Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald explains the lack of focus in Washington that could ultimately have disastrous consequences:
Wars are won in all sorts of ways. Hot wars are won on battlefields, by destroying the enemy. But the Cold War was not "won" on a battlefield, but by a long and expensive process of checking Soviet power everywhere, and even outspending the Soviets so that, in the end, a sufficient number of intelligent people, Party members and Party officials, came to realize that the Soviet system was a failure. That failure led them, from the inside, to dismantle that system, in ways that were sometimes precipitous. And they were not aided by such shallow Western "experts" as the loudmouth and self-promoter Jeffrey Sachs, who does a good imitation of the comic Irwin Corey and his "World's Greatest Authority" act.The war is one of self-defense. We do not wish the supremacist creed of jihad and dhimmitude to spread. We do not wish those who hold this creed to overbreed, or outbreed, Infidels in the very lands of dar al-Harb. Just look at what is happening all over the Western world, and even in this country where only 1% of the population is Muslim (about 3 million, at most, and most of them not-quite-orthodox Black Muslims). We wish to check it, and to create the conditions in which the failures of Sharia states and semi-Sharia states will be understood by a number of intelligent people born into Islam to be connected to the belief-system of Islam itself -- that its traditional laws make it such an enemy of music, painting and the plastic arts, and inculcate habits of mind, ways of thought, that simply do not permit of free and skeptical inquiry.
The major weapon of the current Jihad is money -- not money that Muslims have earned, but for the most part money that comes from an accident of geology. And whatever enormous sums the Arab and Muslim oil states have acquired, they have used not to build modern economies, but to buy hundreds of billions of dollars in arms. And their thieving ruling classes -- not to be opposed as long as they are Muslims -- have their own special expenditures, what with endless villas in Marbella and apartments on Avenue Foch and on the French Riviera, and in London and the Home Counties, and in Aspen, and McLean, Virginia, and so on.
And then there are the armies of apologists, the steady corruption of Western government officials, intelligence agents, diplomats, academics, and all the others on the Arab or Muslim payroll, direct or indirect. Even a well-financed lecture series, with a gigantic honorarium (up to hundreds of thousands of dollars) can be a way to reward an American political figure. Kuwait paid the senior Bush something like a million dollars on his visit to that country once it had been rescued. There is a lecture series at the Fletcher School at Tufts, paid for by an Arab, that has managed to send large sums Clinton's way, and has given money to others as well. If you want to distribute Arab and Muslim largesse, there is no paucity of ways to do it. And it has its effect. Just look at the absence, over the past 30 years, of any attempt to recapture oligopolistic rents from OPEC, that might have kept 1-2 trillion dollars from flowing to the oil-producing nations.Everything is finite. We have an army of a certain size. We have a citizen-army that is rapidly degrading in size and quality, given that few people are being recruited. We have Humvees, Bradley fighting vehicles, helicopters, planes -- all of them overworked, and degraded prematurely in the desert of the Land of the Two Rivers, Iraq. We have a certain amount of money to spend. The money spent in Iraq might instead be spent on an energy program to deprive the Saudis and Ahmadinejad and others of the wherewithal that is critical to the Jihad -- are you quite sure that the $300 billion spent in Iraq would not have been better spent on solar and wind projects, and on nuclear reactors, if we knew three years ago what we know now about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs? Quite sure?
"Retreat and withdrawal"? This is not "retreat and withdrawal." Remaining in Iraq is a sign of obstinacy and ignorance, of a weakness of mind, of a failure to understand the real enemy. That enemy is not "poverty" and it is not the absence of democracy. We have "democracy" in Iran and look who won; we have "democracy" in the Palestinian Authority and look who just won. Real "democracy" in Lebanon would be fatal to the Maronites. Real "democracy" in Syria would bring down the Alawites and replace them with "real" Muslims. Neither party understands this. Kennedy and Dean and Kerry are so hellbent on dealing Bush a blow that they have not taken the trouble to investigate for themselves what Islam is all about. Not a single Democrat to date has criticized the continued presence of the Americans in Iraq for the right reasons -- that such a presence constitutes a colossal misallocation of resources, and prevents the ethnic and sectarian fissures within Iraq, and within Islam, from being exploited to divide and demoralize the army of those who support actively or passively the Jihad to spread or impose Islam.
But among the loyalists to the Bush Administration, from those who crowed prematurely a year ago about the wonders of blue-thumbed Democracy, and the supposed "revolution" in Beirut, and the belief that the "Palestinians" were nearer to real negotiations for some kind of impossible "solution" because of the demonstration of American "resolve" in Iraq, there is still an inability to allow themselves to break free from blind loyalty to a policy that has been constructed by people they think must be supported, whatever the cost. Nonsense. That is a silly kind of loyalty, and will lead eventually to the coming to power of those who are even worse: who are scowcroftian-brzezinskian "realists" whose "realism" consists of the same appeasement of Saudi Arabia, the same failures to address the energy question, the complete indifference to the tenets of Islam, and of course not a word of alarm about the islamization of Western Europe (these are yesteday's men, still seeing Islam, as Brzezinski did when he and Carter welcomed Khomeini as a "man of faith," as a "bulwark against Communism"). An Administration that does not see how remaining in Iraq will lead to the public embracing appeasement, because the policy in Iraq will not, can not, conceivably succeed, is one that does not know how to be calculating. It is important to retain political support for the war of self-defense -- a war in which military action will not be the most important part -- against the Jihad. That political support is being misued and squandered. The Jihad is worldwide. The venture in Iraq at this point can only be turned to Infidel advantage if, in the spirit of divide-and-conquer, the Americans leave, and let the natural fissures widen -- naturally. Jihad is worldwide, and is central, not tangential, to Islam. This does not require "boots on the ground" here and there and everywhere. Not at all. It requires diminishing Muslim oil revenues. It requires mass education of Infidels, including persistent mockery of the press for not dealing truthfully with the tenets of Islam. Infidels should be moving heaven and earth to split, demoralize, constrain, and tie up the forces of that Jihad. Iraq is the perfect place to do it -- and in that case, without even lifting a finger. In fact, by simply putting that finger down altogether, and leaving.
That should be our focus. It has not been. The first step to prevailing (which is not the same thing as obtaining "victory" -- an inapt word for something that has no end as long as the canonical texts of Islam remain immutable, and the Qur'an is not studied within its context, and seen as a document formed over, and within, time) identifying the enemy we are actually fighting. We have not done so. That this has not yet been done, three years after entering Iraq, and four-and-a-half years after the attacks of 9/11/2001 ought to have made the serious study of Islam the most important undertaking for all those in the Executive and in Congress and in the press as well, speaks ill of this Administration, as well as of its opponents. And increases our vulnerability as we divert ourselves with tarbabies and blind alleys.
I cannot believe this can't be solved without total war with the muslimworld. For this war we have to let the "Muslim Brotherhood" in Egypt grab power. If they are in power they will try to attack either Spain or Israel, or both. This excuse can and will be used to totally squash islam in the middle east by Europe and America.
The biggest Muslim country in the world, Indonesia, will be attacked and cleansed by China. This World War III is the final destiny of Islam and this is what the thug-in-chief was talking about.
Robert you are so right. The major problem is now, Bush will never admit he is wrong. I suported Bush until 3 days ago when Hamas won and Bush came on TV with this stupid grin on his face and mumbled something about it being a good Democratic turnout, trying to put a positive spin on the absolute worst outcome that could have happened, that we taxpayers paid for and supported and arranged. It's time to admit our mistake. Yes, Iran had free elections, and look who they voted in as President, Palestine had free elections, complete with the on site santification of Jimmie and Rosalyn Carter, they both had the same stupid grins on their stupid faces that Bush had the night Hamas won. They just don't get it, will never get, until their hands are tied behind their backs and their throats are about to be slashed maybe then they might just get a sense of maybe they blew it. We need to get the hell out of Iraq and if the place is consumed in civil war, so be it, civil war is the face of Islam. We don't need to sacrifice another Marine to further the course of Sharia Democracy in Iraq. We have been marginalized by our desire to please all factions in these oil tick inbred countries that only hate us more. Meanwhile Condi Rice and Jack Straw adn others like them fly around in private jets with huge security requirements as they go from one Arab country to another shaking hands with smiling Arabs who would love to kill them both if only they could get away with it. We should have spent that $300 billion on making out autos more efficient, more nuclear power, drilling in Anwar, drilling in everywere, stopping the funding of the terror machine, everytime you gas up your car Mohammed gets another $20 to build a nuclear weapon. I haven't bought any Arab oil in 15 years I switched to synthetic, I would love to buy only synthetic fuel for my car made from corn, we have the technology, let's get on the bandwagon and promote it, once those inbred assholes run out of our money they will turn on each other and destroy themselves.
hugh for president! great points each and every one. the best way to fight islam would be to find an alternate energy supply, and someone sooner or later cites the Manhattan Project from WWII as an example of how to get-down-and-get-it-done. then it was the wartime government and they had real motivation to get it done, the war against germany and japan. but nowadays, the government won't admit to just about anything as far as the dangers of worlwide islamic jihad, so what do we do? i'm thinking along the lines of the reward system. i apologize for not remmebering the specific details, but remmember the privately financed suborbital vehicle that went up last year? all for a prize of $10 million. what if the government anted up a substansial prize for whoever came up with.... something. LOL
put a big carrot on a stick, some enterprizing genius will go for it....
I've been saying from the beginning that democracy by itself will not work because muslims will just elect those who are Islamic.
I was right.
However, I have supported keeping the troops in Iraq until the country can fend for itself. As a realist, I strive to admit I'm wrong whenever the facts and the truth tell me I'm wrong.
Hugh Fitzgerald in one opinion article has changed my stance and that's not an easy thing to do. Perhaps, though, I was predisposed to change considering my initial position on democracy not being enough. Hugh is right; our limited resources need to be reallocated.
Saudi and Paki, along with Iran, are the major centers of terrorism and funding. We're squandering what we have in Iraq while Islamic murder continues to be fostered in those countries.
Hugh did say something I disagree with. Only 1% of America is Islamic? Only the blindest reading of population figures could grasp at that fantasy. Muslims put the number around 11% Other, more reliable sources put the figure in the high single digits. I've lived in California and travelled through many of its cities. I can tell you that California alone has all of those 3 million muslims - residents and non-residents (that's the big difference).
It doesn't take a majority of muslims to bring sharia to the US. Consider: the left will apologize for Islam as often as it can. With any number of muslims, no matter how small, if the left can introduce a "respect Islam" initiative that includes voluntary sharia law (a la Canada's version that was defeated), then not only would 1% or 7% of the muslims would vote to bring Islam to America, but all of the left as well.
We're already on the precipice. The willing dupes on the left (almost half the country) would vote in sharia tomorrow. We're that close. We're in some deep fecal matter if the left wins the house and senate in 2008. We're in really deep fecal matter if Hillary wins the presidency - the internet will be "gifted" to the UN to move us closer to international cooperation and sites like these will be shut down.
It's that close.
Islam is a eeath cult.
Poking a stick at Islam (ie. Iraq) never was a viable solution.
Everything Hugh writes is wordy, but he writes like a thoroughly educated historian. Nevertheless, a more concise write-up always helps the cause.
A small part of the big problem(but one of immense irritation to me)is Bush's advisor Condi. She 'may' be top notch on Soviet affairs(she speaks Russian and earned a PhD in this field)but I'm even top notch in this area. She seems kind of robotic . . . scared too think out of the box in any way under any circumstance. Presidents need top notch people to give them good and, on occasion, dissenting advice. A good example of this advice was Kissinger. Henry the K would usually suck up to Nixon, but Nixon wanted and also got dissenting political and military arguements vis-a-vis Vietnam and the USSR. Whatever you think about his political machinations, Kissinger--like Nixon--was brilliant and often thought out of the box. I bet if you went back to their PhD thesis you might notice a stronger creative spirit, shall we say, in Kissinger than in Condi. I'm not talking sheer memorization or test-taking abilities(I'm sure Condi is great here), but in creative, independent, outside-of-the-box thinking. This is was Bush needed and needs and I doubt he's getting it. Maybe, he got a snippet or two from Powell. I'm not talking that was is needed is some brain power in the white house but some independent thought is needed. I think as time goes by more and more(I'm among them)see Iraq for what it is, see democracy in Islam for what it is and see Jihad for what it is. Heck, why don't we just have one biggie election in the middle east . . . put Bin Laden on the ballot and the ruler in place on the ballot and see who wins. Out goal should be energy independence, critique of the Zogby-Brezinski paid dhimma money train, critique always Saudi money funding university 'middle-east studies' program, drilling everybody, and educate ourselves.
