RiverCocytus,
I’d like to respond to a few of the points you raise.
First, the enemy already hates us.
Second, if there are Muslims who would ally themselves with us out of principle and not expediency against those waging jihad, how would telling the truth about what their god commands “radicalize” them? Wouldn’t they want to reject or revise their interpretations of such texts?
A person’s accurately quoting my religion’s Scriptures never makes me want to kill. In fact, I’ve never wanted to bomb or burn down anything in response to someone’s misrepresenting Biblical texts.
If all it takes to enrage Muslims is accurately citing the will of Allah and his apostle’s example, how were they ever truly our allies in the first place?
Third, what evidence do you have that Fred — or any major presidential candidate — has any understanding of what actually motivates our enemies?
Fred’s reference to “ignorance” is not inconsistent with the UN’s announcement this week that any combination of the words “Muslim” and “terrorism” in the same calendar year is offensive, their utterance justifying the “re-education” of the person(s) responsible.
Lastly, whether or not we war against “the entire Muslim world” (and again, how does accurately citing Islam’s commands regarding non-Muslims “incite” to violence the faithful unless that is to what their religion predisposes them?), Islam is at war with us.
Imagine Winston Churchill claiming that it was a “tiny minority of unidentified extremists possessing no particular ideology” waging war against the civilized world rather than Nazi Germany. Would he deserve our admiration for his courage, or would he have been rightly despised for his Chamberlainian cowardice?
Justifying lying about Islam by calling it “workable policy” is craven appeasement and rewards Islamic intimidation and violence. Instead, we ought to “call a spade a spade.”
