Jihad Watch Board Vice President discusses realities concerning our friend and ally Pakistan:
“When we speak of democracy in Islam it is not democracy in the government but in the cultural and social aspects of life. Islam is totalitarian -- there is no denying about it. It is the Koran that we should turn to. It is the dictatorship of the Koranic laws that we want -- and that we will have -- but not through non-violence and Gandhian truth." -- Raja Sahib Mahmudabad, chief lieutenant of Mohammed Ali Jinnah (thanks to commenter Frank)Pakistan continues to be described in the press as a "key ally" in "the war on terrorism." If this "war on terrorism" is to mean something, it should mean a "war" to "prevent constant replenishment of the ranks of terrorists" and not merely "searching, over a wide area, and many years, for those terrorists who are already known to exist and who have attracted the most attention (i.e., the leaders of Al Qaeda)." Their numbers are limited. They can be replaced.
In what way is the government of Pakistan helping to lessen the likelihood of that replenishment? How is it acting to change the understanding of Islam so that the Jihad against the Infidels is de-emphasized, or perhaps even, by textual or ideological escamotage, made to disappear altogether?
There is no such way. The government of Pakistan does nothing to prevent jihad from being jihad -- that is, it does nothing to prevent the widespread dissemination of hostility and hate toward Infidels.No state that fails to change, or even to attempt to change, that ideology, can be called an "ally" or a "key ally."
Pakistan is neither. It is a country filled with people hostile to Infidels They vary mainly in the degree of that hostility, and in their willingness to carry out acts of aggression against those Infidels. Pakistan is not a "key ally." It is not an "ally." It is, and permanently will be, a menace to all Infidels. Though Mohammed Ali Jinnah himself was relaxed, drank wine, and did not foresee quite the Islam-only state that Pakistan became, he was, being a worldly and less fanatical Muslim, one more of those fooled by the power of Islam itself. In this respect Jinnah was like those Iraqis in exile who forgot what Islam was like. He forgot, just as they have now, the seething resentments, irrationality, inability to control rumor and conspiracy theories, and inshallah-fatalism in both economics and politics that it has inspired. It was no accident that the first response of the Iraqis to the coming of American troops was not to pitch in to rebuild their country, but to exhibit a "wake me when it's over attitude" toward the Americans -- as if those Americans did not do enough in upending Saddam Hussein, but now must turn Iraq, and pronto, into New York and Los Angeles.
If one cared about the people of Pakistan, one would wrack one's brains trying to find ways to limit the power of Islam. A beginning might be made by the government were it to insist on cuttying off all Arab (i.e. Saudi, U.A.E.) funds for madrasas that churn out tens of thousands of students completely unequipped for the world, but well-equipped mentally for Jihad. That could be accompanied by a campaign based on encouraging resentment by Pakistanis against the "rich Arabs." Nothing need be made up. It is rich Arabs who treat Pakistani servants terribly in the Gulf, just as they do all other wage-slaves. It is rich Arabs who come to Pakistan for such diversions as bustard-hunting. They are famous for completely ignoring the wildlife preservation laws. It is rich Arabs who import tiny boys from Pakistan, allow them to be mistreated, tied onto the tops of camels in order to engage in that great Arab sport of camel racing, and whoever manages not to be thrown and trampled, but to survive, will eventually be discarded, as so many non-Arab servants of the rich Arabs are discarded, not always in a metaphorical sense, once they have served their purpose. Is it beyond the wit of Pakistani journalists to record and then to vividly retell for massa audiences, the behavior of the rich Arabs toward those tiny Pakistani boys, or toward Pakistani or even Indian Muslim girls, used up and discarded like kleenex. It is rich Arabs who, as a way of islamically compensating for the demonstrated decadence of their own lives, instead of ceasing to be decadent, as religious recompense supply the funds to pay for these madrasas in Pakistan that churn out millions of students who have spent their earliest years memorizing the Qur'an in a language they do not understand, and who are prepared not for any useful task but for more Qur'an -- which is to say, more Jihad, more aggression, more inability to live in the world with Infidels. Unlike the poor Pakistanis whose lives and real needs they treat with such disdain, rich Arabs need not worry about making a living. They never have had to; the oil money keeps gushing.
A sensible government in Pakistan would try to raise these matters, and to use them to encourage a distancing from those Arabs. Perhaps they would even begin to raise that most delicate of subjects for Muslims in the sub-continent: what was it in the past that caused the ancestors of those Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian Muslims, to convert -- to be converted not always at the point of a sword (though there was often that) but because the conditions of dhimmi (in the subcontinent, zimmi) status were simply unendurable?
What Pakistani journalists will begin, inside or outside Pakistan, to begin to hint at these things? And what officials will take them up, and to hammer home the theme of Arab mistreatment of Pakistanis and of other non-Arab Muslims, Kurds and Berbers and blacks in Darfur, all of which might begin to raise that issue that lurks beneath the surface of Islam: Islam as the Arab religion, the vehicle for Arab supremacism, for Arab cultural and linguistic imperialism that is far more devastating to other cultures and other histories than anything imposed by European imperialism.