Another way to win the war is to put Hugh's post above on W's teleprompter during the state of the union and distrubute its text to the press for 'dissemination.' W's press conference on Hamas' victory wasn't his finest hour. Shock, chagrin and irony captured his facial expression. It's not easy facing the realization your policy isn't working at all.
Musolini,
I agree with you. A democratic country is easily controlled by a minority if this country has a dual party system. This minority, under certain circunstances, serves as a tie-breaker, and the politicians of one of the dominant parties will bend to the minority's will.
Recently, we have clear examples, such as the Greens' manipulating German politics, the pro-life chosing Republicans' candidates, and the pro-choice energizing the Democrats' fight in the Alito's case. I suspect that the Republicans and the Democrats would be cautious and avoid any attack to Islam. They want to get those votes. Right?
That is an ugly reality. The West will perish because we need those votes. It would be good to remember that Democracy works effectively in managing the internal affairs of a people; it is totally useless facing foreign enemies. The Greek knew it very well; when attacked by the Persians they always chose a dictator to lead lead. Did not the Roman do likewise. Where is our Pericles and Cesar? Where?
I agree with Hugh that we need to pay more attention to fighting on the economic front of the war on Islamofacsism; and a major part of that is reducing the revenues that the enemy gets from oil and natural gas. More important than wringing our hands about what the government ought to do is for each of us to do what we can do right now.
Get a low mileage vehicle, use alternative fuels that are available now (10% ethanol is available from most Sunoco stations near me at the same cost as other gas), drive less, fill your tires for better mileage, tune and maintain your vehicle.
Frank Gafney's book War Footing (see www.warfooting.com) is relevant re: the economic part of the war as is the web site www.iags.org.
The government is stalemated on energy. The Republicans want to increase supply (drill in ANWR, easier access to offshore drilling, subsidies to oil business) and the Democrats want to reduce demand (conservation, alternative fuel subsidies, BTU tax) and they don't talk to each other. They each lose sight of the national security implications and are swung over to their other interests (economy/business, enviornment, labor unions, farm subsidies). They tend to block the efforts of each other and ger very little done.
I would hope we could get some compromise in the interest of national security and enact all of the good proposals. Let's have a BTU tax that is revenue neutral by eliminating other taxes such as reducing income taxes; let's allow sugar cane ethanol imports which would reduce the price of ethanol fuel and we could charge less tax on that fuel than on pure oil based fuel.
However, my main point is that we can all do our part right now and it would make a difference and be fun. I am getting 50 miles per gallon and also using 10% ethanol. I consider my car to be my personal tank in the war on Islamofascism. Every time I drive I am mentally giving the finger to Islamofascism.
I was just in Brazil and they are rapidly moving to eliminate oil based transportation. They are a low cost producer of ethanol from sugar cane. I would rather be importing more of that than oil.
HUGH: "We have "democracy" in Iran and look who won."
The quotes over the word Democracy are appropriate, for the vetting process of the 'Expediency Council' precludes the participation of progressive candidates whose message would surely resonate among Iran's dissaffected majority. This is why voter turnout was so low in the last election. A genuine Democracy in Iran would no doubt result in an elected government more significantly progressive than any we've seen since the revolution.
HUGH: "that such a presence [in Iraq]...prevents the ethnic and sectarian fissures within Iraq, and within Islam, from being exploited to divide and demoralize the army of those who support actively or passively the Jihad to spread or impose Islam. potential Jihadists everywhere.
Once again, we have the completely subjective postulation here that sectarian fissures in Iraq will produce outcomes that can only be beneficial to the West.
Hugh continues to ignore possibilities and even probabilities that are detrimental to the West:
1) that one side could quickly triumph, namely the Shia, with Iran stepping into the vaccuum created by a US withdrawal and augmenting its own oil wealth and manpower with that of Iraq...
2) that even if the Shia do not triumph and the country is eventually partitioned, the Shia or the Sunni enclaves (or likely both) will become respectively Iranized and Talibanized in ways that makes today's movement towards Sharia seem absolutely tepid. Even worse, an Al Qaeda entity existing in the Sunni heartland of Iraq, unfettered by American military pressure will surely use its energies - now employed in a fight for survival - to spread jihadist mayhem throughout the region and the world.
3) that the Kurds will lose their precious (and very progressive) autonomy, either to an Iran-backed Shia revanchism or - should the country splinter - to a Turkish invasion.
Hugh's insistence that the Turks will acquiesce to an independent Iraqi Kurdistan - that they will betray their national interests and their clearly enunciated official policy of threatening military intervention to forestall such an eventuality - because of the elicitation of a 'promise of good behavior' on the part of the Iraqi Kurds...is shear fantasy.
It is madness not to link the war of self-defense against the Jihad with the other war of self-defense: against the spirit of Greed that has spread across the globe, and the Cult of Growth, and the possibility that it is Too Late as far as reversing global warming, and its attendant faults. Too Late, possibly, because in every country science has not been given its due, has been pooh-poohed, and True Believers in the Assorted Idols of Greed and Growth cannot be dislodged, mocked, shown up.
There should be a natural alliance between those who at once want a change in energy policy, whatever it takes or costs, and those whose main focus is the Jihad and Islam as a totalitarian belief-system. That there is not such an alliance is a testimony to human stupidity, to the exchange of cliches, so that solar energy and wind energy are deemed to be the preserve of "liberal tree-huggers" (what nonsense) and nuclear energy of "capitalist warmongers." Both kinds of energy are needed, for both tasks: preventing world-wide intellectual and moral disaster, and preventing, if it is not too late, world-wide environmental disaster.
Why is there no such alliance? Why do Queen Stupidity and King Cupidity continue to share the Royal Suite?
Hugh:
There is such an alliance. So far, I am aware of two people in it; you and me. Actually, www.iags.org is part of the alliance.
Anybody else want to join? What are you doing to stop/slow the flow of money to Ialamofascism? What are you driving? Have you seen www.divestterror.org?
13 Ways to Not Win a War
1. Give the war an inaccurate and misleading name.
2. Refuse to identify the enemy.
3. Refuse to examine the enemy's ideology.
4. Finance the enemy.
5. Arm the enemy.
6. Refuse to admit to the enemy's ultimate goal.
7. Import the enemy onto our shores.
9. Give the enemy positions in our security apparatus.
10. Curtail free speech so as to not offend the enemy.
11. Have all movies, TV dramas, new programs, magazines, serve the enemy by lying.
12. Have all educational institutions serve the enemy by lying.
13. Countenance fealty to global government in place of our national government.
Hello all,
Mr Fitzgerald says "not money that Muslims have earned, but for the most part money that comes from an accident of geology".
No Hugh...not an accident of geology but the grace and will of Allah (swt). Why won't you believe...and all will be about oil.
Oil is no longer viewed as just another commodity. In the minds and hearts of the Amrikan people, oil has become associated with terrorism, political corruption, corporate greed, and global warming. The rise of terrorism by militant Islam against Amrika and the West coincided with the rise in oil prices of 1979-80 and the subsequent transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars from the West to Muslim countries."
In the next twenty years, if Amrikan oil dependence is allowed to continue as it has in the past and the price of oil continues to increase as expected, more than Three Trillion Dollars will be transferred from the US economy to foreign countries in exchange for imported oil.
The politicians can not and probably will not stop oil flow which american companies are heavily invested in for a longer time. Don't forget that democrats are traditionally representing the US oil interests, while the republicans represents Pentagon and the military industrial complex in the States.
And it's a well known fact that influence over the oil reserves and oil flow in the world has a top priority for american administrations, no matter who's in power.
Future wars could be prevented if everyone who has taken a stand against the war in Iraq would turn their passion toward the goal of Amrikan Energy Independence. ....but ofcourse that will never happen.
In the mean time in the West the Wuslim will rise to power/majority in most countries and I agree that there will be war for ideology .... only it will not be East against West.
By the time this little lot kicks off it will be East & Wuslim West (& possibly a Calipah) against the (minority) rest.
For the people reading this (you getting this Ironman....) ....use the brains that Allah gave you...bow to the inevitable ...convert, at least you'll have the glories and mercy of Allah bestowed upon you.
"is shear [sic] fantasy."
--- a poster above, whose orthography, and grammar, and capacity for logic, all need work
Who is dealing in sheer fantasy? One might have thought those whose stock in trade is fantasy are those who still haven't studied Islam, and for seveal years have been telling those whom they should be properly instructing that Islam itself is just fine, it is only those "extremists" who have "hijacked this great religion," a religion moreover that is characterized by its "peace" and its "tolerance," and that it is only that "handful of extremists" -- "Wahhabists" for some, "Salafists" for others, "in the main Sunnis following the Muslim Brotherhood" for still others, but not conceivably, not even remotely possibly, could it be Islam itself, despite the copious scholarly literature on the subject (see the samples of Western scholarship on Jihad in The Legacy of Jihad" by Andrew Bostom).
Who are the fantasists? Could it be the man who said in an interview in 2002 that the "joy in Kabul" would be as nothing, would be "like a funeral procession" compared to what would happen if the regimes in Baghdad, or Damascus, or Tehran, were to be overturned by some outside, liberating (i.e. American) force? Could it be those who have insisted, because they read a book by the innocent Sharansky, that "democracies" never fight "democracies," and without thinking clearly about the amount of evidence (until the late 19th century, there was only one full-fledged democracy) available for such an argument, and about all the counter-examples, beginning but not ending with, the Franco-Prussian War), that the panacea for the distempers of the Islamic world is "democracy" had it wrong? See Iran, see "Palestinian" territories, see Algeria, see the results of a real "democratic process" in Pakistan, in Egypt, in Saudi Arabia.
Who is the fantasist? Surely, it is not those who note, again and again, in detail, that the divisions exist in Iraq that can reverberate elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim world, and that it takes a real perversity not to see those ethnic and sectarian divisions, and wish to exploit them? As for Kurdistan, it is not beyond the wit or power of an American administration to insist to Turkey that 1) the Cold War is over and Turkey is no longer quite so necessary to military plans 2) the idea that Islam is a bulwark against Communism is no longer relevant, and as Turkey shows not the strength of Kemalism but rather the persistent strength, the permanent strength, of Islam 3) Turkey's behavior in denying the Americans the ability to invade, with a fourth division, from the north, has not been forgotten, nor have the statemetns by major figures in the Turkish government that the Americans have behaved in Iraq "worse than the Nazis" 5) there is no going back on the autonomy the Kurds have now obtained, and if the Turkish government wishes to ensure that it will not have to enter into a permanent war with the Kurds, it should take the deal offered to it by the Americans. To wit: Kurdistan would be given free rein by its American supporters to make territorial demands on Syria and Iran (because Syria and Iran are countries that need to be under constant outside threat) but American support will depend on Kurdistan providing a safe refuge for Assyrian and other Christians (and no more of these asssaults by Kurds on those Christians) and on a guarantee, by Kurdistan, that it will not make any territorial demands on Turkey. The Kurds will have the political expression of their national identity, but that does not mean that everywhere that Kurds live, that area will become part of Kurdistan.
Here is that poster's imaginative prediction of the consequences of an American withdrawal, a prediction based on nothing at all:
"the Shia or the Sunni enclaves (or likely both) will become respectively Iranized and Talibanized in ways that makes today's movement towards Sharia seem absolutely tepid. Even worse, an Al Qaeda entity existing in the Sunni heartland of Iraq, unfettered by American military pressure will surely use its energies - now employed in a fight for survival - to spread jihadist mayhem throughout the region and the world."
All of a sudden, according to this self-described non-fantasist who recognizes "shear fantasy" in others, an American withdrawal will not lead to a civil war, or some level of internecine warfare that will constantly keep both Sunni and Shi'a off-balance. No, the poster's crystal ball tells him that presto-magico the Shi'a will be "Iranized" and the Sunni "Talibanized" (what does this mean? And how does he know? and just how long will the Americans have to remain so that whenever at last that they do go, all this Iranizing and Talibanizing (reminiscent of New Methods in Dry-Cleaning) will not take place.
