Rumsfeld: "The strategy must do a great deal more to reduce the lure of the extremist ideology by standing with those moderate Muslims advocating peaceful change, freedom and tolerance"

Yeah, right. I'll stand with those more moderate muslims. In a pig's eye.

Rummie has acquired "Foot-in-mouth" disease. Terrorists just adapt to more advanced technologies to perform their Jihad BS. Just look in Iraq! The killings are escalating at an alarming rate...Time is on their side and what is planned next in the US will tell. Rumsfeld is an embarrasment. Remember..."You go to war with what you got".

Fox News video entitled "Warning Signs": Why are Somalis attending truck-driving school in the Midwest?

http://www.foxnews.com/

Gee, I can't imagine, maybe Don Rumsfeld could suggest an answer to that one. ;-)

The only muslims we can stand with in the war on jihad are no longer muslim. The ones we can stand with are former muslims. In the venacular, they are called apostates.

Anyone here really want to live in a society organized under rules and laws approved of by the likes of self proclaimed moderates such as Naseem and Mohideen Abrahamsha? I didn't think so...

Yojimbo...
Why didn't red flags go up when Atta and his cohorts went to flying school and just want to learn how to turn an airliner?? Well a giant "DUH" should have jumped out. The US is still complacent about Jihad and the Moderate Muslims.

Yeah - didn't want to know how to land.

What can you say?

Jeez, picking on those poor Somalis again. First they're welfare queens, then they try to get work and you pick on them. Can't they just chew their khat in piece? Khat, the new trucker's stay-awake aid.

Anyway, couldn't find the story, but found a great story about this piece of jahiliyah:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189636,00.html

your being hard on Rummy again.. lol.. he did not say how many moderate muslims we are dealing with,, most likely moderate muslims are either now Christians or are dead. at least Rummy is not running to the UN for how to act with these terrorists! you would have to look at a European,Cdn politician to go look at corrupt UN for
help!

FYI - When Sec. Rumsfeld says 'moderates' he's referring to what Mohammed called 'hypocrites' and "accursed of allah". In other words, former Muslims or posers....

That's nothing.

Wait till the University of Arizona in Tucson sorts out the lead isotopes in artifacts in north Africa.

One way or another, it will doubtless prove that Islam was, to use the Sellar and Yeatman language, "a good thing".

Heck, they've already concluded that, "As Islamic forces moved across northern Africa, they set in motion trading opportunities between the arid lands bordering the Mediterranean and the dense jungles and savannahs south of the Sahara."

What's not to like?

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/uoa-cta032206.php

By definition a person who advocates and works for Sec. Rumsfelds' "peaceful change, freedom and tolerance" cannot be a Muslim.

Islam cannot be changed.
Shar'ia cannot be changed.
Mohammed and Allah both command innovation (change) should be seen as a grave sin and hellfire waits for those who would try.

Freedom is only through Submission to the will of Allah.
Allah's commands must be obeyed - not those of man.
Allah did not give man freedom or free will.

Oppression (of Islam) cannot be tolerated. Oppression of Islam is worse than killing.

NOW:
would someone tell me how someone like myself, with limited power, resources and access can figure this out while at the same time someone as obviously capable as Sec. Rumsfeld can persist in beating a broken drum? And despite all evidence to the contrary?

Longtime lurker-- I think you're onto something there. While I was on spring break in Toledo, which has been in the news periodically for terror-related incidents, there was a huge khat bust-- 170 pounds of the stuff. And surely they're not spending the profits on, say, Star Wars memorabilia:

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060314/NEWS03/603140399&SearchID=73240054486229

As for Rumsfeld, those those "moderate Muslims advocating peaceful change, freedom and tolerance" are precisely the ones he should be most skeptical of: At least we know where the outspoken jihadists stand. "Peaceful change"... sure, but to what?

Like Khamenei in yesterday's item ("Supreme Leader: Iran's Ideology Spans N. Africa to India"), Rumsfeld is trying to reassure by creating the appearance of solidarity where there is none.

The 'tough talk' of this administration is only that. Having faltered at Fallujah, during the first battle -where the insurgents were allowed to slip through the noose and escape, and having failed to arrest killer cleric al-Sadr, at that point I realized the initial, instinctive impulse to win was lost.

The p.c. pussyfooters had taken control. ("Can't fire on the mosques!"... ad absurdum...)

And the failure to catch (or preferably kill) Bin Laden... after 4 damned years... shows that Rumsfeld, Bush, et al, mean almost nothing of what they growl in these hollowly redundant sound bites.

The U.S. borders are as porous as a Congressman's conscience, and the inability to show you know what you fight for (other than threadbare slogans like "freedom" and "democracy"), or what you are fighting against (Imperialstic Islam, maybe?), is chilling. And would be laughable if the stakes weren't mortal.

Their 'straight talk' is skewed toward the fantasy of the "noble" 'religion' and the "moderate" followers of this non-existent branch of Islam.

Rumsfeld is a good guy to get you into a fight, but, once there, a washout. ("You go to war with the Army you've got, not the one you wish you had..." was a shameful and ludicrous attempt by him to avoid responsibility ...particularly when the time of the invasion of Iraq was of our choosing).

