« Webb Bill Passes Senate | Main | Department Of Hmmmm... »

May 22, 2008

Comments

This is all wrong Eric. All Iraqis love us for giving them their freedom.

Exactly.

What this post shows is the gross bias of the AP with all its photos of smoke that have been artificially darkened and mythical Iraqi sources who are also real people.

They twisted Sistani's words to make it seem like he doesn't want us to stick around forever with permanent bases and sweetheart oil deals.

Which is ridiculous!

This stands in the face of John McCain's arguments that the U.S. is key to stability. It seems the Iraqis are finding solutions that make it a much greater incentive for us to leave now than ever before.

If I were a Washington broker, and wanted to keep Iraqi peace, I would move on a deal in exchange for a pullout now, while everything favors that course of action.

This stands in the face of John McCain's arguments that the U.S. is key to stability. It seems the Iraqis are finding solutions that make it a much greater incentive for us to leave now than ever before.

If I were a Washington broker, and wanted to keep Iraqi peace, I would move on a deal in exchange for a pullout now, while everything favors that course of action.

I wouldn't be surprised if a Sistani successor cranked the hostility up to '11' for a while upon taking the reins.

That would provide a lot of cover for any rival factions in the movement to be "tragically killed by the Americans".

Somehow the war supporters seem to ignore the rather simple facts that most of the people in Iraq hate us, and most are perfectly fine with insurgents killing our soldiers. Sistani's apparent shift simply reflects that fact.

War supporters love to talk about COIN and other nonsense -- as if any of that makes any military sense when the majority of the population does not want our presence.

Just another sick aspect of this disaster -- the willful delusions that fuel war advocacy.

This article cannot be true. The State Department says there is no such thing as Jihad.

4:89 Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.

I just want to say that the title of this post is teh awesome.

This article cannot be true. The State Department says there is no such thing as Jihad.

4:89 Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.

You know, I've been trying to be good and neither feed nor bait you, BOB, but Gary's recent success in getting you to post at least a few links raises my hopes to the level of folly.

What translation, pray tell, of the Qur'an are you using? It's not a credible one. I say this knowing in the fullness of my heart that it's not seeking to be, and in fact strongly subordinates credibility and accuracy to inflammatory phrasing and succinctness. I shall optimistically point out to you that succinctness is not, perforce, a virtue in translations. And when succinctness extends to the point of willfully distorting what is being translated in the service of the ideology of the translator...

"They [hypocrites who had professed Islam, as made clear in the preceding text] would love to see you deny the truth even as they have denied it, so that you should be like them. Do not, therefore, take them for your allies until they forsake the domain of evil for the sake of God; and if they revert to (open) enmity, seize them and slay them wherever you find may them. And do not take any of them for your ally or giver of succor" - 4:89 (Muhammad Asad translation, 2003 ed.)

"They [hypocrites who had professed Islam, as made clear in the preceding text] but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): so take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks" - 4:89 (A. Yusuf Ali translation, from a 1990 Saudi printing)

Neither of these translations bear a strong resemblance to what you cite. Now, I'll admit that the second translation is not one I cleave strongly to, given its history and politics (and on some petty aesthetic points like its disagreeable insistence on not translating God into English, which apparently was an innovation not present in its first edition), and that its annotations are met with Saudi approval (I've read insinuations that they may be altered in Saudi printings to be more to Saudi orthodoxy... tho' the translation that the House of Saud currently distributes is noted as far worse). And by contrast, the former is one that is banned by the Saudi government, but is generally acknowledged as one of the better ones extant. I chose these two translations not for some special significance of contrast (though they do in fact provide one, which would be more evident given greater context or even the annotations), but simply because those are the two translations I possess. But again, neither bear more than superficial resemblance to your truncated "translation"... which is from where, exactly? I really would like to know.


*ping*

obsidian wings gets today's "fractured fairy tales" award for delightfully clever post title.

i can't think of a single nice thing to say about the bizarre and obtuse "rule change" and i'll spare you my vitriolic speculations. imagine them in your spare time.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad