Islamic State pamphlet: Qur'an 23:5-6 allows raping children captives

MOD EDIT - Rule 3 Didn’t you claim in post #442 that Jesus was perfectly ok with name-calling?

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

From what I hear many Islamist terrorist are deeply convinced that they are just fighting back. I know for sure that quite a lot if not most Germans thought they were just fighting back when they invaded Poland. So it seems that it is pretty much in the eye of the beholder what’s fighting back, what is over-excessive retaliation and what is just plain violence.

Were Christians just fighting back, when they basically slayed the entire population of Jerusalem in 1099 AD, women and children included? Did Jesus fight back when He got nailed to the cross? Do you think those Crusaders followed in His example, when they vaded in those children's blood?

Even if torture had produced any useful information, which it did not: the ends don’t always justify the means. The moment the US started torturing people, the terrorists won. Sadly in its fight against terror your country lost its values and moral standing. For as long as you don’t put those responsible for torture and war crimes to justice, the US lost all credibility.

As for Bin Laden: I wish he had stood a proper trial right back in 1998, when the Taliban offered to extradite him:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/nov/05/afghanistan.terrorism3

They offered to extradite him again in 2001:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

“My dear friends” refers to the people that Paul (not Jesus) addressed in the Epistle to the Romans, i. e. Christians in Rome and via association you and me today!

And yes, I’m well aware of Romans 13, 1-5. It was one of the Nazis favourite Bible-passages. The "German Christians" used it to propagate that Hitler was God-sent to lead Germany.

Just like many US Americans today these German Christians put their blind patriotism before faith in the true God. And living in a democracy we are directly responsible if we condone our elected government’s actions when it repays evil with evil, as the US did after 9/11.

Well, I suppose a proper Amish would rather be beheaded than to behead. He’d take this cross and bear it. Christian discipleship is not supposed to be a walk in the park, in which we can bend our morals backwards to meet our earthly desires.

Sure, and bear in mind that most of these terror attacks kill other Muslims. But the terrorists probably believe that they actually do act in self-defense. What you call terror to them may be asymmetric warfare against oppressive forces.

Why then did you make the narrative about Noah out to be a code of behaviour when you used it as a reason against Christian pacifism? As for it being history: If you like to think so, do. Most theologians, historians and OT-scholars beg to differ.

It must have slipped your mind that I do speak German. It’s my mother tongue. My grandfather was both a Nazi and a Christian. I wish he had listened to the few pacifist voices in his church that were courageous enough to protest their beloved fatherland’s atrocities rather than quoting Romans 13 non-stop in a feeble attempt to justify acquiescence to evil.

Like in the physical shape that the Afghan taxi driver Dilawar is in right now? Tortured to death?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilawar_(torture_victim)

Violent acts of war have increased crimes against Christian minorities rather than stopping them. Before Europe and the US started meddling with the territories they inhabit, back in the days of the Ottoman Empire, Middle-Eastern Christians actually fared comparatively well.

If the Samaritan beat the robbers to a pulp with excessive force: yes.

However: Jesus made somebody, whom His then audience regarded as unholy and of the wrong religion, the hero of His story. And that doesn’t make you think about your own self-righteousness?

Rest assured that I’m reasonably well aware of my Bible quotes’ context. For a start I can tell the difference between Jesus and Paul … .

You asked for Muslims to condemn this crime, I pointed you to the fact that they did, and you are still not satisfied?
A Muslim policeman was murdered in the Paris attacks. Do you think Islamophobes smearing their religion will make his family feel better?

You choose to ignore it because you are afraid to face the truth: Truth being that we ought to cherish every single human life as in the image of God, always and under all circumstances.
When you reject abortions whilst condoning acts of war it becomes painfully obvious that your thoughts are dominated by right-wing American culture rather than by uncompromised Christian faith.

*yawn* selective history and vile fantasies as composed by Robert Spencer and others stepping into the footsteps of “Der Stürmer”. What they do to the Koran and Islamic history is equally intellectually unsound as the stuff The Wyrd of Gawd comes up with when he talks about the Bible and Christian history.
MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

Jesus may be, but this forum isn't.