And not only will there be all that Talibanizing and Iranizing going on. No, according to this poster when the Americans leave there will naturally come into being "an Al Qaeda entity existing in the Sunni heartland of Iraq, unfettered by American military pressure" that "will surely use its energies - now employed in a fight for survival - to spread jihadist mayhem throughout the region and the world." I see. So it will not, this Al Qaeda entity, have to worry about either local Sunni Arabs who may blame that Al Qaeda entity for having, through its attacks, kept the Americans on and thus helped put the Shi'a in power? And this "Al Qaeda entity," though it hates and wishes to destroy the Shi'a as Infidels too, even the worst kind of Infidels, for these "Rafidite dogs" appear to regard themselves as real Muslims. So apparently this "Al Qaeda entity" will not have to worry about these Shi'a "Rafidite dogs" dealing with them a bit more roughly than the Americans have permitted either themselves (of course) or the Iraqi "government" (i.e. Shi'a) forces, to date.
But this prediction about all sorts of "Jihadist mayhem" resulting from the inevitable triumph, apparently, of this "Al Qaeda entity" that will for some magical reason not try to fight the Shi'a or bring back Sunni rule, nor will it be fought by the Shi'a, but rather will once the Americans leave enjoy all sorts of new power and be able to spread (how, exactly?), in a way that is not already happening with and by all the sympathizers of the Jihad everywhere that there are Muslim communities, or groups, this "Jihadist mayhem." We are not told when it will ever be safe for the Americans to leave, because presumably this "Al Qaeda" entity could be formed, could spring into action spreading its "Jihadiest mayhem" all over the apparently at the moment quite peaceful, quite devoid-of-Jihadist-mayhem Infidel world. Perhaps the poster can fantasize about that as well.
Meanwhile, if the American government continues to squander men's lives, money, materiel, and attention on the tarbaby of Iraq, it is clear that in the next election, and in the one after that, those who oppose the war in Iraq -- oppose it for all the wrong reasons, and who would wish to withdraw not in order to fight more cleverly and effectively, but because they do not wish to see the need to fight at all -- would take power.
Understanding the domestic political context is part of an intelligent foreign policy. In its Iraq venture, the Administration has so far failed to sufficiently educate itself about both Islam, and about the nature of Iraq. It can still do so. Instead of taking long weekends, instead of traipsing about the world, sit and read 8-10 useful books on Islam. Spencer's "Onward Muslim Soldiers" and "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" (both intended for mass divulgation), Bat Ye'or's "The Dhimmi" and "Islam and Dhimmitude," , Ibn Warraq's "Why I Am Not a Muslim" and "Leaving Islam," and Bostom's "The Legacy of Jihad" and then, the scholarship of those whose articles in that last book should whet the appetite.
There is no doubt that if the American government does not soon show, even if it chooses not to announce, that its forces are leaving Iraq (and if it chooses to announce it, it can find whatever pretense it needs to do so in the behavior of the Iraqis themselves) political power in this country will be passed to those who want to withdraw for the wrong reasons, in order to replace a policy that was continued based on ignorance and obstinacy, with one that is even worse -- a policy that blends both the phony scowcroftian-brzezinskian "realism" which is merely a disguised kind of appeasement, with the undisguised kind.
Fantasy? Sheer fantasy? Or even "shear" fantasy --with that "shear" being the windshear of the wing of madness that Baudelaire wrote about (when he felt "the whiff of the wing of madness" pass over him).
Along with others who insist the Americans have to "stay the coursee" and not "cut and run" (phrases that are being used less and less, as their sheer (shear) ridiculousness can no longer be hidden -- all those who want us to stay in Iraq, for some indeterminate time, for some indeterminate result -- this poster is the true fantastist. And his fantastic tale is that doomsday scenario that has just been dissected. How many more hoist-by-his-own-petard explosions this Wile E. Coyote can take is an interesting question.
Naseem,
"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
ALL HAIL THE GOLDEN COW, IT MAKES FOR A LOVELY MANTLE PIECE
Hugh, you dismiss the "Idolatry of Greed" and fail to see how it has been one of the greatest weapons the US has. Russia itself has, and will again, succumb to it. Eastern Europe did as well, however their desire was far more complicated in that they longed to be reattached to the West (after an unnatural separation is an unusual situation in the history of the world). But perhaps the most powerful argument for the continued Westernification of the world is China. China emulates the West (so much so it pirates all copyrights) to such an extent that it will undoubtedly become westernized over time. When people are allowed to chose, they will chose to live the life we have in the US - or the closest variant of it in their own country of origin. I anticipate that you might argue that Moslems would want something other than that. I am not sure that this has yet been tested.
Hugh you also fail to see something very important with respect to our own population. Greed is what is keeping some of the rich US coastal areas together. Yes I know it is very distasteful, read on. With staggering levels of immigration and little time to assimilate, many immigrants will take a while to develop a sense of American identity. I mentioned recently on a thread that I perused the 1.5 to 2+ million dollar tract homes located near me. I looked at the potential purchasers. As the purchases viewed their vulgar 5K, 6k and 7K+ square foot TRACT homes; they burnt offerings to the Idol of greed in plain view. For those non-American’s reading this thread, I’ve provided a definition from Dictionary.com: One of numerous houses of similar or complementary design constructed on a tract of land.
None of buyers were American born. They were from all over the world. The desire for money is forcing people to live together in immigrant areas. Enchilada (inshallah) their children will develop a sense of being an American. Though it is unpleasant to read (and uncomfortable to write), I believe that forcing people to live together, make a living together and know each other will lead to assimilation.
I would also like to say I am a capitalist pig and proud of it. I have traveled widely and have seen the devastation of planned economies. While there are aspects of capitalism that on occasion need to be tamed, it is the best system possible because it plays into human nature. On that note, I am heading to Lowes (a US home repair store) to replace my ceiling fan, not because it is not functional, but because I would like to replace its look to one more suitable for my decor. Is replacing the fan greedy since the previous fan worked fine? Of course it is.
_________________________________________________
SAVE THE WHALES, DUMP THE TERRORISTS
"That there is not such an alliance is a testimony to human stupidity, to the exchange of clichés, so that solar energy and wind energy are deemed to be the preserve of "liberal tree-huggers" (what nonsense) and nuclear energy of "capitalist warmongers."
-Hugh
Indeed! When it comes time to purchase a new car in two years, I shall get a hybrid (Prius?), a fuel cell car, or enchilada (inshallah), a hydrogen car! I don't want to keep giving as much money to terrorists as I am.
__________________________________________________
ON OPPOSING THE BUSH/CHENEY/RICE DOCTRINE IN THE ME
"Hugh continues to ignore possibilities and even probabilities that are detrimental to the West:
1) that one side could quickly triumph, namely the Shia, with Iran stepping into the vaccuum created by a US withdrawal and augmenting its own oil wealth and manpower with that of Iraq...
2) that even if the Shia do not triumph and the country is eventually partitioned, the Shia or the Sunni enclaves (or likely both) will become respectively Iranized and Talibanized in ways that makes today's movement towards Sharia seem absolutely tepid. Even worse, an Al Qaeda entity existing in the Sunni heartland of Iraq, unfettered by American military pressure will surely use its energies - now employed in a fight for survival - to spread jihadist mayhem throughout the region and the world.
3) that the Kurds will lose their precious (and very progressive) autonomy, either to an Iran-backed Shia revanchism or - should the country splinter - to a Turkish invasion.
Hugh's insistence that the Turks will acquiesce to an independent Iraqi Kurdistan - that they will betray their national interests and their clearly enunciated official policy of threatening military intervention to forestall such an eventuality - because of the elicitation of a 'promise of good behavior' on the part of the Iraqi Kurds...is shear fantasy."
-Cornelius
Hugh, Cornelius is right. While the Bush administration’s policy in the ME leaves a lot to be desired, all of the points Cornelius made will indeed be magnified several fold if we hastily withdraw from the hell hole of Iraq.
ALL HAIL THE GOLDEN COW, IT MAKES FOR A LOVELY MANTLE PIECE
Hugh, you dismiss the "Idolatry of Greed" and fail to see how it has been one of the greatest weapons the US has. Russia itself has, and will again, succumb to it. Eastern Europe did as well, however their desire was far more complicated in that they longed to be reattached to the West (after an unnatural separation is an unusual situation in the history of the world). But perhaps the most powerful argument for the continued Westernification of the world is China. China emulates the West (so much so it pirates all copyrights) to such an extent that it will undoubtedly become westernized over time. When people are allowed to chose, they will chose to live the life we have in the US - or the closest variant of it in their own country of origin. I anticipate that you might argue that Moslems would want something other than that. I am not sure that this has yet been tested.
Hugh you also fail to see something very important with respect to our own population. Greed is what is keeping some of the rich US coastal areas together. Yes I know it is very distasteful, read on. With staggering levels of immigration and little time to assimilate, many immigrants will take a while to develop a sense of American identity. I mentioned recently on a thread that I perused the 1.5 to 2+ million dollar tract homes located near me. I looked at the potential purchasers. As the purchases viewed their vulgar 5K, 6k and 7K+ square foot TRACT homes; they burnt offerings to the Idol of greed in plain view. For those non-American’s reading this thread, I’ve provided a definition from Dictionary.com: One of numerous houses of similar or complementary design constructed on a tract of land.
None of buyers were American born. They were from all over the world. The desire for money is forcing people to live together in immigrant areas. Enchilada (inshallah) their children will develop a sense of being an American. Though it is unpleasant to read (and uncomfortable to write), I believe that forcing people to live together, make a living together and know each other will lead to assimilation.
I would also like to say I am a capitalist pig and proud of it. I have traveled widely and have seen the devastation of planned economies. While there are aspects of capitalism that on occasion need to be tamed, it is the best system possible because it plays into human nature. On that note, I am heading to Lowes (a US home repair store) to replace my ceiling fan, not because it is not functional, but because I would like to replace its look to one more suitable for my decor. Is replacing the fan greedy since the previous fan worked fine? Of course it is.
_________________________________________________
SAVE THE WHALES, DUMP THE TERRORISTS
"That there is not such an alliance is a testimony to human stupidity, to the exchange of clichés, so that solar energy and wind energy are deemed to be the preserve of "liberal tree-huggers" (what nonsense) and nuclear energy of "capitalist warmongers."
-Hugh
Indeed! When it comes time to purchase a new car in two years, I shall get a hybrid (Prius?), a fuel cell car, or enchilada (inshallah), a hydrogen car! I don't want to keep giving as much money to terrorists as I am.
__________________________________________________
ON OPPOSING THE BUSH/CHENEY/RICE DOCTRINE IN THE ME
"Hugh continues to ignore possibilities and even probabilities that are detrimental to the West:
1) that one side could quickly triumph, namely the Shia, with Iran stepping into the vaccuum created by a US withdrawal and augmenting its own oil wealth and manpower with that of Iraq...
2) that even if the Shia do not triumph and the country is eventually partitioned, the Shia or the Sunni enclaves (or likely both) will become respectively Iranized and Talibanized in ways that makes today's movement towards Sharia seem absolutely tepid. Even worse, an Al Qaeda entity existing in the Sunni heartland of Iraq, unfettered by American military pressure will surely use its energies - now employed in a fight for survival - to spread jihadist mayhem throughout the region and the world.
3) that the Kurds will lose their precious (and very progressive) autonomy, either to an Iran-backed Shia revanchism or - should the country splinter - to a Turkish invasion.
Hugh's insistence that the Turks will acquiesce to an independent Iraqi Kurdistan - that they will betray their national interests and their clearly enunciated official policy of threatening military intervention to forestall such an eventuality - because of the elicitation of a 'promise of good behavior' on the part of the Iraqi Kurds...is shear fantasy."
-Cornelius
Hugh, Cornelius is right. While the Bush administration’s policy in the ME leaves a lot to be desired, all of the points Cornelius made will indeed be magnified several fold if we hastily withdraw from the hell hole of Iraq.
Everything Hugh writes is wordy, but he writes like a thoroughly educated historian. Nevertheless, a more concise write-up always helps the cause. - posted by Report
Are you volunteering to write the Cliff's Notes Guide to Hugh? :)
Whatever trauma you suffered at the hands of Charles Dickens and his paid-by-the-word style in high school, discourses lengthier than mere soundbites and slogans are a crucial weapon in an ideological war. How are we to convice the enemy of the sophistication, comprehensive nature, and superiority of our arguments if they're all excruciatingly glib?
Just about anyone can put together talking points, but someone has to conceive, think through, and present the ideas in the first place.
by Pete Singer
Well, now that Hamas is at the helm once again, leading the Palestinians into the Dark Ages, the world is once again put in a situation where we have to find a way to deal with them. Not just as the well know terror group under Arafat, but as an elected government of a people known for constant bloodshed.
