War on Terror is Lost

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The current Israel/Hezbollah skirmish is the tipping-point in the War on Terror.

If it wasn’t already clear, Israel’s lack of will to fight (mirroring the US lack of will) has made the outcome of the War on Terror known: The Muslims will Win. 

---

Lessons learned:

Wars efforts of half-measures fail.

The naïve idea that democracy itself brings civility has proven to be, well, naïve. 

The Arabs are not civil, neither is their religion.

---

Consequences:

Now that the terrorists have won, the entire Arab and Muslim world will become bolder in attacking Israel and its main (only) ally, the United States.  And the US, with 130k troops stuck in the middle of the Muslim world with the hopeless goal of bringing civility to the region, is destined to withdraw. 

In the long term, the US, shrinking on the world’s stage, will drop its support for Israel.  It is not a matter of if, but when. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The Arabs are not civil, neither is their religion.

That's a terrible stereotype.  You are a horrible person.

And you have obviously never seen my wife angry. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Agreed.  I'm tired of these generalizations in regards to Arabs or Muslims.  Imagine if we used Fred Phelps and his brood as the halmark of Christianity, and constantly stated home wacked out Christians are?  Please, be more mature on this issue in the future.

Sorry, I forgot my laminated Pocket Guide to Friendly Arab-Muslim Nations at home.

Doesn’t maturity require the examination and comparison of facts?:

Christianity:  I would not have heard of Phelps if it weren’t for people like you pointing him out.  I have no contact or association with Phelps.  He has zero influence over me.

Islam: The populous is supported by mosques which, in turn, indoctrinate the populous into hatred. Their societies are not integrated, nor are they tolerant of other religions.  Their societies are corrupt from top to bottom, and as such, as lost in a constant state of poverty.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Islam:  I would not have heard of al-Zarqawi if it weren’t for people like you pointing him out.  I have no contact or association with al-Zarqawi.  He has zero influence over me.

Christianity: The populous is supported by churches which, in turn, indoctrinate the populous into hatred. Their societies are not integrated, nor are they tolerant of other religions.  Their societies are corrupt from top to bottom, and as such, as lost in a constant state of poverty.

Islam:
1) al-Zarqawi’s organization, al Qaeda, is just a tiny bit larger and influential than Phelps. And as demonstrated by the anti-American literature found throughout mosques within the US prior to 9/11, along with the recent riots over cartoons in Europe, Islam is still radical even when transplanted in the West.
2) The populous of almost all muslim nations are dependent upon the mosques for their very survival.  It is the mosque which feeds and educates the masses.


Christianity:
1) In the vast majority of cases, the populous is NOT supported by the church.  Rather the populous supports the church.
2) The church teaches the populous forgiveness of the sinner through faith and adherence to Christ Jesus. 
3) The church issues no threats to non-believers.
4) Christain societies are the most integrated and tolerant of other religions.
5) They are the least corrupted societies on earth.
6) They are the richest societies on earth.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

This post says more about the mindset of the far right than it does about the state of the War on Terror, and I personally find the Christian fundamentalists, with their wishes for an Apocalypse (Rapture) just as frightening and unsettling as the likes of Al-Qaeda, as they both want the same thing: a religiously inspired apocalypse in the name of fulfilling "prophecies".

Hate to burst your bubble, but I believe the Rapture occurs PRIOR to Armageddon.  So, to me, there is nothing that can be done or needs to be done on my part to hurry along the Rapture.

To me, the “War on Terror” is simply background noise.  Whether the US wins or loses the war will not hasten or delay Christ’s Coming.

Basically, I have no influence over the timing of the Rapture, so I don’t try to influence world events in an attempt to “bring on the Rapture.”

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

May I ask what you think Israel should do? It seems to me like they've pulled out all the stops, short of nuking Lebanon.

They attempted to win with only a few ground troops backed by air support.  The result is a Muslim populace that now believes, for the first time in a generation, that Israel can be defeated.  The impression of a vulnerable Israel is a sure recipe for a much wider war.  And if the Muslims believe Israel is vulnerable, then they will surely attack BOTH Israel and its main ally, the US.

