Fitzgerald: Will political power lead to moderation?

Indeed, it's pure poetry "those convinced against their will, are of the former opinions still" and of course "money talks."

Considering how much $$$ the islamics have thanks to oil, American hand-outs, and drug ventures -- then it seems to me that loyalty to one's oath of office "walks."

It is after all; about compromise, no?

If the common folk like us can understand and or learn to understand, it is logical that some of the so called wisest in goverment can understand. its is easy for us to say the truth, but with the pc in goverment, they have to work behind the scenes. Information does work it ways like a river, and know it will lead to the White House.

One would like to know who is learning what, and who is teaching what, about Islam, at the highest levels of government.

Or is no one learning anything? Is it all on a wing and a prayer? posted by Hugh

Nobody would like to know the answer to those questions more than me; the suspense is excruciating. The abounding ignorance (or deceit?) within the hallowed halls of government and its behemoth bureacracies will eventually kill many, and that is simply criminal given the availability of accurate and reliable information about Islam.

Here in my mid-sized southern city, there is a popular talk-radio program every weekday afternoon, hosted by a Conservative, fortyish fellow who attracts a very diverse audience. He's a smart guy, not afraid to discuss controversial issues. The subject of Islam has come up on many occasions and the host, well informed about most issues, vehemently defends Islam against the aspersions cast by informed listeners who call in with comments. He simply cannot believe that a putative "religion" could be evil. But worse, he won't do the research to learn about Islam for himself, relying instead on the canards and taquiyya of muslims.

I have called and emailed him several times to dispute his statements about Islamic doctrine, and last week he said something that was so egregiously inaccurate that I could not believe my ears. He hosted an "interfaith" meeting that was taped for television with leaders from the Christian, Jewish, and muslim communities. After talking to the local imam (thank God we only have one), he was eager to inform his audience that the recurring allegations that allah rewards martyrs with 72 virgins in paradise are a myth! The imam told him that no such sura existed in the Qur'an and that this would be an insult to muslims because they believe that only married couples can engage in sex! How's that for taqiyya?! He believed the imam, of course, and repeated this lie on the air. When people hear their president cooing platitudes about Islam, repeated by people like this radio host, no wonder they refuse to believe what their eyes see and their common sense tries to convey to their confused minds.

I emailed him and told him that the imam told a blatant lie and quoted the applicable sura from the Qur'an, and also sent him a detailed explication of al taqiyya written by a former muslim. In the past, he has responded to my emails but he seems to be ignoring me this time. I doubt if he even read my email. As far as he is concerned, the case is closed. Isn't that sad?

Hamas reminds me of the Nazi party, but without the power. There should be zero tolerance for them. They wish to eradicate Israel. Bush is no friend of Israel. And no friend of India. Let's hope he stays out of the Kashmir situation since he is sure to ruin it. I'm sure he'll give concessions to Pakistan, as he has to Palestine, and Dubai, and Afghanistan, and Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. He went into Afghanistan and Iraq and gave them Islamic constitutions. We certainly had to do something about Afghanistan and Iraq, but how about secular constitutions, how about models like what we did with Japan and Germany. I'm scared Iran has more power today than before we went into Iraq and I'm afraid their nuclear program is now more advanced.

What is it going to take to stand this ideology down. This PC world has turned Bizarro and dangerous for freedom. I realize that Bush is not naive on these matters, he is sympathetic towards the Middle East at the expense of the United States and Europe and Israel and India.

There are a couple of old sayings that are applicable in this matter;
"A snake mat shed it's skin, but it's still a snake!"
"A leopard mat change it's spots, but it's stiil a leopard!"
Thus;
"Hamas may turn moderate, but it's still Hamas!"
Lesson taught, hopefully, lesson learned.

There are a couple of old sayings that are applicable in this matter;
"A snake mat shed it's skin, but it's still a snake!"
"A leopard mat change it's spots, but it's stiil a leopard!"
Thus;
"Hamas may turn moderate, but it's still Hamas!"
Lesson taught, hopefully, lesson learned.

Once again Robert is as astute an historian as ever there was. Yes, every totalitarian state is given "benefit of the doubt" at the beginning and yes, G.W. Bush is either deeply in the pocket of the Arabs, or falling for his own propaganda, or both.

As for Western "dhimmis" parroting the taquiyya of the muslims in the Mainstream antique media, two observations.

1) To become a successful radio host, it is almost a requirement that you be an arrogant blowhard and know-it-all. Radio hosts have to stick to "strong opinions" in order to keep an audience. The fact that their opinion is WRONG is of no consequence. Hence, you have blowhards like Susanp's radio host pontificating about multi-culti-kimbayya as if no other opinion on it is valid. I notice this same phenomenenon among certain lefty strains of Christians also.

