Gingrich: Bush Fighting "Phony" War on Terror

[Maui]

Link (http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum/browse_thread/thread/15f46485ab91aa80).

"None of you should believe we are winning this war.
There is no evidence we are winning this war" the ex-Georgian
told a group of about 300 students attending a conference for
collegiate conservatives.

"We used to be a serious country. When we got attacked at Pearl
Harbor,
we took on Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany," he said,
referring to World War II.

"We beat all three in less than four years. We're about to enter the
seventh year of this phony war against ... [terrorist groups], and
we're losing."

Run, Newt, run!

[OnceUGoMac]

Next time link to the actual article, and not to another forum.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/08/03/newt0803.html

[ham_man]

The poor bastard's gone senile...

[SMM]

The poor bastard's gone senile...

Yes, keep up the party line. Your spin is laughable.

[skunk]

He fails to notice that WW2 was a "total war", whereas this is but a little local police action. It's not like you're free to use tanks, bombers, napalm or white phosphorus. No wonder it's taking a long time...

[solvs]

The poor bastard's gone senile...

And he's wrong how? We dropped the ball on the real terrorists in the 'stans, the ones who attacked us, to pull resources and go to Iraq. Where we still are. And they still want to screw up in Iran, which may actually be a threat now thanks to what we've been doing elsewhere. We are now less safe, and still don't have Bin Laden.

So tell us, other than the fact that he hit on a reality that his base still does not like to admit, what did he say that was so wrong?

It's not like you're free to use tanks, bombers, napalm or white phosphorus.
We did use white phosphorus.

[skunk]

We did use white phosphorus.And all the other things, too. You obviously missed my invisible "roll-eyes"...

[solvs]

And all the other things, too. You obviously missed my invisible "roll-eyes"...

That I did. I wasn't aware of the napalm, which I know we've used in the past, but was thinking hadn't been used in quite some time. At least not in this war. I guess we've continued bombing and still use tanks too. And we wonder why they hate us. Well, we know why, but apparently those in charge don't and/or would rather make it worse.

Also, I wonder if this is some lame tactic to make the Republicans look like they're the ones standing up the the ever unpopular Bush to gain back control from the Democrats who don't seem to be doing much.

[Swarmlord]

<snip> And we wonder why they hate us. <snip>

Geeze, I wonder why we hate them. Didn't realize that all we needed to do was to 'splain it to them.

[leekohler]

Geeze, I wonder why we hate them. Didn't realize that all we needed to do was to 'splain it to them.

Maybe I missed something but, what did Iraq do to us again? :rolleyes:

The poor bastard's gone senile...

Sounds like he just woke up to me. I guess the majority of the country's gone senile too?

[Desertrat]

Given how Jihadists seem to enjoy killing anybody who's not Jihadist, our presence in Iraq is almost a non-issue. When folks keep publicly howling about how our cultural norms justify the killing, I don't think it really matters what our foreign policy is, was or will be.

And they sure seem to be following the adage, "Put your money where your mouth is," worldwide. Places where our foreign policy is not an issue, and way the hellandgone away from the mideast.

Even in context, it seems that Gingrich's ideas are only pertinent to dealing with hostile governments, not amorphous fourth generation warfare.

'Rat

[ham_man]

And he's wrong how?
World War II was a "simple" affair. The sides were distinct: we knew who our allies were, and we knew who our enemies were. There was no blurring of the objective (nothing short of full surrender by the Italians, Germans, and Japanese) or the means with which to obtain it.

The War on Terror, or whatever you want to call it, is a much more complex affair. We still don't know beyond a shadow of a doubt who exactly our allies are or our enemies are. The objective is clear (neutralize the extremist influences in the Middle East and others) but the means via which to obtain it are much less straightforward.

[Swarmlord]

Maybe I missed something but, what did Iraq do to us again? :rolleyes:
<snip>

I meant Islamic terrorists worldwide. Their vicious terrorist actions seem to always be tied to something we did or what we represent even though they've been doing it for a thousand years longer than we've existed.

[obeygiant]

I meant Islamic terrorists worldwide. Their vicious terrorist actions seem to always be tied to something we did or what we represent even though they've been doing it for a thousand years longer than we've existed.

Sure, its always the Americans fault. Its becoming a joke.