Will those Pakistani political figures and journalists take up this theme, as they should for the good of Pakistan -- or are they now, or hoping to be, on the Arab take?
I think Musharaff and his countrymen were (snubed)disappointed that Bush did not yield to give them nuclear aid as he has with India. With Bush not going that same route with Pakistan, he is being subtle with the Pakistanis that they need to be more democratic and really help out with their terrorist within their border especially with the Afgan border. the media has been really negative or neutral with Bush's visit to India, as their outright hatred of anything Bush they cannot see the positive points achieved with this trip to southern Asia!
Hugh:
Can one even dream of you being published in Pakistan ? Would be great; you'd be accused of cartooning - in the sense of pointing out the deficiencies on the ground and suggesting remedies that would strike terror into any imams heart, ultimately causing riots.
At home and for now we have to fear that there may be some "good" Muslims in Dubai,in power.
(coming to a port near you......jihad)
(one can only hope the Republicans do not hand this election winning scenario to the Dems)
The very last thing Bush should be asking from the Pakistanis is that they become more democratic –we see how that turned out in the Palestinian territories and the rise of Hamas in government, so knowing about the past attempts on Musharaff’s life, democracy isn’t needed there. The best thing for us in Pakistan is for Musharaff to retain control and power.
Can you imagine another Islamic group taking power there and suddenly inheriting nukes? I cringe every time I hear there’s been another assassination attempt on Musharraf’s life!
mushaaraf, can install laws that will give full rights to non muslims and women for a start! you dont need a vote for that. but have it in their constitution.. and other laws that would overide the rule of taliban style nuts.
I think Musharraf does a good PR job when he visits here, not just in the White House and Congress but also at the Kennedy School of Government and places like that. He wears a nice suit and acts urbane and educated. Our elites are so desperate for 'allies' in that part of the world that they lap it up, just as with Chalabi and others who have mastered the Western veneer. With our high and mighty, so much depends on image and perception anyway.
"Can you imagine another Islamic group taking power there and suddenly inheriting nukes? I cringe every time I hear there’s been another assassination attempt on Musharraf’s life!"
Indeed I can imagine it - and no assassination required. Radical Islam will inherit the nukes, it's as simple is that. Either Bush is very naive, or he has a good plan up his sleeve.
Hugh,
This is a very interesting piece. I think it drives home the sad situation vis a vis Pakistan. There are no good options there. Pakistan produces nothing the west can wean itself off of, or threaten not to buy. The Kashmir conflict gurantees a perpetual state of tension with India, a hideous drag and constant threat to a nation that is waking up like China has, but has even more potential, because it is a secular, tolerant and democratic.
And the nukes, oh the nukes. Am I the only one who doesn't by the existence of an "A. Q. Khan network". Is Musharraf throwing his fists to the heavens crying out "KHAAAAAAAAN!!!" like Captain Kirk? Khan is a scapegoat, but a special kind that is coddled rather than slaughtered, because he is also a fig leaf (a scapeleaf, or a figgoat?). Before 9/11, it was the policy of the government of Pakistan to share the "Islamic bomb" with Libya, Iran, North Korea, and who knows who else. That is why Khan was never interviewed by US agents, and never will be, and why he is lionized, and was pardoned with unseemly speed.
What remains? What kind of ally is Pakistan? They have made a promise not to proliferate, like the kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar promises to wait until after dinner from now on. They are cooperating against Taliban, or at least doing enough to get by. And against the death cult of the Madrassa education, they do nothing at all.
Underneath it all I supsect Musharraf is actually a thinking man. He clearly wishes to jettison the albatross of political Islam; he may even harbor private doubts about the whole edifice (but then again so must most people doubt dogma of any kind, or maybe I'm just deluded about human nature), but he lacks the power to do more than he is already doing. The mere effort of maintaining his power in the bloodsport that is Pakistani politics must consume much of his energy. I also believe underneath the veneer of dogmatic stupifaction there is a silent plurality, if not majority, in Pakistan that is at the very least jealous of the rise of India, and wonders, perhaps even knows deep down, why Pakistan is failing.
What is left? All that remains is how much worse, how irretrievably horrible things could be, if an Ahmadinejad clone was in Musharraf's shoes.
Quijybo
Musharraf should, like others in Pakistan's ruling mix of anglophone generals and zamindars (he is, like zia ul-Haq, one of the generals, mostly sinister, and Pinky Bhutto comes from one of the zamindar families (her father, by the way, attended school in pre-1947 Bombay with some anglicized Iraqi Jews from the Marshall family --the same one that provided Singapore with its first prime minister) think about several things).
Here are three for Musharraf :
1)My son can live and work, without incident, in Massachusetts as an accountant. The children of other ruling families can attend school, or work, in the Western, Infidel world. Yet Christians in Pakistan have to fear constantly for their safety. Why is that? Why should the Western world be expected to indefinitely accept this state of affairs, without deciding it will no longer provide a haven for the jeunesse doree of Pakistan or other Muslim countries? When will we, from the top down, not merely send troops to run around in Waziristan, but to change the nature of Islam, its power and its violence?