He has proved himself unimaginative, lacking the inventive boldness that a military leader requires (to elude p.r. disasters with panache, if nothing else), and he has no sense of how to communicate the historical seriousness of the threat we face. Sprinkling his speeches with rousing and deepening quotes from Demosthenes or Churchill or Patton of Sun Tzu -or somebody!!- might help ... if only to reassure the public that this administration's figureheads have read a little of the past's wisdom concerning warfare, and might not be complete technocratic naifs.

People will fight valiantly and brilliantly if they think the road their leaders are steering them down is not one that ends going over a cliff.

This is a World War worth fighting -with every means and bit of intelligence we can muster.

Instead, we get half-hearted, half-baked strategies from the half-committed.

Fight, or don't fight.

But don't half-fight!

Moderate Muslim
Mod·er·ate adj.
Mus·lim adj.

1. A spiritual proponent of non-violence, deeply
equal towards race, creed, religion, sex and orientation, honest, honorable and forthright reformer who wholly rejects the violent, controling and immoral ancient tenets of Ancient Islam.

2. One who takes the action of ijitihad into his/her own hands for the sake of his people and the well being of ALL people.

3. One who is rationally assured that no god of 99
loving names would ever punish them for rejecting old beliefs for the sake of harmony, prosperity and true world peace.

I know that moderate Muslims described in Roberts "wish list" DO exist but there are so few willing step forward and say "Enough!".

Why? Gee - let me think. Millions of instances of peer enforced control over life, liberty and happiness is a good guess.

Excuse me but if Muslims do not start to stand up and be counted as humans of compassion for ALL life, Muslims either need to reform Islam or abandon it. Do nothing about your faith and you might as well call yourself human cattle.

The only brave Muslim these days appears to be the much dreamed of "Moderate Muslim", the rest are nothing but a:

cow·ard n.
One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.

Siciliano and Yojimbo, of course it did raise red flags, and the flight school instructor notified the local FBI office, and the FBI office was alarmed, but the FBI HQ in Washington shut the investigation down. As in giving the local agents a direct order not to contact the District Attorney's office. As in threatening to end the agents' careers. It goes beyond a simple mistake or misjudgement, IMHO.

"The strategy must do a great deal more to reduce the lure of the extremist ideology by standing with those moderate Muslims advocating peaceful change, freedom and tolerance,'' he said.

Everyday some official insults our collective intelligence. Now it's even Rummy.

*sighs*

Please forgive the length (and the formatting, it's cut and paste from PDF), but LTCol (Ret) Ralph Peters' "Do's and Don't's for a Superpower" from his essay "When Devils Walk the Earth," written in late 2001, seems especially appropriate here:

1. Be feared.

2. Identify the type of terrorists you face, and know your enemy as well as you possibly can. Although tactics may be similar, strategies for dealing with practical vs. apocalyptic terrorists can differ widely. Practical terrorists may have legitimate grievances that deserve consideration, although their methods cannot be tolerated.
Apocalyptic terrorists, no matter their rhetoric, seek your destruction and must be killed to the last man. The apt metaphor is cancer—you cannot hope for success if you only cut out part of the tumor. For the apocalyptic terrorist, evading your efforts can easily be turned into a public triumph. Our bloodiest successes will create far
fewer terrorists and sympathizers than our failures.

3. Do not be afraid to be powerful. Cold War-era gambits of proportionate response and dialog may have some utility in dealing with practical terrorists, but they are counterproductive in dealing with apocalyptic terrorists. Our great strengths are wealth and raw power. When we fail to bring those strengths to bear, we contribute to our own defeat. For a superpower to think small—which has been our habit across the last
decade, at least—is self-defeating folly. Our responses to terrorist acts should make the world gasp.

4. Speak bluntly. Euphemisms are interpreted as weakness by our enemies and mislead the American people. Speak of killing terrorists and destroying their organizations. Timid speech leads to timid actions. Explain when necessary, but do not apologize. Expressions of regret are never seen as a mark of decency by terrorists or their supporters, but only as a sign that our will is faltering. Blame the terrorists as the root cause whenever operations have unintended negative consequences. Never go on the
rhetorical defensive.

5. Concentrate on winning the propaganda war where it is winnable. Focus on keeping or enhancing the support from allies and well-disposed clients, but do not waste an inordinate amount of effort trying to win unwinnable hearts and minds. Convince hostile populations through victory.

6. Do not be drawn into a public dialog with terrorists—especially not with apocalyptic
terrorists. You cannot win. You legitimize the terrorists by addressing them even through a third medium, and their extravagant claims will resound more successfully on their own home ground than anything you can say. Ignore absurd accusations, and never let the enemy’s claims slow or sidetrack you. The terrorist wants you to react, and your best means of unbalancing him and his plan is to ignore his accusations.

7. Avoid “planning creep.” Within our vast bureaucratic system, too many voices compete for attention and innumerable agendas—often selfish and personal--intrude on any attempt to act decisively. Focus on the basic mission—the destruction of the terrorists—with all the moral, intellectual and practical rigor you can bring to bear. All other issues, from future nation-building, to alliance consensus, to humanitarian
concerns are secondary.