[skunk]

That I did. I wasn't aware of the napalm, which I know we've used in the past, but was thinking hadn't been used in quite some time. At least not in this war. Uh huh:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030810-napalm-iraq01.htm The Independent August 10, 2003

US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq

In-Depth Coverage
By Andrew Buncombe

American pilots dropped the controversial incendiary agent napalm on Iraqi troops during the advance on Baghdad. The attacks caused massive fireballs that obliterated several Iraqi positions.

The Pentagon denied using napalm at the time, but Marine pilots and their commanders have confirmed that they used an upgraded version of the weapon against dug-in positions. They said napalm, which has a distinctive smell, was used because of its psychological effect on an enemy.

A 1980 UN convention banned the use against civilian targets of napalm, a terrifying mixture of jet fuel and polystyrene that sticks to skin as it burns. The US, which did not sign the treaty, is one of the few countries that makes use of the weapon. It was employed notoriously against both civilian and military targets in the Vietnam war.

The upgraded weapon, which uses kerosene rather than petrol, was used in March and April, when dozens of napalm bombs were dropped near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris river, south of Baghdad.

"We napalmed both those approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."And:http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/iraq-doctor-brings-evidence-of-us-napalm/2006/05/22/1148150185038.html[b]Iraq doctor brings evidence of US napalm at Fallujah

EVIDENCE to support controversial claims that napalm has been used by US forces in Iraq has been brought to Australia by an Iraqi doctor.

Dr Salam Ismael, of the Baghdad-based group Doctors for Iraq, said the evidence pointed to the use of napalm on civilians during the second siege of Fallujah in November 2004.

It is contained in film and photographs that doctors took of bodies they collected when they were finally allowed to enter the city after being barred for three days of the military operation.

"We said that napalm had been used, because napalm is a bomb which is a fuel bomb that burns only on the exposed part of the body, so that the clothes will not be affected," Dr Ismael said from Perth at the start of a speaking tour.

Doctors For Iraq, an independent group founded in 2003, is calling for an international investigation that would allow the bodies to be exhumed for autopsies "because we want to know the truth of what happened".

Dr Ismael said the napalm was a modification from the 1990s of the wind-driven napalm chemical bombs used by the US in Vietnam in the 1960s.

The US Government admits using white phosphorus in Iraq but denies using napalm.

Dr Ismael said the pattern of burns on bodies collected in Fallujah suggested otherwise.

Asked to respond to the napalm allegations, a Pentagon spokesman said only that the US did not target civilians. It was up to the Iraqi Government to decide if international investigators should be allowed into Fallujah.

[obeygiant]

World War II was a "simple" affair. The sides were distinct: we knew who our allies were, and we knew who our enemies were. There was no blurring of the objective (nothing short of full surrender by the Italians, Germans, and Japanese) or the means with which to obtain it.

The War on Terror, or whatever you want to call it, is a much more complex affair. We still don't know beyond a shadow of a doubt who exactly our allies are or our enemies are. The objective is clear (neutralize the extremist influences in the Middle East and others) but the means via which to obtain it are much less straightforward.

All true. Thats the main reason why the GWOT has no exact end date. Which is a bad thing.

Anyway I disagree with Newt on his one point that the war is "phony". How can it be phony if we are losing?

[skunk]

I meant Islamic terrorists worldwide. Their vicious terrorist actions seem to always be tied to something we did or what we represent even though they've been doing it for a thousand years longer than we've existed.What an interesting view of history. Interesting, but total bollocks. Ferdinand and Isabella were the sponsors of Columbus, and coincidentally the people who massacred thousands of Muslims in Spain, drove out the Jews - who were of course given sanctuary by the Ottomans - and forced everyone who remained to convert to Christianity under the threat of the Inquisition. In other words, the very people to whom you owe your existence in the Americas were arguably the greatest religious fascists in history.

[obeygiant]

American pilots dropped the controversial incendiary agent napalm on Iraqi troops during the advance on Baghdad. The attacks caused massive fireballs that obliterated several Iraqi positions.