2) How can we Pakistanis and Bangladeshis continue to drive out so many Hindus, and yet feel outraged at the slightest sign of what we regard as mistreatment of Muslims in India? Why do we not speak out publicly about the decline of the Hindu populatuion in our countries and how it came to be?
3) Why do we continue to pretend that Islam is not the Arab religion, a vehicle for Arab imperialism? When we in the subcontinent forget our own history, when we take Arab names (why am I "Musharrfa" for god's sake?), when we forget our own pre-Islamic past, when we fail even to investigate the conditions under which our own ancestors converted to Islam, either because we refuse to recognize anything of worth outside of Islam, or because we are too embarrassed to look closely into what those conditions must have been, for those who wanted to survive and escape the horrible condition of dhimmi, or zimmi, that was the best that Hindus could expect under Muslim rule? And why do Muslims so despise Akbar, the kindest of the Muslim kings, and instead reserve all praise for the cruelest of the Mughal tyrants? Why is every third Pakistani a "Sayeed" or supposed descendant of the Propohet? Why are we such a spectacle, in comparison to largely Hindu India, and what is it about Islam, its indifference to despotism since rule is located not in the will of the people but in the "Islamness" of the ruler, and its link to economic backwardness, since it encourages inshallah-fatalism, and its link to every kind of primitive conspiracy theory and rumor, because the habit of mental submission that Islam encourages, and the discouragement of free and skeptical inquiry, will keep Muslims, will keep people in Pakistan, in thrall to a belief-system that purports to offer a Complete Explanation of the Universe, a Total Regulation of Life.
4) Inner musings of Musharraf: "When my father was stationed in Turkey, during the heyday of Kemalism, my livre de chevet was a book on Ataturk. I understand what he was trying to do. He was trying to constrain Islam in order to save Turkey, and to make things better for Muslims. He set up a counter-cult to the cult of Muhammad: the cult of Ataturk. I am not in his mold, and I have not his claim to being a war hero. Just can't do the same thing. But perhaps, perhaps I can little by little do something of what Ataturk did."
Thoughts he'd be thinking, if he'd be another Lincoln -- if he only had a brain.
He may. The final vote is not yet in. Scattered returns, as L. E. Sissman would say. But who knows? Perhaps he talks to his son. Perhaps some -- not all, but some -- of those Pakistanis now living in the West have realized, appalled, what Islam is all about. Perhaps not all are tied by filial piety, embarrassment, and a lifetime of civilizational brainwashing, to the belief-system. Perhaps like the children of the nomenklatura in the Soviet Union, who helped soften their own parents, who werre among the elite, and who therefore helped the members of that elite to recognize the failures of Soviet Communism even on its own terms, there are those Pakistanis who will cease in thought, word, and deed, to be those phony taqiyya-and-tu-quoque "moderates" and make the leap -- if not quite as Anwar Shaikh or Ibn Warraq have done, then like others who are now "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims.
If only everyone were as thoughtful as Hugh. Its an outstanding piece. I love this website! Everyone should read this article.
I've often argued with my South Asian Muslim friends that their ancestors likely converted to Islam because living with jizya and oppression every day was unbearable.
Honestly, I think I would have converted too if I were a Hindu living in India anytime between the 10th and 18th century.
Contemporary Muslim societies in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India in large part still consider Hindus the enemy. This serves Muslim governments and politicians just fine as it deflects attention from real issues such as government corruption, the oppression of women and minorities, poverty, and lack of freedom.
Rename the War on Terror to what it is: the Islamic War. Then, turn towards Pakistan and examine what they are: Moslems.
If we must run into the arms of those who would kill us, what kind of war fighting effort is that?
Mushy is the best alternative to even worse Islamic masses there. after all they are the only Muslims with a-bombs.
Hugh Islam isnot than cult it is a valid world wide religion like Christian and I donot knew where you are getting your missunderstand of Islam from mostly
books written by anti-islam writter.
Being than dictorate doesnot away mean you have total power over everything and everybodies. The President of Pakistian cannot go total against his own people without upraiseing against him takeing place or the possible of than coup against him when trying to put down upraiseing.
In the 1930's the Germany Generals plans 3 or 4 coup against Hilter whom they disise but all where cancle as Hilter approveal rateing along geman people includeing the common soilder was 98%. Which explain why the Turkish military didnot carry out than coup against the Turkish Parlimant for not allowing America force invade Iraq from Turkish soil as 97% of the Turkish people support the Turkish Government. Gun and sword donot change than people culture Islam didnot convert the people of the area or change the culture of the people of the area by the sword it was done by the people who saw that the Islamist religion was better than the old one over a peroid of time.
If guns and sword change people culture or religion then why are we failing to change the culture or religion of the Iraqish people.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Good rejoiner, Hugh. Since Defenderofislam has so many problems with English, why not see whether Latin would be any more comprehensible to him.
Let's just hope that the CIA has a back-up plan to control Pakistan's nukes once Jihadists will take over the country. Based on our track record regarding nuclear proliferation, especially our inability to figure out that the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb, Abdul Qadeer Khan, was providing nuclear technology and know-how to our worst enemies, I have some doubts...