The damage is already done, hope of destroying Israel has been rekindled in the hearts of Muslims.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The Arabs are not civil, neither is their religion.

A sizable portion of the Arab population of Israel is Christian as is the a sizable portion of the Lebanese Arab population.  Thanks so much for labeling Christianity "not civil."

1) obviously, my remarks pertain to the Arabs as a nation, not every individual Arab

2) My wife is a Lebanese Arab Christian, so your mischaracterization of my remarks doesn't hold a lot of water

3) The book of Genesis prophesied that Arabs would be wild and warish, so go argue with the scriptures of your "Christianity"

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

MODU:

Look, I'll make this fairly simple.  The constant generalization of a group of people in the context as it has been stated here is borderline racist.

Racism - a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

And what, exactly, is the superiority I am denying Arabs?  How I am claiming to be superior to them?  Go ahead, search all my previous posts on this forum and on the old forum.  I have been on this forum for at least 4 years, surely in all that time my posts reveal whether or not I believe my race was blessed by God with some superiority over other races.  Surely in all those years my true feelings would have been revealed.

Even though you are probably too lazy to search my posts, knowing that my wife and my 4 children are of Arab decent would certainly warrant some hesitation before jumping to conclusions. 

---

Gen 17:20 “And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.”

So, I recognize that Ishmael and his descendents were blessed by God.  Yet, if you stop jumping to shallow conclusions, you’ll find that I NEVER, NOT ONCE, stated that God ever blessed my race.

So, again I ask, how I am claiming superiority over the Arabs?

---

Gen 16:12 “He will be a wild donkey of a man, His hand will be against everyone, And everyone's hand will be against him.”

This biblical prophecy pertains to Ishmael and his descendents.  Does this mean that the bible portrayed every single one of his descendents as wild?  No, in fact, the bible records some of his descendents being worshipers of the biblical God (not to be confused with Allah).  And Ishmael’s descendents were among those listening to Peter’s first sermon (Acts 2:11).

Just as the US being led by the GOP doesn’t make every American a Republican, the prophecy of Gen 16:12 does NOT mark every Arab.  Rather it is a statement regarding how the Arab nations function as a nation.  It is a prophecy of how the Arab nation will play out their role in God’s play. The Arab nations will be the antagonists and will oppose the children born of promise, both Israel and Christians.

---

The bible also gives the Jews this label: “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people." (Isa 65:2; Rom 10:21)

I understand this statement to be directed towards the Jews.  So, are you now going to say that I am racist towards Jews, even though I am a Zionist and have argued with forum members that the Jews should still be considered part of God’s chosen people and that Jesus will turn godliness away from Israel when he returns and save a large portion of the Jews?

---

Psa 2:1 Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain.

I understand this to be a prophecy against ALL NATIONS, and ALL RACES.  So, are you now going to accuse me of being prejudice against all races, even my own?

---

Don’t view these biblical passages as being racist, as if certain races were superior to others.  Rather see them as a prophecy of how world events are to unfold: the Arab/Israeli conflict is a continuation of the friction between Abraham’s first two sons, Ishmael and Isaac (a fact religious Jews and Arabs will NOT deny).  And the descendents of Ishmael and Isaac are prophesied to continue fighting over Jerusalem until the return of Christ.

“Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” (Jesus Christ, Luke 21:24)

The New Testament church age, from the death of Christ until his return, is the “times of the Gentiles”.  So, when Gentiles no longer trample Jerusalem, you know that the end is near.

---

In closing:  To say that racism is involved with proclaiming the roles of the nations during the last days is missing the big picture:  The roles of Jerusalem and Israel are continuous throughout the bible, from Genesis to Revelation. 

1)  Jerusalem is the center of the world’s stage.  It is the city from where Melchizedek (a forerunner of Christ) ruled, it is where Abraham offered Isaac as a sacrifice, it is the city chosen by God for his Temple, it is where Jesus was crucified, it is the birthplace of Christianity and witnessed the first Christian sermon of the church age, it is the city from which the AntiChrist will rule, it is the city against all the armies of the world will gather, it is the city where Jesus will return, and it is the city from where Jesus will rule. 