Name callers unable to debate usually do try to defend their bad behavior. Ironic you ignore the crimes of the ones that do justify the word hate, the Islamofascists.

They are offended by freedom in general and by anyone who isn't a Muslim.

So run for office if you don't like our foreign policy. I've yet to year you offer an alternate solution to dealing with Islamic violence.

No, I don't. Now what? You can find abuses in all wars, and IMHO the Crusades were a legitimate counter offensive against Muslim aggression. Now can we talk about the OP instead of the Middle Ages?

Call me crazy, but I'll have to believe the former CIA director over you.

Water boarding isn't torture, and there were no war crimes. Typical leftists attempt to criminalize political disagreement.

For a 50 cent bullet, Clinton could have avoided 9/11 numerous times when he had a chance to get Bin Laden.

I would have rejected that trade also, the Taliban was attempting to trade Bin Laden in order to stay in power. In the end we both removed the Taliban and got Bin Laden, thanks to intel obtained by water boarding.

We disagree.

We are to obey government authorities except when they order us to disobey God. The author of Romans disobeyed the authorities who told him to stop preaching.

It isn't evil to remove evil. Was it evil to remove Hitler? It is like saying that someone who pushes an old lady out of the way of a bus is the same as one who pushed the old lady into the path of the bus, since both use force.

What is that supposed to prove, that they aren't dangerous to us? Of course the Muslims they kill only adds to their crimes.

Cite where I supposedly did that, please.

Jesus believed Noah existed, and so do I.

OK, so if not for the US military you'd be both speaking German and doing the Hitler salute, or be in a concentration camp.

Apparently poor reasoning runs in your family.

That was not US policy, and I'm sure those responsible were punished. What you described is standard operating procedure for the jihadists you excuse.

Never heard of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey?

Really, was the Samaritan a terrorist? And more cheap name-calling with the self-righteous bit, like Paul I'm a sinner too, just forgiven.

Oh, I must have missed tens of thousands of Muslims demonstrating in Paris against the terrorists, would you mind posting such a story?

Last I heard he was from a Muslim background but his religion was not confirmed.

It isn't a phobia if they're really regularly killing people.

Not really, it is just that you're the last place I'd go for truth.

So you're against abortion, always and under all circumstances?

It is difficult to have a rational conversation with someone who can't differentiate between an innocent unborn child and a murderer.

Someone really has to be morally bankrupt to see a list of crimes like that and yawn. Do you yawn when reading about Hitler's crimes?

 

And just as you claim your worldview is right. I guess we'll find out someday who is really right.

 

What were they supposed to do with those prisoners, let them go so they could attack Israel later, or maybe absorb them and their pagan evil practices into the nation of Israel?

The following list of Mohammad's actions sound like ISIS to me. Please keep in mind Jesus harmed nobody.