2) This historical ignorance and denial of the facts is both understandable, and inexcusable. There must be SOMEONE in the G.W. Bush Administration who realizes the "Big Lie" coming out of its spokesmouths. It's only a matter of time before it becomes public knowledge that the propaganda arm of the Jihad has reached successfully into the Whitehouse.

"We are not, we Infidels, here to make the world wonderful for Muslims."

Someone needs to convey this to the Bush Administration and the Capitals of Europe.

How could he, Bush, or Rice, or all the others not fall for what they’re being told by so-called Muslim "reformers"?

It is an only too plausible account of what is going on in President Bush's mind.

However, I fear British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is not so much naive as culpably self-interested:

To stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, the West must convince the authorities in Tehran that it is prepared to use force. But one politician keeps getting in the way of this strategy and making it seem that force would never be even an option: Jack Straw, the UK Foreign Secretary, whose words keep reassuring the Iranians that they can do whatever they want. ...

... He also has a keen eye on his shrinking majority in his Blackburn constituency, where over a quarter of the electorate is Muslim.

Full article.

The only "reform" that will take place in hamas is that they will learn to become less trustworthy. That is, you will no long be able to believe what they say, and that is certainly a change for the worse. They learn from arafat how to beguile those gullible Westerners. Maybe even masha'l will be awarded the Nobel "Peace Prize". (He'll need to acquire a nom de guerre, of course, to be eligible)

Hugh writes --

"There is a failure of intellect. There is a failure of effort. There is a failure of imagination."

Question: What is our duly elected government to do?
Today, the primary strategy of the US in dealing with depostic leaders, is to foster democracy. The Hamas government was voted in by a majority of the Palestinian people, in an election that was certified as free of fraud by international election monitors including ex-President Jimmy Carter. Accordingly, the Hamas election was the will of the people.
In the past our strategy was to provide funding, military aid, and technical support for strong men that would represent our interests. That strategy resulted in the rule and subsequent fall of the Shah of Iran, Saddam, and various Latin American strong men.
The problem is that the Palestinians are really only symbolic, they are a fourth rate country with little assets and military power. However, their cause has made them the darling of the Arab/Muslim world. Direct intervention could be a strategic minefield of intended and unintended consequences.
So what are we to do? I say we-- as we are the government in our democratic republic and our government is the result of our will as expressed by the ballot box manifested by the action of our representatives. To believe otherwise is the same miscalculation that many foreigners make when they criticize our government and our leaders.
Should we cast out our democratic strategy (because we dont necessarily like the outcome of that election) in favor of an old strategy with, at best, mixed results. Or do we just conduct war by proxy through Israel?

There is, of course, only one solution to this problem.

"as we are the government in our democratic republic and our government is the result of our will as expressed by the ballot box manifested by the action of our representatives."
-- from a posting above

So we are a "democracy"? Very well then, tell me what the "will of the people," as opposed to what the Administration would have us believe or do, is on the following issues:

1) continuing to supply funds to the "Palestinians" under Hamas

2) continuing to give $2 billion a year to Egypt

3) continuing to keep our army in Iraq, and to spend another $120 billion -- bringing the total so far to $450 billiion -- in Iraq (and Afghanistan) instead of getting out, letting the Sunnis and Shi'a go at it, protecting only (with some military equipment, air cover, and heavy diplomatic and other kinds of pressure on a now clearly-malevolent and not-to-trusted Turkey) the Kurds, because it is not "Iraq the Model" but rather "Kurdistan the Model" that will inspire other non-Arab Muslims, beginning -- but not ending -- with the Berbers, to both recognize, and oppose, the Arab supremacist ideology of which Islam has always been a vehicle.

I believe that the answer to the three questions posed above is:

1) 95% against aid to Hamas
2) 80% against futher aid to Egypt (if the truth about Egypt's press were known the figure would be higher)
3) 80% now wishing the American forces out of Iraq right now -- not "as the Iraqi forces stand up, our forces will stand down" and not "when the generals tell me the Iraqis are ready"
and not "when Iraq is stabilized" but right now.
Not everyone wants us out the way I would wish, because Infidels need to buy time to inform themselves more fully about the nature, scope, and instruments of Jihad, and need to exploit whatever pre-existing divisions exist within the camp of Islam. Iraq, ideally, and uniquely, presents the perfect place to exploit those sectarian and ethnic divisions. Only a fool could continue to overlook them, or to keep thinking that we should be making Iraq a Model, making the Middle East stable and safe and wonderful.

Quite the opposite.