The Pentagon denied using napalm at the time, but Marine pilots and their commanders have confirmed that they used an upgraded version of the weapon against dug-in positions. They said napalm, which has a distinctive smell, was used because of its psychological effect on an enemy.

you tube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwqdBkaWsTA)

[obeygiant]

What an interesting view of history. Interesting, but total bollocks. Ferdinand and Isabella were the sponsors of Columbus, and coincidentally the people who massacred thousands of Muslims in Spain, drove out the Jews - who were of course given sanctuary by the Ottomans - and forced everyone who remained to convert to Christianity under the threat of the Inquisition. In other words, the very people to whom you owe your existence in the Americas were arguably the greatest religious fascists in history.

I told you Swarm, it never ends. The Americans are even responsible for the massacre of thousands of the poor muslims in Spain over 500 years ago.

[Aea]

Anyway I disagree with Newt on his one point that the war is "phony". How can it be phony if we are losing?

I believe it isn't so much of a reference to the period before the attack on France during WWII but rather that the reasons behind it are complete BS.

Of course there are clearly some people who see it as a good thing, how anybody could see it that way is beyond me, but hey, :(

[skunk]

I told you Swarm, it never ends. The Americans are even responsible for the massacre of thousands of the poor muslims in Spain over 500 years ago.That is not what I said, as you probably realise. An appreciation of irony is clearly not one of your strengths.

[leekohler]

I told you Swarm, it never ends. The Americans are even responsible for the massacre of thousands of the poor muslims in Spain over 500 years ago.

Oh give it a rest. :rolleyes: No one is saying we're responsible for everything. But we are at least partially to blame for some things. What makes a lot of us angry around here is that so many conservatives want to paint a black and white pic of "good vs. evil". It's not that simple and you know it. There's good and evil on both sides. If you don't look at the whole picture and realize we've made some horrible mistakes, well-I guess we'll just keep on making them.

[Swarmlord]

What an interesting view of history. Interesting, but total bollocks. Ferdinand and Isabella were the sponsors of Columbus, and coincidentally the people who massacred thousands of Muslims in Spain, drove out the Jews - who were of course given sanctuary by the Ottomans - and forced everyone who remained to convert to Christianity under the threat of the Inquisition. In other words, the very people to whom you owe your existence in the Americas were arguably the greatest religious fascists in history.

You're talking about the thousands of Muslims that invaded Spain and about destroyed their culture in the process before being run out, right?

By the way, Christianity is judged by what it is today, not what long dead people did during the dark and middle ages. Heck, if we're drudging up the past from that long ago, then I'd rather get all Hun on them and use that as an excuse. For that matter, I'm sure Arabs screwed my ancestors out of a corner of a glacier at the end of the Ice Age. I want compensation!

[Swarmlord]

That is not what I said, as you probably realise. An appreciation of irony is clearly not one of your strengths.

Full time apologist for Arabs is one of yours though.

[leekohler]

Full time apologist for Arabs is one of yours though.

(Running away. Doesn't want to be here when skunk gets back. :))

[skunk]

You're talking about the thousands of Muslims that invaded Spain and about destroyed their culture in the process before being run out, right?I think you had better read up on the history of the Iberian peninsula before you make even more of a fool of yourself.Full time apologist for Arabs is one of yours though.Well, someone needs to balance your rampant Islamophobia, don't they? Glad to be of service.

[solvs]

The War on Terror, or whatever you want to call it, is a much more complex affair.
That we've completely screwed up. Which is his point. What part of we made things worse are you not getting?

And what does Iraq have to do with terrorism?

Their vicious terrorist actions seem to always be tied to something we did or what we represent even though they've been doing it for a thousand years longer than we've existed.
Again, what does Iraq have to do with terrorism? Do we really need to go over this all again. This is getting tiresome trying to explain it to you. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and we've only made things worse. This is really not that hard.

Sure, its always the Americans fault.
When we screw things up, it is our fault, but the party of personal responsibility can't even admit to a mistake, let alone fix them. I'm not blaming us for everything (obviously), though we've done things in the past that have come back to bite us, but we definitely dropped the ball on this one. Again, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was no threat. Yes, it is our fault it's now a threat. We made it a threat. Worse, we let the real bad guys get away, making us lose that war (the real one) too.

I'm amazed I still have to explain this when it should be blatantly obvious.

Uh huh:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030810-napalm-iraq01.htmAnd:http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/iraq-doctor-brings-evidence-of-us-napalm/2006/05/22/1148150185038.html
That makes me sad.

And yes, this is why they hate us. Why do you others think they hate us? Seriously. I really want to know. Why would Iraqis hate us?