It makes me wonder sometimes if there will ever be a solution to that side of the world and the religious ideologies that support bloodshed and slaughter under the dictates of Islam. I have serious doubts that as long as so many are so deceived and have been for generations, that peace can thrive between Islam and the rest of the world.
But I am willing to give it a shot. Why not? I have seen and heard so many Muslims claiming this is not Islam, and that Islam is indeed a peaceful religion. And in the same breath I hear how naïve my understanding of the Koran is; that we as non-Mohammedans simply have no clue as to our understanding of the Koran.
So I say put your faith into action all you followers of Mohammed. Leave these lands of ignorant people and go forth into the world and teach your own. Sell your belongings in America, Europe, Canada, Israel, and move to those areas where millions of Muslims are defiling your religion. Take all that hard earned money the infidels provided for you and use it to build schools that teach your peaceful brand of Islam.
Build mosques and preach your message in the streets as you do in Michigan. Buy those loudspeakers and debate with the mullahs who teach slaughter and hate in the name of your god and prophet. Stand up for your faith and call these terrorist like Bin Laden out in the street and have a showdown with the truth. Rid Islam of what you claim is distorted doctrine and cleanse the minds of your people with your version of the truth.
Mass together and protest the mosques, protest Hamas, protest the Maddrassas, protest the speeches in your holy places. You have the energy to do this, and you have the resources to do these things. Because you can find ways to sue those in America you claim refuse your rights. CAIR has roots in Palestinian terrorism, your charities have given to Hamas again and again. Don't leave this task of dealing with them to those who do not understand. Take the responsibility and do it yourself.
The Jewish prophets of old, they protested in their temples, they taught loudly from the streets and from the public places. They condemned their own for warping the Holy Scriptures and the defiling the holy places in Israel. And many died.
Christians died by the thousands for teaching their way, as they still do today at the hand of your peaceful brethren. They later stood and fought the teachings of the church when they thought the bible had been hijacked. They stood, they taught, and they died because the faith they had was strong and pure.
And they still band together to condemn the teachings or actions of their own whether it is sipping poison in the jungle or using a priestly position for evil. And they refuse to accept it and they refuse to stand still. And they do not simply place and ad in a paper or have a fast press release, they change laws and they make a difference.
So you millions of Muslims worldwide, what will you do with your faith? Try to teach us infidels about the wondrous things in Islam you claim are abundant? Is this the measure of your faith, to allow your own to be deceived and continue their evil? Or is your religion simply words and no conviction towards your own? Is Allah not important enough to you that you would sacrifice living among infidels to teach those who use his name?
They are after all just a small minority according to CAIR representatives, and any other Muslim organization that has made this claim in America and elsewhere. So stand up in the manner of men with courage and put a stop to the madness within your own ranks. If you allow us to deal with it, we will deal with them as a political entity and not as a religious one. We will not scream about the greatness of our God while we cut someone’s head off on videotape. We will not praise Jesus while sending in our troops and bombing your lands. We will simply deal with it to survive as a culture. Because Islam will be the cause of the next World War, it is adverse to mankind and its survival. It cannot, in its present state reside in peace with anyone else.
Hamas is already chomping at the bit, Muslims. Iran has already screamed for the eradication of Israel, Pakistan is not entirely stable; you have dozens and dozens of radical groups to teach. Or will you allow them to continue spewing hatred and threats in the name of your god and prophet? Is your faith at least as strong as the Jews and Christians before you? Or is just for show in an American courtroom when lawsuits are filed against infidels?
I charge you all to leave these lands and take back your religion! You do nothing for your faith here and your religion is on the brink of insanity worldwide. We who are ignorant have the faith, but according to you, we do not understand. So who then is able?
As a wise bear once said: “Only YOU”.
Cornelius writes . . .
"1) that one side could quickly triumph, namely the Shia, with Iran stepping into the vaccuum created by a US withdrawal and augmenting its own oil wealth and manpower with that of Iraq...
2) that even if the Shia do not triumph and the country is eventually partitioned, the Shia or the Sunni enclaves (or likely both) will become respectively Iranized and Talibanized in ways that makes today's movement towards Sharia seem absolutely tepid. Even worse, an Al Qaeda entity existing in the Sunni heartland of Iraq, unfettered by American military pressure will surely use its energies - now employed in a fight for survival - to spread jihadist mayhem throughout the region and the world.
3) that the Kurds will lose their precious (and very progressive) autonomy, either to an Iran-backed Shia revanchism or - should the country splinter - to a Turkish invasion.
Hugh's insistence that the Turks will acquiesce to an independent Iraqi Kurdistan - that they will betray their national interests and their clearly enunciated official policy of threatening military intervention to forestall such an eventuality - because of the elicitation of a 'promise of good behavior' on the part of the Iraqi Kurds...is shear fantasy."
He makes very good points . . . and I've included his basic thesis en bloc. I would guess that W and his aids would privatly worry about most of these issues. Let's tackle them one at a time. 1. Let's say the Shias 'take over' and Iran 'moves in' or 'has influence' or some variation . . . well will the Sunni's just sit there, will the Saudis? What will they do? How about the 'foreign insurgents.'? Mostly Sunni's. I would argue that Iran will do no better than us to put the toothpaste of "Iraq" back into the tube. An added bonus: they'll be bogged down and waste their resources. 2. The whole place become balkanized and falls apart. Good. Let them kill each other. Sounds harsh but better themselves than us. Fierce enclaves of Kurdish, Shia and Sunni 'kingdoms' will all oppose one dictatorial force ala Hussein redux or Mullah Omar wannabe. Who will this dictatorial force be . . . Kurd, Shia or Sunni?? Your point on Al Quada is a good one . . . but one could argue that they'll be so much intra-Iraqi hostility this will be minimal . . . plus our dog in the fight the Kurds could help ala eyes and ears. I say fund all sides and let 'em go at it. Cornelius this is your strongest point, but still flawed, since under Sadaam we had near zero foreign terrorist presence(unless blessed by Sadam) and with 140,000 US boots on the ground it is a force to be reckoned with with more fleeing over the border daily. Point 3, whither the Kurds? If they declare independence and incur the rath of the Turks, well what can we do about this anyway. I say protect and encourage them, arm them, allow our CIA and special forces and rapid reaction forces to be based their. Will the Turks invade and fight the US? I seriously doubt it. And if the Turks and the Iranians(point 1) invade with the Saudis and we have a major conflaguration then billions of thier own money will be spent on this Islam divide . . . money that will not be spent on US mosques, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, that Iranian fission device and the list goes on and on.
Cornelius, this was not meant to attack you. I respect your post and feel you make good points . . . but in my strong opinion . . . you could argue some of the logic either way. The basic question comes down to is this . . . does allowing the whole region to go from a 'stable area' to an 'unstable area' with arab against Kurd against arab against Persian infighting. Is this good for us or bad?
Lets take the opposite side of the coin a bit further . . . division in the Muslim world is really, really good. We get out of Iraq and civil war ensues. We continue to bomb the tribal regions again, again and again at any intel telling us that Bin Laden or his henchman are there. Then we insert special forces guys into this region and maybe even increase aid to India. Oh, and at the same time, we limit all travel for education or health purposes into the US. Perhaps Europe will fill in the void, but only for a time. They have their own demographic "issues." We cut all aid to our moderate arab friends . . . Mubarak, Jordan and cut all aid to the Palestinians. Perhaps out of the 140 thousand of the troops that are taken out of Iraq . . . 20-30 thousand will be stationed in Kurdistan . . . we establish a major CIA post there and embassy. We move our embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Not to please Israel, but to upset the arabs. We place special restrictions on Muslim immigration, travel, visas ect . . . to the US . . . essentially end it. How about a law that does something about being lobbied by Saudi Arabia???? and accepting money from them???
For every arguement you make against these issues . . . 1. the price of oil will go up 2. They'll hate us 3. They'll become enraged and more radical 4. Instability is never good and so on are false arguements. Of course oil will rise and will be forced to do what we should have done long before . . . drill more, conserve more, more energy efficient cars and so on and so on. As for the Muslims will hate us or become more "Islamic" -- well thats like saying if we bomb Berlin, Hitler will kill more Jews or Americans or be more of a bastard. Can Hamas or the Iranian Thug in Chief get to be bigger haters? Can Bin Laden. 4. Instability is never good . . . maybe not, but if it embroils them into an armed struggle against one another, it may be. Just my 2 cents.
To all the big geopolitical thinkers:
I have driven my Prius over 20,000 miles @ about 50 mpg. My previous car got about 22 mpg. I have more than doubled my mileage. I have saved approximately 500 galons of gas or about 8 barrels. If you add in my 10% ethanol that gets close to 9 barrels. At $65.00 per barrel, that is about $600 less to the Islamofascists. Do you think that would be a couple of AK 47's they don't get? Maybe a few hundred less Korans going to Pakistan or a weeks pay to an Imam right here in the USA?
What can you do to join the war on Islamofascism today?
Think smallball like in baseball. A walk, a stolen base and a bunt can produce a run. Actually, the reality is better than baseball because you can play smallball and not have to give up largeball. You can keep fantasizing that you rule the world and/or influence the rulers of the world and at the same time, do something useful and practicle.
In World War II the War Board put out ads:
"Is This Trip Necessary?"
They were everywhere. Today, when the link between the use of oil, and the resources available to a malevolent enemy, are far tighter, those ads are not to be found. Why not?
HUGH: "To wit: Kurdistan would be given free rein by its American supporters to make territorial demands on Syria and Iran (because Syria and Iran are countries that need to be under constant outside threat) but American support will depend on Kurdistan providing a safe refuge for Assyrian and other Christians (and no more of these asssaults by Kurds on those Christians) and on a guarantee, by Kurdistan, that it will not make any territorial demands on Turkey. The Kurds will have the political expression of their national identity, but that does not mean that everywhere that Kurds live, that area will become part of Kurdistan."
Listen to what the man is postulating here...that the Kurds of Iraq will become independent, that they will subsequently be encouraged to lop off Kurdish portions of Iran and Syria, but will be prevented - on the iron-clad assurance of their iron-clad assurances, that they will engage in no attempt to make similar claims on Turkish Kurdistan, the geographically largest and most populated of all Kurdish regions. And naturally the Turks will buy into this wonderful sheme that so threatens their territorial integrity because - well, because it suits Hugh's vision for the region.
HUGH: "All of a sudden, according to this self-described non-fantasist who recognizes "shear fantasy" in others, an American withdrawal will not lead to a civil war, or some level of internecine warfare that will constantly keep both Sunni and Shi'a off-balance."
Now who is doing the misrepresenting? I've never maintained that there won't be a period of internecine conflict. But all good things must come to an end Hugh. Civil Wars are rarely interminable. One side usually wins. Or they tire of fighting and a stalemate ensues. What then?
HUGH: "No, the poster's crystal ball tells him that presto-magico the Shi'a will be "Iranized" and the Sunni "Talibanized" (what does this mean? And how does he know? and just how long will the Americans have to remain so that whenever at last that they do go, all this Iranizing and Talibanizing (reminiscent of New Methods in Dry-Cleaning) will not take place."
I think it highly probable that Iraqi Shiites, abandoned by the USA and threatened with the Civil war you insist is imminent, can be expected to turn towards their natural confessional patrons in Tehran. Any fool could see it. And the Sunni heartland, in the grips of a radical insurgency that will only be empowered by an American withdrawal, will in all likelihood fall under the influence of those who have the guns...the Islamists. Nothing presto-magic about, just common sense that some seem to find elusive.
HUGH: "Understanding the domestic political context is part of an intelligent foreign policy."
Here Hugh is absolutely correct. But he is the one who seems completely oblivious to the domestic repercussions of the policies he advocates. He apparently wants Bush to do a complete about-face, to tell the American people that the failure of Democracy and Civil War in Iraq is a good thing for America. I suppose he then expects the American people to support such a confused Administration as it girds for the coming conflict with Iran.
If Hugh has his way, American foreign policy will be paralyzed for years and any hopes for aggressive interventions in other potential conflicts such as Iran and North Korea - conflicts with telling national-security implications for the USA - will become politically impossible because however Hugh perceives things, the American people will interpret the collapse of Democracy and Civil War in Iraq as defeat and as a poignantly cautionary tale about the pitfalls of interventionism.
HUGH: "Along with others who insist the Americans have to "stay the coursee" and not "cut and run" (phrases that are being used less and less, as their sheer (shear) ridiculousness can no longer be hidden -- all those who want us to stay in Iraq, for some indeterminate time, for some indeterminate result -- this poster is the true fantastist."