Where be that Amreican "democracy" now -- and the will of the people, expressed through its representatives? How dare the Adminstration contemplate continunig Jizyah to the "Palestinians"? How dare it continue to pay off Egypt, our "staunch ally"? How dare it mock the perfectly justified disgust with Iraq, the Iraqis, the whole misallocation of resources, the continued whistling in the dark about creating an "Iraqi" army and an "Iraqi" police force?

How dare they ignore the steady islamizaion of
Europe either by miscomprehension, or by averting their eyes? How dare they continue to pour hundreds of billions into making Iraq a stable nation-state instead of leaving so that the natural fissiparous forces can come into play, and ideally using up men, money, materiel from the two big winners from the fall of Saddam Hussein, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Wahhabi, daggers-and-dishdashas, money-can-buy-everything-except-civilization Saudi Arabia?

How dare they?

The visitors here at JW understand the practice of deception that Muslims try to play on the Infidel. Since Bush has our troops in Muslim countries.......how would it benefit his Agenda by calling Islam a Death Cult? Could Bush also be practicing deception? If not...why would you think he could not be practicing the same deception as the Death Cult?

There are dark forces working behind the scenes as the G8 try to shape the world into one large Global World Order. It is obvious how little the leaders really care for the average citizen of the world.........your opinions do not matter........their AGENDA does. Sacraficing their own people to calm the Muslim populations down is well worth it to the Global Elite. Their desire to control the entire Middle East is to important in their overall plan.

So.....leave it up to them.......just keep on working and purchasing those cars, boats, computers, ipods, cell phones, large screen televisions, jewelry, second homes, vacations to paradise.......and a little nip and tuck to make you feel like the beautiful people who who would think it is perfectly fine to name their first born after a piece of fruit. Oh.....that made me hungry.......I think I will have a banana for breakfast!

GrimReaperxxx -

What to do? For one thing, we must forswear squeamishness when going to war. We must abandon the notion that wars can be ended with clean water, elections, and free soccer balls. We must abandon the notion of winning hearts and minds. We must abandon the notion of troops as goodwill ambassadors.

We must destroy our enemy en masse, quickly - by raining massive, reckless destruction upon the his homeland, his economy, his cities, and his military. We must destroy the enemy's ideological base. We must destroy the enemy so thoroughly that his ultimate surrender is irrelevant.

We must know the enemy. The enemy is - islam.

If holding political power and the responsibilities of government didn't do a damned thing to moderate Fatah (which simply used proxies like Hamas, PIJ and Al Aqsa Martyrs as arms' length -- and not so arms-length -- terrorism stalking horses) it is beyond foolish to think the experience with Hamas will be any different.

rumoret -

I don't believe that President Bush is competent to practice deception ... without deceiving himself at the same time.

OT:

With respect to Dubai Ports World: The enemy gets no seat at our table. Ever.

"Since Bush has our troops in Muslim countries.......how would it benefit his Agenda by calling Islam a Death Cult? Could Bush also be practicing deception?"
-- from a posting above

No one has suggested Bush, or Downer, or
Tony Blair, or anyone else call Islam a "Death Cult." It has been suggested that Islam not so constantly be exempted from any connection to the objects of our "war on terror," that the phrase "war on terror" itself not be used as terminally misleading, and that the first duty of leaders of the Infidel states and peoples is to inform the ill-informed and confused among the Infidels.

There is quite a difference between calling something a "Death Cult" and calling it a "great religion" and "a noble religion" and a "religion of peace and tolerance." Isn't there? Surely it is not beyond the wit of the government and of others to stop this nonsense, stop pandering to CAIR and others. And they could -- could they not? -- raise a few questions, or have some in the Administration and in the press, raise a few questions.

What kind of questions?

Well, there this passage, and that passage, and that passage, in the Qur'an, and then there's this story, and that story, and that other story, about what Muhammad said or did, in the Hadith (proper plural "ahadith" but in anglicising the Arabic "Hadith" comes off better as a fixed form). And we just want to know about all those hundreds of Jihad-verses, and many hundres of "authentic" Hadith -- what should we, the poor Infidels, make of them?

You want a "civilizational dialogue"? A real, not a phony, "dialogue"? Fine. Let's start that "dialogue" based on a detailed and specific examination of the contents of Qur'an, Hadith, and the Sira, or life of Muhammad, not in a sanitized but in the full form that Muslims learn. Let's have that "dialogue."

