Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What Will We Call This Debacle?
I know almost nothing about fighting a war. In earlier times, it seems that wars usually had two sides; both sides knew that the other was the enemy. Both sides knew what they were fighting for. Both sides knew there was a plan to go in, to fight, to win, to leave. But who is the enemy in Afghanistan? The Taliban? al Qaeda? Our leaders?
What is this “thing” in Afghanistan? Does anyone remember the original plan for going in? Who decided we should stay once al Qaeda was “defeated?” There are some who say we didn’t want to nation-build; others say that nation-building is the only way we would have stayed. These were an illiterate people who couldn’t read an instruction manual or a newspaper headline, but they were desperate to rid themselves of the Taliban. We wanted them to be free of these barbarians, too. Was that our purpose—to free the Afghans of these monsters, who could hide for months or years until their opportunity to raid and savage the country re-appeared? And what about the women and girls who have had a taste of freedom? Will they now be tortured and killed because they now understand what it means to live free? Must those memories be destroyed?
What do we now call this debacle in Afghanistan? Was it a foolish dream to believe we could leave quickly? How many people are at risk? How many people will die? How many soldiers are wondering what in the world they are doing as their leaders flail about, hoping a miracle will appear?
What is this “thing”? What do we call it? We are running out of words: debacle, nightmare, destruction, chaos, desperation, insanity—is there one word that will suffice? Or are there not enough words to express this “thing” that we are watching unfold in real-time? What will we call this “thing” years from now?
Our illustrious leaders are saying that we will not leave until we free each and every American (and maybe our Afghan allies?) from the country. They tell us that the Taliban will not stop us, but everyone except our leaders knows that hope is a delusion. They say that commercial airlines are stepping up to remove people, but how will these people get to the airport? Where is the strategy? Where is the will?
Where is the truth?
God help us and the Afghan people.
Published in Military
I think he’s like those progressive Protestants like the UCC. If people think that is cogent, then so be it.
Fyi the Koran says nothing about women needing to cover their faces.
Well, that’s good to know because I live around them and I hate it. If you need to dress extra modest, that’s fine but I really dislike when they cover up their face.
I’ve tried to watch the relevant portions of the interview with Jasser, but haven’t yet seen the part where he could have said that islam should share the world, but didn’t. So now I’ll have to go back and listen to the supposed irrelevant parts.
Either way Jasser phrases it (or neglects it), it’s something that’s very subtle, and it’s contextual within a good deal of discussion leading up to his silence on the point. This is especially potent in that it comes after Jasser earlier states that islam is inherently political, governmental, and military. And this is the part that he seems to want to do away with. His “reforming” of islam also includes essentially denying all its tenets: reinterpreting all its uncomfortable koranic texts to be taken as symbolic of something else — cutting off the hand of a thief really means separating the thief from society, which means putting him in prison, for example — and building a new religion which continues to use the name islam, and which dedicated to the god of the koran.
Absolutely — I adore Prager. He’s my Rabbi, and I’m not even Jewish! Although listening to him just hasn;t been part of my routine since he went bveyond the paywall AND I no longer had four hours of commute every day.
Great. He has improved my life immeasurably.
Thank you. Peace.
I’ve only seen him on TV a few times. I certainly defer to your knowledge of his positions. I placed him into a context of what is classified as moderate Muslims. Here’s the problem and difficulty of moderate Muslims. The Jihadists quote Koran and Hadiths to justify their version of Islam. The moderates claim that these verses should be taken as metaphor, not literal. Unfortunately the Koran and Hadiths can only be understood in the context of Mohammed’s life. He was a soldier and warrior, and he actually killed and beheaded people. The metaphor argument fails when the verses are put in their proper context. The Islamists have the winning argument. Most Muslims may not want to support the Jihadists but they cannot agree with the moderate’s reforms because it’s theologically unsupported.
Then there is that other thing about what is mentioned in order in the Quran. How it prioritizes.
Many, many muslims fought side by side with my battalion overseas. I’m especially impressed with the Azerbaijani soldiers with us in Iraq. The commander of that company spoke with me at length explaining that he is muslim, but he does not agree with or support the barbarity of those that we were fighting. They’re not all bad.