8. Maintain resolve. Especially in the Middle East and Central Asia, “experts” and
diplomats will always present you with a multitude of good reasons for doing
nothing, or for doing too little (or for doing exactly the wrong thing). Fight as hard as
you can within the system to prevent diplomats from gaining influence over the strategic campaign. Although their intentions are often good, our diplomats and their obsolete strategic views are the terrorist’s unwitting allies—and diplomats are extremely jealous of military success and military authority in “their” region (where their expertise is never as deep or subtle as they believe it to be). Beyond the problem
with our diplomats, the broader forces of bureaucratic entropy are an internal threat.
The counter-terrorist campaign must be not only resolute, but constantly self-rejuvenating—-
in ideas, techniques, military and inter-agency combinations, and sheer energy. “Old hands” must be stimulated constantly by new ideas.

9. When in doubt, hit harder than you think necessary. Success will be forgiven. Even the best-intentioned failure will not. When military force is used against terrorist networks, it should be used with such power that it stuns even our allies. We must get over our “cowardice in means.” While small-scale raids and other knife-point operations are useful against individual targets, broader operations should be
overwhelming. Of course, targeting limitations may inhibit some efforts—but, whenever possible, maximum force should be used in simultaneous operations at the very beginning of a campaign. Do not hesitate to supplement initial target lists with extensive bombing attacks on “nothing” if they can increase the initial psychological
impact. Demonstrate power whenever you can. Show, don’t tell.

10. Whenever legal conditions permit, kill terrorists on the spot (do not give them a
chance to surrender, if you can help it). Contrary to academic wisdom, the surest way to make a martyr of a terrorist is to capture, convict and imprison him, leading to endless efforts by sympathizers to stage kidnappings, hijacking and other events intended to liberate the imprisoned terrorist(s). This is war, not law enforcement.

11. Never listen to those who warn that ferocity on our part reduces us to the level of the
terrorists. That is the argument of the campus, not of the battlefield, and it insults America’s service members and the American people. Historically, we have proven, time after time, that we can do a tough, dirty job for our country without any damage to our nation’s moral fabric (Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not interfere with American democracy, values or behavior).

12. Spare and protect innocent civilians whenever possible, but do not let the prospect of
civilian casualties interfere with ultimate mission accomplishment. This is a fight to
protect the American people, and we must do so whatever the cost, or the price in American lives may be devastating. In a choice between “us and them,” the choice is always “us.”

13. Do not allow the terrorists to hide behind religion. Apocalyptic terrorists cite religion as a justification for attacking us; in turn, we cannot let them hide behind religious holidays, taboos, strictures or even sacred terrain. We must establish a consistent reputation for relentless pursuit and destruction of those who kill our citizens. Until we do this, our hesitation will continue to strengthen our enemy’s
ranks and his resolve.

14. Do not allow third parties to broker
a “peace,” a truce, or any pause in operations. One of the most difficult challenges in fighting terrorism on a global scale is the drag produced by nervous allies. We must be single-minded. The best thing we can do for our allies in the long-term is to be so resolute and so strong that they value their alliance with us all the more. We must recognize the innate strength of our position
and stop allowing regional leaders with counterproductive local agendas to subdue or
dilute our efforts.

15. Don’t flinch. If an operation goes awry and friendly casualties are unexpectedly high,
immediately bolster morale and the military’s image by striking back swiftly in a manner that inflicts the maximum possible number of casualties on the enemy and his supporters. Hit back as graphically as possible, to impress upon the local and regional players that you weren’t badly hurt or deterred in the least.

16. Do not worry about alienating already-hostile populations.

17. Whenever possible, humiliate your enemy in the eyes of his own people. Do not try to use reasonable arguments against him. Shame him publicly, in any way you can. Create doubt where you cannot excite support. Most apocalyptic terrorists, especially, come from cultures of male vanity. Disgrace them at every opportunity.
Done successfully, this both degrades them in the eyes of their followers and supporters, and provokes the terrorist to respond, increasing his vulnerability.

18. If the terrorists hide, strike what they hold dear, using clandestine means and, whenever possible, foreign agents to provoke them to break cover and react. Do not be squeamish. Your enemy is not. Subtlety is not a superpower strength—-but the raw power to do that which is necessary is our great advantage. We forget that, while the world may happily chide or accuse us--or complain of our “inhumanity”--no one can stop us if we maintain our strength of will. Much of the world will complain no matter what we do. Hatred of America is the default position of failed individuals and failing states around the world, in every civilization, and there is nothing we can
do to change their minds. We refuse to understand how much of humanity will find excuses for evil, so long as the evil strikes those who are more successful than the apologists themselves. This is as true of American academics, whose eagerness to declare our military efforts a failure is unflagging, or European clerics, who still cannot forgive America’s magnanimity at the end of World War II, as it is of unemployed Egyptians or Pakistanis. The psychologically marginalized are at least as dangerous as the physically deprived.

19. Do not allow the terrorists sanctuary in any country, at any time, under any circumstances. Counter-terrorist operations must, above all, be relentless. This does not necessarily mean that military operations will be constantly underway—-
sometimes it will be surveillance efforts, or deception plans, or operations by other agencies. But the overall effort must never pause for breath. We must be faster, more resolute, more resourceful—and, ultimately, even more uncompromising than our enemies.