Not indeterminate. Just until the country is stable enough to fend for itself, something very plausible in the coming two or three years as the security forces continue to expand and gain experience. In fact, an American withdrawal of the majority of its forces by 2008 with a backround of a steadily declining insurgency in Iraq can be just the ticket for Republican success in that year's presidential elections.
HUGH: "How many more hoist-by-his-own-petard explosions this Wile E. Coyote can take is an interesting question."
I have indeed disheveled myself on occasion with my ACME demolition kit, usually when I let it get personal. But on the issue of Iraq over our months of disagreement, I personally feel I have given better then I've received.
Hugh's last point is extremely important. Wall Street, Federal economic policy makers, the business community worldwide, cannot confront the reality of what Islam means for the future of the West. That realization would imply the greatest market disruption since the Depression: energy markets in utter confusion, the potential insecurity of trillions of dollars of assets in Western countries owned by entities behind the Islamic curtain, bond markets worldwide would tremble, untold political, social and economic upheaval in Europe, domestic defense expenditures and threats that have not been factored into the markets.
Rather that face the truth and think rationally about the long term consequences of pacifying Islamic economic and political forces, the global marketplace will play ball for short term economic benefits and rationalize a happy cultural and political senario: hence the necessity that 'moderate Islam' exists for Wall Street and the idea that all will be well if the marketplace remains stable and free market forces generate wealth for all, including Islamic nations and populations. Saudi Arabia is simply a market player with some odd ideas on religion. Iran is just talking tough but will calm down when economic realities sink in. The global jihad is just a movement of 'crazies' who will have little or no impact once the major players have bought into the 'war on terror', and that makes 'Palestine' a problem. Bring economic stability to Iraq and the rest will follow. The riots in Europe are caused by economic problems, just improve the economies of Europe, introduce free market reforms, make the economies more efficient, streamline and reduce the social welfare state, reduce the tax burden, and all will be well. The problem is economic. Islam is irrelevant.
Economic analysts, policy makers, business people have rationalized cooperation with a fascist ideology because the consequences of non-cooperation are too bitter. Like Henry Ford, IBM and a host of other Western businessmen who were more than happy to do business with the Nazis, even in the midst of war, money motivates, values do not. Sharia is not so bad. Islam is not so bad, as long as we are rich. Until their own lives are directly in danger and the lips of the proximate cause give the kiss of death, those who love greed will not admit the problem, and even when they do, the first thought will be how to profit from it.
About the the oil in the Middle-East being the will and grace of God...
So is finding a dollar on the street. From the Islamic standpoint me writing these words and me picking my nose and putting the booger under my desk is also the will of God. Anything that is intended to be accomplished but is not also becomes the will of God. It is the perfect answer/excuse..a rather weird combination
I do not feel I am bestowed with any special grace from God when I find a dollar or pass an exam I havn't studied for (though of course I still thank God). When a people who already feel themselves superior, who already are convinced they are more favored by God, live on a land with large amounts of oil that others need, the only conclusion they can arrive at is that God is behind it..
Fighting Islam at the Gas Pump
Buy Your Gas at Citgo: Join the BUY-cott!
by Jeff Cohen
Money you pay to Citgo goes primarily to Venezuela -- not Saudi Arabia or the Middle East.
There are 14,000 Citgo gas stations in the US. (Click here http://www.citgo.com/CITGOLocator/StoreLocator.jsp to find one near you.)
Citgo is a U.S. refining and marketing firm that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company.
Of the top oil producing countries in the world, only one is a democracy with a president who was elected on a platform of using his nation's oil revenue to benefit the poor. The country is Venezuela. The President is Hugo Chavez. Call him "the Anti-Bush."
By buying your gasoline at Citgo, you are contributing to the billions of dollars that Venezuela's democratic government is using to provide health care, literacy and education, and subsidized food for the majority of Venezuelans.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0516-25.htm
Based in Houston, Texas, CITGO is a refiner and marketer of transportation fuels, lubricants, petrochemicals, refined waxes, asphalt and other industrial products. In addition to these products, there's probably a CITGO in your neighborhood, a convenient place to fill up with gas and grab a quick snack.
The company is owned by PDV America, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., the national oil company of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
http://www.citgo.com/AboutCITGO/PDVSAprofile.jsp
Cerro Negro, Petrozuata and Sincor). Private-sector participation includes the U.S. companies: ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and ChevronTexaco
How often have you stopped at a red light which piled up a dozen or more cars, so that one car could go across? Or a red light that took so long to change that traffic was slowed up for two city blocks? Zero miles to gal, polluting all over the place, while you wait, and wait, for one car to cross. Multiply that by millions of occurances a day. How many wasted gals a year is that? How much extra unearned money does that give terrorists and supporters? Better traffic flow is one solution. Different fuel is a better one. Corn is good but marijuana is better. Cannibis grows most anywhere, it produces more energy per acre than wood, it is a renewable resource, and it is a low polluter. It can be cheaply refined to produce fuel, and oils, to run auto's and other machinery.
Industrial cannibis has other benifits. The seeds are high in protein and other nutrients.
Various medicines are possible, superior paper, cloth and rope, along with other products.
Cannibis should be decriminalised, and everyone encouraged to grow it as an industrial crop. In fields, empty lots , flower boxes ect. When your industrial crop comes up, you harvest and take it to your local recycling center, who pays you something for it, and trucks it to the various refineries, to make products that are sold back to the public at reasonable prices. Anyone and everyone can participate in a national energy program such as this. For some, with green thumbs, it can end poverty...legally. The public just has to come to grips with the idea that some people are going to smoke it. They are smoking it already. Any increase is easilly offset by the obvious benifits. NO WARS FOR OIL. Oil would become almost useless. No more jillions for Mid East oil tyrants. The US and the west would be energy independent. People power by participation...
Buying gasoline from this or that provider does not matter. Until the actual revenues received by Arab and Muslim or Muslim-controlledstates (that descrtiption fits 10 of OPEC'S 11 current members) there will be a problem. "Energy independence" meaning "no oil from the Middle East" for the United Statesmeans little as well, for it merely means that that oil will be sold elsewhere. It is only when the revenues go down, when the expenses go up, when every conceivable means to force the Saudis to disgorge some of that wealth (to other Muslims to replace, if they feel like it, the Jizyah of Western foreign aid that should be stopped, to the Infidels for goods and services that could have a special surtax, an added-on "reverse-Jizyah" tax, put on for all transactions involving Muslim states, that the "money weapon" of the Jihad will be rendered harmless.
Mr. Fitzgerald starts off by attempting to draw an analogy between our current struggle against Islamic terrorism and the Cold War against Communism, as if winning the "war of ideas" against Communism is similar to winning the "war of ideas" against Islamo-fascism. It isn't.
The reason why Communism finally collapsed was not because of any divide-and-conquer games between Russia and China, or covert operations in Poland or other Western actions to undercut Communist regimes. Those actions were needed to contain Communism, but the threat of Communism would have persisted indefinitely.
Communism finally collapsed for a reason that was entirely rational: By objective rational measure, Communism was failing to match, let alone exceed, the achievements of the West. Gorbachev could compare the Gross Domestic Product of the USSR with that of the U.S. He could compare the advances in modern computers and electronics. He could note the disaster of Chernobyl. And he could decide that things had to change in the USSR, which was the beginning of the end of Soviet Communism. Until there was that sea-change in Soviet thinking, the Cold War would go on and on.
The debate between proponents of Marxism and proponents of capitalism was rational: Which system will best serve the needs of man? In the end, Marxism turned out to have objectively failed.
That won't work with Islamic terrorism. The fact that Muslim immigrants from poor parts of the Middle East come to live in affluent England, and continue to spread their jihadist ideology and engage in terrorism there, tells you that we will never see the day when they will say that "Radical Islam has failed, let's try something else." It's religious and not based on rational comparisons of the achievements of Islamic and Western societies.
Because those comparisons are already there. But they haven't palliated radical Islamist thinking, which is mystical and non-rational. If anything, the recognition by the Muslim world of their utter failure to match the economic and scientific achievements of the Christian West has infuriated them and further provoked them to violence. They can't accept that their ideology has let them down, so they blame nefarious Western or Jewish conspiracies for their abject failure. And that leads to more anti-Western terrorism.
We are about to put Mr. Fitzgerald's theory to the test: The election victory of Hamas in Palestine has outraged numbers of al-Fatah supporters. Mr. Fitzgerald is probably hoping that if they turn on each other that will take the pressure off Israel. I think it's a bad bet, given how highly leveraged terrorism is: Hamas can actively oppose al-Fatah politically while simultaneously easily sneaking a few more terrorists into Israel on a continuous basis.
It only took 19 terrorists to wreak the havoc of 9-11. No matter how "divided" the Muslim world becomes, the radicals can always find at least a few hundred terrorists to send against us. With today's terrorist weapons, that's all they need to turn America into a living nightmare.
The only thing that will work is what brought an end to the fanatics who launched World War II--the demonstration that the Allies were prepared to use whatever force necessary, no matter how frightful the cost, to bring the war to an end. The Japanese militarists were as fanatical and mystical as Islamist terrorists are today, believing that no matter what their souls would end up at Yasukuni Shrine. Yet they were finally forced to surrender. What brought them down? The answer: America's development and use of the atomic bomb. If the Japanese had not surrendered after Nagasaki, the U.S. would have continued to build atomic bombs and continue to bomb and bomb Japan until the nation was obliterated. We were prepared to wipe them out. And that was what finally brought them to their senses.
Today, the U.S. does not have credibility with the Muslim world because while they routinely denounce us publicly for alleged "war crimes," secretly they see us as weak, divided, and unwilling to use necessary force.
I propose a demonstration to put an end to that illusion. Somewhere in the Muslim Middle East, in a desert area far from population centers, the U.S. should detonate a hydrogen bomb, dropped by B-52, televised live via CNN to all parts of the world. And the message from the President should be a direct quote of Harry Truman:
"If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air,
the like of which has never been seen on this earth."
I'll bet even Osama and al-Zarqawi would blink. Because for the first time in decades, they would see an aroused America prepared to obliterate the enemy.
Don't kid ouselves thinking if the US stops buying mideast oil terrorist funds will dry up. It won't happen. For every barrel the US doesn't buy at $67 China and India will buy at $70. Fueling jihad at an even greater velocity. Simple economics at work here. Their growing economies and low labor costs allow them to spend more on energy and still beat the US competitively in the world market. The arab petrodollar hegemony will just shift eastward. Don't bet on China or India to agressively fight terrorism as long as it means more oil. China will see our walking away from arab supplies as an economic feast. No developing country likes instability or uncertainty. China and India are no different. When push comes to shove the developing nations of the Far East will support the arab oil producers.
"Hugh's last point is extremely important. Wall Street, Federal economic policy makers, the business community worldwide, cannot confront the reality of what Islam means for the future of the West. That realization would imply the greatest market disruption since the Depression: energy markets in utter confusion, the potential insecurity of trillions of dollars of assets in Western countries owned by entities behind the Islamic curtain, bond markets worldwide would tremble, untold political, social and economic upheaval in Europe, domestic defense expenditures and threats that have not been factored into the markets."
I am not blind to the limits of economics. I am also painfully aware of the privileged backgrounds of terrorist such as UBL and Atta, to list but two. However, to dismiss economics as a powerful tool is silly.
What everyone has also forgotten to mention is hegemony due to Pax Americana. The military power and its ability to project power around the world due to immense technologiocal advantage is what has allowed our relatively peaceful coexistence with Islamic countries over recent years.
If you say Islamic demographics in the West are the problem, fine, correct it. However if you want the press to acknowledge that 50% of the world (and 98.0% of the Moslem world) is extremely hostile to Western "values" and even Western "capitalism", don't hold your breathe. If you want the media to inform that some of those opposing Westernization, nealry all of them Moslems, are willing to die to stop it, they will have to report that but will not expain why. However, they will never be able to explain the extent of the support in the countries from which the "extremists" come, because it might offend some readers. The issue also goes to the heart of our fragile global situation. If you want the media to explain the tenets of Islam and begin to explain why the terrorists are motivated, you will find that they cannot. They dare not be the genesis of an Islamic schism. I believe that any potential schism must come from inside the Islamic world. Nonetheless, word can be sent out thru blogs, thru books and word of mouth to enlighten Westerners.
Nonetheless, the (non-Moslem) formerly anti-materialistic converts to a more US style of living line up. The latest being India.
