Are they at least beginning to ask the right questions in the Pentagon? From Rowan Scarborough in the Washington Times, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:
The Pentagon is discussing war-strategy changes for defeating Islamic terrorists that would place more emphasis on killing, capturing or discouraging midlevel operators who enable top al Qaeda leadership to function.Interviews the past week with Bush administration officials show that policy-makers are thinking the only way to ultimately win the war is to take down the lower-level operators who form the networks that support Osama bin Laden and scores of other al Qaeda lieutenants around the world....
Another change being discussed in an ongoing interagency review by the Pentagon, State Department, CIA and White House National Security Council is a strategy that emphasizes this is a war that targets Islamic extremism, not Islam itself.
This is a change? They have bent over backwards from the beginning to emphasize that this is not a war against Islam itself. And of course it isn't: it is a defense against the global jihad. Is that a distinction with a difference? That's for Muslims to decide, and so far they have been generally disinclined to make the distinction -- as witness the weak turnout at the Free Muslims March.
But in any case, even for the feds to start to emphasize that this is a war against Islamic extremism would be an improvement. Perhaps then we wouldn't have state governors playing up to groups with clear ties to those "extremists."
The article continues:
"We have to convince Muslims that al Qaeda is their mutual enemy," said the administration official.
Good. In order to do that effectively, they will have to give up their Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace mantra and delve into Islamic theology and realize that the jihad ideology is not the invention of a twisted and tiny minority of extremist religion hijackers, but a core element of mainstream Islam. Only then will they be able to formulate a strategy that has any realistic hope of convincing Muslims that al-Qaeda is their enemy. For how can they convince Muslims that al-Qaeda is their enemy without refuting al-Qaeda's assertion that they are waging legitimate jihad in accordance with the Qur'an and Islamic law and tradition?
How this can be done, or whether it can be done at all, is another question, but there is no doubt that they won't be able to make any headway with Muslims without addressing this.
There is a belief by some officials that the phrase "war on terror" is not specific enough, said a second official.
Good. I have been saying that for quite awhile.
And a third topic is finding new ways to discourage Muslim clerics from preaching hate and encouraging violence.
Once again, they will only be able to do this, if at all, by going to the roots of why the clerics preach this way in the first place. And it ain't because of poverty and racism.
Morning all!
Is Europe Dying? (islam / the giaour mindset):
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18314
Any official statement from the Pentagon that mentions both islam and enemy in the same breath (without a negation in between) is a definite sign of improvement.
Also, I believe, at the lower levels of Government, the authorities are far less PC than their higher-ups and often do the right thing (like religious profiling where necessary of suspects) without labelling it so. This can only encourage the good guys to step up the good work now that its official its islamic extremism that is the enemy.
Mayor Giulini applied the broken window/zero tolerance theory on the streets of New York. The success of the programme is known the world over.
Maybe he has been advising Mr G W Bush on adapting this to global jihadism.
That would be be Mayor Giuliani. Sorry
This is similar to the zero tolerance stance the Justice dept took against the Mafia back in the 1960s. Back then the government said they'd arrest Mafia members for anything even "spitting on the sidewalk".
If they just kill the middle level, lower level and upper level jihadists, maybe the 'moderates' will stop hiding behind their Korans and show some sign that they don't want to have to live in fear of being the person in the middle getting threatened to eternity by fanatics.
And might start reinterpreting the vicious suras as "metaphors". "Historically irrelevant". "Culturally outdated". And all of the other fine talk we've been hearing since 9/12.
In the olden days, winning a war consisted of cutting the head off the snake and killing it, (Gen Colin Powell)...Now the idea seems to be, to kick the demons feet out from under him, causing a fall. I dont think this will work as a stand alone policy. There are jillions of wannabee's waiting in the wings to refill any vacancys that occur. As long as muslims are muslims, and the Quran is the Quran, the wizard Mickey Mouse, will be hard pressed to keep mops from multiplying and taking over. (Fantasia).
Pandoras box has already been opened.