And you don't have to use idiotic phrases such as "Daeth Cult." Stick to the words "Jihad" and "dhimmi." What was the status of the non-Muslim under Islam? What happened to the Christians and Jews when they were "protected peoples"? What were their benefits? And who were they "protected" from? And what did they have to do to continue to receive those "benefits" from their Muslim masters? And what happened to those who were not ahl al-kitab, people of the Book, Christians and Jews, but even lower down on the Muslim phylogenetic scale, such as Zoroastrians in Sasanian Persia, or still lower, the Hindus? Yes, what happened to the Hindus under Muslim rule? Can we talk about that, or is that something that only the most fanatical members of the Hindutva movement or the BJP would ever bring up -- something only Hindu fanatics foaming at the mouth, telling terrible stories about the history of Muslim rule in India. The popular version of the history of Muslim-ruled India is clear: it was all romance-and-intrigue, if you read William Dalrymple, the upmarket Barbara Cartland; it was all rose-water and heaving at assorted Mughal courts; it was that that marvellous Taj Mahal, that a rich and uxorious and grieving Muslim ruler built in memory of his favorite wife (don't ask who built it, don't ask what happened to them, don't ask what exactions from Hindu slaves paid for that acclaimed "tear in marble"); it was roses, roses, all the way, and that one-off Akbar is taken as the benevolent and "typical" Muslim ruler, never cruel Aurangzeb, or all of the others (their cruelties and mass-murders so casually noted down by Ibn Battuta in his Rihla).

Why can't Infidels start discussing the word "Jihad" and talking about self-defense against the Jihad? Why can't they say, ingenously or, better, disineguously, if they must pro-forma say "we have nothing against Islam" but just have to defend ourselves "against those who believe in the Jihad."

Let Muslims scurry to deny that they believe in the "Jihad." Let's all watch.

"Since Bush has our troops in Muslim countries.......how would it benefit his Agenda by calling Islam a Death Cult? Could Bush also be practicing deception?"
-- from a posting above

No one has suggested Bush, or Downer, or
Tony Blair, or anyone else call Islam a "Death Cult." It has been suggested that Islam not so constantly be exempted from any connection to the objects of our "war on terror," that the phrase "war on terror" itself not be used as terminally misleading, and that the first duty of leaders of the Infidel states and peoples is to inform the ill-informed and confused among the Infidels.

There is quite a difference between calling something a "Death Cult" and calling it a "great religion" and "a noble religion" and a "religion of peace and tolerance." Isn't there? Surely it is not beyond the wit of the government and of others to stop this nonsense, stop pandering to CAIR and others. And they could -- could they not? -- raise a few questions, or have some in the Administration and in the press, raise a few questions.

What kind of questions?

Well, there this passage, and that passage, and that passage, in the Qur'an, and then there's this story, and that story, and that other story, about what Muhammad said or did, in the Hadith (proper plural "ahadith" but in anglicising the Arabic "Hadith" comes off better as a fixed form). And we just want to know about all those hundreds of Jihad-verses, and many hundres of "authentic" Hadith -- what should we, the poor Infidels, make of them?

You want a "civilizational dialogue"? A real, not a phony, "dialogue"? Fine. Let's start that "dialogue" based on a detailed and specific examination of the contents of Qur'an, Hadith, and the Sira, or life of Muhammad, not in a sanitized but in the full form that Muslims learn. Let's have that "dialogue."

And you don't have to use idiotic phrases such as "Daeth Cult." Stick to the words "Jihad" and "dhimmi." What was the status of the non-Muslim under Islam? What happened to the Christians and Jews when they were "protected peoples"? What were their benefits? And who were they "protected" from? And what did they have to do to continue to receive those "benefits" from their Muslim masters? And what happened to those who were not ahl al-kitab, people of the Book, Christians and Jews, but even lower down on the Muslim phylogenetic scale, such as Zoroastrians in Sasanian Persia, or still lower, the Hindus? Yes, what happened to the Hindus under Muslim rule? Can we talk about that, or is that something that only the most fanatical members of the Hindutva movement or the BJP would ever bring up -- something only Hindu fanatics foaming at the mouth, telling terrible stories about the history of Muslim rule in India. The popular version of the history of Muslim-ruled India is clear: it was all romance-and-intrigue, if you read William Dalrymple, the upmarket Barbara Cartland; it was all rose-water and heaving at assorted Mughal courts; it was that that marvellous Taj Mahal, that a rich and uxorious and grieving Muslim ruler built in memory of his favorite wife (don't ask who built it, don't ask what happened to them, don't ask what exactions from Hindu slaves paid for that acclaimed "tear in marble"); it was roses, roses, all the way, and that one-off Akbar is taken as the benevolent and "typical" Muslim ruler, never cruel Aurangzeb, or all of the others (their cruelties and mass-murders so casually noted down by Ibn Battuta in his Rihla).