Dear members of jihadwatch and to Hugh
I have been following random posts on jihadwatch. True to its word, this site does help disseminate knowledge about the threat of fascist islam, it could also do well to provide more insights as to how to combat this threat.There is one point to which I concede, that having known the threat, disseminating the knowledge of the threat is the first step. It is here that the services of sites such as jihadwatch come into the picture, and render a great service.
I think that every poster on this site agree that islam is a Proselytizing faith, with an ultimate goal to dominate the world or either through violence or "pacifist" measures, to subjugate nonbelievers and restrict freedom of thought. The evidence for this can be seen in countries where islamic rule is established, even if you choose to represent the Quran through Taqiyya. I concede that there are muslims who do not actively believe in world domination as their faith demands, but they are unable to guide the religion,to reform it and more often than not, they are drawn into the mainstream violence that fascist islam spreads. (Many of these moderates also sympathize with the cause of the jihadis rather than with the victims of such violence)
There have been many posts of dhimmis being subjected to this and that, but very few, to my knowledge( and please correct me if I am wrong), to the reasons behind this "tolerance" of “cartoon riots", justifying the religion as a "peaceful one",in blind acceptance of the maya of taqiyya woven around them.
I think as individuals, as persons, we wake up every day, to get on with our lives. Most of us work, provide for our families, live decent law abiding lives, go to church,temples, synagogues etc. How many of us or the people in the countries of the free world are subjected to jihad directly. The concept of involving oneself in something that seemingly doesn't affect you provides one basis for the "tolerance".
The second basis is democracy itself. Democracy by virtue is built on the terms of tolerance and quality. People living under democracy have more respect for other people's beliefs and most important of all, most democratic minded individuals DON'T WANT TO BE SEEN CRITICIZING ANOTHER RACE, RELIGION, COLOR, because the behaviour is termed as unnacceptable. A second reason for tolerance.
For those already living as dhimmis, I would assume that most of them have already taken discrimination into account in their daily lives. They will live trying to preserve their beliefs and dignity, with a few kind moderate muslims as their friends, under the "benevolence" of those whose "mercy" can dissappear at any point of time . They will continue this fragile dream, till the day it is violated and shattered. Even then the response may be anything from surrender to a makeshift defense, a third example of "tolerance"
Islam's fascist tenets, have been in existence for over 1300 years. Its threat has been documented at many points in history. But in the course of history, I fail to see a successful attempt to quell its growth. The reason, I hold for this particular tenacity is the objectives behind the faith. Because this faith has chosen to "CONQUER THE PEOPLE" rather than lands or properties,and this serves to be its strongest base. While civilizations grew and fell, ultimately culminating in the modern day democracies that we so cherish today, Islam has been focussed on "RECRUITMENT TO ITS CAUSE". The proceedings of the world seemed secondary to its existence. That is why Islam is such a powerful force, because it is intangible and amongst us, as friends,as enemies, as businessmen, doctors,statesmen, terrorists and cartoon protesting rioters. Communism and Nazism were very weak forces, by comparison, because of their tangibility. You knew the foe. Both these forces seperated themselves from the concept of humanity and thereby presented a clear target to destroy.
Fascist Islam has spread itself so far, using modern democracy as its tool to inflitrate our lives and our homes, and all without bringing attention to it. So what are our options here. Deport all muslims, our democracies will never support that. Nuke them out. Where in America,Europe, ME,Asia, and wipe out the rest of the nonbelieving population along with them. Plus murdering good people..yes i do believe that there are good people in the muslim faith..that is not an option for the sane mind.
Archimedes in an earlier post was talking about opening Islam to apostacy, a good step, but highly unprobable from an inside out approach, given the rigidity and centrality of views of the faith.
I believe that the first step to combat this threat is create a greater solidarity amongst "dhimmis" all over the world. To create solidarity and unity amongst Christians, Jews, Hindus, SIkhs, etc and all infidels. This effort must be made on a state level with free democratic nations of the world. This solidarity should then be made amongst the people of these countries. This would create the atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding amongst us. The second step is to implement the principles of democracy fully and comprehensively and make it extremely difficult for any individual faith or cult to propagate its own domination over society at large. At that point of time, serious pressure should be forced on true moderate muslims to reform islam from the outside in,to remove all racist and discriminating beliefs, to acknowledge modern society and democracy, so as to be compatible with other faiths and thereby integrating with society rather than segregating from it. If this can be acheived, i.e. to create pockets of reformed islamic faith all over the world, then fascist islam will break and fall.
I welcome any comments to this topic, and I wish to hear more views on the same.
For a free world
Regards
Rajeev
Rajeev and any other posters who wish to activly help.
if you are resident in the UK or have contacts in the UK.
I have posted this before and will do so whenever the opportunity arises.
The "problem" in the UK context is firstly the pakistani then the bangla moslems.
sometime ago I posted a link to an article by mike "the creep" o'brein, a labour MP
he wrote an article in "the muslim" titled "labour and british moslems can we dream the same dream"
it was basically begging for moslem votes and in return the laws of this land will be changed for
the convenience of islam.