2) Israel is God’s time marker.  Israel, since its conception in Genesis, has always been front and center in God’s plan.  Israel, and Israel alone, is the nation God placed on earth as a method for mankind to determine points in time in relation to God’s plan.  Simply, we can tell where we are in God’s timetable by observing the events surrounding Israel.

And here is what time it is:  The nation of Israel was been reformed (1948) and has regained military control over Jerusalem (1967).  Rebuilding the Temple is the next major event (date unknown) and will be the culmination of the 4000 year old conflict between Ishmael and Isaac, after which time the AntiChrist will be revealed (timeframe of this event in relation to the rebuilding the temple is unknown) and will rule from the rebuilt Temple.

Now, if you want to judge me as racist because I believe the MAJORITY of Arabs are wild and warish, and therefore the actions of Arab nations are simply a reflection of the attitude of the majority of Arabs…then, hey, I am guilty as charged.  Yet, also bear in mind I also recognize that the bible prophesied that a MAJORITY of Jews would reject Christ, yet that doesn’t make me anti-Jewish nor does it make me view myself as superior to the Jews.  Likewise, accepting biblical prophesy concerning the Arabs doesn’t make me anti-Arab, nor does it make me superior to them.  I simply accept the biblical defined roles of the nations (not to mention that I accept the obvious reality that these prophecies concerning the Jews and Arabs are being played out before my eyes every night on the news).

-------

J.J.:

whatever

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

2) The populous of almost all muslim nations are dependent upon the mosques for their very survival.  It is the mosque which feeds and educates the masses.

Um... no... not at all. Mosque's aren't actually that important in most branches of Islam...Certainly the Pakistani communities over here do most of their religious stuff at home.

Kind of like in pre-reformation England, where Catholics with no knowledge of Latin attended sermons that were delivered in Latin

Glad that you two are naive enough to judge the role of Mosques by observing Muslims in your WESTERN countries.

So, let me repeat the point and see if it makes more sense to you:

2) The populous of almost all muslim nations are dependent upon the mosques for their very survival.  It is the mosque which feeds and educates the masses.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The current Israel/Hezbollah skirmish is the tipping-point in the War on Terror....the entire Arab and Muslim world will become bolder in attacking Israel and its main (only) ally, the United States.

Iran: Victory celebrations, threats to Israel:  "'If Israel and US attack us, we will shoot missiles at Tel Aviv"
 
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3291469,00.html 

---

In the long term, the US, shrinking on the world’s stage, will drop its support for Israel.  It is not a matter of if, but when. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=3&cid=1154525897203&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

wow...this chick is tough

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

and so it continues...

Across Arab world, hostility toward Bush after election results
The Associated PressPublished: November 8, 2006
   
AMMAN, Jordan: Angered by the Iraq war and new violence in Gaza, some Arabs reacted harshly Wednesday to the drubbing of President George W. Bush's party at the polls. Most governments across the region had no official comment, but critics of the U.S. role in the region were blunt.

"President Bush is no longer acceptable worldwide," said Suleiman Hadad, a lawmaker in Syria, whose autocratic government has been shunned by the U.S.

Nafie Ali Nafie, an aide to the Sudanese president, who has lashed out at the U.S. over its calls to send United Nations peacekeepers to Darfur, echoed those sentiments.

"I'm very happy about the defeat of the Republicans as an expression of the rejection of Bush's policies in Iraq, the Middle East, the blind bias in favor of Israel," Nafie said.

Even in pro-Western Jordan, newspaper editor Nabil al-Sharif said many Arabs believe U.S. policies under Bush are "dangerous to the region and to the world."

"We are delighted that the American voters have at least disassociated themselves from these dangerous policies," he said.

Iranian state television said in a commentary that the Republicans suffered losses because of "Bush's wrong strategy in the Middle East" as well as "financial corruption in the United States."

In Israel, on the other hand, some analysts worried that political infighting between Democrats and Republicans in the runup to the 2006 presidential election might distract the Americans from looming crises in the Middle East, chief among them the prospect of a nuclear Iran.

"Israelis perceive the Iranian threat as imminent," said Prof. Menahem Blondheim of Hebrew University. "Without political support at home and in his party and among American public, a decisive military or diplomatic move against Iran seems less and less likely."