"Molested his wife – six-year-old Baby Aisha. One of Baby Aisha’s wifely duties was to clean semen stains from the prophet’s clothes. The prophet would take a bath with Baby Aisha and thigh with Baby Aisha taking his penis and rubbing it up and down her thighs. Being a man of mercy he did not penetrate Baby Aisha until she was nine.
Raped Baby Aisha when she was nine (texts can have been altered to change the age. Koranic texts claim he married her when she was six and he may have consummated the marriage then as well. Reason for this being that other indications in the Hadith shows that Mohammed was a pedophile). Advocated sex with baby girls.
Raped a retarded woman. Murdered a woman. Had sex with his dead aunt.
Captured women and raped them. Kept women as sex slaves. Muhammad had sex with 61 women: many he raped. There is no consensual sex between a child girl and a man. There is no consensual sex between a master and his sex slave. There is no consensual sex between a woman conquered in war and her husband conqueror. All such sexual acts are rape. Forced sex during their menstruation including Baby Aisha. Mentally abused his wives. Can you imagine taking a child (or any aged woman) and molesting with your hand/fist her menstruating vagina?
Beheaded his enemies. 600/900 Jewish men at one massacre. Had Jewish boys as young as 13 years old beheaded after pulling down their pants and inspecting groin for pubic hair.
Ordered the murder, torture, terrorization of Christians and Jews if they did not convert to Islam. Forced Christians and Jews from Saudi Arabia (the mass exile).
Assassinated people for insulting him or Islam. Established totalitarian rule. Had followers and their families burnt alive in their homes for missing prayer.
Ordered the extermination, torture and terrorization of kafirs. Instigated 60 massacres and personally participated in 27 of them.
Called his black slaves pug noses and compared them to Satan.
Treated his black slaves as beasts of burden.
No befriending Christians and Jews.
Subjugated and oppressed Muslim women. Required them to cover their faces.
Married his daughter – in – law.
Approved prostitution.
Encouraged the rape of women in front of their husbands.
Recommended wife beating. Hit his wife – Baby Aisha.
Murdered prisoners of war. Committed acts of terror.
Advocated suicide attacks.
Executed apostates and homosexuals.
Beat children who didn’t pray. Abolished adoption.
Honor killings of Muslim women and children.
Beat alcoholics. Lied.
Stoned adulators to death. Stoned a woman to death after she had given birth.
Ordered thief’s hands/feet chopped off.
Tortured a man out of greed.
Looted and plundered.
Preached hate for people of other religions.
Extorted money from other religions
Forced conversions to Islam
Allowed his companions to execute, behead, rape and enslave."


Like most cult leaders, the 'prophet' was mainly a dirty old man.

You really think other Muslims are going to eliminate ISIS? I don't. This is a good quote from a former CIA director:

"The Saudis control about 90% of the world's Islamic institutions, despite being 1% of the world's Muslims. The Wahhabi doctrine they teach, murderous with regards to Shi-ites, Jews, gays, and apostates and unremittingly repressive with regards to women is essentially the same as ISIS or AQ. Both seek differing only in tactics, to move us all towards a world-wide theocratic totalitarian dictatorship, the Caliphate. The Wahhabi-AQ rivalry is lethal, but it is not a battle over values. It is essentially a bitter fight over who should be in charge of getting all of us under the Caliph's control." R. James Wolsey

Red herring.

Pot, meet kettle.

You couldn't be more wrong, and you denial is astounding. Who are you go tell those acting in the name of Islam that they aren't really doing so?

Muslim governments are famous for saying one thing in public and doing another privately, see Pakistan.

 

No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

Good LORD, dude. Are you really going to suggest that as a justification for slaughtering tens of thousands of men, women and children???

Are you really going to try to claim that genocide is a legitimate Christian principle?

 

Saudi Arabi is under an abysmal hereditary dictatorship. Wolsey's comment is more political than religious. It's not uncommon for such dictatorships to use religion to further their cause.

Over and over again, you go to the worst possible criminals to ask about Islam. Why?? If you want to ask about Islam, how about asking actual religious leaders? Would you want people to ask the KKK or the IRA about Christianity? Would you want Christianity judged by the conduct of the terrorism at Jericho or the genocide against the Midianites? Would you want Catholicism judged by the inquisition? Would you want Christianity to be judged by a list of law as documented in Leviticus?

Obviously, the kind of "analysis" you are performing is preposterous - guided by no more than your own hate and hypocrisy.

You ask, "Who are you go tell those acting in the name of Islam that they aren't really doing so?" Obviously, I don't have to do this. Islam is already doing it, and they are experts as well as being in a far better position to be listened to than some westerner.

Your analysis of Pakistan needs to be rethought. The population of Pakistan is not all pro-US and is not going to be won over by our military action both inside and outside of Pakistan against people with whom they have strong connections - regardless of how much money we pay them. Pakistan's leadership has frequently been more accommodating to the US than the population wants. And, every legitimate government is constrained by its population. Our position is not enhanced by demanding so much that the government is overthrown.

 

ISIS exists because of what WE did with Iraq.

They will not be removed without the work of the locals in Iraq. That is the position of our Pentagon.

Let's remember that we created an opening for AQ when we conquered Iraq. And, our subsequent attempts to remove AQ failed until Sunnis became convinced that they should work to remove them.