The real question is just what affect materialism would have on most Moslems. That is a debate I would look forward to. I suppose a good starting point would be the rich gulf states.
"Buying gasoline from this or that provider does not matter. Until the actual revenues received by Arab and Muslim or Muslim-controlledstates (that descrtiption fits 10 of OPEC'S 11 current members) there will be a problem."
Aside from another annoyingly incomplete sentence, this represents a perversely stubborn refusal to take important small steps.
""Energy independence" meaning "no oil from the Middle East" for the United Statesmeans little as well, for it merely means that that oil will be sold elsewhere."
Ditto.
I guess Hugh won't be satisfied until the modern West thinks completely like him, and won't accept anything short of that (even if it will help our self-defense in ways smaller than his big mind will accept). Hugh will likely have to wait another 50 years for satisfaction, or another fifty 911's -- whichever comes first.
I do not always agree with Spengler, but here is an interesting article.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA24Ak01.html
"Iran's oil exports will shrink to zero in 20 years, just at the demographic inflection point when the costs of maintaining an aged population will crush its state finances, as I reported in Demographics and Iran's imperial design (September 13, 2005). Just outside Iran's present frontiers lie the oil resources of Iraq, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, and not far away are the oil concentrations of eastern Saudi Arabia. Its neighbors are quite as alarmed as Washington about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, and privately quite happy for Washington to wipe out this capability"
According to Spengler: Due to Iran's future demongaphic slump and its oil drying up, the Islamic revolution must be exported now, or not at all. In a previosu artilcle, found there, he showed demographic change coming to Iran.
You are all assuming that other countries can't/ won't see the same problem with oil consumption from the ME that we do. For example, do you think India is happy depending on the ME for oil, given their own internal problems with Muslims?
Iceland is currently moving away from fossil fuels to their own internal sources of energy and a hydrogen economy.
We CAN provide an alternative to the current gun-to-our-head situation.
Let's lead. Others will follow.
I've been trying to elevate energy independence to the forefront of public consciousness but it goes no where, because the Houston Oil Boys/Arabs would be losers, as would the Bush family dynasty, who is not only friends with the Sauds but busines partners as well (Baker Botts is the Bush/Saudi/Exxon Law Firm and the lobbyists for the Saudis).
Brazil is almost energy independent it has channeled it's government policies and resources into developing ethanol, produced from cane, ethanol can be produced from almost any grain or vegetable that can be fermented.
And GM has worked with Brazil to develop an engine that will (using computers and censors) run on pure ethanol, pure gas or any combination by sensing the fuel and adjusting the air mixture automatically.
Any see anything like that in the U.S.? Nope.
GM has the patent, it is being used in Brazil, but not a word of it in the U.S.
Why's that?
Cheney, Bush, RNC, DNC and Arab oil money is at stake.
GM Gas/Ethanol/Natural Gas Car for Brazil It's called the Astra.
Conservatives, FREEPERS, concerned citizens everywhere should be demanding that the government do what Brazil has done, but no. The culture war, and fighting "liberals" is more important.
Alarmed Pg Farmer posted
13 Ways to Not Win a War
1. Give the war an inaccurate and misleading name.
2. Refuse to identify the enemy.
3. Refuse to examine the enemy's ideology.
4. Finance the enemy.
5. Arm the enemy.
6. Refuse to admit to the enemy's ultimate goal.
7. Import the enemy onto our shores.
9. Give the enemy positions in our security apparatus.
10. Curtail free speech so as to not offend the enemy.
11. Have all movies, TV dramas, new programs, magazines, serve the enemy by lying.
12. Have all educational institutions serve the enemy by lying.
13. Countenance fealty to global government in place of our national government.
Exactly. How to win the war? Stop doing 1 to 13.
Fuel efficiency and looking for other sources for oil are long term propositions. The war is ON now.
Report, You rather dismissively request that Hugh shorten the length of his articles and get right to the point. Perhaps you chose your name because you enjoy perusing dry reports in your spare time. I, on the other hand, thoroughly enjoy something more appealing to the intellect and that requires mental participation to be fully enjoyed . Hugh's prose is fun to read because it is challenging, humorous and contains flashes of brilliance. I don't complain about the lack of literary quality of the NY Stock Exchange page; maybe you should reconsider your opinion about Hugh's musings.
So many good comments,
the answers are all there,
we only lack the will to make war.
DP111, TreeHugger,
Papa Bear, Cornelius,Hugh,
Nariz, all of you who wrote words
that are important and true,
may you experience your heart's desire.
Growth, and the possibility that it is Too Late as far as reversing global warming, and its
hey no one is perfect, Hugh ice caps are melting on Mars.. see any SUVs there? mmm..its the sun changing the weather...you seem to perfer a socialist government.... nothing wrong in growth, you want to go back to the horse and buggy? we need oil to continue our way of life, and with technology will outgrow oil. in fact if you look at history, it was the arab muslims who prevented trade of the Europeans with China,India, so the Europeans looked elsewhere, they became more prosperous and left the muslims in the dirt. now the arab muslims are putting in the squeeze with their oil, Western technology will pass the arab muslims in the dust again. some bumps in the road.. but you got believe in technology and growth, Capitalism!!! equals freedom and democracy. Being a conservative does also mean you want clean water and air, just that the crap that UN,Kryoto are waste of our money, penalizes the WEst, gives in to China and corrupt third world countries!!
I think it's great that the democratic process is voting in these Islamofacist criminals - this way the world can't possibly ignore the problem any longer and will do the necessary work of studying what Islam really teaches and to put the fear of "Allah" in them. It has to get worse in order for the average man on the American street to take notice, to get really concerned, and to start getting involved, like the rest of us are doing on this site.
The Republicans want to increase supply (drill in ANWR, easier access to offshore drilling, subsidies to oil business) and the Democrats want to reduce demand (conservation, alternative fuel subsidies, BTU tax)
What is needed is an ALTERNATIVE not more or less of the same. Anything else is "in the meantime" stuff.
Biorabbi, the constructive tone of your criticisms is appreciated. You set a good example for the rest of us.
You're absolutely right that things could go any number of ways should the US precipitously withdraw from Iraq.
But I think it common sense to presume that the extremists whom we have mauled so badly in Fallujah, Qaim and elsewhere in the Sunni heartland will be empowered by our departure. I think it also common sense to assume that Iran will fill the vaccuum in the Shia south after an American withdrawal (unless that withdrawal occurs after the institutions of the new Iraqi government have have been sufficiently consolidated).
Finally, to suggest that America will opt out on a fight with fanatical jihadists armed with only their zeal and IEDs and yet turn around and risk war with our erstwhile allies the Turks - armed to the teeth with modern US weaponry - on behalf of the Iraqi Kurds....is just not being realistic. The best chance for Iraq's Kurds is as it exists today, within a federal Iraq, the very polity that Hugh is anxious to see deconstructed.
Poetess, thanks for the honorable mention.
Alarmed Pig Farmer posted
13 Ways to Not Win a War
2. Refuse to identify the enemy.
3. Refuse to examine the enemy's ideology.
6. Refuse to admit to the enemy's ultimate goal.
10. Curtail free speech so as to not offend the
Then meet your enemy APG. The enemy has produced a propaganda piece to "destroying misconceptions" about Islam. Watch how the video explains Polygamy, Jihad, the requirement of the Sharia, the pillars of Islam, the Hajj, on Ramadan, women's rights and of course, terrorism. One of the converts mentions that Westerners are not modest, are not polite etc. Oh really? I know many such people.
http://www.turntoislam.com/pages/true_Islam.html
I would put one point to you all that is quite simple in the wake of the efforts in Iraq by United States armed forces and the Bush administration -- whatever Fate has in store, there was never any road that was not going to keep Hamas from attaining the popular vote of the Palestinians. This is actually working to our advantage, because just like it was in the 1930's, when Hitler's Nazi Party came to power in Germany, Americans reacted with lackluster denials of the obvious, and so it is today.
Alread political powers around the world are forming ways to "soften" Hamas enough that we can put on a straight face and deal with them as a "valid" government. Just like our American government did for several years leading up to World War II and even many months into that conflict, we turned a blind eye to the reality of what we were faced with.
But just like then, soon will come to pass more events that will awaken the majority of Westerners to the ultimate, horrible truth about what transpired in the Palestinian elections, that the real power always lies with ISLAM in those nations where it is Shariah law the coerces the people. It will be made clear that all along, since 9-11 and before, it has been ISLAM that has been the true enemy of what we hold most dear -- that to allow this cult to continue to breed new members, especially here in our own midst, can no longer be tolerated, can no longer be ignored or in far too many cases, even perpetuated.
No, I firmly believe that just like the bombing of Pearl Harbor and Hitler's foolish declaration of war upon the United States following that event, we are destined to witness a massive mistake by the leaders of ISLAM in the coming months and years that will dwarf the alarm that has risen since Hamas has come to power. Be patient: the Muslims will slip and show their true face to the world, be it with some calamity of epic proportions or some treachery from within a Western nation on a more dire and personal level, they will overstep themselves and then all of us will finally be made aware.
And then the real conflict will finally be allowed to begin, but at least it will be one in which we are resolute and united against a common foe, instead of doing the saber dance with shadows as we have been doing in political arenas for far, far too long in the Middle East.
Islam is the enemy. It has always been that simple.
OT, but here is psychologist David Guttmann's interesting analysis of the psycho-sexual deformity of the Arab male and the manifestation of that deformity on perceptions of Israelis and Jews:
"Showing their usual consideration for Third World populations, our social scientists have avoided that Mother of All Pathologies - the Arab male's denigration of his women. A few critical references about honor killings and female genital mutilation and that's about it. Perhaps because the Deep Thinkers can't blame Islamic misogyny on Bush, they won't touch it in any depth.
"And indeed the Arab male's deep mistrust of women predates GWB by many centuries. Thus, the unexpurgated "Arabian Nights" may have been one thousand nights in the telling, but pretty much every tale is a variation on this central theme: a handsome, loving Prince, called away to a noble mission says goodbye to his beautiful, adoring, virtuous wife. But he is barely out the door when she hops into bed with a dirty, ugly, diseased, Negro slave. The moral: "You cannot trust your honor to women. Turn your back on them, allow them the briefest flutter of freedom, and they will deprive you of your honor, bestow it on another man, and leave you with nothing but your shame."
"Thus, gender equality leads to the freedoms that bring on the Arabian Nights scenario - the sexually liberated, sexually unappeasable woman. Perhaps female liberation frees the persona of the powerful mother as well as the unfaithful wife. Once the psychosocial boundaries against her are weakened, the powerful mother will be unshackled like King Kong, to overwhelm the porous psychic boundaries that protect the son against emasculation.
"Lacking trustworthy inner boundaries against the inner "mother", the Arab male needs the outer presence of submissive women to be the "woman" for him. Lacking that Projective ecology, the woman "out there," he has to deal with the female presence as part and parcel of his inner life. When he is deprived of subservient women, the Arab male feels in danger of becoming feminized himself: shameful and without honor. Given the potential for depression in this scenario, it should not surprise us that so many Arab males volunteer for suicide missions, and for the martyr's death that will earn them a harem of submissive females.
"We can only speculate about the sources, in early rearing, of this mistrust of the mother, and of women generally; but its manifestations are clear enough, embodied for example in the structure of every traditional Arab home. Thus, visiting a Bedouin camp, you approach from the direction where the women's quarters cannot be seen; visiting a dwelling of sedentary Arabs, you meet the man of the house in a kind of neutral zone - the Diwan - intermediate between the private and the public worlds. There you are waited on by the host or his sons, with his women out of sight. Female genital mutilation attempts to remove the woman's capacity for, and interest in, sexual pleasure; the design of the tent or house keeps her from seeing and attracting other men; and honor killings are the default move when these protections fail.
"And on the larger, extra-domestic social plane, women must be similarly swaddled, sexually neutered: tented in Burqas that hide everything potentially seductive but the eyes; restricted from male activities such as driving; and allowed only minimal participation in politics and professions. Arab nations are backward relative to the West and to the Israelis in large part because they deprive themselves of half their brain power.
"The Israelis perform in this Arab psychodrama of gender as a potent, destabilizing threat: to begin with, as a people they broke out of the deprecated but tolerated status of Dhimmi - a kind of submissive "woman" - to the "masculine" status of pioneer, rebel, warrior and nation builder. In retaliation, in their wars and Intifadas the Arabs strive to castrate the uppity masculinizing Jew (and this project is carried out quite literally on the battlefield, where the bodies of fallen Jews have been mutilated in the most obscene ways)."