Now I learn that various police agencys are taking "sensitivity", training in regard to muslims and other religions. Guards everywhere are recieving instructions on how to handle the Quran with respect and reverence. "Reverence"??
What if the guard is faking "reverence", the muslim prisoner is not that stupid...if they consider "fake reverence", a further insult, I can see where they are comming from with that one. So it looks like some more excercises in futility, a little bowing and scraping in the name of dhimmitude, and a slow motion approach to fighting terrorism...sounds like a plan...
More sensitivity...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158763,00.html
From my link...oh brother!
"Although the recent Koran story hasn't directly affected my classes, it demonstrates a very important fact," Shora said. "It doesn't matter whether it actually took place or not, what matters is the perception of what took place. We already have tensions growing and small minorities on each side that wish for things to escalate."
OT, but a real "you can't be serious" article.
http://durbah.almaghrib.org/safha/?p=46
In a twisted way, the Nazis of Arabia (moslems)are actually a blessing for us: islam is so purely evil that it distinguishes our enemy so neatly, clearly and definitively that using overwhelming force to crush them can be executed without guilt or sympathy.
It's almost like an old B-movie Western, where the hero wears the white hat and the villain wears a black one. It is that very black-and-whiteness, that vivid distinctness between right and wrong, between good and evil, which allows us the rare opportunity to fight without remorse, to destroy without regret, to vanquish with absolute certainty of purpose.
Yes, some do-gooders will still sympathize with evil no matter how perverse, even when that evil threatens to destroy them. But, for the rest of us, we are free to battle without hesitation; without self-doubt; without pity. In such a complex world of nuance and gray, it is truly a gift from above that our mortal enemy is so irrefutably wicked, so utterly despicable, that we're neither tempted towards leniency nor grief upon their demise.
The problem continues as long as the idea that this is a "war" that "can be won" continues. This is a war, a continuous war, that has no end. "Winning" does not exist. Islam will not disappear. What one can do is to make it less attractive, both to those likely pockets -- as easily identifiable by Infidels as they have been identified by the Da'wa bearers of Islam -- of psychically and economically marginal populations in the Infidel lands, and to those born into Islam itself.
We need not send more troops -- in fact, it would be altogether more useful to remove our troops from Iraq, which is a colossal misallocation -- not before, not in 2003, not in 2004, but NOW -- of resources, of men, of materiel, of money, of military morale (the long-term damage being done to the citizen-soldiers and to the professional army is considerable, and this at a time when we need to keep morale high for a much longer and more sustained effort) -- is considerable. The obstinacy with which some identified with the original plan, their "intelligence failure" over not WMD but of the nature and menace of Islam, which is rooted in its texts (has anyone in the Pentagon other than Bernard Lewis's acolytes read those texts, or considered that Lewis himself, a supporter first of Oslo, and now someone who cannot admit how wrong he was about the nature of Iraq, Iraqi society, and even about Islam, and his under-appreciation, to put it mildly, of Bat Ye'or and Ibn Warraq, and his susceptibility to the Turkish flattery that has helped to prevent him from seeing that the vaunted Kemalism is temporary, while Islam is permanent, and Islam is not something that "went wrong" but that has always been wrong, and held in check in recent centuries only through the fact of its own weakness).
Still more disturbing is this:
"Another change being discussed in an ongoing interagency review by the Pentagon, State Department, CIA and White House National Security Council is a strategy that emphasizes this is a war that targets Islamic extremism, not Islam itself."
But it is "Islam itself" that is a threat, in Europe as well as in Asia, indeed everywhere -- if you are an Infidel. It cannot be said by those in government, though it can, with increasing force, by others -- think of what Oriana Fallaci has accomplished by giving voice to what so many think, in Italy. But the fact that we need not say that this is a war where Islam is the menace -- for who knows when, under what circumstances, any "moderate" Muslim may metamorphose into an "extremist" and who, in any case, can provide a definition of "mainstream" or supposedly "moderate" Islam that would allay our fears -- there is no such definition, or rather, in the end that definition amounts to a Muslim who does not believe in what is written in the Qur'an, the Hadith, and Sira. That is to say -- a non-Muslim Muslim. The refusal to analyze to the bottom of things is astonishing. The laziness, the fear of what might be discovered, is killing us.