20. Never declare victory. Announce successes and milestones. But never give the terrorists a chance to embarrass you after a public pronouncement that “the war is over.”

21. Impress upon the minds of terrorists and potential terrorists everywhere, and upon the populations and governments inclined to support them, that American retaliation will be powerful and uncompromising. You will never deter fanatics, but you can frighten those who might support, harbor or attempt to use terrorists for their own ends. Our basic task in the world today is to restore a sense of American power,
capabilities and resolve. We must be hard, or we will be struck wherever we are soft. It is folly for charity to precede victory. First win, then unclench your fist.

22. Do everything possible to make terrorists and their active supporters live in terror themselves. Turn the tide psychologically and practically. While this will not deter hardcore apocalyptic terrorists, it will dissipate their energies as they try to defend themselves-—and fear will deter many less-committed supporters of terror. Do not be distracted by the baggage of the term “assassination.” This is a war. The enemy, whether a hijacker or a financier, violates the laws of war by his refusal to wear a
uniform and by purposely targeting civilians. He is by definition a war criminal. On our soil, he is either a spy or a saboteur, and not entitled to the protections of the U.S. Constitution. Those who abet terrorists must grow afraid to turn out the lights to go to sleep.

23. Never accept the consensus of the Washington intelligentsia, which looks backward to past failures, not forward to future successes.

24. In dealing with Islamic apocalyptic terrorists, remember that their most cherished
symbols are fewer and far more vulnerable than are the West’s. Ultimately, no potential target can be regarded as off limits when the United States is threatened with mass casualties. Worry less about offending foreign sensibilities and more about protecting Americans.

25. Do not look for answers in recent history, which is still unclear and subject to personal emotion. Begin with the study of the classical world—specifically Rome, which is the nearest model to the present-day United States. Mild with subject peoples, to whom they brought the rule of ethical law, the Romans in their rise and at
their apogee were implacable with their enemies. The utter destruction of Carthage brought centuries of local peace, while the later empire’s attempts to appease barbarians consistently failed.

Hi, I have a question about this point:

"An honest and forthright Muslim reformer will acknowledge that the Islamic mainstream has historically held just the opposite of these principles"

History is, first and foremost, a political tool. To the victor go the spoils, and with that the written documents celebrating their glory and the gory underside of victory gets swept under the carpet. Every sucessful group and every culture does and must use their history as the foundation of their self esteem. So to re-write history to accept the brutal elements of one's past can only hasten the undermining of that cultute.

Here in the West, we have seen this phenomenon with the pc and multiculturalist re-writings of history which are completely hostile and destructive to the positive visions that Western Culture requires to flourish.

Oswald Spengler describes this phenomenom very clearly in "The Decline of the West". Interestingly enough, a Chinese writer nomed Spengler offers some interesting (and duly unflattering) comments about Islam and the West in Asia Review:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HC28Df01.html

By agreeing to engage in Tu Quoque and Mi Quoque, we inevitably engage in abuse.

Yet abstain'd from these games of psychological war, what else will there be left to do?

Destroy the temple by pulling down its pillars. Smash the idols. Mix salt with the soil. A lesson from the Romans.

Ralph Peters for President!

Longtime - Many thanks for your excerpts from LTC Peters' essay. I had not seen his work, and will now happily track it down. Simple words of truth.

longtime lurker, that is a very impressive statement. So many good points, but my favorites are 2, 13, and 19. "Apocalyptic" is a good description for the jihadists.

The only quibble I have is with 5:

Convince hostile populations through victory.

If the population is also "apocalyptic", then our successes will not convince them of anything (which is what we've seen for the past 60+ years with Israel). I think in some cases we have to stop wasting our energies trying to convince them; it should be enough to isolate them, and brutally and savagely punish them when they attack us.

If there is a political candidate running on a statement like this, I'll vote for them whether they're Republican, Democrat, Green, Tory, or Whig.

"Most apocalyptic terrorists, especially, come from cultures of male vanity. Disgrace them at every opportunity." Good psychological insight.

"European clerics, who still cannot forgive America’s magnanimity at the end of World War II" - and not just clerics. Another good psychological insight.

"You will never deter fanatics, but you can frighten those who might support, harbor or attempt to use terrorists for their own ends"
A particularly good point. We won't be scaring people who believe suicide attacks will take them straight to heaven. But we will scare supporters who actually value life! Such as comfortable, luxury-loving Saudi princes perhaps??

"In dealing with Islamic apocalyptic terrorists, remember that their most cherished
symbols are fewer and far more vulnerable than are the West’s. Ultimately, no potential target can be regarded as off limits when the United States is threatened with mass casualties. Worry less about offending foreign sensibilities and more about protecting Americans." Indeed, but how will politicians who condemn a few cartoons ever agree to attacks on such 'symbols'?

"Begin with the study of the classical world—specifically Rome, which is the nearest model to the present-day United States."

Perhaps, and then the lessons should include: don't expand beyond your capabilities and don't let your citizens get soft and too comfort-loving. Anyway, I would hope that the US does not have the expansionist aims that Rome had, but rather only goes to war where there is a true, proven, threat to itself, to allies, or to western civilisation.

