"We, as Allah rules to us, will ambush you everywhere, capture you, attack you from everywhere, and liquidate you there, where we find you!"

Hmmm. No unprovoked belligerence there from the ROP. Clearly, they are upset by the plight of the Palestinians.

We, as Allah rules to us, will ambush you everywhere, capture you........

So Allah is a yellow bellied cowardly ambusher. You can also read assassin into this. How curious that the Allah intoxicated Jihadists also conduct war by savage, dishonorable means. Conduct war via terrorism, torture, rape and assassination. It's not for nothing that the infamous assassins cult was Muslim. They carried on for centuries until the great Mongol warrior, Hulegu Khan, stormed their mountain fortress in Persia. Assassins also operated out of the Syrian mountains. Please notice how the assassin Usama Bin Ladin also operates from impenetrable mountains

The gorges of Daghestan may evoke thoughts of Lermontov's Pechorin. Invaders of one kind brought Islam to the wild Caucasus, which for centuries provided slave girls, famed for their beauty, used for all the obvious purposes, by Muslim slavers -- chiefly Circassians and Georgians. (If you see a good-looking "Arab" girl, there may be a few kidnapped Christian slaves in her family tree). Invaders of another kind, Russians under General Yermolov conquered the Caucasus in the 1820s. Of the two kinds of conquerors, from our point of view, the second was preferable.

The Pankisi Gorge? Let's not forget that, either. Georgia On Our Minds should be the motto under the detailed topographic map that one hopes has by now been put up somewhere on the crowded wallspace in that "War on Terror" war room -- no, not that Georgia, boys, the other one.

"Praise to Allah, our quantity and territory of Jihad constantly and inevitably extend; more and more the youth joins the Jihad, sincerely aspiring to the eminence of the word of Allah."

I really don't want to sound disrespectful to the staff of Jihad Watch, but I think the board's prevailing philosophy of dealing with the islamic monster with oil sanctions and military containment is a dangerous farce. It is naiive to the extreme to assume the rabid dogs of jihad are at all interested in our money or can somehow be contained from spreading terrorist jihad with "containment" strategies.

I sometimes wonder how a group of highly intelligent people, who share a mission of identifying islam itself as the great threat we in the western world all face, can have the IQ meter seemingly turn to mush when the time for a solution needs to be presented.

How can we be expected to believe that the fanatics who suicide bomb schoolbuses and declare all out jihad against the infadel world are somehow vulnerable to elitest pragmatism? I know the members of this staff mean well, and are certainly brilliant beyond refute, but this only makes these elementary misjudgements so confounding to me.

I read with absolute euphoria as you are nailing the problems we face with islam right on the head, and then recoil with stunned disbelief at the limp-wristed ideas for attacking the epidemic with passive boycotts and impotent miltary surveillance strategies.

I just can't figure out how such brainpower gets frozen like this. It is clear to me, and I would guess many other readers and commentators on this site, that the diagnosis and the cure are completely disjointed. How can it be?

Once and for all, can't it be somehow made clear to the good people at JW that economic solutions to the islamic problem is a recipe for dhimmitude?

At times, I feel like head-butting my computer from exasperation.

Fortunately, I have held back this impulse, and I nonetheless do keep reading on hoping to find a staff member who will articulate a stategy to defeat islam with overwhelming force and policing, but perhaps that makes me the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result.

(Sigh)Well, I guess I'll just have to keep plugging along hoping against all odds to make a difference. It just gets so frustrating, sometimes.

-MZ

Allahu Akbar...spelled backwards is Rabka uhalla...The Binatu tribe of New South Whales, translates that as..."he who has swallowed the bait", or as the pigmy warriors of France, used to ask, "who are those guys??"
Rabka uhalla is a life long pass to "Islamic Magic Theater For Mad Men Only". Once you swallow the bait, you're in. If you are not mad when you enter, you will be mad as hell when you leave...if you can find the exit...dont open door #3.

My dear "Madzionist":

Leaving aside your repeated portrayals of the positions articulated by the staff here as stupid, your characterizations are simply incorrect.

To recommend "oil sanctions and military containment" is not in the least to "assume the rabid dogs of jihad are at all interested in our money." Whether or not they are interested in this money or not, they need it: without Saudi oil billions it will be much harder for them to propagate their doctrine and recruit and train new terrorists.