Everything must start with words, with the way in which the conflict is presented. For obvious reasons, government officials cannot talk about "Islam" tout court. They need to find a way to discuss it, a way that will express much, if not all, of what needs to be stated both to the Western populations, partly ignorant, partly confused, certainly full of unease as to how things are confusedly being presented, and a way to signal to Muslims that we understand the problem is not a "handful of extremists" and not "Wahhabists." And we need as well to use a language that will give heart to those in Europe -- and there are tens of millions -- who are disgusted with the foreign policies of their own countries, and of the E.U., and who feel -- far more keenly than we do -- the menace of Islam. The American presence in Iraq is seen by such people not as a crime, but as a blunder. They are wrong in part -- the initial invasion was not a crime, nor a blunder. But remaining in Iraq is a blunder born of criminal negligence of Islam, its theory and practice.
What language should be employed by our rulers, whose duty it is to protect and instruct us? Begin with the word "Jihad." Talk about the "ideology of Jihad." Talk about a "war of self-defense against the Jihad." Talk about "the Jihad" -- the struggle to spread Islam throughout the world, and to conquer lands for Islam -- is not central to Islam. Pretend, if you will, that Islam is not what it is, in order to say, better than has been said to date, what it is.
Assure everyone that "of course most Muslims do not believe in Jihad." Of course they do. But what will those smiling and plausible people do? Some will tell the truth -- Bin Laden tells far more of the truth about Islam, and so does Al-Qaradawi. Khomeini was a truth-teller about Islam, and his spirit informed more of Islamic history in Iran than did that sport, the short-lived father-and-son Pahlevi dynasty, though even "nice" Iranians of the "Reading-Lolita-in-Tehran" sort will admit it to themselves -- or may not even know it, so uninformed are they about the mistreatment of non-Muslims in Iran over the past thousand years (they might begin by studying Mary Boyce on Zoroastrians, or Lawrence Loeb on modern Iranian Jews, or going back to the Armenian chronicle of Arakel of Tabriz under Shah Abbas).
Stop talking altogether about "handfuls of extremists." Indeed, stop the misleading and dangerous use of such terms as "extremist" and "moderate." Cease to transfer any Infidel wealth to Muslim nations and polities -- Egypt, Jordan, the "Palestinian" Authority. Let them find their support from rich Arabs, or not find such support. If the former, then some of that discretionary income that the rich Arabs use to fund mosques and madrasas around the world will be soaked up -- and soaking up that money, until it can be significantly diminished by an intelligent energy policy, is what Infidels need to do. And if the latter, if the rich Arabs refuse to pay Egypt, Jordan, the "Palestine" Authority and so on, the result will also be salutary -- a growing resentment among the poor Arabs against the rich Arabs, with all that mgiht result from that. Have we forgotten that before there was the highly desirable (from the Infidel point of view) Iran-Iraq War, there was, in the Yemen, in the early 1960s, a war between two Yemeni factions, the so-called "Royalists" backed by Saudi Arabia (I once roomed briefly in Madrid with a louche Belgian who had run guns to those Royalists; a most amoral and disgusting person)and the leftists backed by Egyptian troops suppled by Nasser. That bloodletting between leftist Egypt and rightist Saudi Arabia should, from the Infidel point of view, have gone on forever.
It is said that this Adminstration is "tough" and "calculating." Nonsense. It is not nearly tough or calculating or realpolitik enough. Only when those who have taken the full measure of Islam, its theory (it is not hard to read Qur'an, Hadith and Sira -- what is hard is to understand just how these texts pervade the lives of Muslims, and color attitudes even of those who never go to mosques and are scarcely observant; there is a failure to understand just how unusually penetrating Islam can be, how it supplies not just a religious faith, but a complete and coherent and, for Infidels, threatening system). A failure of imaginative sympathy, that is a failure to understand how this operates, can be remedied if only, instead of apologists or semi-apologists of Islam, one listens to the "defectors" from Islam as one once would have listened to defectors from the Soviet Union. It is really no different.
When Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina have their private meetings with Bush and Rumsfeld, we will know that we are getting somewhere.
Hugh:
Bravo! You summarized the whole issue beautifully. If only the White House would listen.
Hugh-
Erudite and well put, as always.
What I find sadly lacking from the U.S. (and West's) response to the Imperialistic Islamic threat is:
no countering claim.
No one is saying what WE are standing up for.
Mealy-mouthed vagueries like "freedom" and "democracy" are hardly stirring or inspiring. Especially when 'delivered' with no historical metaphors (or even basic rhetorically-invigorating speaking skills).
As the jihadists scream their passionate cries for a simple solution to the quandry of the world:
We shall bring in the perfect world (of Allah) through valorous conquest which will make us Muslims all "kings! (tolerance" optional).
Our leaders, and their mouthpieces, are so busy apologizing about insults to the 'holy' Koran that we get no sense of WHY WE FIGHT.
Maybe they don't really know. Or feel it.
It Tom Paine had been as timid, we would all now be sipping taxed tea in the British Province of Lower Canada. And worrying about possibly violating the laws against 'defaming religions' by posting here at JW/DW. (If such a site would even be allowed.)
'The devil has all the good tunes', as far as motiviating the troops, seems to be jihadists' advantage at the moment.
We need voices and intelligences as rich and poetic and impassioned as Churchill or FDR or JFK, but we get functionaries, spectacularly out of their element. (Condi Rice is a 'Soviet specialist'... and, unless time travel is on some secret administration agenda, she remains a rather absurd choice to lead the battle against global jihad, which requires a totally different 'education'.)
Meanwhile, in the popular entertainment world (music, theater, film, etc.), where many a battle begins, everyone is keeping a deafening silence (daringly criticizing America because they know it is safe, and not the new and defiantly dangerous theo-Nazis), perhaps cowed by Theo Van Gogh's example.
Even someone like John McCain, who might be an honest voice, appears to be dazed and confused.
We need to define our position as strongly as the jihadists, publically. In song, art, essay, film, on the stage, and in popular slogans.
Total War against a despotism determined to spread death to all who do not surrender demands nothing less.
And we need as well to use a language that will give heart to those in Europe -- and there are tens of millions -- who are disgusted with the foreign policies of their own countries, and of the E.U., and who feel -- far more keenly than we do -- the menace of Islam.
Posted by: Hugh at June 7, 2005 11:21 AM
Folks,
My apologies for such a long "cut and paste" post, but given Hugh's words (above), I think it might encourage most of us.
This material comes to me via a frequent JW poster from a book ("Beyond Terror: Strategy in a Changing World," by Ralph Peters) he reviewed for 6thcolumnagainstjihad. He was very enthusiastic about it, and after reading his review, I have become enthusiastic too.
The material below seems especially pertinent, and I think you will enjoy it:
III. Fighting Terror: Do’s and Don’ts for a Superpower
1. Be feared.
2. Identify the type of terrorists you face, and know your enemy as well as you possibly
can. Although tactics may be similar, strategies for dealing with practical vs.
apocalyptic terrorists can differ widely. Practical terrorists may have legitimate
grievances that deserve consideration, although their methods cannot be tolerated.
Apocalyptic terrorists, no matter their rhetoric, seek your destruction and must be
killed to the last man. The apt metaphor is cancer—you cannot hope for success if
you only cut out part of the tumor. For the apocalyptic terrorist, evading your efforts
can easily be turned into a public triumph. Our bloodiest successes will create far
fewer terrorists and sympathizers than our failures.
3. Do not be afraid to be powerful. Cold War-era gambits of proportionate response and
dialog may have some utility in dealing with practical terrorists, but they are counterproductive in dealing with apocalyptic terrorists. Our great strengths are wealth and
raw power. When we fail to bring those strengths to bear, we contribute to our own defeat. For a superpower to think small—which has been our habit across the last decade, at least—is self-defeating folly. Our responses to terrorist acts should make the world gasp.