Subsequent to that, we set up a government that disenfranchised Sunnis and supported Maliki in his use of Iraqi federal troops and Shiite militias to carry out a horrendous civil war against Sunnis that included the slaughter of civilians. THAT is what caused an opening for ISIS.

What makes you think WE could remove ISIS when WE could not remove AC even when we fully owned Iraq and had 150K troops plus government and private support personnel there? Please make your answer convincing enough to override the Pentagon analysis.

 

The "no true Scotsman" fallacy depends on there being no clear distinction.

Both Islam and the west do see a difference, and Islam has made that case loudly and repeatedly.

 

Yes, not leaving troops there.

ISIS is just another mutation of the same Jihadists cancer, which was present way before 9/11, and I would argue since 611 AD.

The Petagon analysis was that we leave troops in Iraq and not have a hasty withdrawal. Our failed president overrode them.

 

What is a criminal, someone you disagree with politically? You would never call Bin Laden a criminal I bet.

It IS religious leaders of Islam inciting the jihad, get your head out of the sand while you still have one.

Are they still around? I've never seen one.

That was tribalism, the antagonists never claimed their terror was inspired by Jesus Christ as the Jihadists do with the 'prophet'.

There was no Christianity back then. You're really reaching if you have to resort to out of context examples from thousands of years ago.

Pot, meet kettle. You are incapable of debate without name calling, pathetic. I'll believe a former CIA director ahead of clueless internet jockeys.

At least the ones that aren't encouraging Jihad.

Certainly applies to you.

Thanks for admitting the population is extreme. There have been horrific human rights abuses in that country against Christians. This article puts it well, "Killing Christians: A State Sponsored Crime in Pakistan". Did you get that, it isn't a few unrepresentative kooks, it is the government of Pakistan doing these things.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4904/pakistan-killing-christians

- - - Updated - - -

If you're aware of tens of thousands of Muslims protesting their co-religionists actions in Paris, please do post. That would be 'loudly and repeatedly'.

I do have to say this is progress, the UAE has declared CAIR, a group with deep ties to the Obama White House, a terror group.

http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/united-arab-emirates-ban-cair-other-us-brotherhood-groups

 

Since science clearly shows us that Noah's flood was a lie, if you embrace science, then you can be smarter on this vital issue ("reality") than even Jesus. With science, you can know more than Jesus. Really think about that. I know you can do it.


PS Thank you for having what your signature line says, as I shows what this war is about.

 

I wouldn't presume to override Jesus Christ, and there is a lot of flood evidence. In the Rio Grande Valley where I live, for instance, there is 1,500' of water deposited sediment in an area that gets 9 inches of rain a year.

You're welcome!

 

Yeah, lots can happen in 4+ billion years.
Too bad Jesus didn't realize the age of the earth, but we shouldn't expect that of someone who is not really divine.

 

The Iraqi government disenfranchised the Sunni population while we were there. In fact, Bush chose Maliki as the leader of Iraq BECAUSE of his work in disenfranchising the Sunnis. And, well before we left, the Iraqi government was killing Sunnis with its federal troops as well as supporting the Shiite militias.

Are you suggesting that our troops would have (or should have) fought against the Iraqi military when we were there?

If not, then what the heck are you talking about?

The last couple sentences are pure deception. The Iraqi government wanted our troops out of Iraq. Sure, the Pentagon (in fact, the whole executive branch) would have liked to have troops there, but they had no solution to Maliki's refusal. And, re-conquering Iraq was not considered to be an option.

Are you suggesting that we should have re-conquered Iraq? Or, are you just trying to sling political nonsense?

 

Oh, good lord. In THIS thread (as well as everywhere else) I've repeatedly stated that the terrorists are criminals. In fact, I point out that taking the words of terrorists as the truth INSTEAD of taking the word of devout believers in God is a mistake YOU are making.

And, if you think there are religious leaders of Islam inciting jihad, state who you are talking about.