This is very interesting, longtimelurker, especially if this is the same Ralph Peters MSM media darling who ra ras the Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations-Project, aka our Iraq mission, day and night for the administration.

is it?

"When are the rest of the countries going to stop kissing Saudi tush and work on this."

Well, some scandinavian countries have got ambitious plans to become energy self-sufficient. This is not just about replacing fossil oil, of course, but developing all forms of alternative, sustainable energy.

I understand that some oil companies and major car manufacturers are actually seeing biofuels as one way ahead. Acually, they are in a very good positition financially and logistically to start marketing alternative biofuels, that still require gas-stations and transportation networks.

Kentim, why the 'thank you Lili'? I don't recall being involved in the above discussions? Maybe I did some sleep-posting?

I will believe in moderate muslims, when pig farmer climbs on a pig and flies to his local mosque for prayer.

http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/side_orders/showpics.cgi?who_are_you_kidding

lurker~ excellent points

5. the propaganda war has not been engaged anywhere except the countries in the middle east where it is useless. China, Russia, and all the European countries and the US and Australia need to have their citizens made aware of the islamic threat. I don't see that being done, except as incidental to the attacks in those countries. And after each attack, the scholars are called out to talk nice and say each attack is not a dot in a pattern and no one calls them on it.
It needs to be blasted accross the media what islam says about the 'other'.

13. hiding behind religion is happening and it has not been slowed down at all. Freedom House reported the collection of islamist propoganda in the mosques and the imans are still at it at prayer time.

19. do not allow sanctuary in any country. That includes HERE. That goes for any like minded types that would help them. If this is all about winning, keeping open islamic schools and allowing teaching of the koran will just make more home grown types to deal with on our soil. Why does the ACLU act like they won an election to run this country.

25. Study Rome, indeed. Immigrants were allowed, invited, to pour into the city and when the barbarians attacked Rome, those immigrants living inside Rome helped in the attack. Gave their loyalty not to Rome but to their fellow invaders.

Teddy Rosevelt said something about two languages and two cultures not being able to live together within the borders of one country. I think that applies to islam in extreme measures and everyone can see it. He said that about the Mexican's. Countries break apart over religion, language (look at Canada, fighting), and culture that won't bend.

Peters sounds like General Sherman, determined to win at any cost and not caring what anyone thinks. The civilians suffer but they give up sooner. The UN and other types of organizations prevent those types of wars, except by rogue countries and islamists. Before 9/11 I agreed with that.
That's where the propaganda needs to come in. Everyone needs to be 'aware' and on the same page. Or it could be catastraphic destruction by a war fought by China and Russia stepping in on the opposite side.

You are correct, Mr. Spencer, in calling attention to the Secretary of Defense's misconceptions, but are you really that familiar with him to use his nickname?

This is the kind of thing that makes all of what Mr. Fitzgerald wrote about decorum a meaningless expression of ego and not pedagogy.

The lack of consistency in applying principles, e.g., the role of free speech on your forum, do the cause of your message no favors.

Selectivity in applying one's prudishness and false proclamations of decorum is hypocrisy.

If you are going to insist on proper titles, then you should employ them across the board, but I do not expect those locked in a particular conceptual framework to admit that they are or have been wrong. They love their own words too much to notice where they take them.

Peters emphasizes the use of military force, but force is not the most effective instrument of Jihad, and force is not the most effective instrument to protect Infidels from the Jihad. Wherever possible, that which divides the camp of Islam is to be encouraged. Both sectarian and ethnic divisions can be found among the Muslims, Sunni Arabs and Sh'a Arabs and (largely Sunni) Kurds. Wherever possible, weaknesses in the enemy camp, that is the Camp of Islam, should be recognized, analyzed, and exploited. That will help to create a situation of permanent instability within Dar al-Islam, and for Infidels, a spectacle of internecine warfare, far more disturbing in the kind of behavior displayed, and far more revealing of the nature of Islam, than anything that could be revealed by American do-good efforts that will, that must necessarily fail, using the definitions of success and failure that the Bush Administration uses. The fact that they have already set in motion a victory in Iraq, a victory because that internecine strife became unavoidable once Saddam Hussein was removed, and not only fail, or do not dare, to recognize it, but that the continue to work to undo that selfsame victory, by attempting to head off such intra-Muslim strife.

So the victory is not recognized, and the terms the Administration determinedly hews to for failure and success are topsy-turvy, so that Bush's definition of "success" would really be a failure for the Infidels, and his definition of "failure" in Iraq would really be a success for the Infidels, and damage the interests of, by unsettling, both Iran and Saudi Arabia.

A gain that is not recognized as a gain. A "success" that, if achieved, would be a failure. A "failure" that if achieved, wold be a success.

Confused, and crazy, every which way. Future historians will rub their eyes in disbelief.

Spencer has made similar points many times before, of course. And the conceptual clarity of what would constitute 'moderate Islam' or 'a moderate Muslim' deserves articulation again, and again. Here is another paraphrase:

1) rejection jihad violence against non-Muslims
2) rejection of the idea that Sharia law should be instituted in the Muslim and non-Muslim world.
3) rejection of the elements of the Qur'an and Sunnah that give rise to these imperatives to violence and subjugation.
4) teaching that non-Muslims and Muslims should live together indefinitely as equals.
5) teaching that women should enjoy full equality of rights with men.
6) acknowledgement that the Islamic mainstream has historically held just the opposite of these principles.