4. Speak bluntly. Euphemisms are interpreted as weakness by our enemies and mislead
the American people. Speak of killing terrorists and destroying their organizations.
Timid speech leads to timid actions. Explain when necessary, but do not apologize.
Expressions of regret are never seen as a mark of decency by terrorists or their supporters, but only as a sign that our will is faltering. Blame the terrorists as the root cause whenever operations have unintended negative consequences. Never go on the rhetorical defensive.
5. Concentrate on winning the propaganda war where it is winnable. Focus on keeping
or enhancing the support from allies and well-disposed clients, but do not waste an
inordinate amount of effort trying to win unwinnable hearts and minds. Convince
hostile populations through victory.
6. Do not be drawn into a public dialog with terrorists—especially not with apocalyptic
terrorists. You cannot win. You legitimize the terrorists by addressing them even
through a third medium, and their extravagant claims will resound more successfully
on their own home ground than anything you can say. Ignore absurd accusations, and
never let the enemy’s claims slow or sidetrack you. The terrorist wants you to react,
and your best means of unbalancing him and his plan is to ignore his accusations.
7. Avoid “planning creep.” Within our vast bureaucratic system, too many voices
compete for attention and innumerable agendas—often selfish and personal--intrude
on any attempt to act decisively. Focus on the basic mission—the destruction of the
terrorists—with all the moral, intellectual and practical rigor you can bring to bear.
All other issues, from future nation-building, to alliance consensus, to humanitarian
concerns are secondary.
8. Maintain resolve. Especially in the Middle East and Central Asia, “experts” and
diplomats will always present you with a multitude of good reasons for doing
nothing, or for doing too little (or for doing exactly the wrong thing). Fight as hard as
you can within the system to prevent diplomats from gaining influence over the
strategic campaign. Although their intentions are often good, our diplomats and their
obsolete strategic views are the terrorist’s unwitting allies—and diplomats are
extremely jealous of military success and military authority in “their” region (where
their expertise is never as deep or subtle as they believe it to be). Beyond the problem
with our diplomats, the broader forces of bureaucratic entropy are an internal threat.
The counter-terrorist campaign must be not only resolute, but constantly selfrejuvenating—
in ideas, techniques, military and inter-agency combinations, and sheer energy. “Old hands” must be stimulated constantly by new ideas.
9. When in doubt, hit harder than you think necessary. Success will be forgiven. Even
the best-intentioned failure will not. When military force is used against terrorist
networks, it should be used with such power that it stuns even our allies. We must
get over our “cowardice in means.” While small-scale raids and other knife-point operations are useful against individual targets, broader operations should be overwhelming. Of course, targeting limitations may inhibit some efforts—but, whenever possible, maximum force should be used in simultaneous operations at the very beginning of a campaign. Do not hesitate to supplement initial target lists with
extensive bombing attacks on “nothing” if they can increase the initial psychological
impact. Demonstrate power whenever you can. Show, don’t tell.
10. Whenever legal conditions permit, kill terrorists on the spot (do not give them a
chance to surrender, if you can help it). Contrary to academic wisdom, the surest way
to make a martyr of a terrorist is to capture, convict and imprison him, leading to
endless efforts by sympathizers to stage kidnappings, hijacking and other events
intended to liberate the imprisoned terrorist(s). This is war, not law enforcement.
11. Never listen to those who warn that ferocity on our part reduces us to the level of the
terrorists. That is the argument of the campus, not of the battlefield, and it insults
America’s service members and the American people. Historically, we have proven,
time after time, that we can do a tough, dirty job for our country without any damage
to our nation’s moral fabric (Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not interfere with American
democracy, values or behavior).
12. Spare and protect innocent civilians whenever possible, but do not let the prospect of
civilian casualties interfere with ultimate mission accomplishment. This is a fight to
protect the American people, and we must do so whatever the cost, or the price in
American lives may be devastating. In a choice between “us and them,” the choice is
always “us.”