I'd point out that Abbas took part in the French protests - along with Netanyahu. But, that shouldn't be news, as Abbas has fought against violent means throughout his years in office. In fact, the the Israeli IDF sees Abbas as their most important partner in fighting terrorism.

What's going on in the ME is NOT some sort of religious war against the west. There are a number of horrible governments in that region, and the result is unspeakable oppression and desperation. These conditions give birth to terrorism. They always have. They always will. Our own forefathers led a revolution based on lack of representation - and they had FAR more representation than do Sunnis in Iraq. Looking at religion as the cause is just plain STUPID.

 

You seem to have a serious problem with reading comprehension. When I say that your ramblings in this forum remind me of the “mad ramblings of an Islamist preacher going out of his way to insult other faiths and to incite hatred against their adherents”, that obviously means I find both mad.

But I am educated enough to know that said mad Islamist preachers are no more representative for all of Islam than right wing evangelical hate-mongers are representative for all of Christianity.

I don't think I'd be eligible to run for any office in the US. Wrong passport and place of residence. Mind you I don’t like my own nation’s foreign policies any better, which is why I tend to vote for people who want to change it for the better.

That must be due to your lack of reading comprehension again. Try again. If you want to hear another practical suggestion: spend at least as much money on Peace studies as on the military.

How about your solution for dealing with Islamist violence? Do you want to kill all Muslims or do you just want to incarcerate them until they convert to Christianity?

The OP is about the Middle Ages. When do you think the Qu’ran was written?
I certainly agree that you can find abuses in all wars. That sad fact no more excuses abuses committed by Christians than it abuses committed by Muslims. Murder and torture are always bad.

Trying to whitewash one’s own country’s and religion’s crimes against humanity, while constantly accusing others for theirs, is pathetic.

And saying that "the Crusades were a legitimate counter offensive against Muslim aggression" is just as stupid as thinking that starting WWII was a legitimate counter offensive against the Treaty of Versailles.

Pray do:
“The Panetta Review was a secret internal review conducted by Leon Panetta, then the Director of the United States Central Intelligence Agency, of the CIA's torture of detainees[1][2][3] during the administration of George W. Bush. The review led to a series of memoranda that, as of March 2014, remained classified. According to The New York Times, the memoranda "cast a particularly harsh light" on the Bush-era interrogation program, and people who have read them have said parts of the memos are "particularly scorching" of techniques such as waterboarding, which the memos describe as providing little valuable intelligence.[4]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panetta_Review

This has nothing to do with left or right. Anybody with a bit of moral backbone left in their body is able to call this spade a spade: Your country violated international law and human rights. It tortured and let torture. Period.

yes

A) The US put the Taliban there in the first place. Back then Reagan called them “freedom fighters”, and provided them with funds, weapons and military training.
B) You haven’t got rid of the Taliban. They are still there, both in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

??? We disagree on what in this paragraph?
Do you disagree that Paul wrote the “Epistle to the Romans”? Pretty much every NT-scholar thinks it was. ‘Bible-believing’ Evangelicals certainly think Paul wrote it: it says so.
Do you disagree that it was addressed to early Christians in Rome? Again pretty much every NT-scholar thinks it was. ‘Bible-believing’ Evangelicals certainly think it does: it says so.
Or do you disagree that via association it addresses all Christians, including you and me? In that case you may as well toss your Bible out of the window. The lack of Christian reflection in your posts suggests that you already did.

It means that you insult the victims as well as the perpetrator’s if you blame those crimes on Islam.

In post 442 you wrote:
“Christianity isn't a pacifist religion. God wiped out the entire earth save for Noah's family because of gross sin, I don't think any more kindly on the crimes done by these evil people.”
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=389495&p=1064619005#post1064619005

name calling anybody?
If you really believe in genetic reasoning and worry about mine you may find hope in the fact that the other side of my family also sported a resistance-fighter. He got executed for disobeying orders and would probably have fully sympathized with Jeremy Hinzman and other conscientious objectors.

One of those who tortured and killed this man got sentenced to two months in a military prison. Two others who took part in this crime escaped custodial sentences. Those who are ultimately responsible: Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld ... weren't brought to court.