But overall, the U.S. election results were overshadowed in both Israeli and Arab media by the deaths of at least 18 people when Israeli tank shells blasted a residential neighborhood in Gaza early Wednesday.

Hamas' military wing in Gaza urged Muslims worldwide to attack U.S. targets, but the call was disavowed by the Hamas-led Palestinian government.

Nevertheless, many Arabs are highly critical of the United States for its support of Israel, especially during last summer's war against Hezbollah in Lebanon. The latest bloodshed in Gaza seemed certain to intensify that.

"Our experience is whether it is Democrats or Republicans, we don't see much difference when it comes to dealing with Israel," said Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat.

He was not alone in dismissing the results because of seeing little difference between Democrats and Republicans on such hot-button issues as U.S. support for Israel.

"I don't believe there will be any change at all in U.S. policy," said Yousef Abu Hijra, who runs a mobile phone shop in Amman. "There's no difference between the two parties."

For many Arabs, the war in Iraq stands out as the defining event of the Bush administration.

Kuwaiti political analyst Abdul-Ridha Aseeri described Democrats' gains as a "normal reaction" to the president's "failed" policies in Iraq. Kuwait was among the few Arab countries where support for the war was strong when the conflict began in 2003.

Aseeri predicted the resurgent Democrats may succeed in pressuring Bush into a face-saving formula for withdrawing from Iraq.

but some analysts saw dangers for the region in a quick American departure from Iraq — even some who opposed the war from the start.

"The problem for Arabs now is, an American withdrawal could be a security disaster for the entire region," said Mustafa Alani, an Iraqi analyst for the Gulf Research Center in Dubai.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The war on terror is not a conventional war, and thus it cannot be fought by conventional means... a fact which somehow seems to escape the leaders of both the U.S. and Israel.

I am a staunch supporter of Israel, just as I am a staunch supporter of the U.S., but that doesn't translate into a blind, uncritical acceptance of the policies of the current leaders of either country. Just as it doesn't make you unpatriotic to criticize Bush, it doesn't make you anti-Semitic to criticize the Israeli leadership. Trying to make yourself immune to criticism by wrapping yourself in the flag of your country is an old, tired trick that only the simple-minded fall for. As Samuel Johnson said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

The entire situation is a lot more complex than some of the posters here seem to believe.

To whom, exactly, are you preaching?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

First of all, the Israelis have a nuclear deterrent.

suicidals are not deterred by threat of death

---

At this point things are so screwed up that there's no good solution. We probably could destroy Muslim fundamentalism, but needless to say, Westerners don't support that kind of mass warfare anymore.

and we've already discussed the limitations imposed by our conscience and civility.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

In the long term, the US, shrinking on the world’s stage, will drop its support for Israel.  It is not a matter of if, but when. 

from http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061117/OPINION/611170387/1002...

One area where the recommendations of the ISG may run into resistance from Bush himself is in Hamilton's answer to the last question from the audience at DePauw. "Do we have to rethink our relations with the state of Israel? That issue is at the top of the Arab agenda." Essentially, Hamilton said yes, the strongest criticism of America is its pro-Israel stance. "In the Middle East, everything is connected to everything else, and at the core is the Israeli-Palestinian question. It's terribly important for the U.S. to deal with every aspect of this, refugees, borders, Jerusalem. The U.S. has to get seriously involved in the Middle East beyond Iraq. We have to adjust our relations with Israel to move the process. This does not mean we'll change our close relations with Israel, but we do have to adjust our relations."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

In the long term, the US, shrinking on the world’s stage, will drop its support for Israel.  It is not a matter of if, but when. 

The following article is just plain shocking to me:

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Baker_1.htm


The White House has been examining a proposal by James Baker to launch a Middle East peace effort without Israel.

The peace effort would begin with a U.S.-organized conference, dubbed Madrid-2, and contain such U.S. adversaries as Iran and Syria. Officials said Madrid-2 would be promoted as a forum to discuss Iraq's future, but actually focus on Arab demands for Israel to withdraw from territories captured in the 1967 war. They said Israel would not be invited to the conference.

“As Baker sees this, the conference would provide a unique opportunity for the United States to strike a deal without Jewish pressure,” an official said. “This has become the most hottest proposal examined by the foreign policy people over the last month.”