The moslems in the Uk have the numbers between 1.8 M to 2.2 M.
However it is the Indians who although they number 1.5 M, also we have the education and wealth. labour will ask for our
votes and our donations to the party. why should we contribute to this pact with evil ?
I have the article in word format, the orginal link to the story is dead. Although it was published just before the last
election it is still important because it shows what labour have in mind.
The cannot have this pact with evil and then expect votes from those who have suffered greatly at the hands of their new
buddies.
I have managed to get a few people in the UK to help distribute the article to educated "BIO's" (British of Indian origin).
however more help is always good. The people I have given it to have read it and ben furious.
We need to get more of it out there to as many Sikh,Hindu, Buddhist temples, churches especially those that cater for pakistani Christians and the black community in the UK.
We need to contact BIO's with influence like VS Naipal,or even people in India like Tavleen Singh (who's son is soon to marry into the British Royal family and possibly get them involved.
If you are interested contact me and I will e mail the article to you in word 97 format.
If anybody wants to they can contact VS Naipal at:
I have pasted an earlier post of mine below, sorry if it doesn't flow but I am doing a "rush job"
You can write to him via his agent:
VS Naipaul
>c/o
>Gillon Aitken Associates
>18-21 Cavaye Place
>London
>SW10 9P2
>
>Tel: 020 7373 8672
or e mail to his agent at:
recep@gillonaitken.co.uk
he is so blunt so sharp and intelligent that the bbc prefer not to have him on !
he's not even a BNP member !
I have pasted an earlier post of mine below, sorry if it doesn't flow but I am doing a "rush job"
Does anybody watch the series "The Apprentice" do you remember Saira Khan ?
Well she was intervied in the sunday Times a couple of weeks ago in her interview she said that the government should appoint her as some sort of
"special emmisary for moslem affairs"
These are the letters in the last Sunday Times in response, note the name of the sender of the first letter:
IF, as Saira Khan says, integration, integration, integration is her constant refrain, then why do we need a minister for “Muslim affairs” (Go and live in Saudi Arabia, mad mullahs, News Review, last week)? She feels that as a modern British Asian woman she is not represented in government. Surely everyone is through their MP.
Why not give someone a portfolio for Hindu, Sikh or pagan affairs? Both my sisters have done well without asking for special representation. I am sure she, and others like her, can bring about the changes within the Muslim community by being good role models without getting taxpayers involved.
Surendra Andar
Stanmore, Middlesex
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2058626,00.html
Did anybody notice that the only MPs who complained about the placards being carried by the moslem demonstators inciting violence were conservative MP's ?
The labour party have made a pact with evil in exchange for votes.
I believe that the conservative party know this.
During the last conservative party conference did any body notice the turbanned sikh chap on the stage ?
labours pact with the devil has been noticed by the Sikhs and Hindus and others of Indian decent in this country.
I carry photocopies of the Mike obrein article in my car along with a supply of envelopes, every time I pass a Sikh/Hindu/Buddhist temple I drop one through the post box
FAO the President and Executive Committe"
The next time a member of a political party knocks on your door wave it in their face (especially if they are labour.
or buy a copy of "PIG to islam" or "the myth of islamic tolerance" and tell your Conservative MP that you will contribute to the party "IF" he reads them.
it works and it gets noticed.
You can ask anyone of Indian decent about islam and you will hear some very unpleasant stories thats because our grandparents and parents had the misfotune to experience the "Non Guardian/BBC" version of it.
One more thing Mr Spencer and Hugh please contact the BJP/VHP they have branches in both the UK and USA they would be a useful counter to cair.
Regards to all you pork munchers and wine and beer drinkers.
AI
Rajeev,
it is a good method to ask:
What is the future of this tomorrow, next week, next month, next quarter, next year, next decade(s) as far as even 'next century'.
Islamic countries will never be places that are good to live in, and they will always produce a large number of people who are problematic. The flow will not stop(how can it?) and right now, the terrorists who will murder people in 20 years time are being conceived as I type this.
You say you would not want people to get killed, and this is something I very much agree with you one. But, I'm German, and part of my family was wiped out (they were staunch Nazis), and, I'm telling you that this was sad, but also, a good thing to happen. My country had a real chance after WWII, with many war vets dead or too disabled to be too much of a problem back home.
Result was that I grew up free from the problem of an old cantakerous man haranguing my mother to nurse him in his wheelchair, and the ideas that my grandad would have still spouted have been buried with him. May he rest in peace, and I'm glad that it is peace and that he is resting!
So, I'm very grateful that the Americans and the Brits won the war so comprehnsively, and the subsequent killing of the Nazi meme in German society is a model of how to deislamise a population succesfully -- sure we still have Nazis, but, they are such a small thread that they are easily kept in line, if one is prepared to stomp on them from a great height, whenever neccessary.
But education was only a part of it, removing the worst infected was the key -- people like my uncles would not have been able (or willing) to cope in the new freedom. Also, there not being too many men around made it possible for woman to emancipate and take their lives into their own hands, an often overlooked side effect of WWII.