Full time apologist for Arabs is one of yours though.
And full time hatred of Arabs is yours. For some reason, you're more than happy to lump all of them together because you had some bad experiences over there. Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan... they're all the same to you aren't they? Even Iranians too right, despite being Persian? Same problem?

Again, another one of the reasons they hate us.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>Again, another one of the reasons they hate us.

No, the bottom line is that they will never stop until the entire world submits to Islam. We're not going to, so there's the impasse. Even the "nicest" Arabs I've encountered would not deny that the only way this would end would be when the entire world was under Sharia law.

[skunk]

Even the "nicest" Arabs I've encountered would not deny that the only way this would end would be when the entire world was under Sharia law.Your placing of inverted commas around nicest is certainly odious and probably racist. You must have met an absurdly unrepresentative group of Arabs, who, after all, are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Zoroastrian and many other religions besides. Grow up.

[Swarmlord]

I think you had better read up on the history of the Iberian peninsula before you make even more of a fool of yourself.Well, someone needs to balance your rampant Islamophobia, don't they? Glad to be of service.

Hmmm, I missed the part about the Arabs indigenous to Iberia and Mohammed's second night flight to Madrid. I'll read up on that right away. Thanks for the heads up. I'll 'splain it to my Spanish friends too, 'cause they're all screwed up about their own history. They gave me the impression that the incursion was unwanted at the time.

Phobia? Hardly. Dislike of something doesn't make you afraid of it. Nice try with that misused term though. I don't like GM cars either, but I don't suffer from Buickphobia.

[juanm]

According to various organisations, the number of deaths resulting of the war in Irak exceeds 300000. It doesn't mean direct deaths, but instead people who wouldn't have died if there hadn't be a war. It can mean , for instance, people who needed health assistance and couldn't get it because of the war. And those organisation are ubiased: they criticized Saddam's regime as harshly before the invasion. And those numbers are already old. I don't know if you get news of it (I read three different news papers, left and right, spanish and french, and not all give the same news) but there are bombs or other terrorist strikesal most every day. Yesterday, 19 children died after a kamikaze blew himself up.

Believe me, if I had had a son, a father, or a friend die because it was necessary to justify in some way an astronomical military expense, I'd be devastated and looking for revenge too, more or less in the same way they do (I'd aim higher, though). Let alone when whole families are killed. Those who hate us don't do it (we've had our share of islamic terrorism too here because of this war) for the sake of hating us. The do it because we've given them tons of reasons to do so, and on the top of that, they are being used for political aims.

The thing that amazes me the most is that the situation is not even worse... well, they've got time to catch up.
I saw some time ago a sig on a forum: "Everything I needed to know about Islam I learned on 9/11". Is the same thing as saying for them "Everything I needed to know about the Occident I learned in Irak". Go figure why we're in this situation.
And I'm not Islamophile at all. I'm a convinced atheist (and as some of you'd point out, a potential target for them too) who just hopes this whole situation will change one day. I don't fear for my security, I just feel bad about everything's going on and all those lifes wasted for nothing.

[Swarmlord]

Your placing of inverted commas around nicest is certainly odious and probably racist. You must have met an absurdly unrepresentative group of Arabs, who, after all, are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Zoroastrian and many other religions besides. Grow up.

You know which ones I'm referring to. Gosh, you forgot to mention all the Scientologist and Wiccan ones too.

By the way, Arabs have been perpetrating their particular culture on the surrounding people long before Mohammed which is why I didn't specifically direct my comments at just the fundamentalist muslim ones. They have a long list of sins to attone for in my book.

[.Andy]

Phobia? Hardly.

No, the bottom line is that they will never stop until the entire world submits to Islam.

Not a phobia at all.

[Aea]

By the way, Arabs have been perpetrating their particular culture on the surrounding people long before Mohammed which is why I didn't specifically direct my comments at just the fundamentalist muslim ones. They have a long list of sins to attone for in my book.