You misunderstand containment also. It is the only option, short of outright annihilation, to deal with an intransigent foe who rejects all possibility of negotiation. It must be combined, of course, with a realistic and persistent ideological struggle.

There is nothing of "elitest pragmatism," much less "passive boycotts" or "impotent military surveillance strategies" in either of these recommendations, and your insistence that there is and obvious misunderstanding of what both actually involve indicates that the IQ problem may not be all on our end.

As for the idea that we are recommending "economic solutions to the islamic problem," that too is a misapprehension of our recommendations that I think will be absolutely clear to any fair-minded and intelligent reader.

Rather than "head-butting [your] computer from exasperation," I suggest you find a new website to frequent. There are plenty of rabid ones out there that traffic in grandiose, genocidal, and ultimately fantasy-world-derived calls for the annihilation of Islam. Be careful: truth and accuracy, much less a realistic appraisal of the global situation, don't seem to interest them much. But why should that stop you? Enjoy!

Goodbye and good luck.
Robert Spencer

"Robert",

I see now that you and the staff at JW only tolerate one approach to resolving the islamic problem.

My efforts to discuss alternatives to "pragmatism" and "containment" are clearly unwelcome and unwanted at this monolithic web log, therefore I will not further challenge your delicate egos with criticism of the "one view" solution permitted at Jihad Watch.

Thank you for informing me that the suggestion of using overwhelming military force and policing to defeat islam is forbidden at this website, as this will give me the opprtunity to spend more time advancing these principles on my own weblog, http://neoconblogoff.blogspot.com/

I'm sorry if my dissent was inconvenient for you, and will not make you uncomfortable with any more postings that contradict your prescribed "solutions".

Be well,

-MZ

My dear "Madzionist":

On the contrary, dissent is welcome. It would help if it were intelligent, but you can't have everything.

Your assertion that the idea that "using overwhelming military force and policing to defeat islam" is unwelcome here betrays the depth of your incomprehension. It is not a good advertisement for your website, but best of luck.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

"We, as Allah rules to us, will ambush you everywhere, capture you, attack you from everywhere, and liquidate you there, where we find you!"

i have read somewhere that the meaning of the word satan, is "to lie in wait" or "ambush". islam accomplishes that quite well.
so islamic terrorism is receiving instructions from a higher power. this is something i have never doubted. stealing, killing and destroying are also functions of satan, so the source of islam's power and guidance are confirmed.

"we see you, we watch you, none of you will avoid punishment."

the punishment for all of the world's sins, past, present and future sins, were taken away 2005 years ago at christ's cross, except in regard to an unbeliever's unbelief in jesus christ, something which the terrorist himself qualifies for.
i personally have already settled this sin issue with god. this terrorist is deceived to think that he can pin any sins on me or anyone else.
terrorist threats like these seek to exploit a person's fear of death, but jesus christ has taken away the sting of death by condemning death itself.
fear not those who can kill the body but after that can do nothing.

"our quantity and territory of Jihad constantly and inevitably extend; more and more the youth joins the Jihad."

christianity is doing exploits presently as well. long live the free marketplace of ideas so people can decide which god they want. long live the internet and free expression.
islam may expand for now but it will be temporal. jesus christ will rule the world, destroying antichrist with the brightness of his coming.

to all terrorists, in order to inherit eternal life, you must be born again of the spirit because all humans are born dead spiritually. satan can not give anyone eternal live. satan cannot give anyone agape love and love you like you have never felt before. only the living god can do that for you through the holy spirit.
you terrorists, when you get tired of the macho power trip that islam is, come over to christ's side where the love of god rules over the believer's soul and makes stringent, legalistic rules of obedience obsolete and irrelevant in order to please god.

you terrorists are jumping through too many hoops to please your god. jesus has already done it all for you to make you pleasing to god. you cannot add to it, and there is no other way offered by god to be pleasing to god other than by the accepting of jesus christ.