So, whilst war and people dying is very bad, sometimes, a total reset of the situation is the correct way to fix a problem, and not always the worst solution, despite it looking grim initially.
Had this total reset not happened with Germany, how many do you think would have been dead in the end?
Imli, who is rather glad not to be a 'Hitlermaedel' and who much apprechiated her freedom from the day she was old enough to realise what the Americans and the Brits saved her from.
To the Apostate
Even though I am not in UK, nor am I in contact with anyone there, i would be happy to receive the mail and forward it to my friends here.
To Imli
Thanks for the perspective that you gave me. I understand your context and I agree with you that war is sometimes a necessary evil to acheive peace. WW2 is a good example.
But in WW2, Hitler had a tangible power center, Berlin, Mussolini in Rome. During the cold war Communism could be attributed to power centres located in the world. The cold war may have been primarily a shadows based war effort, but the foe was real, in an economic, social and physical manner.
Here in islamic fascism, there is no overt challenge to democracy as it is, just geurilla attacks, just enough to demoralize and confuse, but not enough to warrant global action.
Part of the problem lies in the fact that Islam has spread everywhere including Germany, and Like India, has its fair share of fascism everywhere. It becomes difficult to judge because on one hand you see your nice next door muslim neighbour, perhaps a nice guy, and on the other you see slogan shouting, ravenous fanatic muslims calling for beheadings. It becomes difficult to differentiate between fascist and moderate, when in most cases both share the same ideology. (I again reaffirm(not sarcastically) that there are good muslims as persons)
In such a scenario, where do you point your guns?
Due to sublime and pervasive nature of fascism in islam, I believe that the fight has to be taken to the minds of those who practise it.
I believe that when we, the free democracies of the world unite, we will then gain the force to overwhelm fascist islam, not by guns, but by the force of opinion. We can enact new legislation that will suffocate the practice of fascism in islam, and force reform for those who choose to stay in free democratic countries.
This will either force mass migration or reform. I suspect the latter, because the large moderate muslim population would like to see their prosperity and comfortable lifestyles intact. The concepts of equlity and freedom can be taught to muslim kids, to integrate them into the society. Take a page out of France( banning headscarves).
Finally back the reform, and spread the message of reform from free democracies back to the autocratic islamic states. A 1400 year old fascist egg will take time to crack. But if we have the patience and perseverance, which I am sure we do, we will triumph.
for a free world
Rajeev
Rajeev,
Islam also has powercenters -- that is the mullahs and imams who own the religion (and make a comfy living on it) and who socially engineer things in such a way that the population is dependent on them as if they are their children and that causes them to spy on each other as a community and so, self-police for the imams.
You think that Islam can be reformed -- but, I feel that the entire of idea of Islam is broken, the idea that there is a moderate muslim is as ridiculous as the idea of a moderate nazi.
It is not the people who are immoderate, but the ideologies!
The Koran is designed to entice the peasants into producing a large number of expendable warriors and to reward them for their services and to set the groundrules for destroying the social fabric of the conquered lands.
If you were to reform/rewrite the Koran, you might as well also try 'repairing' Hitler's 'Mein Kampf', with equal potential of success ;)
On balance it is better to take them by their word and to assume they really do believe in the suras that hold them to kill infidels and wage war, and to assume that they will follow their religious manual rather than common sense when things get serious.
On this site elsewhere, there is a current story about a muslim college kid in the US suddenly freaking out and driving deliberatly into infidels with his SUV. What is striking is that everyone was shocked, because he used to be such a nice guy -- this is the same story nearly everytime when you ask why a jihadi murdered -- they suddenly snap. But did he 'suddenly' snap? Or, did he just act logically and predicably, if you take into account what was poisening his mind?
Imli
All those posters who think that if Musharraf goes, the nukes would fall in the lap of the islamists. Think again.
This is a myth concocted by the self styled chief executive prez Musharraf for his survival. Scaring the world with "after me, see the wave of jihadis" soap opera and in return asking for more and more aid(military and financial) to fight them. Pakistani army(ISI included), are the only source of power in pakistan. They created these vermins (mullahs and talibs) and would they take orders from them? I doubt it. If the Army can oust its democratically elected prime minister and force him into exile, these critters are no match for them.
It is the support of these very hardline islamists, MMA, which keeps Herr Musharraf in power. MMA politicians do not do it for the love of islam but for the love of life.
Off I go, Barca vs Chelsea starting soon.
Rajeev,
Thank you for posting so eloquently on an issue that is of critical importance. I believe the collapse of communism can be instructive. Communism ultimately failed because its inability to make peoples' lives better was manifest. No one believed in it anymore, or at least only the really stupid ones did
We need no guns to defeat Islam, other than those that protect our increasingly endangered freedom of speech. I have been converted to this viewpoint by Ali Sina from faithfreedom.org. Islam is weak. Intellectually it cannot survive in the marketplace of ideas without taboo, legal prohibitions and threats. What we need to do is use Islam's canonical texts against themselves. And when the abovementioned methods are used against us, we must never back down.