Officials said Mr. Baker's proposal, reflected in the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, has been supported by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns and National Intelligence Director John Negroponte. The most controversial element in the proposal, they said, was Mr. Baker's recommendation for the United States to woo Iran and Syria.

“Here is Syria, which is clearly putting pressure on the Lebanese democracy, is a supporter of terror, is both provisioning and supporting Hezbollah and facilitating Iran in its efforts to support Hezbollah, is supporting the activities of Hamas," National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley told a briefing last week. "This is not a Syria that is on an agenda to bring peace and stability to the region."

Officials said the Baker proposal to exclude Israel from a Middle East peace conference garnered support in the wake of Vice President Dick Cheney's visit to Saudi Arabia on Nov. 25. They said Mr. Cheney spent most of his meetings listening to Saudi warnings that Israel, rather than Iran, is the leading cause of instability in the Middle East.

“He [Cheney] didn't even get the opportunity to seriously discuss the purpose of his visit—that the Saudis help the Iraqi government and persuade the Sunnis to stop their attacks,” another official familiar with Mr. Cheney’s visit said. “Instead, the Saudis kept saying that they wanted a U.S. initiative to stop the Israelis’ attack in Gaza and Cheney just agreed.”

Under the Baker proposal, the Bush administration would arrange a Middle East conference that would discuss the future of Iraq and other Middle East issues. Officials said the conference would seek to win Arab support on Iraq in exchange for a U.S. pledge to renew efforts to press Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Golan Heights.

“Baker sees his plan as containing something for everybody, except perhaps the Israelis,” the official said. “The Syrians would get back the Golan, the Iranians would get U.S. recognition and the Saudis would regain their influence, particularly with the Palestinians.”

Officials said Mr. Baker's influence within the administration and the Republican Party’s leadership stems from support by the president's father as well as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Throughout the current Bush administration, such senior officials as Mr. Hadley and Ms. Rice were said to have been consulting with Brent Scowcroft, the former president's national security advisor, regarded as close to Mr. Baker.

“Everybody has fallen in line,” the official said. “Bush is not in the daily loop. He is shocked by the elections and he's hoping for a miracle on Iraq.”

For his part, Mr. Bush has expressed unease in negotiating with Iran. At a Nov. 30 news conference in Amman, Jordan, the president cited Iran's interference in the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki.

“We respect their heritage, we respect their history, we respect their traditions,” Mr. Bush said. “I just have a problem with a government that is isolating its people, denying its people benefits that could be had from engagement with the world.”

Mr. Baker's recommendation to woo Iran and Syria has also received support from some in the conservative wing of the GOP. Over the last week, former and current Republican leaders in Congress—convinced of the need for a U.S. withdrawal before the 2008 presidential elections—have called for Iranian and Syrian participation in an effort to stabilize Iraq.


“I would look at an entirely new strategy,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said. “We have clearly failed in the last three years to achieve the kind of outcome we want.”

In contrast, Defense Department officials have warned against granting a role to Iran and Syria at Israel's expense. They said such a strategy would also end up undermining Arab allies of the United States such as Egypt, Jordan and Morocco.

“The regional strategy is a euphemism for throwing Free Iraq to the wolves in its neighborhood: Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia,” said the Center for Security Policy, regarded as being close to the Pentagon. “If the Baker regional strategy is adopted, we will prove to all the world that it is better to be America's enemy than its friend. Jim Baker's hostility towards the Jews is a matter of record and has endeared him to Israel's foes in the region.”


But Defense Secretary-designate Robert Gates, a former colleague of Mr. Baker on the Iraq Study Group, has expressed support for U.S. negotiations with Iran and Syria. In response to questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee, which begins confirmation hearings this week, Mr. Gates compared the two U.S. adversaries to the Soviet Union.

 “Even in the worst days of the Cold War, the U.S. maintained a dialogue with the Soviet Union and China, and I believe those channels of communication helped us manage many potentially difficult situations,” Mr. Gates said. “Our engagement with Syria need not be unilateral. It could, for instance, take the form of Syrian participation in a regional conference.”