I sometimes wonder how a group of highly intelligent people, who share a mission of identifying islam itself as the great threat we in the western world all face, can have the IQ meter seemingly turn to mush when the time for a solution needs to be presented....I read with absolute euphoria as you are nailing the problems we face with islam right on the head, and then recoil with stunned disbelief at the limp-wristed ideas for attacking the epidemic with passive boycotts and impotent miltary surveillance strategies....I just can't figure out how such brainpower gets frozen like this. It is clear to me, and I would guess many other readers and commentators on this site, that the diagnosis and the cure are completely disjointed. How can it be? --Posted by: Madzionist

I must admit that you've made some very good points. I, too, have split my share of hairs over many of the "solutions" offered on this site. I won't bother rehashing old news, other than to remind everyone that our enemies understand only one thing: Force. Anything else, including the insane option of surrendering Iraq to the worst elements of the terror network, will be seen by the jihadists as weakness, and will only hasten our defeat. Suffice to say that I am happy that I am not alone in this opinion. You have my respect for expressing the frustration that so many of us have, who read this otherwise informative site.

My dear "dead shot,"

Gee, I would feel sympathetic too, if Madzionist's characterizations of our position were accurate, but they aren't.

The idea that we disagree with the proposition that "our enemies understand only one thing: Force" is similarly unfounded.

Stick around and read some more to find out what we are actually proposing, or not, as you see fit.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Mr. Spencer,

First of all, thank you for responding. I have spent quite a few hours reading through the arguments posited by you, and your staff, enjoyable reading...for the most part.

However, one particular staffer (who shall remain nameless) tends to wander off into the deep end. It's not so much that his writing resembles a marsh of interminably dense and endless run-on sentences that trail off into Oblivion. Annoying? Yes. Brevity is a virtue. He should strive for it.

As bad a writer as he is, my quibble is with his message. And that message is ultimately one of surrender. Surrender Iraq. Cut and run. Leave that country to the wolves. To civil war. A civil war that will be won by the dead-enders, who will take Iraq as their prize, and fashion it into another terror state the likes of which we have not seen since the Taliban ruled Afghanistan.

Yes, I know other strategies have been offered, such as a national program (much like we had during the Cold War) to educate Americans about the threat of islam, and military forays into other hot spots like the Sudan, yada yada.

But the centerpiece of your policy remains Surrender. Surrender Iraq.

Such madness renders all other strategies moot.

Thank God it will never happen. Howl at the wind all you want. But keep in mind that our administration stands firm on Iraq. They will not surrender, as the jihadists and their enablers such as Ted Kennedy would like.

There are 1,800+ troops who have given the ultimate sacrifice in this war. They did NOT give up their lives, in order to give up Iraq. What, pray tell, would we say to their families? I'd like to see your staffer write *that* speech.

Surrendering Iraq is the solution offered here, on this site. That point is not "unfounded." Those of you who share this view have not considered the horrific consequences of what surrendering means, to us, to our enemies, and to the world.

My dear "dead shot,"

Neither I nor Hugh Fitzgerald have ever proposed or suggested that we surrender to the jihadists in Iraq.

I suggest that you study his suggestions more closely -- or, again, not, as you see fit.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch has called for the immediate withdrawal of the troops from Iraq. And that, sir, amounts to surrender. To deny this is terminably silly.

Don't be dishonest.

Sir,

I am not denying the call for withdrawal. I am denying that it amounts to surrender to the jihadists. Your equation of the two is what is not proven.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

I am denying that it amounts to surrender to the jihadists. Your equation of the two is what is not proven.

And lets pray to God it never will.

Robert how about writing a children book version of your books for kids ages 7 to 12 to combat the sanitize version of islam kids get from CAIR and from their P.C. teachers.

Dead_shot

It's not so much that his writing resembles a marsh of interminably dense and endless run-on sentences that trail off into Oblivion.

This sentence seems incomplete. Usually one says 'it's not so much....as' or 'it's not so much that.....but rather that'

If you're going to criticise someone's writing style, perhaps you should make sure that your own is watertight!:-)

(Having said that, pride comes before a fall, so there are probably loads of typos in my post.)

"a marsh of interminably dense and endless run-on sentences that trail off into Oblivion."
--- from a critic of prose who posts above

How does a "marsh" of "interminably dense" as well as "endless run-on sentences" then "trail off" and not just anywhere, but "into Oblivion"?

A neat trick, no matter how you attempt to make sense of it.

Hugh,

I've been wading in your marshes all morning. My boots are practically ruined.

However, I am happy to report that I narrowly escaped trailing off into oblivion.

Obliviously,
Robert

How does a "marsh" of "interminably dense" as well as "endless run-on sentences" then "trail off" and not just anywhere, but "into Oblivion"?