Is this too much to ask? Evidently so, because typically Spencer's interlocutors either do not answer or call him a racist or bigot just for having raised the issue of 'moderate Islam'.

And what happens next? Repitition, again, and again, and again, until someone gives a rational response.

Redundancy can be a virtue.

longtime lurker:

Good God in Heaven! Hallelujah!

That prescriptive essay by Lt.Col. Ralph Peters is breathtakingly refreshing! I haven't seen so much concentrated common sense in one essay in years! Nowhere, not even here at Jihad Watch. His sentences are like powerful, effective, flawless jolts of lucid electricity.

It's more difficult for me to choose a favorite paragraph from his essay than it would be for me to choose a favorite child, but this one is particularly cogent:

Never listen to those who warn that ferocity on our part reduces us to the level of the
terrorists. That is the argument of the campus, not of the battlefield, and it insults America’s service members and the American people. Historically, we have proven, time after time, that we can do a tough, dirty job for our country without any damage to our nation’s moral fabric (Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not interfere with American democracy, values or behavior).

Nor our moral and social progress, I might add.

Robert,

I would like to respectfully disagree with your definition of a moderate muslim. What you have defined is actually a NON-muslim. Now, it may well be that the only moderate muslim is a non-muslim, but, by your definition, a moderate muslim is someone that a muslim would want dead.

I'm really becoming frustrated with these governments that cannot seem to get right something this simple.

For what's it's worth, thanks for "keeping on".

Hugh writes:

"That will help to create a situation of permanent instability within Dar al-Islam, and for Infidels, a spectacle of internecine warfare..."

While I agree with the value of exploiting divisions in the enemy (who wouldn't agree?), I would note that Islam has been in a state of permanent instability rife with internecine squabbles, conflicts, intrigues, revolts and out-and-out warfare since the time of Mohammed to the present. If such a state of internal violence did not end Islam in the 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th or 20th centuries, I doubt it will suddenly do the job in the 21st. I think Peters' priorities should be on the front burner, and this exploitative tactic should be used wherever its feasible, but not if it interferes with the primary one.

"If such a state of internal violence did not end Islam in the 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th or 20th centuries, I doubt it will suddenly do the job in the 21st."
-- from a posting above

Two other things to consider:

#1.
Available weaponry, and other technological advances, make internecine warfare no longer what it would have been in earlier centuries, and even until the day before yesterday (a few decades ago) the Arabs and Persians were limited to horsemen or camel-riders, with guns (this was the state of Arab weaponry until after World War II, but now that weaponry includes all sorts of things, including the best that oil money can by). Furthermore, new means of communication -- audiocassettes, videocassettes, satellite channels, the Internet, makes the impact of what happens much more immediate. If Sunnis and Shi'a fight within Iraq, that news will travel at once to Pakistan, where Sunni terrorist groups have targetted Shi'a, to Bahrain, where 70% of the population is Shi'a and chafes under a Sunni ruler; to Lebanon, where the Shi'a of Hezbollah are not likely to remain unaffected by any sign of Sunnis in the area (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan) helping the Shi'a in Iraq, and so on. Advances in weaponry and technology mean that internecine warfare will be much different from say, even the civil war in Lebanon, or the proxy war between Nasser and the Al-Saud in Yemen in the 1960s.

#2. The phrase "did not end Islam" misstates the possible and plausible goal, which is not to "end Islam" -- an impossible task, like asking that "Fascism" or "antisemitism" be eliminated -- but to reduce the power of Islam, and of Muslims, to what it was, say, in 1950 or 1920. And this is possible.

The power of Islam could be reduced, by diminishing OPEC oil revenues and by figuring out ways to soak up as much of the revenues that will necessarily continue to flow as possible. As to diminishing those revenues, the American government could tax gasoline, and ensure that gasoline taxes steadily go up, and are never removed, and could, similarly, tax other uses of oil (and gas) to ensure that OPEC can never again jerk the price down so as to undercut other energy projects. And to soak up the income that pays for mosques, madrasas, propaganda, and Western hirelings, all kinds of things can be done by Infidel governments, including stopping all foreign aid to Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Jordan, and to such quasi-statelets as the "Palestinian" Authority -- for such foreign aid is simply disguised Jizyah. Let the poor Muslims go and demand money of the Saudis, Kuwaitis, and other rich Arabs -- whether they get it or not, it will lead to bad blood between donor and donee, and also use up some of that money spilling all over the Gulf.

There may be ways to put surcharges on the sale of goods to the rich Arabs, and of course their continued access to Western services, such as medical care and higher education, can be made much more expensive -- in the case of education, by charging a "security tax" for each Saudi student who comes to the United States, for example, and whose presence is worrisome and will involve more, and therefore more expensive, monitoring.

New methods of disseminating information can be exploited to publicize the mistreatment, in the past and in the present, by Arab Muslims of non-Arab Muslims, and to distribute books and articles (such as Anwar Sheikh's "Islam the Arab National Religion" and Ibn Warraq's "Why I Am Not a Muslim") that can promote, among non-Arab Muslims, the realization that Islam has always been a vehicle for Arab imperialism, cultural, linguistic, and political. The more non-Arab Muslims realize this, the more likely it is that Islam will come to be identified by non-Arabs with Arabs -- and that too will help to diminish the supposedly universalist appeal of Islam. A good thing.