Why can't Infidels start discussing the word "Jihad" and talking about self-defense against the Jihad? Why can't they say, ingenously or, better, disineguously, if they must pro-forma say "we have nothing against Islam" but just have to defend ourselves "against those who believe in the Jihad" or who take seriously such sentiments as "Islam is to dominate and is not to be dominated."

Let Muslims then have to figure out how to respond. Will they agree, that it is "only those who believe in the Jihad to spread Islam" who are the ones to be opposed, hunted down, marginalized, "only" those who agree that "Islam is to dominate and not to be dominated"?

Or will they disagree? How will they handle it?

There should be an entire government department (next year's budget: $250 million, and growing) devoted to figuring out How To Phrase Things in the Counter-Jihad.

No, skip it. Skip the hiring of friends and relatives. Skip the consulting contracts to John
Esposito and Khaled Abou el Fadl, or rock-star Mark Levine. Just send me a check and I'll do the whole damn thing myself. For 1% of what you were planning to spend.

One more thing.

That business about "having troops in Muslim countries." That is a good point: the more we have to do with Muslim countries, the more we have our forces within them, the more likely it is that we will be held hostage, that we will limit our truth-telling or become tongue-tied, at the very moment when our own citizens, the Infidels, need to be told, or at least to have hinted at, certain truths. One more reason not to have ground troops in Muslim countries, to have involvement at the absolute minimum.

Deprive them of major weaponry. Contain them within Dar al-Islam and limit their ability to spread Da'wa and demographic conquest. Work to diminish their oil and gas revenues. Do not invade, do not in polypragmosynish fashion attempt to remake the Muslim mentality, the Muslim worldview, or Islam itself.

Let them, through division and demoralization, and eventual realization of the real state of things, come to realize, as people did in
Soviet Russia, that the political, economic, social, and intellectual failures of the Muslim polities (lords of misrule, all of them), despite the vast sums they have received from both an accident of geology and from Western countries that have fallen into the Jizyah-trap (called "foreign aid" but demanded, and given, and received as if by right, in accordance with the classic definition of the "Jizyah"), is a result of Islam itself.

Let Muslims start figuring out that the Total Regulation of Life, thew Allah-knows-best reply to those Seeking Guidance, the discouragement of free and skeptical inquiry, the climate of fear that prevents apostates from openly declaring their apostasy -- all this has consequences for political life, and explains the impossiblity of real, Western-style democracy, with real free speech and free thought (without which the voters, mere sheep, simply are engaged in the farce of head-counting, and the answer to all corruption, all dismay, all everything, will always be Islam, Islam, Islam -- until Islam itself begins to be discredited, slowly, as could conceivably happen -- but no one should think it has happened sufficiently yet, in those pie-in-the-sky predictions --in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

GrimReaperXXX,

Your question about what our officials are supposed to do really gets to the heart of the matter. The problem is that our strategy grew out of an engagement with a different kind of foe.

Communism

The vast majority of the people living under communism were unhappy. Even they dared not say so publically, they were. But, as any good communist could have told you "religion is the opiate of the masses" so, though many in the Islamic World suffer in their daily lives, they aren't really feeling their pain. So, if you give them a choice, brainwashed as they have been by this religopolitical package -- the vote to keep it and strengthen it.

So, back to your question, what ARE our leaders to do? Wake up, brace themselves, and admit the truth. Islam is the problem. Then they confront that head on. Yes, it goes against our western ideals of freedom of religion. But Islam is a politcal strategy to world domination that just happens to have a religion wrapped up inside it. We need to recognize that by virtue of being a package deal, we just can't handle it with the same kid gloves/hands off policies that we espouse for other relgions.

Muslims can't separate their politics from their religion. And they don't want to. So, we need to stop letting them use the the religion part as a shield for the world domination scheme.

Do I feel badly for Muslims that really do just believe in the religion and want to be able to live an Islamic life.

yep.

Do I feel badly enough to be willing to live one myself just to make sure that they get to?

Not on your life.

Hey, the Nazis moderated once they got in power, right? (Free striped uniforms and tattoos for all detainees.)

And Mao became of model citizen (Great Leap Forward, Cultual Revolution, etc.).

Let's not forget Year Zero's Pol Pot, that ideal of Jeffersonian reason once his troops marched into office (using natural calcium in unneeded skulls to fertilize the rice paddies).

Sure, and, let's not overlook Ghengis Khan... who allowed his new subjects to donate their heads for decorating pikes at every city gate or for use in the earliest form of quadruped polo.

So what do we have: freebies, culture, fertilizer, decorations and horsey set entertainment.

Sounds delightful.

I'm writing a check to Hamas right now!