I'll put it another way that might make sense to you: your writing makes me feel like I'm slogging through a murky, disease-ridden swamp of verbiage, and when I emerge, the soles of my feet, swollen to a pulp from ceaseless walking, peel off in layers as socks are removed. In other words, I am in misery.

Hope that helps.

Robert,

I've the arrows, and you the bow:
Si peu d'esprits, et tant de sots.

Robert how about writing a children book version of your books for kids ages 7 to 12 to combat the sanitize version of islam kids get from CAIR and from their P.C. teachers.Posted by: RED

There's a project underway that might meet your needs. Can't say too much more. Stay tuned!

swollen to a pulp

Well here in the UK things get beaten to a pulp, they don't usually swell intransitively into one. Not sure how things are your side.

Hugh's writing isn't swamp - it's blue remembered hills.

Si peu d'esprits, et tant de sots. Posted by: Hugh

How appropriate! You have so much in common with the french!

Sometimes the phase "a pulping" means a severe beating. But in general, it refers to a soft, shapeless substance.

My dear "dead shot,"

You say: "How appropriate! You have so much in common with the french!"

Your apparent inability to distinguish between Hugh's position and French dhimmitude seems to me to be illustrative of a deeper inability or unwillingness to conceive of ideas that do not fit easily into either side of today's great cultural divide. What Hugh and others have proposed here doesn't fit neatly into any existing box, and all your pushing won't help.

You would do well to study these proposals carefully and without leaping to conclusions about where they are from or where they are tending. But I doubt that that is possible at this point, now that the line has been crossed into silly insults.

Best of luck, and regards to Madzionist--
Robert Spencer

Interesting.

Robert, would you mind translating "Si peu d'esprits, et tant de sots" into English. Thank you.

Roughly,

It is:

"So few quick-witted, so many...the other kind."

Cordially
RS

"So few quick-witted, so many...the other kind." Posted by: jihadwatch

Not quite. Here's the translation, sans spin:

"So few quick-witted, and so many stupid ones."

Stupid ones???

Maybe Hugh should explain to everyone on the board, especially those who vehemently disagree with him, what he meant by that...in less than one hundred words, of course.

"Silly insults?"

In the Philippines they have a saying: "Watch that finger, for every one you point, there are four more pointing back at you."

Best regards.

My dear "dead shot":

Yes, it was an insult. It was also a response. I don't believe you will be able to maintain with any degree of honesty that Hugh launched an unprovoked attack against you here.

Toujours,
Robert

Show me in my previous posts where I have called him "stupid." I haven't. I have attacked his strategy of withdrawal from Iraq, calling it "surrender," but I have not attacked him personally, to my knowledge. You're free to prove me wrong, though.

Dear Dead (may I call you Dead, or do you prefer Mr. Shot?),

All right, you didn't call him stupid. That was Madzionist.

Yours was the marsh trailing off into oblivion.

Forgive me for mixing them up.

That's all from me. Cheers--

Robert

Ha! My friends call me "shot glass." I respond to either. Best.

I see two strong sides going on [everywhere -actually]

One side wants to withdraw from Iraq

One side wants to BLAST ALL of Islam [with variances on how to do so]

I personally believe ALL children should be taken into consideration [they're innocent]

As for withdrawing from Iraq - why set up another Saudi Arabia? It will be - if the government there remains Islamic.

To take down a vicious tryant who was raping and filling mass graves - that was the whole worlds responsibilty! ESPECIALLY the UN. The mass graves that are being uncovered speak that to their shame [which is why we don't hear too much about them]

There is a better way. It will weed out the 'terrorists' who are hiding behind women and children in every society on earth:

2Cr 10:4 The weapons [Scriptures] of our warfare are not carnal {neither is the Koran], but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;

Hbr 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword

But who believes? Not enough. But they will [according to the Scriptures] and then it will be too late.

Isa 65:12 Therefore will I [the Lord] number you to the sword [remove His protection from the wicked one], and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not. [He delights in mercy} Mic 7:18 ]

The Koran does not send out merciful ones....but it does have power - because it has a single foundation - one that unites - not divides.

Everyone else is divided - by divisions too many too count - and are too proud to unite in the only Gospel of Peace.

And so - we muct brace ourselves - for a time of tribulation like no other - since the world began.

dead_shot complains:

"[Hugh's] writing makes me feel like I'm slogging through a murky, disease-ridden swamp of verbiage, and when I emerge, the soles of my feet, swollen to a pulp from ceaseless walking, peel off in layers as socks are removed. In other words, I am in misery."