It seems very pointless to argue with you, but I visited (as a tourist) Uzbekistan about six months after the 9/11 attacks (the trip was planned in advance). And I have to say, that beside the extreme poverty and general run-down state of affairs that the people were generally nice, and I didn't encounter any sort of disdain or the so-called religious pressure that you speak so strongly of. I was allowed to freely (well, with a guide) wander around several Mosque complexes (didn't enter the actual Mosques though) and take pictures. I learned a lot about the culture (I'm partially fluent in Russian, and after soviet control there were many individuals left with some grasp of the language, so I could communicate directly with many) during my stay. My only regret is that I didn't have a high-quality camera with me, I managed to take quite a lot of shots that won't turn out well on anything but a small print. And this wasn't just in the city, I traveled quite a bit all-around the country, met lots of people in rural environments, and as I said visited a lot of the tourist/religious sites.

I am no Arab or Islamic apologist, but I fail to see the angry, America-Hating, religious fascists you seem to believe are omni-present in the region :)

[skunk]

I'll 'splain it to my Spanish friends too, 'cause they're all screwed up about their own history. They gave me the impression that the incursion was unwanted at the time.Your Spanish friends are as unreliable as your Arab friends, it seems. The Moors crossed into the Iberian peninsula (Spain, of course, did not exist in 711, it was various Visigothic kingdoms and chiefdoms) at the invitation of Julian, one of the parties in an Iberian civil war, and the widow of the defeated Visigothic chief, Roderic, married the Moorish leader. Keep reading, you've a way to go yet.

Phobia? Hardly. Dislike of something doesn't make you afraid of it.In this case, your "dislike" is clearly based on an irrational fear, otherwise why would you trot out such ridiculous generalisations? Arab does not equal Muslim, you know. I know both classifications tend to be a bit swarthy and a bit Semitic in that part of the world, but, come on, you can make a distinction.

By the way, Arabs have been perpetrating their particular culture on the surrounding people long before Mohammed which is why I didn't specifically direct my comments at just the fundamentalist muslim ones. They have a long list of sins to attone for in my book.What the hell are you talking about? Do you just make this crap up as you go along?

[juanm]

Swarm, I think you mentionned you had lived in Saudi Arabia... Does it all come from then?

[SMM]

I meant Islamic terrorists worldwide. Their vicious terrorist actions seem to always be tied to something we did or what we represent even though they've been doing it for a thousand years longer than we've existed.

That is why is made no sense to invade them. They will hold this hatred for generations.

[hulugu]

Their vicious terrorist actions seem to always be tied to something we did or what we represent even though they've been doing it for a thousand years longer than we've existed.


By the way, Christianity is judged by what it is today, not what long dead people did during the dark and middle ages.

These two statements seem inconsistent to me. Christianity gets a free pass for the atrocities of the last millenia, but Islam doesn't?

Furthermore, one of the things that keeps modern students from understanding history is their insistence that there be a morality story wherein there exists a good guy and a bad guy. Rarely does the student undertand immediately that most historical events are caused by a multitude of people each operating under their own distinct viewpoint of their place and time. Therein, the Moorish invaders (not technically Arabs by the way) of Iberia and Queen Isabella could be both good in their aims and yet cruel in their actions. By seeing history as a march of black and white figures is a pallid view of history. Our cultural heroes were rarely saintly, if at all.

For instance, the history of Iberia from 711 to 1492 as told by a Jew is a period of freedom followed by pogroms. Also, the history of the Levant shows Christians, who thrived under Islamic rule, slaughtered by Crusaders for land and gold.

The current crop of wackjob extremists who operate, unfortunately with power and influence, in Islam is not an invention of Mohammed, but rather just another part of the human condition. The need to control, and be controled, is just another unfortunate aspect of being us. It's comforting to see ourselves as noble and those we're fighting against as monsters, but only for small children huddling in the dark.

[hulugu]

By the way, Arabs have been perpetrating their particular culture on the surrounding people long before Mohammed which is why I didn't specifically direct my comments at just the fundamentalist muslim ones. They have a long list of sins to attone for in my book.

Who are you talking about? Please be clear, are you referring to the ethnic Arab tribes that lived in the penisula, the later Arabs and Arabized cultures of Mohammed, or are going back to a group such as the Assyrians?

Maybe back to Shem?

[solvs]

No, the bottom line is that they will never stop until the entire world submits to Islam. We're not going to, so there's the impasse. Even the "nicest" Arabs I've encountered would not deny that the only way this would end would be when the entire world was under Sharia law.

