? Talk is not much of a response. Or is your talk designed to convince others to be as scared and aggressive as you? That would be fine, but its still not much of a response, and its still irrational what you're dishing.

I'm not talking about walking away or appeasement. And yes, this is partly about poverty, education, etc. Its not the entire picture, but it is absolutely part of it. Killing radicals doesn't shrink their ranks, it inspires more people to become radicals. Radicalism begets radicalism. But jobs, education, acceptance, rule of law- those things shrink the ranks of radicals. We're beyond the point of making those things our main effort, but we abandon those tools at our own peril.

"Its about not giving in just because you dont understand them. You dont like what "I" have to say about killing?"

I think that first sentence is 2 separate thoughts. It is about not giving in, regardless of whether we understand them. We can understand them fine, accepting that understanding is the problem some people get past. And yes, I don't like what "you" have to say about killing, because I expect more from you, I assume you're a western citizen, I assume you're not a terrorist. Except you talk like them, that makes you no different than them. No better than them.

understand the enemy?
Region.............Muslims......General pop..percent

South Asia.......469,862,586..1,443,756,020..32.54%

Middle East......252,897,881..274,791,185...92.03%

Southeast Asia...239,566,220..571,337,070...41.93%

North Africa.....180,082,076..202,151,323...89.08%

West Africa......133,994,675..268,997,245...49.81%

Central Asia.....76,405,252...92,019,166....83.03%

East Africa......69,044,865...193,741,900...35.64%

East Asia........39,624,508...1,527,960,261..2.59%

Eastern Europe...23,478,137...212,821,296...11.03%

Central Africa...12,582,592...83,121,055....15.14%

Balkans..........9,184,485....65,407,609....14.04%

Southern Africa..9,012,042....137,092,019...6.57%

North America....6,533,683....446,088,748...1.46%

South America....1,014,716....371,075,531...0.27%

Central Europe...548,284.....74,510,241....0.74%

Oceania..........372,968.....30,564,520....1.22%

Central America..125,735.....42,223,849....0.30%

Caribbean........15,860......23,809,622....0.07%

then we compare
Islam in Iran 67,337,681
world Total 1,476,233,470
or 4.561%

whack em
and
whack em hard

left one out
Western Europe...13,581,949...375,832,557...3.614%

I got this far"Why aren't you over there fighting right now?"
and decided to stop reading.



your cred is gone.


I have poeple I can post with that are so far abovew your level of argument its insulting. and they are NOT in agreement with me, but I respect THEIR efforts. You are a waste of my time.

That must be very convenient for you

People making better arguments than me still haven't convinced you how foolish your perspective is? Ouch.

Very few people are in agreement with you rivenburg. Its natural you'd just shut down versus facing something truly difficult to accept.

Its hardly understandable how a person could be so irrational regarding foreign policy. FEAR

no roy
"holy warrior" is the christian term.

Tiny quibble
"Shaheed" in my post was the Arabic, and "holy warrior" is the English equivalent. I don't see whatever point you're trying to make.

my point is simply
"Jihad is not a Christian term, but an ordinary word in Arabic. "

You wrote this after I had just informed you that I had looked up the definition of jihad.

What made you think that I thought jihad was a christian term?

My reading leads me to suspect that the concept of holy war is recent, applied historically after the crusades to encapsulate them and keep them distinct from other organised military events.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source new!
holy war

1. a war waged for what is supposed or proclaimed to be a holy purpose, as the defense of faith.
2. any disagreement or argument between fanatical proponents of radically differing beliefs, opinions, etc.: a holy war on the merits of rival computer operating systems; a holy war about welfare reform.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1685–95]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

How to distinguish Arabic from English
"What made you think that I thought jihad was a christian term?"

This line of inquiry began with your own comment " "holy warrior" is the christian term."

To which I responded ""Shaheed" in my post was the Arabic, and "holy warrior" is the English equivalent. I don't see whatever point you're trying to make."

Can you really be that turned around? The Arabic words come from the Arabic. The English words come from the English. That's how you can tell which is which.

Sheesh! (that's an exclamatory remark)

TCS Daily Archives