A wonder you would so willingly subject yourself to such misery, dead_shot, but, chacun à son goût, n'est pas? As for my own goût, well -- Hugh's writing makes me feel as though I were strolling through a fragrant garden of delights, and when I emerge, mind and soul refreshed from ceaseless stimulation, boredom peels away in layers. In other words, I am in ecstasy.

But that's just me.

There is no rose of such vertu
As is the rose that bare our Hugh...

Beth, I'm not sure what you were trying to get at with your religo babble but you sound awfully like your muslim counterparts.

I think I'll sit this one out except to say that Hugh's writing is pure bliss, not only his composition, but the extensive knowledge and information he shares in his provacative essays.
Hugh's intellect and ability to write so beautifully are enviable, and I feel fortunate to have access to his erudite disquisitions.

One question I've asked several times, but have yet to get an answer.

On the "containment" issue-this is a strategy that will only work if a large number of countries are on the same page. For example, the Chinese will likely be more then happy to establish closer ties with oil producing countries. In that case, US "containment" may be a moot point.

I am very interested in hearing thoughts on this subject.

A lot of good guy on good guy fighting lately. Is something in the water?

While I don't agree, tactically, with Hugh over his ideas for encouraging a strategic 'civil war' between the Sunnis and Shiites, while giving more focused aid to the already-separatist Kurds (if I understand his position), as a way to tie-up our enemies, present and future, among the Islamicists-in-embryo of Iraq, that only means I have to express what I think might work in its place.

The policy-makers in power in the U.S. are doing a piss-poor job (Rumsfeld, Rove, Rice, Bush, et al) in conveying the true scope and historically-vital meaning this War, and are thereby letting its protean possibilities slip away daily.

Since all wars (of longer than a month or so) are 51% psychological, the mere physical battles can quickly become practically pointless without a conscious and continuous reinvigoration of the will to maintain the effort.

While our enemy is working on a 1350 year old plan, and is willing to stive toward its success for whatever period of time it requires, the West, meantime, without a fanatical guidebook of Absolute Truth stirring and upholding it, can be distracted from the battle if the leadership does not raise up a Great counter-Idea.

So far, phrases that were stirring after 9/11 ("freedom", "democracy") , now ring hollower and duller with too many unimaginative and inconclusive repetitions trying to keep the spirit motivated.

Wars are won by parallel calls to noblility and glory and a vision of a brighter future that we fight for along with a cheerful mocking of our opponents' flaws and by painting a vivid and accusing portrait of our enemy's ongoing crimes: their grotesque anti-democratic impulses, sadistically fanatical aims, and stunningly sub-human behavior.

Instead, we get creaking cliches from bureaucratese-meisters of the weakest water. A little league coach with this poor a power to motivate would have been replaced. (During the past election, the choices were pathetically limited, so you could have either the elitist-defeatest or the weak sister warrior... a bitter choice when our Civilization is at stake.)

Iraq needs to be won, militarily. It requires more troops, more fire-power, more border sealing, less-p.c. concern for our "world image" or "global opinion" (we're saving their collective asses, and they can kiss our's later), and -as important- it needs a leadership that knows the stakes, and can articulate this crucial moment in the fight for the survival of freedom of thought, -and belief, -and conscience, and the literal preservation of the progressive spirit of humanity.

This is not small potatoes.

But the present 'heads of the government' have managed to turn a monumentally profound clash of world cultures (that should utterly motivate all people on Earth who value liberty and creativity and beauty and freedom) into a petty mass of shopworn blather and indecisive-appearing pussyfooting campaigns.

Humans thrive on ennobling challenges, sublime inspirations, supreme ideals, and earnest calls to greatness.

Not "stay the course" rehashes of other politicians' dead slogans.

Without a leadership that can frame the fight better, it will churn dully-onward, awaiting a serious terrorist's strike to reawaken people's rage.

But, after going through this catharsis, already, with 9/11, and getting little from that righteous fire but a murky Afghanistan and a murkier Iraq, people won't feel as free to call for serious action as they initially did.

Having seen that their white-hot sense of Get It Done! was steered by incompetents into yet another 'limited' cul de sac of a 'war'.

We need a Lincoln, and we got a Rambler.

I hope the future bring out stronger spines because our enemies will not waver.

I know what I fight for.

Do our leaders?