But certainly I don't think anyone has suggested that it will be possible to "end Islam." That is unrealistic. Constrain, limit, weaken, demoralize, divide Islam -- yes. "End" -- no.

http://www.minaret.org/

Beware Good Thinking People:

After writing:
______________________________________________________________

You are correct, Mr. Spencer, in calling attention to the Secretary of Defense's misconceptions, but are you really that familiar with him to use his nickname?

This is the kind of thing that makes all of what Mr. Fitzgerald wrote about decorum a meaningless expression of ego and not pedagogy.

The lack of consistency in applying principles, e.g., the role of free speech on your forum, do the cause of your message no favors.

Selectivity in applying one's prudishness and false proclamations of decorum is hypocrisy.

If you are going to insist on proper titles, then you should employ them across the board, but I do not expect those locked in a particular conceptual framework to admit that they are or have been wrong. They love their own words too much to notice where they take them.
______________________________________________________________

After emailing Mr. Spencer the above with the below additional comments:
_______________________________________________________________

You folks are not really that myopic, are you? You may think this a small issue, but for every regular reader you gain, you lose many many more and needlessly so. Florid, long winded "gas bagging" filled with run on sentences that have often lost their parenthetical closings do not teach anything to the average reader. Clear and concise. That is what good teachers do, breaking down the complex into the easily understandable. Mr. Fitzgerald is green behind the ears, gifted, but nonetheless green.

It would be astounding, if you would not see this as a major problem for your site, if the intention is to disseminate a more accurate knowledge of Islam to as many people as possible. Further, to argue against or be dismissive of rational argumentation ruins your reputation.

I have no problem with "Bish" or "Rummy," but consistency is important and phony arguments are not.
_______________________________________________________________

I tried to write:
_______________________________________________________________

The dogmatism (the "I am always right approach") of this site impedes the mainstream acceptance of it, despite the truths it conveys.

Even those who are usually correct should be able to admit when they are not, a quality lacking in this site.

Mr. Fitzgerald is never wrong. Just ask him. LOL!!! He would not know when he has really lost a point or many, even to save himself, despite the site's stated cause.

I would suggest a graduate level course in propositional logic, unless this is all just a linguistic egotrip, in the name of making people aware of Jihad.
______________________________________________________________

To receive:
______________________________________________________________

Jihad Watch

Thank You for Commenting

Your comment has been received. To protect against malicious comments, I have enabled a feature that allows your comments to be held for approval the first time you post a comment. I'll approve your comment when convenient; there is no need to re-post your comment.
_______________________________________________________________

It appears that Mr. Spencer and Mr. Fitzgerald are beyond reproach for their poor tactics. They desire adoration and praise and not rational criticism. In that sense, they are no better than the Jihadists against whom they claim to argue. They are censors and have no real sense of what they call decorum. Hell, they do not even play fair. No doubt this post will disappear along with an awful lot of people. Shame on you guys.

The only moderate muslims I meet are the scoffed-at-muslims. They are the Western ones who have embraced islam from a western perspective that their Eastern Brethern don't recognize. Western muslims are just being used by eastern ones as a stepping stone.

I do believe Sistani and Karzai are pragamatic moderates. But are trapped in a culture that is a few centuries behind the rest of the world.

These wars will modernize segments of islam. These radical clerics all need to be temporized into something else.

The cartoon war is a very good thing for the world. Muslims need to be offended until they are tired of being offended. The cartoon war is a cheap safe way to take that war to the center of where it needs to go. It's more effective than a bomb.

"It appears that Mr. Spencer and Mr. Fitzgerald are beyond reproach for their poor tactics. They desire adoration and praise and not rational criticism. In that sense, they are no better than the Jihadists against whom they claim to argue. They are censors and have no real sense of what they call decorum. Hell, they do not even play fair. No doubt this post will disappear along with an awful lot of people. Shame on you guys"

Rubbish! I have seen them take criticism and concede gracefully before; which is contrary to what you write above. I suggest you take the bee out of your bonnet.

Rumsfeld holds a degree from the extremely elite Princeton. He was powdered with the Prestige Talc head to toe on graduation day.

In other words, he's a certified dumbass.

MO DELUSION MO DENIAL MO COGNITIVE DISSONANCE MO PRESTIGE MO IVY MO

Rummy's favorite pasttime is driving out to his Virginia ranch to ride his pet Unicorns. Trouble is, he's been so busy the last few years dealing with the real ones.

Chaz46, there is very little monitoring of this site's comments except to approve the first one someone posts (as you have seen) and unless there is a persistent problem with a poster, the comments board is wide open. You are free, as you can see, to post any kind of criticism you like. You may criticize us to your little heart's content, so long as you watch your language and stay fairly on topic.

Jihad Watch: what's not to like?

I will believe in moderate muslims, when pig farmer climbs on a pig and flies to his local mosque for prayer.