If the torture-victim had been your, son, brother, friend... , would you regard this 'justice' as appropriate?

I have, just as I have heard of a holocaust that was committed by a country with a Christian Church in every village. But since when is Armenia in the Middle East?

I said Jesus would have made the Good Samaritan a Muslim, if he told the story to you. I did not say he would have made Him a terrorist. That you are unable to distinguish between the two, is the reason we have this discussion.


And you may want to check out orthodox Protestantism: You are only forgiven if you repent, and not for as long as you keep on with your self-righteous hate-mongering and denial, thus demonstrating the emptiness of your faith. I'll pray for you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/muslims-respond-charlie-hebdo_n_6429710.html

Well, his brother certainly thought Ahmed Merabet was a Muslim. I reckon he should know:

“The men who were captured on camera killing a policeman outside the Charlie Hebdo offices were "pretend Muslims", the victim's brother has said.
Ahmed Merabet was one of 17 people who lost their lives during three days of terror on the streets of Paris.
Speaking during a news conference his brother Malek urged people not to avenge his death with further violence and reiterated that Islam was not about "terrorism or madness".
He added: "My brother was Muslim and he was killed by people who pretend to be Muslims. They are terrorists, that's it". “
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30762153#

Yes, I am. But I think that there are better ways to protect unborn life than banning abortions or murdering doctor’s who perform them.

It is difficult to have a conversation with an ostrich, who refuses to recognize the incoherence and hypocrisy of his moral convictions.

I yawn when I read an Islamophobe’s Stürmer-style ramblings. There is little difference between Julius Streicher and Robert Spencer and Co.: both are lying misrepresenting hate-mongers, with one targeting Jews and the other Muslims.

 

The 'hate' bit is getting old, funny you don't direct it at the real Muslim haters.

And leftist apologists for jihadists don't represent all Germans.

I would expect we differ on who that would be.

LOL, I'm sure ISIS will be impressed with your peace studies. In case you haven't noticed, they don't want peace, they want all us 'infidels' to submit to Islam.

The first thing is to recognize the problem, that radical Islam is at war with us.

I guess you don't have a solution, huh?

I don't see why we are letting Muslims immigrate after watching what is happening in Europe. Why would any intelligent person go down that path? The definition of insanity is expecting different results from the same actions. It would also be helpful to drop political correctness and words like 'Islamophobic', which the late Christopher Hitchens called "a word created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons".

An example would be the Muslim creep who did the Ft. Hood crime. Long before that, he was preaching jihad while in uniform, everybody was afraid to say anything due to political correctness. Before the crime, that slimeball should have been given a dishonorable discharge, put on a terror watch list, and made to pay back his government funded education.

What you ignore is those crimes done by Christians were contrary to the words and deeds of Jesus, who harmed nobody, while the jihadists use Muhammad as their example.

Ironic a German saying that.

The opinion of the New York Times is well-known, they are as confused as you are.

Hogwash. The jihadists aren't covered by our constitution or the Geneva Convention.

As dumb as saying we created the Cold War by being allies with Stalin against the Germans.

Yes they are, what is your solution, peace studies?

We disagree on your bizarre idea that the NT doesn't apply to Christians today. Muslims maybe?

And Hitler killed other Nazis, so what?

Do you have a point with this?

Obviously nobody bought that nutcase idea of taking them to court. I would much rather have them in power now than our clown president, who takes credit for getting Bin Laden when it was water boarding that allowed that to happen. What a hypocrite.

If they were a terrorist who murdered innocent people, yes. I don't have any Muslim relatives.

Many of whom opposed Hitler. Einstein said the church was the German institution that opposed Hitler the most, more than academia or the press.

Who said it was? The OP is about Islam, the same people who committed genocide against Christian Armenians and who still haven't owned up to it. It would be like if Germany had never apologized for the holocaust.

Possibly, he wants Muslims to be saved also, as I do.

Stop the name-calling, judgemental one.

Is that 50,000 or 5? Out of millions of Muslims in France 50K shouldn't be a problem.