13. Do not allow the terrorists to hide behind religion. Apocalyptic terrorists cite
religion as a justification for attacking us; in turn, we cannot let them hide behind
religious holidays, taboos, strictures or even sacred terrain. We must establish a
consistent reputation for relentless pursuit and destruction of those who kill our
citizens. Until we do this, our hesitation will continue to strengthen our enemy’s
ranks and his resolve.
14. Do not allow third parties to broker a “peace,” a truce, or any pause in operations.
One of the most difficult challenges in fighting terrorism on a global scale is the drag
produced by nervous allies. We must be single-minded. The best thing we can do for
our allies in the long-term is to be so resolute and so strong that they value their
alliance with us all the more. We must recognize the innate strength of our position
and stop allowing regional leaders with counterproductive local agendas to subdue or
dilute our efforts.
15. Don’t flinch. If an operation goes awry and friendly casualties are unexpectedly high,
immediately bolster morale and the military’s image by striking back swiftly in a
manner that inflicts the maximum possible number of casualties on the enemy and his supporters. Hit back as graphically as possible, to impress upon the local and regional players that you weren’t badly hurt or deterred in the least.
16. Do not worry about alienating already-hostile populations.
17. Whenever possible, humiliate your enemy in the eyes of his own people. Do not try to
use reasonable arguments against him. Shame him publicly, in any way you can. Create doubt where you cannot excite support. Most apocalyptic terrorists,especially, come from cultures of male vanity. Disgrace them at every opportunity.
Done successfully, this both degrades them in the eyes of their followers and supporters, and provokes the terrorist to respond, increasing his vulnerability.
18. If the terrorists hide, strike what they hold dear, using clandestine means and,
whenever possible, foreign agents to provoke them to break cover and react. Do not
be squeamish. Your enemy is not. Subtlety is not a superpower strength—but the
raw power to do that which is necessary is our great advantage. We forget that, while
the world may happily chide or accuse us--or complain of our “inhumanity”--no one
can stop us if we maintain our strength of will. Much of the world will complain no
matter what we do. Hatred of America is the default position of failed individuals
and failing states around the world, in every civilization, and there is nothing we can
do to change their minds. We refuse to understand how much of humanity will find
excuses for evil, so long as the evil strikes those who are more successful than the
apologists themselves. This is as true of American academics, whose eagerness to
declare our military efforts a failure is unflagging, or European clerics, who still
cannot forgive America’s magnanimity at the end of World War II, as it is of unemployed Egyptians or Pakistanis. The psychologically marginalized are at least as dangerous as the physically deprived.
19. Do not allow the terrorists sanctuary in any country, at any time, under any circumstances. Counter-terrorist operations must, above all, be relentless. This does not necessarily mean that military operations will be constantly underway—
sometimes it will be surveillance efforts, or deception plans, or operations by other
agencies. But the overall effort must never pause for breath. We must be faster, more resolute, more resourceful—and, ultimately, even more uncompromising than our enemies.
20. Never declare victory. Announce successes and milestones. But never give the
terrorists a chance to embarrass you after a public pronouncement that “the war is
over.”
21. Impress upon the minds of terrorists and potential terrorists everywhere, and upon
the populations and governments inclined to support them, that American retaliation
will be powerful and uncompromising. You will never deter fanatics, but you can
frighten those who might support, harbor or attempt to use terrorists for their own
ends. Our basic task in the world today is to restore a sense of American power,
capabilities and resolve. We must be hard, or we will be struck wherever we are soft.
It is folly for charity to precede victory. First win, then unclench your fist.
22. Do everything possible to make terrorists and their active supporters live in terror
themselves. Turn the tide psychologically and practically. While this will not deter
hardcore apocalyptic terrorists, it will dissipate their energies as they try to defend
themselves—and fear will deter many less-committed supporters of terror. Do not be
distracted by the baggage of the term “assassination.” This is a war. The enemy,
whether a hijacker or a financier, violates the laws of war by his refusal to wear a
uniform and by purposely targeting civilians. He is by definition a war criminal. On
our soil, he is either a spy or a saboteur, and not entitled to the protections of the U.S.
