President Trump Should Extend His "Disruption" to Saudi Arabia

A couple of responses here, Harold.

Reza Khalili, in his book "A Time to Betray" recounts his experience in revolutionary Iran and his career as a double agent working within the Revolutionary Guards for the CIA. He said, when he was growing up in imperial Iran, he interpreted the more militant verses of the Koran in a figurative manner. Don't ask me exactly how that works, but there is a similar dynamic within Christianity.

Second, Norbert Pressberg, in his notable book "What the Modern Martyr Should Know: Seventy Two Grapes and Not a Single Virgin" relates the findings of some modern research into the Koran, notably some by Christoph Luxemburg. Pressberg notes that the Koran is such a hodgepodge of writings, that it's quite impossible to determine what the meaning of many of the words in the Koran (this is not the same as interpreting symbolic passages). The Koran uses numerous non-Arabic words, leading to confusion on the part of those who compiled the Koran. So, for example, the promise that jihadis would receive 72 virgins in Paradise actually probably meant 72 grapes. Moreover, it wasn't young boys who would be passed around, but rather it was these same grapes.

None of us alive today knows how the Koran will be interpreted in 200 years. As unlikely as it seems today, it is possible that how self-professed Moslems interpret their holiest text could be radically changed. It would, however, be a truly difficult task, as it would call for overthrowing the authority of many of the classic interpretations of Islam, including many of the so-called reliable hadiths.

My thanks Liatris,

I guess that I'm just too logical. I have heard a few of the so called moderate Imams clarify the "nice" verses as written in English, and it makes perfect sense in its harmony, therefore I reason the same would be true of the intolerant verses. Like yourself I do not grasp "figurative manner."

My essay,"MEDIA, MULLAHS AND REALISTS" clarifies the total lack of equivalence between Judiac-Christainity and Islam, which so many neophytes attempt to draw. When all is said and done regarding the attempts by Muslim apologists to equate the militancy of both the Qur'an and the Bible the most critical point missed is the fact that no where,in either the Old or New Testament, does God exhort his followers to kill or otherwise encumber folks because they are not Jews or Christians, aka non-believers. He is quite nasty, though, when it comes to the enemies of the Jews.

I have several sources of the Qur'an and they all contain the same intollerant verses so, I find it unlikely that linguistics is the culprit at this point, but I keep an open mind on the subject. There is one thing of which I am certain, that being that one cannot hope to understand anything Islamic without a thorough knowledge of Middle East history.
H

There is no virtue in compromise with evil. Whoever says so is willing to justify a degree of evil. Those who have to live with those arbitrary decisions are effectively disenfranchised. A case in point is America's attempt to compromise with North Korea by giving them food, medicine and othr benefits in exchange for empty promises. At least three previous administrations pursued those compromises without any benefit to American taxpayers who gave their hard-earned tax dollars to pay for those failed compromises with evil. Another case is previous administrations' attempts to broker a two-state solution for Israel - another instance of trying to compromise with evil, islam in that instance. Why should America force a sovereign country to compromise with the evil that country absolutely recognizes? Who appointed America to the position of a God-like arbiter?

Likewise, America should sell munitions to absolutely NO ONE, especially in a circumstance where there is evil on both sides of the conflict. Wherever islam is warring against itself because of sectarian differences, America is foolish to fuel the conflagration with munitions whose use it can't control absolutely. History proves that, more often than not, and against expectations, those weapons are turned against Americans or their allies. In nearly every middle east country where we have pursued the idea of arming one faction that appears less evil than the other, we have had a negative outcome where American lives have been lost as a direct result, as well as Amercan interests compromised or thwarted. A very famous man once opined that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. Why are the basic truths so damned hard for government idiots to understand, and why are the mistakes of previous government idiots blithely ignored? America should, in its own interests, keep its own council, its own armaments and its own singular focus on exclusive benefit for America in all situations.

The reason we on the right hope, perhaps vainly, that Trump will succeed, is his purported view that America should always be for Americans - everywhere in the world. It is SUCH a refreshing departure from the goals, unstated but still effective, of previous administrations going back to Reagan.

It appears to me that you can easily tolerate that compromise with evil to a certain degree and actually advocate it, using politicians for justification. More power to you. If you choose to make that compromise, that's on you. I don't choose to.

And, by the way, I appreciate and honor all three of those populists and constitutional advocates that you obviously denigrate. I don't consider them isolationists in any way. I consider them cogent thinkers and far better statemen than Roosevelt ever was. But I appreciate Churchill's decision. When you're up against it and the end appears to be likely imminent, you can be forgiven for grasping at anything that will keep you afloat in the short term. Survival to fight another day somewhat trumps everything else. I think that's the situation he found himself in and if he decided to make a deal with the devil himself, I wouldn't deign to second-guess him. Roosevelt and all modern American politicians have never found themselves in a situation even remotely similar.

When the decision is arbitrary, not caused by short-term expediency, America would do well to keep its own interests behind its borders. We don't need to be the world's policeman, regardless the short-term circumstances or the immediate benefit for any politician. I think you should look at the middle east and the results of liberal meddling in sovereign government affairs before you pass judgment on an "isolationist" viewpoint. Your term; I disagree with its use in this context.

I don't think your comments are necessarily nonsense, per se - they are obviously derived from a different political viewpoint than mine. And because of those obvious differences, my sympathies are with you...

The "British Government" (almost 2 misnomers together) either hasn't a clue or dare not do the sensible thing. We have soldiers (from a depleted Army) on the streets as an ineffective show of force, and an establishment media advocating "Give peace a chance", "Collective Cuddles" and "Every time you see a beard atop some white pyjamas in front of a walking dustbin bag, blow them kiss and say 'Ahlaan wa sahlan'!"