Prager is a religious bigot.
Are you disagreeing with somebody, or is that just a general statement?
I’m sorry to hear that. This was not my experience of him.
I thought I was pretty clearly disagreeing that all of Islam is bad. They are not.
All I’m saying is the Koran is really problematic when you talk about integrating into the West. Stating otherwise doesn’t make any sense to me.
I don’t think anybody here said that [every Muslim] is bad, but I may have missed it, and I’m not searching. I know very well that I did not say that.
The Koran is problematic; no one can disagree with that. But Zuhdi Jasser states that parts have been mistranslated and misunderstood. Let’s face it; intellectual exploration of Islam was stopped officially a long time ago. But there are some people who feel that it can be resurrected. Unless a person has a sophisticated understanding of Arabic and is a scholar of the Koran, it’s not entirely fair to toss the whole thing out (including those who are working to re-define and clarify it) without at least considering what they have to say.
Don’t misunderstand me. I realize there is a paradox here: we can consider that Islam is a legitimate religion and also condemn many of its teachings. That requires us to look at Muslims with careful scrutiny, especially if they want to come to this country. It’s easier to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but not fair or wise.
Sorry about my irritation yesterday. I get defensive for Jasser with people who condemn him or criticize him with little understanding or knowledge about the man.
You are probably more informed than me, but I just don’t see it. I have a limit to how much interest I can summon up on this type of thing. In critical ways he seems more like UCC Protestants. ((By the way, if you want to learn something sign up for the UCC emails. lol we had a local talkshow guy that recommended that and trust me it’s very educational.)
I wasn’t worried about your irritation. I just want people to explain the other side to me. I don’t mean to condemn him personally and I don’t see any reason for that. I’m just not persuaded.
So is the Bible, if you’re going to be intellectually honest. Just as the Bible is interpreted in many ways, so can the Koran. People who are muslim do not have to be bad.
This may be ignorance on my part and many others but Islam seems to hover in a state not dissimilar to pre-Reformation Catholicism. The Reformation (IIRC) had two attributes, one which may have spurred the other: addressing corruption in the Church, and re-interpreting Scripture to modify (arguably restore) the personal unmediated relationship between mankind and G-d. This process gave space for modernization albeit atheistic at its extreme.
The Koran (IIRC) shares many of the same stories with the Judeo-Christian, but it does not appear that much re-intepretation is permitted. So the question is, why is that? And can that be rectified?
What are your top two examples?
I have heard many discussions of all of this and I just don’t see it. They aren’t on the same level at all.
Is the country founded on Judeo-Christian values? You hear that all of the time.
The “door to interpretation is closed”, just like Nixon closed the gold window. Folks like Jasser are trying to change that.
It has been that way for over a thousand years.
Trivia question — why did Columbus go west in 1492?
Easy. The Spanish and others interpreted the Bible to require the inquisition where they tortured people in the name of God.
Many Americans (north and south, by the way) believed that the Bible endorsed slavery and believed they were doing god’s will by teaching their slaves about the Bible.
Yeah, christianity has no right to say that the Bible is never misinterpreted.
The difference is there is a general call for Islam to be integrated into everything. Government, business, education. etc. It’s political.
As was christianity for a very long time. Kings were required to be Christian, and had to obey the church, and had to give money to the church. Much of Islam is indeed quite evil, more than most by far. But there are sects of Islam that are not that way.
Checking off thread.
I think the difference is it’s not built into the scripture the same way.
I don’t know anything about it, but it would be pretty interesting to hear the rationale around Sufism.
I said this up in comment #98. Worth repeating.
Yes there are places in the Bible that have problematic texts that refer to violence. But none are substantiated by (1) a general rule to apply as a guiding principle and (2) by the actions of their prophet and perfect man who they are supposed to emulate. Christ died to create Christianity. Mohammed killed to create Islam. That is a founding and inherent difference that infuses the religions.
That’s ridiculous. What violence was pre-reformation Christianity prone to? Violence between Christian nations before the reformation had nothing to do with religion. The violence occurred in spades after the reformation between nation states that had different denominations, and that goes between different Protestant denominations too. Sorry but that is just flat out wrong.
Well, OK then.