Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Iraq & Afghanistan Bush On Iraq: "Just Be Patient"

I find the Senator just as confusing.

I believe most writers use the term Islamism to indicate the fundamentalists movement within Islam i.e. a strict interpretation of the Qur'an. Within that movement there are groups which take extreme measures to implement their beliefs. This is a very small group with a larger group of active supporters, but still a small group of the whole fundamentalist movement.

A comparison can be made using American fundamentalists as an example. Among them there is a small group of terrorists with a larger group who support them trying to persuade government to change their policies regarding the particular issues of interest; abortion comes to mind.

The president is attempting to make the call for "patience" impervious to logic and reason.

So far his level of success appears to be undeniable.

The Constitution of Saudi Arabia
The Constitution of the Republic of Yemen
The Constitution of Egypt
The Constitution of Syria
The Constitution of Bahrain
The Constitution of Oman
I think the limb you were on rporter314 just broke. When I talk about Islamists and Islam I know what I am talking about. The only Arab country that DOES NOT the Qur'an and sharia as the basis for its laws is Lebanon.

As my previous post shows with one exception every Arab country has as its Constitution the Qur'an. The problem is how closely are some of those countries following their constitutions? The more an Arab country follows its constitution the more it supports terrorism. Saudi Arabia is finding out however the joys of training and supporting terrorism thinking that it is a product for export only.

Well as I am no an expert or any pert on Islam I'll close by letting you fight it out with this source
The Definition of an Islamic Government

Like the Bible the Qur'an is believed to be the true and inerrant word of G*D or Allah depending on the religion. Expecting a government, run by humans, to perfectly follow the word of G*D or Allah is a formula for failure. To truly follow the Qur'an an Islamic government could not have any dealings with any infidels. Nor could any strict fundamental Muslims have any dealings with infidels except to convert them or kill them.

Even that website you provided a link to isn't perfectly following the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, PBUH, and the Qur'an because it uses the western system of showing the date, 18.08.2004. According to Islamic calendar today is 10 Shawwal, 1428 not 22 October, 2007.

There has been a lot of drift on this thread since I was here last. I suppose I contributed to that when I acknowledged the merit of Senator's contrast regarding "patience," but what, pray tell, does the purity of Arab country's practice of "Shari'a" have to do with Anniefey's original topic? Should we start a new thread in the Religion forum, perhaps?

I would like to limit my influence and response to this: As in the United States, where radical social conservatives have had an enormous influence on policy through the Republican party, including direct violations of the Constitution itself, so in Arab countries, many of which are at least nominally based upon adherence to Shari'a, religious fundamentalists have had enormous influence on their country's governance far in excess of their numbers, so much so that they are taking over some governments.

In both cases, there are elements in these factions (whether they adhere to a particular "label" or not) that are willing to use any force available - government, social, or just plain tyranny - to push their agenda, in a non-democratic, despotic way, to include using assassination or suicide bombers to kill as many civilians as possible simply to "discredit" the current government. So to in this country we are saddled with influential so-called "conservatives" who will use any force available to them to force us to accept their warped world view, to include bombing abortion clinics and assassinating obstetricians. In both cases these individuals are on the extreme fringe of a radically-focused wing of a larger "conservative" social movement. Unfortunately, unlike most Arab countries, the radical fringe is in control of the levers and authority of our own government.

Annifey's original point, and the focus of this thread, is the monotonous litany of the President's repeated call to "patience" in pursuing a radical, tyrannical policy choice (the invasion and occupation of Iraq) in support of his larger agenda to marginalize every other part of society and government that does not toe his radical, tyrannical line. We have let him do so, as a nation, indeed (allegedly) reelecting him to office despite these abuses and the utter depravity of his policies. In many ways some of us, at least, deserve him. Should we not hold him and his government accountable for their repeated failures? Should we simply accept this call for "patience" despite the apparent lack of substance beneath it? Or, should we say, "enough" and focus, instead, on the real threat to the nation?

The call for "patience" reminds me of the addict's repeated promise that "this is the last one" or the spuse abuser's "I'm sorry I won't ever do that again."

How true, Phil, how true. And, is it not a demonstrable fact that the Commander in Chief is both an addict and an abuser?

I too have lost patience with the less than spectacular leadership of Pres. Bush on a number of issues. My support for the war in Iraq is not, however, to be confused with support for Pres. Bush. Whoever our next president is will still have to fight this war whether we like it or not. As I have said several times this war will not end if we were to withdraw from it. That action would only embolden our enemy. An enemy who has been fighting this war on and off for over 1400 years. An enemy that is not attacking us because George W. Bush is our president. Our enemy is attacking us because we are not fundamentalist Muslims (Islamists) as they are. A point Pres. Bush tried to make when he said that "They hate us because of our freedoms." That happens to be true. The Islamists due hate us because we have freedom, particularly because we have freedom of religion. Their religion tells them that there is but one true religion, Islam, and that the world must become Islamic. If lose patience in fighting this war we increase our chances of losing this war. Which is worse the temporary inconvenience of fighting this war or the permanent loss of freedom of religion?