I'll sign it Usama Bin Laden, just to make them all feel at home.

toleranceorappeasement? -

Sorry? Please, you must be kidding.

The glib idea that political power will automatically lead to moderation is silly. Political power only begets the desire to perpetuate and aggrandize said power. IF the political system is constructed such that moderation is necessary to perpetuate one's power, THEN the leaders will moderate. IF the political system is constructed, as it is in Palestine, such that domestic and international affairs are virtually one, and the leaders are able to incite passions against the foreigner (Israel, US) to maintain their position in office, and distract the voter from the problems at home, THEN it is in the best interest of the leader to incite passions.

I sense that Hamas will not tone down its beliefs, and will also fail to deliver the services it promised, due to the cessation of foreign aid. This will, sadly, be the worst of both worlds for Palestinians and Israelis, and delay the peace/quarantine process (whatever you want to call it). The silver lining is that Hamas will be discredited - eventually. The ominous cloud is that it may start another intifada to keep its hold on power in the meantime.

"That is a good point: the more we have to do with Muslim countries, the more we have our forces within them, the more likely it is that we will be held hostage, that we will limit our truth-telling or become tongue-tied, at the very moment when our own citizens, the Infidels, need to be told, or at least to have hinted at, certain truths."

I wished the true teachings and history of Islam was told to the American people when the Administration was trying to motivate her citizens behind this war. Understanding that Islam is the center of everything for Muslims...would have helped me understood that the Islamic Religion is not compatible with western beliefs. Just the understanding that their KORAN is equal to our Constitution and that no mortal man has the right (according to Islam) to create laws above the teachings in the Koran. Yep....that would have set some alarm bells off for some of us in the West. And a few videos showing the moderate muslim preaching "Death to the Infidel." Of course......back then......the term INFIDEL would have needed explaining to me.

I may be a late bloomer...........but no one will say that I can't see the writing on the wall.......or should I say......at a Muslim Protest!

" I say we-- as we are the government in our democratic republic and our government is the result of our will as expressed by the ballot box manifested by the action of our representatives"

Very well. Vote until the cows come home; two or three times a day if you like -- just like they do in Chicago.

Just remember: "Ca$h is king" and that is what gains access which in turn translates into legislation favorable to the better funded lobby.

If you happen to win a multi-million dollar lottery -- your congressman will contact you.

Given a few billion, you might even be invited for dinner at the White House.

Hey, that is simple political reality.

You want to chage the system; fine. Then generate the cash and you will.

Hugh nailed the issue of our troops, fighting behind enemy lines in Iraq, being used as hostages. I believe we are seeing this with W's lame response to the cartoon controversy, Iran and the bomb, Hamas, and Dubai. We must be sensitive to Islamic points of view when our troops fight in Iraq, square in the cross hairs of Islamists. Personally, I don't give W that much credit; He believes his own lies. But it is a consideration. Say Israel comes to W or Rummy and brings forward a mission where they need to fly over Iraqi airspace. Our hands our tied, for if Israel would attack, wouldn't the Shia's turn on the Brits(and us). The last thing the chimp in chief wants is to be called hardline on any Islamic issue(Turkey-EU, Israel-Iran, cartoons, Paks, India ect.ect.ect.), and Iraq further clouds his 'thinnking.' And since we can only stand down, as they stand up, when democracy exists, we may be there for quite a while. Although I doubt this will be the case. As his popularity drops--look at the polls from after 911 till now and continues to drop, as the GOP runs from the chimp and stands up for our country, I believe both the GOP and the dims will both be anti-war vis-a-vis Iraq in '08. How many of our soldiers will die for W's inflexibility is a sad thought.

As a professor of Western Civilization and philosopher in the tradition of Aristotle, Aquinas, Machiavelli, Montesquieu, Tocqueville, and Acton I have given and continue to give a great deal of thought to the possibility that democracy will bring new ways of thinking and behaving to Islamic states.

Democracy at its origins in classical Athens was a murderous and corrupt affair, with frequent rioting and civil strife.

Aristotle thought that one of the main requirements for democracy to function was that it should be governed by a large middle class.

Aquinas thought that democracy was the best form of government in both the abstract and concrete world. Around 1250 he wrote that the best government is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Machiavelli taught that democracy was the most cherished form of government by the people.

Montesquieu noted correctly that democracy has its pros and cons, like any other form.

Democracy has never been smooth or pretty, only recently having become a bit more stable under the influence of American power. And America was so unique as a stable democratic nation that Tocqueville came here to study it.

The conditions that made America a stable democracy were quite unique and not readily applicable even to Europe. In any case Europe did not apply Tocqueville's recommendations for more liberty and less state control.