Constitution. Those who abet terrorists must grow afraid to turn out the lights to go
to sleep.
23. Never accept the consensus of the Washington intelligentsia, which looks backward to
past failures, not forward to future successes..
24. In dealing with Islamic apocalyptic terrorists, remember that their most cherished
symbols are fewer and far more vulnerable than are the West’s. Ultimately, no
potential target can be regarded as off limits when the United States is threatened with
mass casualties. Worry less about offending foreign sensibilities and more about
protecting Americans.
25. Do not look for answers in recent history, which is still unclear and subject to
personal emotion. Begin with the study of the classical world—specifically Rome,
which is the nearest model to the present-day United States. Mild with subject
peoples, to whom they brought the rule of ethical law, the Romans in their rise and at
their apogee were implacable with their enemies. The utter destruction of Carthage
brought centuries of local peace, while the later empire’s attempts to appease
barbarians consistently failed.
Note: The author does not claim to be an expert on terrorism or on any other subject.
He is simply a former soldier who saw something of the world and then thought about
what he saw.
Cubed, long post but worth a read for sure. Thanks, Hugh, for another excellent essay. Yes, I agree, always use the right words, jihad, jihadi, jihadists, dhimmi, dhimmitude,sharia laws, etc.
And always, remember to talk about POLITICAL islam. For many people, especially those who know not what this is about, politics is a topic they can talk about and discuss, whereas a discussion about religion can be seen as politically incorrect or taboo. Politics is the arena where we all bump up against each other and fair game for anyone's two cents worth.
Thanks everyone for all the links posted on JW/DW.
cubed-
Good post.
If telepathy exists, Mr. Peters has been practicing reading my thoughts almost exactly.
I like his expression "apocalyptic terrorists" which defines most of the militant jihadists, since Imperialistic Islam is nothing but an apocalyptic cult.
You oppose it, and either you are 'history' or they are.
I know where my sentiments lie.
Writing the history of one more despotic 'god that failed', and not being an headless footnote to its onslaught of inhumanity.
Is he running for office anywhere?
I'd rather see Bush holding his hand than one more Saudi subversive.
Poetess, BigSleep, and all you JWers who also liked what Ralph Peters had to say, I'm so glad you enjoyed it; it struck such a chord in me!
Between people who think as unambiguously as Peters does, and the increasing activities of groups such as the Minutman Project (which seems to be embarrassing Our Leaders into some sort of action!), I am becoming increasingly encouraged that, thanks to Robert et al. the word is spreading, and people are beginning to act.
It is because of this that I think we may even have a realistic pool of candidates for high political office to draw on before too many more election cycles pass!
P.S.
Just one more resource before I sign out, something a lot of you may find as helpful as I did. Ralph Peters brings up the subject of "apocalyptic jihad" in his book, and since
I have always had a difficult time understanding the whole "apocalyptic" phenomenon, particularly as it applies to Islam, I am particularly happy to have found something that helped me out.
It is a very informative and helpful piece about "apocalyptic jihad" that has been made available to me by another regular poster here at JW. You can find it at http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-24.htm.
The title of the article is "Jihad, Apocalypse, and Anti-Semitism," by Richard Landes, a history professor at Boston University. From his bio, he is a "medievalist who specializes in the origins of European history around the turn of the first millennium," and got his B.A. from Harvard, and his Ph.D. from Princeton.
The article is a very lucid explanation of the apocalyptic movement in Islam, from its beginning at the time of the inception of Islam to the present, but focusing especially on its resurgence in our time. The primary driving forces of the current "Troubles"--people like OBL--are "Apocalyptics."
They might as well redirect their efforts. According to official Washington newspeak, all stops have been pulled out to capture of kill Osama Bin Laden....with no success after four years!
It is time they start to recognise some of the bungles being made in this war on terror.
---Nossy
Cubed:
The link doesn't work.
Try this:
http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-24.htm