A logical first step would be to communicate to infidels what Islam says about them. This is appalling enough to awaken a critical mass of people to resist Islam's dictates and view its votaries with suspicion.
The next step would be to challenge Muslims themselves with the immorality and brutality of Muhammad, his companions, Islamic texts and Sharia law. Every time a Muslim says "Muhammad said it, I believe it, and that settles it" it is a small victory. Slowly the fog will lift.
In spite of the pussilanimous reaction of politicians and the press, the cartoon Jihad was a golden moment for our cause. Far more infidels than ever before are awake to the irrationality of the Muslim world, the restrictions on our freedoms that Islam would impose, and even Muslims in the west are in many cases running from their co-religionists. This can only be good.
The question then is how do we keep making them look and feel immoral and stupid? How, simply put, do we make sure the truth gets out?
Quijybo
Desi Singh - that's an interesting insight. Please tell us more (or give links) about the Pakistani army members, and why they are not likely to fall for Islamism.
Lili (was Lilith - has changed name for personal reasons)
Poos! Testing.
Aaargh. Testing again.
Dear Imli
The world hesitates to raise its hand against fascist islam.
When hindus retaliate against muslim terrorism, it is the hindus that are the fascists.
Orthodox Christian serbs being massacred by muslims during the WW2 period, went unnoticed, but Kosovo'S "MUSLIM OPRESSION" was International Headlines.
Darfur is "convenient news" at times
Countless acts of opression in Islamic countries go unnoticed, while the most ridiculous of claims is made by islamists in modern free democracies, and even worse, these complaints are seen as rational.
In the view of this world scenario. I think that you will agree with me that even if we were to go for war as an option, we would still need a common consensus amongst "ourselves(INFIDELS)" to combat this threat.
Secondly if you were to choose war, are you confident that you can assemble a group of individuals to attack your local imam, or the local islamic fascist power source, without experiencing repurcussions from, first of all, the german government, your own people and finally the criticism of the world.
If you are talking about the Middle East as an option, then the war should not primarily be with guns. It should be with economics, to subjugate and effectively disrupt the oil money power that forms the base behind all fascist islamic activity.
In this context, I agree it would be prudent to go after Iran's nuclear facilities with a strategic strike.
The funds coming out of oil money should be directed towards free economies, but controlled and monitored so that they cannot be misused, but at the same time closed circuited within democratic free economies to enable free democracies to prosper.
I did not mean to rewrite the Quran, as you put it, I may as well try to rewrite Mein Kampf. But as Quijybo so adequately put it,
"We need no guns to defeat Islam, other than those that protect our increasingly endangered freedom of speech. Islam is weak. Intellectually it cannot survive in the marketplace of ideas without taboo, legal prohibitions and threats. What we need to do is use Islam's canonical texts against themselves. And when the abovementioned methods are used against us, we must never back down."
Excellent idea and relevant methodology.Kudos Quijybo.
UNITE ALL OF US INFIDELS AGAINST THIS THREAT, Destroy the money source, fight strategic battles ,suffocate the fascist idealogy, make it impractical for those who follow these fascist ideas to live their ideals. NEVER GIVE UP HOPE.
Prepare yourself for a long and drawn out EFFORT.
For a free world
Rajeev
Lilith:
Pakistani Army Background:Musharraf has extended the military's reach into state-run companies and agencies, installing loyal officers in place of civilians at the top of the entities that control everything from the phone system and postal service to road construction and computer databases on citizens.
Military Inc. Dominates Life in Pakistan
a dispassionate glance at Pakistan's hopeless and dismal political history proves that Musharraf must not take off the uniform if he wants to survive. Power and loyalty in this unfortunate state are linked to office. Seven days after his retirement General Beg told this scribe that visitors who came to meet him disappeared as soon as he took off his uniform on that great date 17 August. Musharraf is a good student of history.
From the same article,
What major powers do not understand is that the Muslim elite uses the slogan "Islam is in danger"
once their personal class interests are threatened as in 1940-47 or when US imposed sanctions on Pakistan from 1989 till 2001. This elite uses the slogan of Jihad once they hope to get US aid as in the Afghan War or once they have no hope of getting US aid and need cannon fodder for dying in Kashmir, Afghanistan or elsewhere. Son of a poor man dies in Jihad and the General and the feudal-industrialist's son gets educated at Whatnot, Yale or at Cambridge landing in cozy bank jobs or in multi national companies.
From the same article,
Corps commander from any ethnicity will be equally disciplined and loyal since the whole military system rewards docility and conformity and punishes dynamism and adherence to strong convictions. The resultant breed regardless of ethnicity is the same. Lacking independent judgement, good followers, and good obedient sons.
LINK
In the residual Pakistan, all of us are stuck with the army's rule. This is a disservice to its people. But there it is because the generals command about 750,000 rifles and many tanks and aircraft. Social elites -- of at least in Punjab and partially Sindh -- love army rule. The latter's countervailing force can only be the united voice of the people. This is absent.