All these guys are also agreed however that democracy requires certain traits of thought, habits of mind, or character types. Concern with the common good has to be first and foremost of these habits or virtues.

It seems to me that the violence in Iraq is being waged largely by vestiges of Saddam's people who have nothing to lose, and by foreign fanatics who are deluded and manipulated by megalomaniacs whose only interest is in power, and religion is their tool to acquire and maintain it.

I think Iraq of all the Middle Eastern countries, perhaps also Iran, has many of the requisite features of a democracy. The fanatics and the power mongers have to be destroyed or locked up permanently. There is no alternative or there is no chance.

I covered Abbas' statements in a post recently. Like Hamas' his talk is intended for foreign consumption, to keep the money flowing. But their government will no doubt fail very quickly. The coming conflagration in the Middle East will see the sort of vast destruction that the world has tried some 45 years to avoid, but which is probably necessary for any progress to be made towards modernity there.

http://thomistic.blogspot.com

See my related posts over at The Dumb Ox.

All the best,
D. Ox

Moderation in power??? After Hitler and his nazis took over Germany (also through the democratic process) many observers declared that the nazis would moderate their policies. The purge of Ernst Rohm and the "radical" SA seemed to prove these observers correct, allowing the rest of Europe to invest in Germany and attend the Olympics in the new "moderate" National Socialist Reich.

Of course we all now know what the moderate facade was simply a cover for Hitler's preparation for World War.

The question remains, how long will Hamas' moderate facade last, and when will the remaining Palestinian Christians face their own Kristallnacht, in order to eliminate any internal opposition to the planned war on the Jews.

Christians and Jews need to wake up and destroy this beast before it can consolidate power.

Hugh: "Contain them within Dar al-Islam and limit their ability to spread Da'wa and demographic conquest....Let them, through division and demoralization, and eventual realization of the real state of things, come to realize, as people did in Soviet Russia, that the political, economic, social, and intellectual failures of the Muslim polities... .. is a result of Islam itself."

From the Tao Te Ching (passage 36):

"If you want to shrink something,
you must first allow it to expand.
If you want to get rid of something,
you must first allow it to flourish...
This is called the suble perception
of the way things are..
The soft overcomes the hard.
The slow overcomes the fast.
Let your workings remain a mystery.
Just show people the results."

I will assume that Lao-tzu must have realized that his prescription could only work within a closed system which is especially true with regards to a system like Islam which, as it expands, appropriates (or to put it more bluntly "steals") the more advanced cultures it conquers, rewriting their history as its own, and feeding parasitically off the host until the host is dried and shriveled and then Islam, being left barren and dry itself, moves on to greener pastures. Islam has been doing this since its very birth.

And it is this sort of parasitic expansion for which Lao-tzu's prescription for shrinking something is most definitely NOT applicable. No. But the death and shrinkage of Islam would inevitably follow upon its free expansion, provided such expansion and flourishing proceeded within a closed and sealed off system which provides no possible escape from the toxic gases it emits until those suffocating from its fumes finally figure out that they need to turn off the very source of the poison itself, in order to save themselves.

Stop the immigration. Wall Muslims off from more civilized people (i.e. any who firmly believe in the jihad, including by da'wa). Stop the aid. And don't interfere except to take out any really serious and threatening weaponry. And then, yes, I am in full agreement with both Hugh and Lao-tzu, that in the closed system created, where Islam is left to flourish and expand, it will inevitably shrivel up and die.

This is called the "subtle perception of the way things are". Or, for short, you could simply call it "Hugh's way":-)

P.S. Out of curiosity - there was a children's book I recall fondly circa 1970 about a nanny or a baby-sitter who came up with the most creative ways to deal with bratty, out-of-control children. In one story, she was confronted with children who refused to bathe. She let them go for weeks without bathing until they were literally covered with dirt, and then, while they were sleeping, she planted radishes in their hair. They sprouted radishes from their heads the next morning and were so freaked out that they bathed willingly from then on. I recall it being a fairly popular story series at the time but I cannot recall what it was. If the series rings a bell for anyone else, please remind me what it was.

This is a good thread...it requires more than reading, it requires study...

Zeno: "It takes an effort of imagination to put one's self inside the Muslim mind, to see things as they see them, to understand their history, beliefs, and actions. "

I would never put myself inside a muslims mind. This is where the demon Allah has his abode. I dont want to, and will resist, 'seeing things as they see them'. They have a condition called 'opticalrectumites'...this is where constipation backs up to the optic nerve, and produces in them a shtty outlook on life. Thats basically what goes on between the Allaholics ears. Please forgive me if I dont want to share that with them...

duh_swami: 'opticalrectumites'...this is where constipation backs up to the optic nerve, and produces in them a shitty outlook on life."