Hugh,
"Buying gasoline from this or that provider does not matter. Until the actual revenues received by Arab and Muslim or Muslim-controlledstates (that descrtiption fits 10 of OPEC'S 11 current members) there will be a problem. "Energy independence" meaning "no oil from the Middle East" for the United Statesmeans little as well, for it merely means that that oil will be sold elsewhere. It is only when the revenues go down, when the expenses go up..."
You are certainly right that what matters is that their revenues go down and expenses go up. For that reason it does actually matter which provider we, as individuals, purchase gas from. Besides selling crude oil, the sauds also refine oil and market it in the US. The sauds therefore receive the retail sales profit, as well as the the profit on the crude oil. Saudi Aramco is something like a 50% owner of the retail marketing operations for Texaco and Shell in at least the eastern and southern US (that is not true, internationally). I don't know the exact description of the current relationship, but here is Houston Chronicle story from 1997:
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/business/97/07/17/brf-shell-texaco.2-0.html
Another 2001 story about Shell and the sauds buying out Texaco's interest (Texaco was being bought by Chevron at the time, so Texaco had to divest in order to allay antitrust law concerns):
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2001/BUSINESS/10/09/shell.re/
The name of the saudi aramco - Shell partnership is Motiva Enterprises.
Also, the Saudis refine their own crude in their own refineries in saudiland, and probaby other places than the US. Its not just about crude oil anymore.
Dr. Pepper,
After Texaco, and Shell, as CITGO is a wholly owned subsidiary of the western hemisphere's second thug (after his brother fidel), CITGO is the last brand that i would go to. Again, by giving CITGO the retail profit, as well as the crude oil profit, you are putting more money in the bank for someone who hates US. That "buy-cott" piece by "Jeff Cohen" is a puff piece. Don't buy it. Look into what Chavez has done and who his friends are. He is not an angel.
Cornelius, your last point about the Muslim's seeing us as weak, divided, wanting to cut and run throughout the world . . . this is a good one. I agree with you completely. I would also agree that some would claim that our leaving Iraq would be viewed this way. But, one day we will withdrawl. The question is when. If we withdrawl now or in the next six months . . . we take the 'hit' of being weak and cutting and running in the Arab world--perhaps a Bin Laden gloating video upon our withdrawl, but then we will have our boys out of a hell whole where they get picked off one by one . . . a few hundred here . . . a few hundred there. To 'stay the course' for the next four to five years--or longer--so what will that accomplish? Greater dissention in the US, thousands more died--Americans--in vain, and in the end . . . we'll still "cut and run." So this is a 'hit' we'll have to take one way or another . . . In short, Cornelius, your last point is right . . . the radicals will call us weak, cutting and running with our tails behind our backs . . . but this will occur should we withdrawl in the near future or in five years. The only difference is a. how many US citizens will die in Iraq? and b. the things we could/should be doing with our troops now(rearming them, guarding our border, out of the way so we can bomb Iran, ect. ect.).
"Mr. Fitzgerald starts off by attempting to draw an analogy between our current struggle against Islamic terrorism and the Cold War against Communism, as if winning the "war of ideas" against Communism is similar to winning the "war of ideas" against Islamo-fascism. It isn't.
The reason why Communism finally collapsed was not because of any divide-and-conquer games between Russia and China, or covert operations in Poland or other Western actions to undercut Communist regimes. Those actions were needed to contain Communism, but the threat of Communism would have persisted indefinitely.
Communism finally collapsed for a reason that was entirely rational: By objective rational measure, Communism was failing to match, let alone exceed, the achievements of the West."
-- from a posting above
If the same poster took the tie to read any of m dozens of articles and postings I have put up, in which, again and again, in the same deliberately repeated phrases, the need to establish the conditions in the Muslim lands which will force Muslims themselves to confront the link between their own political, economic, social, and intellectual failures, is described as the most important task of Infidels. And in the same postings, it is noted that this way of dealing with Islam, which is simply not to support it either through the jizyah or in any other fashion, nor to pretend that there is nothing wrong with Islam, but to check it and contain its expansion, is exactly what happened with Communism, and it was when the Soviet nomenklatura, with Gorbachev, Yakovlev, and many others including the children of the ruling class, had realized that Soviet Communism had, on its own terms, proved a failure, he would see not onlt that what he accuses me of ignoring is exactly what, I have gone out of way to insist upon as no one else, anywhere, has done, but perhaps come to realize that it is in those postings, and the effect they have had here on others, so that they are now part of the atmosphere, that he himself derived such a view.
Or perhaps not.
In any case, he has only to google the phrase: "political, economic, social and intellectual failures" and "Posted by Hugh" to see a sampling of the matter discussed quite directly -- the very way that he reproves me for not discussing it.
Strange to be taken to task for not doing exactly what one has been doing, ad nauseam, for a long time.
The election of Hamas and the ongoing unrest in Iraq is proof that American has wasted the funds expended in Iraq. These funds could have been used in America to make America independent of Middle East oil, shut down our borders, hunted down those in America that should not be here and helped our fellow Americans hurt by the hurricanes. Our company worked in the hurricane devastated areas in Mississippi and Louisiana and these areas still looks like war zones with minimum funds being expended.
Since Sadam and his armies have been defeated, the Shitie Muslims want the US gone so they can finish cleaning up Iraq to their standards for the years of subjugation. We should leave immediately and let them fight it out. When I look to the left I see Atilla the Hun and yet I now am certain that our war in Iraq will not provide any benefits but the death of our solders and the expending of additional billons of American tax dollars. The utter stupidity of Muslims is shown by election of Hamas followers in Palestine.
Muslims have grown not to fear the free nations of the West. Muslims believe that the West has become weak and can be defeated from outside and from within by the Muslims immigrants inside all free western nations.
There was a story that hit many web sites after 9/11 that "Islam planned on destroying the tourist’s sites in France. President Jacques Chirac contacted all of the Muslim leaders and told them if France was attacked, he would turn the Middle East into glass starting with Mecca." France was not attacked in 2001.
Look at the Muslim riots in France that were not forcibly stopped by France. Thank all mighty God that President Jacques Chirac finally came to his senses and realized that the only way to deal with the Muslims is with violent retaliation with nukes and he publicly told Islam that nukes will fall out of the sky across Islam if France is attacked again.
The world is slowly waking up to the threats of Islam. I am afraid that it will take Islam setting off car bombs, WMD’s or nukes in America before our federal government realizes that Islam is a violent murderous cult with whom peace can not be attained, only total war and destroying Islam across the world will bring peace with Islam. It took Pearl Harbor to wake up America with the previous threats to the free world.
Islam has splattered the blood of 10’s of thousands of innocents across the world. What more is needed to convince the world that there will never be peace but only war with Islam.
The war for our freedom is fastly approaching, it is near and can not be stopped.
Be prepared
Be ready.
The Texican.
It is better to fight and die free than to ever live in oppression.
There are now over 12 million muslim in america unlike the inaccurate CIA WORLD FACT BOOK that say less than 1% of america population is muslim since 1947 without doing any current research to see it the number is accurate. Many non-muslim play this game to cut down on the population of muslim in america by saying this group cannot be muslim as the donot total follow the muslim faith. Islam have no afew simple requirent to be than muslim called the five pillar of Islam. In China there is than islam sect that men wear viel over they face while women donot wear veil. Women are the leader in this sect and yet muslim allround the world consider then muslim. There would be no fighting in Iraq if america pull out now Iran will occuplate southern Iraw, Jordan and other arab state will occuplate the Summie area and Turkey will occuplate Kurd land along with arab. Islam never have than 30 year war like Europe did between protant and charthoric.
India will buy oil from the middle east as 20% of the India population is muslim. The biggest problem in India is the extrem Hindist Nazie like
party that stir up religish and racial unrest. India have to sent 50 inspector with 500 police to than small village to stop than hindic father from
taken his daughter away from her muslim hushand and she convert willing to Islam.
China have now 145 million muslim as muslim familties are legality allow to have two childern
in their famility. Mao sign than treaty with Pakistan which wich end than possible war over land claim. The land which was once part of Pakistan which became part of China, Pakistan drop they claim in turn that Chine agree to allow Muslim the right to workship God freely.
Defenderof Islam,
Word of Mikrosoft have spelling for check end grammer progrem. Use it shuud yu or stupid look Yu will.
Here 4 yu are one link for some phuny Cartons of Mo. Enjoy them with some Denish bier and cheeze and a slave gurl or too;
http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Cartoons_Jyllands_Posten.html
Posted by: DefenderofIslam [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 30, 2006 04:27 AM\\
a question for "defeinderofislam"...if your religion is strong, why are you not confident enough to allow a Christian church to be built in Saudi Arabia.. who is the extreme then when you do not allow it? India is defending itself against hundreds of years of muslim aggression, you can fool some of the people some of the times, but you cannot fool all the people all of the time!
DefenderofIslam
"Sabah ala-kheir and Ahlan wa sahlan"
(good morning and welcome) to Jihadwatch.
Like you I am (an Ahmadi)muslim and am here to divulge & discuss the virtues of Islam to the Infidel and the Muslims/Wuslims reading this site.
I am very glad that you are here....I have been defending Islam as best as I can in the face of hatred, misunderstanding ....and some bloody good points raised by the infidel.
To some of these points I have litte answer as the infidel talks sense....but usually they only talk about today....but Allah has said that we need to consider the future till the "day of reckoning" whereby the Mahdi and Isa will side with us. As you can see events year by year bring us closer to that fateful day.
Till that day ...there is just people like you and me ...on our own defending these virtues ...by peaceful means and debate.
One of the points about debate is....writing out the points and (then proof reading it) making sure that it makes sense with the correct grammer.
The points that you made today make little sense in what you are trying to say....it makes the infidel laugh and makes the muslims look like illiterate fools....and you are not an illiterate fool are you.....you have like me ....points to make....which may make the infidel sit up and take notice.
In particular the topic here is about "winning the war"...it being a long one and oil. Do you have relevant points to make about these in particular.
So ...DefenderofIslam.... I don't want you to go away...but I do want you to improve your English (sadly the Infidel does not communicate much in Arabic or Urdu) and write out your points in a logical manner.
Don't make a mockery of yourslef and Islam ...Muhammed (pbuh) demands it of you.
Allah Hafiz
Nassem,
That's 'grammar'.
And how sad that Allah, all knowing and wise (pb&j)had such difficulties with concepts like:
Human reproduction (you know, that little bit of confusion about where sperm is produced)
Where the sun 'sets' (you know, that muddy field)
The shape of the earth (you know, the flat one)
Perhaps, because they lived on the bottom side of the flat earth, Allah never noticed the Japanese islands or its people. Golly, this just brings up a rash of similar questions. Weren't the Mayans around in Mo's time, too? And the Inuit? And the Choctaw?
Or could it really be that Mo, acting within his limited social horizons, just made the whole thing up?
PRCS,
that's (pbuh) not (pb&j).
With reference to the shape of the earth.
I believe that "flat" was shown to Muhammed to make his understanding clear of the East, West South & North.
There is no confusion in Islam as to the shape of the Earth that we all share.
DefenderofIslam.....care to back me up on this point (eh...without threatening to behead the infidel known as PRCS).
How can you defend people who think your very presence on this earth pollutes it? And that in death you will pollute the ground?
Reminds me of a woman with a broken arm and bloody lip and swollen eye defending the husband who did those things as being a good person who would never hurt anyone.
Hello all,
Borg, I assume your comments are aimed at me.
I took part in the marathon in Lahore over the weekend that was banned to women. I asked and collected a lot of my women friends to "run as much as you can & then walk the rest of the way". The times to complete the marathon was of no consequence to me ....only that we took part.
There was a hugh police presence and trouble could have been round the corner...but here it was worth the risk....the MMA said that should they come to power "they would ban marathons to women as they should know their place".
I am VERY pleased at the presence of "DefenderofIslam". I see their kind all over Lahore in Pakistan.
I want for him/her to see that there is a fine gentler way to Islam too....so that he can inform others starting a chain reaction of moderate Islam. If all you can offer him/her is hate...he/she will come at you harder...and what's the point of that.
Borg...muslims will be coming to be your neighbours sooner than later...best to get to know them and what works....this is life in Lahore and what will be in your town.....get off your high horse....or you will be injured in the fall.
Those who wonder why "Naseem" is kept on for display purposes should wonder no longer.
Hello Hugh,
I hope you don't feel that I am only kept on for "display purposes" but that I make a positive contribution to this forum.