Everything I posted, and this is your response? Typical. This is why I keep wanting to put you on ignore. Not that I can't stand an opposing opinion (nice irony of you saying I live in a cloistered reality) but you just can't argue with "logic" like this.

I actually hope your post doesn't get deleted, because I want people to see what kind of person you are.

What the hell are you talking about? Do you just make this crap up as you go along?
What do you think.

[Swarmlord]

Swarm, I think you mentionned you had lived in Saudi Arabia... Does it all come from then?

No, it started long before that, but I did go there to witness their culture first hand. What I was able to confirm is that their deceitfulness is institutionalized. They feel it's perfectly acceptable to say whatever a dimmi wants to hear to achieve the ultimate goal of complete world submission to Islam.

[Swarmlord]

These two statements seem inconsistent to me. Christianity gets a free pass for the atrocities of the last millenia, but Islam doesn't?

<snip>

If Christians were still acting the way they did during the Middle Ages I would be just as strongly against them.

[leekohler]

If Christians were still acting the way they did during the Middle Ages I would be just as strongly against them.

Bush has got a nice start on that. He claims to be a Christian. Why aren't you against him?

[skunk]

What I was able to confirm is that their deceitfulness is institutionalized.And ours isn't?

[hulugu]

If Christians were still acting the way they did during the Middle Ages I would be just as strongly against them.

So, Muslims think and act in the same monolithic block? There's nearly 1 Billion people who ascribe to Islamic thought. I submit that Islam contains a relatively small number of wackjob extremists who use their power and faith to drive their own objectives, just as Christianity has been used, in various places and times, to drive genocides and fascism.
Just because Christianity has been relatively good this century doesn't really mean much. And just because a few monsters want power in Islam doesn't really mean much more.

[solvs]

What I was able to confirm is that their deceitfulness is institutionalized. They feel it's perfectly acceptable to say whatever a dimmi wants to hear to achieve the ultimate goal of complete world submission to Islam.
All of them? Every last one? And you wonder why we think you're a racist.

If Christians were still acting the way they did during the Middle Ages I would be just as strongly against them.
Have you not been paying attention lately, because that is happening.

In neither case it has much to do with religion however, as that just makes a tidy excuse.

[obeygiant]

All of them? Every last one? And you wonder why we think you're a racist.


You've obviously never heard of the Al-Takeyya loop hole.

[solvs]

You've obviously never heard of the Al-Takeyya loop hole.

I don't get it :confused: so I'm just going to assume you're a racist too. ;)

[obeygiant]

No, it started long before that, but I did go there to witness their culture first hand. What I was able to confirm is that their deceitfulness is institutionalized. They feel it's perfectly acceptable to say whatever a dimmi wants to hear to achieve the ultimate goal of complete world submission to Islam.

All of them? Every last one? And you wonder why we think you're a racist.


I don't get it :confused: so I'm just going to assume you're a racist too. ;)

Al-Takeyya
The Islamic principle of lying for the sake of Allah. Falsehoods told to prevent denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam are sanctioned by the Qur'an, including lying under penalty of perjury in testimony before the United States Congress, lying or making distorted statements to the media such as claiming that Islam is a religion of peace, and deceiving fellow Muslims when the one lying has deemed them to be apostates. See the Islam Review article for documentation of this from the Qur'an and the Hadith. The practice of Al-Takeyya is commonly employed to declare a Hudna.


And hey, solvs, quit calling people racist.

[Swarmlord]

Al-Takeyya
The Islamic principle of lying for the sake of Allah. Falsehoods told to prevent denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam are sanctioned by the Qur'an, including lying under penalty of perjury in testimony before the United States Congress, lying or making distorted statements to the media such as claiming that Islam is a religion of peace, and deceiving fellow Muslims when the one lying has deemed them to be apostates. See the Islam Review article for documentation of this from the Qur'an and the Hadith. The practice of Al-Takeyya is commonly employed to declare a Hudna.


And hey, solvs, quit calling people racist.

Thanks for reminding me of what the official term for their institutionalized lying is. I had forgotten it.

I admit that a small percentage of practicing muslims probably don't employ this principle 100% of the time.

[solvs]

And hey, solvs, quit calling people racist.
I was kidding about you. As per the ;) What SL said though was actually pretty racist.

I admit that a small percentage of practicing muslims probably don't employ this principle 100% of the time.
I suppose that's the best we'll get from you.