LOL! This site is no short of folks with a very healthy sense of humor, that's for sure.

But Zeno's point is very well taken. AND, in fact, to NOT recognize that Muslims have their VERY OWN ideas about the way the world should be, which have nothing to do with us, nor with anything we've done or with anything we could do - to NOT recognize that they CHERISH those ideas, and are more than willing to DIE for them - isn't that, in fact, the very HEIGHT of cultural hubris and arrogance and condescension? Is it not the very height of western ARROGANCE to imagine that WE are essential players in THEIR story? Their story about themselves? Their story about who they are and what matters to them? Think about it. Think about the western hubris and arrogance!

The left especially needs to learn to show some genuine respect for the autonomy of these people, by simply taking them at THEIR word, much in the same way that they would show respect for a proud mountain lion or cougar or jaguar who had wandered into suburban Phoenix.

And then, once they've acquired the requisite amount of respect, and learned to leave their own goddamned egos out of it, they need to learn the most important thing of all where this sort of genuine and serious respect is concerned.....how to aim and shoot.

I think we all need to tone it down a notch; I really do.

I just caught John Zogby on MSNBC on C. Mathews Hardball. He was very reassuring, describing how Dubai are one of the good guys. Very liberal, strong education system, values, skyscrapers, the whole ball of wax.

He was a bit vague, however, on the emerite Prince near the Bin Laden camp. Didn't actually deny it, but said there was nothing much about it, and he mentioned it was a pre-911 world.

Chris was impressed. I'm relieved. Ok, the ports are a done deal Thursday. What's next? I think we need to open the floodgates. When you get married . . . what's that saying? Something old, something new. From Bush we get Dubai, from Gore we get a floodgate of Saudi students.

Off with the sarcaastic hat for a second--it looks like the Dubai Ports issue isn't going away as long as Lou Dobbs' heart beats. Tonite it was revealed the coast guard had strong objections on the deal for security issues. No question, this issue won't die a slow death, rather by a thousand cuts. I predict more revelations as time goes by.

Came across this site while searching the availability if the book title for Hugh to use.

Either:

"MOHAMMED FOR DUMMIES"

-or:

"A COMPLETE IDIOT'S GUIDE TO MOHAMMED".

Hugh-

Both titles are NOT yet taken.

Go for it!

Meanwhile, here is the link I stumbled over:

http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/archives/2006_02_01_healingiraq_archive.html

The sub-link in it, "Baghdad Girl", was mentioned on NPR in a puff piece this past Saturday morning. But is still, also, worth a look for something completely different.

"She [the heroine of the book for children] let them go for weeks without bathing until they were literally covered with dirt, and then, while they were sleeping, she planted radishes in their hair. They sprouted radishes from their heads the next morning..."
-- from a posting above

That would be Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle. Loved it.

00Buck

Kidding about what?

Kidding that Islam is more than "just a religion". Nope. Not kidding there. It is a will to power movement for world domination and and details how to achieve it.

Kidding that Muslims are largely unable and/or unwilling to separate the pieces that the West would consider "religion" from the politial power structure? Nope. Not kidding there either. The increased agitation for Islamic law whenever a large group of Muslims congregate in a new place pretty much proves that.

Kidding that I am not willing to give up my life principles and the things I hold dear to embrace "sumbission". On that one most of all I kid not even the smallest bit.

I am confused what you think I could be kidding about!

He [ooBuck] possibly found strange, or funny, the contrast between the adamantine views you express and the curiously mild (the opposite of those "curiously strong" mints) name you choose to use, toleranceorappeasement, as if to say: I will be tolerant, or if you don't like that, then I'll show you, I will appease. Neither one seems to fit your tone. Both are in the same line.

Would not a more fitting nom de poste be something like givemelibertyorgivemedeath or livefreeordie? Something in the Molly Stark line?

Yes! Mrs Piggle-Wiggle it was. Thank you!

Hugh,

Ah.

The name was not meant to be so much self questioning as an invitation to others to see where they think the line between tolerance and appeasement lies.

Excellent piece by Bruce Thornton:

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton022606.html

Bush is totally clueless while Cheney is waxing things up for his pals and his retirement. When that fool came out last fall babbling all his ignorant nonsense about ID, I knew he was in way over his head. But our great right wing noise machine, minus a few, always sings his chorus. We need someone in with some brains, not a token like Rice!

I have always liked toleranceorappeasement's nom de poste... It reminds me of Stephen Colbert's question to his guests:

"George W. Bush: Great President? or the Greatest President?"

When it comes to Islam, tolerance and appeasement are both unsatisfactory answers.