Borg...muslims will be coming to be your neighbours sooner than later...best to get to know them and what works....
In other words, adapt to Islam cuz it will not adapt to you (in fact, it cannot adapt at all).
get off your high horse....or you will be injured in the fall.
Not a death threat, but a good old fashioned injury threat. What? And from a Moslem? That's funny, one so seldom hears threats from the scowling hairy Moslem. But somebody teed of the hirsute Naseem.
Without the huge police presence you might have been killed. Good luck showing the gentle side to your neighbors.
Not embracing an islamic way of life is always considered hate. Lets see ~ coming at me hard or harder~ that's the choice.
I already fell off my high horse, thanks. It was on 9/11.
Hello Mr. Pig,
Sorry that you intepreted my words like that....it is just a saying...with no malicious intent on my part.
It is merely symbolism on my part... I remembered how superman fell off his horse and was a quadpleugic thereafter.
Had he the opportunity to just hop off is horse he would have been fine and would have taken the hop...if he had the opportunity.
I was simply making this comparison in my mind.....there is no malicious intent from me, I hate all forms of violence and threats.
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=Lahore+marathon&c=news_photos
It is merely symbolism on my part...
Moslems are incapable of symbolism. They are literalists cuz the fake "religion" of Islam is to be taken literally.
Also, people are consistently injured by Islam, or, to be more literal, by Moslems. I had a few friends in Tower 2 and, well, they weren't injured by Moslems, they were killed by them.
And so the Allahu Akbar bloodbath continues.
I welcome any Muslims that come here and open the eyes of readers a Muslim's own view on statistics, especially the census here in the United States. It is quite interesting to note that there are more followers of Islam in the U.S. than I had previously guessed.
This seems like an appropriate time to repost this link:
http://www.foehammer.net/2005/06/thoughts.html
Yes, I've kept that video safe and sound. Feel free to share the link. "In this country, one of the loopholes of this government...."
Such "respect" for our ways and laws deserves our continued scrutiny.
Hello all,
The Pig says "I had a few friends in Tower 2 and, well, they weren't injured by Moslems, they were killed by them".
Pig, I am genuinely sorry for your loss. Doing this kind of thing does no favours for Islam...those "fab 19" were not part of my brand of Islam.
I can see now why you hate muslims so...but we are not all like that....I too have many barriers imposed on me (see Borg's pictures).
It is disgusting that about 10K police are required simply for us to have a fun run...preventing these same type of "fab 19,000" getting their clutches on us.
Yes, Naseem it is disgusting that it requires 10k police to protect you from the "tiny minority of extremists" that want to kill you for showing an ankle. Borg, thanks for the link. The pictures are interesting and instructive. Know Islam, no fun.
Dear Naseem,
The Lahore marathon was NOT banned to women. All those police were there to prevent clowns like those in pictures 9 and 10 from hassling everyone else.
I'd like to know if those two morons think that THEIR religious beliefs apply to the woman in picture 8.
Of course, because you're almost a Muslim, they'd be well within their rights to yank YOU out of the race and throw a burqa on you.
Geez, I wonder if the guy in picture 9 even knows how to read.
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=Lahore+marathon&c=news_photos
Hugh,
Thank you for a well thought out piece. I have been hoping for some time that you would publish something like this.
I agree with you on some points: First, choking off our oil money to the ME will be an excellent way to strike a blow at the enemy. Second, that the violent tenets of Islam are the real enemy and, third, that our own army of apologists are weakening our cause.
However, I disagree on some points as well. If Bush had come out after 9/11 and declared Islam the enemy, the left would have painted him as a religious zealot bent on recreating the Crusades. John Kerry would be sitting in the Oval Office and our troops would have left Iraq for Afghanistan. Bin Laden would be in federal prison serving a 25-year sentence. Iraq would be embroiled in a civil war. We would be no safer than we were on 9/10.
Like the cold war, this war is not going to be won with bombs (at least not directly). It will be won with a series of strategic moves designed to expose and outflank the enemy and bleed him dry of resources.
Bringing democracy to the ME is one such move. I believe it will result in one of two outcomes: Either democracy will moderate and produce a peaceful government as in Turkey or the terrorists will come to power as in Palestine. For our purposes, believe it or not, the latter is preferrable. It will show the true face of Islam and, unlike what we have now, give us a target for our nukes (I often think this is why Sharon pursued the two-state solution, so Israel could be seen as protecting itself rather than bombing its citizens). As long as dictators and monarchs rule the ME, they can be blamed for unrest. Within a democracy, the Muslim on the street can no longer hide behind that excuse.
I hope this is not a war of self defense, because nobody has ever won a self-defensive war. We need to be on offense and, in this type of war, a critcal offensive weapon is credibility. If we were to pick up and leave Iraq, our credibility would be zero. Better to lose a few soldiers and a couple of bucks in Iraq than to be cast in the same lot as Ahmadinejad.
I also don't believe that we are going to shut off the oil money pipeline to the ME with windfarms, solar cells, ethanol, and nuke plants because, as someone else said, what we don't buy they will sell to China and India. What we need is a revolution that erases the "accident of geology." I personally believe that revolution is Hydrogen but whatever it is, it needs to level the playing field or even tilt it in our favor. I would hope the greed motivator would encourage vehicle manufacturers or other venture capitalists to pursue this but, unfortunately, it seems we're in a "profit-now" environment rather than one of long-term profit.
Finally, do I believe Bush and Condi are up there right now thinking out this series of small steps I have described? Well, I'd like to think so but I'm not sure. What I am sure of is that often what you see from our gov't on the surface is completely different from what's going on behind the scenes (i.e. Proclaiming that Islam is a religion of peace while assigning agents to sniff around mosques looking for radioactivity).
Hugh,
You make frequent references to “ … the armies of apologists, the steady corruption of Western government officials, intelligence agents, diplomats, academics, and all the others on the Arab or Muslim payroll, direct or indirect.” It’s time for you to write a short book on the topic, name names and present whatever evidence is available. I’m familiar with Mowbray’s, “Dangerous Diplomacy”, but your posts suggest that you have something more to bring to the table.
Neither party understands this. Kennedy and Dean and Kerry are so hellbent on dealing Bush a blow that they have not taken the trouble to investigate for themselves what Islam is all about. Not a single Democrat to date has criticized the continued presence of the Americans in Iraq for the right reasons -- that such a presence constitutes a colossal misallocation of resources, and prevents the ethnic and sectarian fissures within Iraq, and within Islam, from being exploited to divide and demoralize the army of those who support actively or passively the Jihad to spread or impose Islam.
Therein lies my dilemma...
For what it's worth, I originally supported the war. I now side with Hugh that something drastic has to be done. The question is, who will do it? The Republicans are blindly rushing to support Bush, who I think is honestly trying to do the right thing but can't/won't see what really needs to be done. On the other side you have raving lunatics in the form of Kennedy, Kerry, Dean, Boxer, Polosi, etc., all wanting to pull out simply because it's the opposite of what Bush wants, not because they "get it."
My current line of thinking is to support Bush and hope it finally dawns on him. The key here is who is it most likely to dawn on first? Bush or Kennedy? Certainly not Kennedy. Maybe Bush.
What's a sane man to do?
A sane man does not have to support either one. He can identify those who are educable and work to educate them, and then, if they show signs of comprehension, working to get them elected. Continuing to support the tarbaby of Iraq would be crazy. Supporting the mixture as before -- indifference or appeasement -- is even worse than trying to deal with Islam, but doing so completely inarticulately, ineffectively, naivelly, with all sorts of hopes and dreams that merely demonstrate an ignorance of how an ideology or belief-system can move men, and what the specific belief-system of Islam offers its Believers. There is no getting around this: in Islam, the central division of the universe is between Believer and Infidel. The conflict that has no end until the final victory of Islam is that between the lands controlled by Islam, where Muslims rule, the dar al-Islam, and the lands controlled by Unbelievers or Infidels, where Islam does not yet dominate, and Muslims do not yet rule. Unless, and until, that is understood, no policy can conceivably make sense. The Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations Policy does not make sense.
In its failure to exploit the natural fissures within Islam, both ethnic and sectarian, so obviously ripe for such exploitation, the current administration is insuring a failure when it might even have energed with a kind of victory. It is not merely wrong; it is absolutely and completely wrong. A fiasco beyond belief. But even now, if the Americans leave, they can turn that fiasco into something that helps to demoralize and sow dissension in Muslim ranks, and buy time for the Infidels to educate themselves, beginning at the top, with all those who are not leaders, of course (we don't have those any more) but at at least people, as they say in Business Schools, and at commencement speeches, "taking a leadership role."
for all words and wisdom of some of the people.. l still feel many are so used to thinking that things should be wrapped up in a few years. Bush said this fight against terror will go beyond his years in office. you people need patience, these islamofacists terrorist like the OBL plan well ahead. you have regular types of muslims like this Naseem, they have grown up with islam, and it is hard for them to realize their religion is a death cult, it is quite unrealistic for them to rationalize their mohammad was a ruthless killer and
preyed on children and women. its human nature to go where it is comfortable, it takes courage to stand up against your religion and culture. by taking the fight to them, and try to bring in some form of democracy it will keep them busy and maybe a spark of genius might just hit a few of them, and bring in a stable government. the words "cut and run" is quite simple but true. some others have said its not worth the deaths of the courageous men and women in armed forces, well liberty is sacred and she demands our sacrifice. my father's generation did for us during the WW2!
Naseem said: There was a hugh police presence and trouble could have been round the corner...but here it was worth the risk....the MMA said that should they come to power "they would ban marathons to women as they should know their place".
Is this a laugh-riot, or what? I mean, gosh, Naseem, when you describe your Islamic state this way, it just sounds soooo good. I can't imagine why the west hasn't flocked to Islam in droves. Oh, but don't worry, you'll gladly impose your unwanted sharia everywhere, killing those who oppose it. Gosh, that sounds great.
Truly, this is the case of the battered wife defending her husband.
We are fighting a "humanist" war for "humanism". That means we are sacrificing ourselves for the muslims, and the oh-so-smart elites. IF we can't let go of that, the issue is in doubt.
WE ARE PLAYING GAMES. The muslims are not.
Naseem said: those "fab 19" were not part of my brand of Islam.
The fab 19 seemed to be part of the Koranic brand of Islam. Do you have another non-Koranic, non-Mohammadan (PB&J) brand?
Hugh: A sane man does not have to support either one. He can identify those who are educable and work to educate them, and then, if they show signs of comprehension, working to get them elected. Continuing to support the tarbaby of Iraq would be crazy. Supporting the mixture as before -- indifference or appeasement -- is even worse than trying to deal with Islam, but doing so completely inarticulately, ineffectively, naivelly, with all sorts of hopes and dreams that merely demonstrate an ignorance of how an ideology or belief-system can move men, and what the specific belief-system of Islam offers its Believers.
Hugh, while I agree with a lot of what you say (and has anybody told you that you say a lot?), I don't think I agree completely with this. That is to say, the world is not binary as you make it out to be: immediate pull-out vs. stay-the-course. I would love to find a candidate that "gets it" and will certainly work to support such. I don't much feel like handing the reins over to the anti-Bush crowd who clearly don't, however. And right now, that is about the only alternative.
Hugh: There is no getting around this: in Islam, the central division of the universe is between Believer and Infidel. The conflict that has no end until the final victory of Islam is that between the lands controlled by Islam, where Muslims rule, the dar al-Islam, and the lands controlled by Unbelievers or Infidels, where Islam does not yet dominate, and Muslims do not yet rule. Unless, and until, that is understood, no policy can conceivably make sense. The Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations Policy does not make sense.
Yup, no arguments from here. I get it. The only difficulty is navigating out of the current state of affairs as best we can. I do not believe that a cut-and-run exit from Iraq serves us, even given my 100% agreement with this paragraph.
Perhaps this is just a legitimate disagreement of two smart people, neither of which are able to predict the future with 100% certainty.
PRCS
Bloody brilliant. Hats off.
those "fab 19" were not part of my brand of Islam.
I take it, then, that you renounce Islamic scripture?
MORE KORANS MORE HADITHS MORE SIRATS MORE MOSLEMS MORE ISLAM MO! MO!
It is disgusting that about 10K police are required simply for us to have a fun run...
As the scowling Ayatollah Khomeini once remarked, "there is no fun in Islam." But, as a self-admitted apostate (see above), you probably already knew that.
Defender of Islam's heterography is hideously fascinating! It's as though his fingers are on haptic methamphetamines and his carpal tunnels are on proprioceptive LSD!