OK, he was Muslim, is that supposed to prove anything? Hitler killed lots of Germans.

You don't believe in banning murder? I don't think you're really against abortion.

Me either, I'd settle with charging them with murder and taking their medical license away.

I was just going to say that.

Too bad you're more concerned with anti-Jew dead Nazis than millions of living anti-Jew Muslims. Jew-hate is inherent to Islam. Some would call that hypocrisy.

What 'lies' has Spencer made, citing the Koran? If you can't come up with any, then that word applies to you.

 

Wow, are you confused, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ou-like-the-troops-you-can-keep-them-in-iraq/

Since 2008 Obama wanted to get all troops out of Iraq, despite the advice of his military advisers. We have way more troops in Japan and Germany 60 years after WWII ended than what was advised for Iraq, 10,000. Community organizers don't make good Commander in Chiefs. He also ignored the military who warned him for a long time about the advance of ISIS, and he did nothing. It would have gone against the narrative of the Nobel Peace Prize winning that Muslims now liked. You know, the nonsense that Jihadists just didn't like Bush or something. Obama owns the chaos in Iraq, it was a relatively stable nation when Bush left office.

 

God approves of rape.

Zechariah 14:2 (ERV) = "I will bring all the nations together to fight against Jerusalem. They will capture the city and destroy the houses. The women will be raped, and half of the people will be taken away as prisoners. But the rest of the people will not be taken from the city."

So if that was to happen next month why would religious people get upset since it was God's will?

 

You're leaving out verse 3, "Then the Lord will go out and fight against these nations". The ones doing the raping. Why aren't Christians doing this today, Muslim-style? What the Bible describes it doesn't always prescribe.

 

The preceding verses state that God sets the people up for abuse in the first place. Then the creep is going to ride in as a hero? That's disgusting.

 

You need to dig deeper than reading some columnist. 10,000 troops isn't enough for supporting combat operations in Iraq. That number had more to do with ensuring the safety of those there. Whether it is 3k or 10k was (and is) not going to change the direction of the Iraqi government.

The fact is that our troop presence had not changed Maliki's direction on the Sunnis. And, Maliki wanted us out. Bush signed the document that relinquished the right for our troops to operate outside of Iraqi law - making individual military persons responsible to Iraqi law. THAT is what needed to change.

We chose Maliki as he had been our partner and Iraqi lead in carrying out the deBaathification program that eliminated Sunnis from government. He simply didn't stop doing what we wanted him to do after having become the national leader. And, he did it with gusto - using the Iraqi military and supporting Shiite militias to repress Sunnis using tactics that included the slaughter of civilians.


Our military did not stop that when we had 100,000 troops in Iraq.. We were not going to oppose the leader of Iraq which we had installed, and he knew that.

 

My link addressed your false claims, and you didn't respond to the point that Obama did nothing while ISIS advanced, then hypocritically tried to blame the very military and intel that warned him. Anyway, I'm on the road the rest of the week.

 

We conquered Afg and Iraq. We went to war in Libya, overthrowing their government. We instantiated the blockade of Gaza, preventing them from even exporting goods or leaving their country (8 years ago). We've had continuing programs of assassination throughout the region. We supported Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and other regional partners with gigantic military armaments as well as money. The list goes on and on.

Any notion that we haven't done enough in the way of military action in the ME is really hard to accept.

It's far more logical to see our military approach as being ineffective policy. For example, WE set up the government in Iraq. Has that worked? WE were instrumental in blockading Gaza for the last 8 years, causing unbelievable hardship for the citizens living there (in illegal collective punishment for them having voted "incorrectly"). Has that worked? WE support Israel's ethnic cleansing of West Bank. Has that worked? WE support Saudi Arabia. Has that given the people of Saudi Arabia anything but repression from a hereditary dictatorship? We supported the regimes that brought widespread unemployment and hardship to Egypt, giving their military the force to repress their people. Did that work?

Our policy in the ME has been focused on stability and economic benefit to the US. It has had nothing to do with the people in that region, and the result has been the need for local revolutions in the face of sophisticated military aid given to those regimes.