Where do we stand? From a pakistani newspaper op-ed
Is United States’ Pakistan Policy Undergoing a Change?
President Bush’s visit to Pakistan this month and the impressions obtainable thereafter, provide the appropriate moment for questioning whether United States’ Pakistan policy is undergoing a change?
The following factors/developments need to be take into account to arrive at a conclusion:
* The United States’ think-tank and media’s writings and conclusions on any country are an accurate barometric index of prevailing thinking in the US policy establishment. Of late Pakistan’s policy attitudes and governance have been under severe criticism.
* There is an increasing questioning in United States policy circles of Pakistan’s strategic utility and General Musharraf’s genuiness to deliver on US national security interests, especially the war on terrorism.
* Pakistan accords an over-riding priority to its strategic partnership with China than to its Major-Non-NATO Ally status with the United States. This was evidenced by the symbolic timing of General Musharraf’s week long visit to China for discussions as a prelude to the US President’s visit.
* The above also stands reflected in General Musharraf's address to the National Defence College, a day prior to the Bush visit that: "While we should continue having relationship with the United States because it is a unipolar world, we have our relationship with China as well and that relationship is strategic in nature."
Article
Troubling thing is whenever there is a change in US policy towards Pakistan, a 'Big Bang' is just around the corner which claims innocent lives.
Rajeev:
I concur with you that we must come up with effective anti-Jihad techniques. And you make many interesting points in your comments. I would like to address a couple issues, the first is a semantic observation, though one which I believe is extremely important:
When you call for "greater solidarity amongst "dhimmis" all over the world" I think this expression is contains a certain potentially malignant quality. The very notion that we would self identify as "dhimmis" presupposes the acceptance of Islam's domination over us.
For reasons which should be obvious I find using Muslim terms to define myself or my culture or the world at large odious. Muslim terms such as "dhimmi" or "infidel" validate the underlygin connotations and denotations of such terms, that being Islam's doctrinal triumphalism over all other modes of belief and governance. Why start out conceding this triumph for the Muslim's heinous intent to dominate and subjugate us!? Though such a matter may seem trifling, or immaterial, I firmly believe we must not yield an inch to their Islamic depredations.
So what should one use instead? This is a huge problem. What term do we have which first rejects Islamic terminology, and yet effectively describes all of us (nearly five billion souls) who neither fall within the Dar al Islam, nor subscribe to it's heinous purposes?
It is a problem! Even less odious terms such as Non-Muslim must ultimately refer to our non-Muslimness, as if we lack something, as if they are somehow the measure, and we can only identify the other 85% of humanity by our non-Muslimness - It's both absurd and inadequate!
Does a term exist? This is worth working on.
My second obersvation relates to the first, but focuses on the idea of 'uniting'. According to my memory of history, the only times very disparate cultures or religioun unite is against a common enemy, and the context is almost always war. And in such situations, the wars in question aren't little affairs, but all out wars, and World wars.
While I fully subscribe to your notion that we must unite against the onslaught of Islamic fascism, and hope to help discover the mechanisms which will permit such to happen, I have several misgivings. Internally, each target culture of Islamic expansionism, each national victim of Islamic Jihad may be joined with each other... But the experience of those violations of their sovereignty and peace by Muslim predations are largely experienced on a highly local level. The experience of Dawa in prisons, the expansion of Mosques and Muslim communities in our domains, and even acts of heinous Islamic atrocities are all mainly local affairs -- While they may be increasingly viewed in a global context, the infiltration of Muslim communties and their attendant atrocities are still local.
Incidents such as 9/11, or other megaterror events may begin to capture (only for a time) the collective imaginations of disparate victims of Islamic Jihad -- but even such catastrophic events seem to lack the ability to make us "unite", at least for any great length of time.
What if there is no way to encourage or force disparate nations to act in their collective self interest against Islam? What if, short of gargantuan Muslim atrocities using WMDs, it is impossible for us to unite in the manner you propose?
I believe this is so. And even then, I'm not sure our petty differences, and the murky and confusing nature of Islam won't somehow devolve our solidiarity in the course of time.
I have likened Islam to a horrific and effective enzyme -- one which first infiltrates non-Muslim cultures, then proceeds to digest and erode the infrastructure of that non-Muslim culture until it collapses from all the damage and undermining.
This enemy is both very old, and very new. It is unlike anything the modern world has ever faced.
Sadly, I believe each nation will first need to be convinced by the ever escalating horrors which Muslims visit upon them that they must begin fight the Muslims presence of Islam in their midst.
Perhaps, once we are all engaged in little wars against the local Muslims will we be able to collectively see how a much larger war against them can and must be waged.
In such a scenario, what if we're so damaged, demoralized, and hobbled by their endless attacks, erosions, and subterfugesthat we are no longer able to repudiate them effectively? This, I would suggest, is what makes Islam such an effective eating machine -- and such a deadly or horrific foe. If I'm correct, what then? Your hopeful thoughts about uniting, and by implication, that we can so before this must be an all out war with all Muslims and all of Islam may simply be a hollow hope. I think we will either fight them all in all out war, or we will be destroyed by them through their all out war against us.