You got that right, Tex. But, as of this year, pigs can fly. After years of labor in my secret lab out at the farm, working mostly in the sciences of recombinant genetics, aeronautics, and hog breeding, I am aloft.

However, as you anticipated, when I fly to the mosque riding my prize bull hog Ibn, we’ll be outfitted like an A-10 Warthog with a 25 caliber gatlin gun mounted atop his hog haid, and 4 lightweight high explosive cluster bombs mounted from his pink underbelly.

This hog is committed to the battle. I taught him real young that if civilization goes down, all pigs are toast.

Derbyshire on Ralph Peters here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200603290735.asp

Chaz46, who so dislikes this site and the way it is run that he insists on coming back at every conceivable opportunity to express that dislike, used to post as G5protocol and no doubt will appear under some other name in the future. He posts yet again above in order to tell the world just how terrible those who run this website are, and how, by the terrible way they enforce their unreasonable demands at this terribly-run website, are driving away thousands upon thousands ----or will it soon be millions? -- of potential visitors, for every simple-simon who for some reason doesn't mind what those ogres who run this site do, because that diminishing number of simple-simons for some reason fail to understand what "chaz46" a/k/a "G5protocol" a/k/a Your Guess Here understands, and wants everyone else to understand -- just as he does --and will keep coming back to this hideous website to let you know.

Chaz46...go to http://watchjihadwatch.blogspot.com/

There you will find happiness and a place to hang out.

Rebecca JW, I believe this is the same Ralph Peters. I have found him to be either dead on or infuriatingly off-base in his columns, but this piece, written in the white-hot wrath following the attack on our people, holds up fairly well.

Hugh, I concur that military means are not the best means of repulsing the jihad. However, the discussion was of Rumsfeld's judgement, and Rumsfeld runs the Department of Defense, which plans for wars. Peters' comments on how to conduct military operations against the jihad are, I feel, especially pertinent, especially in contrast to the SECDEF's statements.

This hog is committed to the battle. I taught him real young that if civilization goes down, all pigs are toast.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 31, 2006 08:26 AM
___

And not as ham and eggs.

a graduate level course in propositional logic

Gracious sakes! Is your class about to be cancelled due to lack of enrollment?

Chaz46 said

[JihadWatch responded to his email with] Jihad Watch

Thank You for Commenting

Your comment has been received.

Errr, that is the automated response that every email to JW receives. I have sent emails to JW, and Robert has been gracious enough to respond occasionally. I'm sure JW receives hundreds of emails a day, if they decide not to respond to you via email, tough luck.

But I think you are correct, the site is a disaster. The long complicated sentences that require a modicum of attention to comprehend. The inappropriate use of familiar nicknames (aka tutoying). It's all too much to bear. Might I suggest www.happyhappyflowers.com, or www.quietbeachsunset.com? They may not insult your frail sensibilities and delicate constitution.

I'm getting tired of entire threads being taken over by people complaining about minor issues of ettiquette and grammar. STFU!

Another thing I like about the Peters essay is his term apocalyptic terrorists. This conveys the essential eschatological factor of both Muslim terrorism and Muslim jihad, and also nicely allows for a way to distinguish Muslim terrorism from other types (IRA, Basque, etc.).

Hugh wrote: "Chaz46, who so dislikes this site and the way it is run that he insists on coming back at every conceivable opportunity to express that dislike, used to post as G5protocol and no doubt will appear under some other name in the future."

Am I correct in interpreting this as implying that Jihad Watch knowingly allows a banned poster to return under a new name?

The John Derbyshire piece that Rebecca linked is a fluff piece with virtually no substance. When, near the end, he finally gets to the point of explicating two disagreements he has with Peters, he offers not a shred of Peters' own words to substantiate, or even shed sufficient light on, what he (Derbyshire) is complaining about. From what I could glean given the airy insubstantiality there, the Derbyshire piece mainly concerns Peters' opinions about the specific subtopic of journalism in Iraq, rather than overall geopolitico-military strategy against Islam, the masterfully and flawlessly presented subject of the essay which longtime lurker posted.

"Am I correct in interpreting this as implying that Jihad Watch knowingly allows a banned poster to return under a new name?"
-- from a posting above

Yes. It is called A Second Chance.

Television,

What Derbyshire disagreed with wasn't "When Devils Walk the Earth," but more recent writings by Peters, who is a regular columnist for the New York Sun. Peters was sniping at journalists who don't get out and around Baghdad and get the "real story." It's fair to criticize Peters' charges by noting that seeing Baghdad by humvee will result in its own skewed picture as certainly as seeing Baghdad from the Green Zone or hotel room. I'm not so certain that civil war is imminent, but Peters (to quote Sgt Schulz) saw nothing, NOTHING! The gist of Derbyshire's article wasn't a quarrel with Peters, but with the barrage of criticism he received for daring to challenge Peters.

Why bother?!JIHAD was spray-painted in Foot-High letters on a neighborhood wall, one week BEFORE 9-11. I tried to tell people the meaning. No one listened. 5 years later, we're hoping 'moderates' will save us? I can point you to pockets of 'moderates' that have systematically destroyed a neighborhood, and are rapidly (rabidly) taking over the city of Philadelphia; and every major city is infiltrated. I have proof, I can help, but just like 5 years ago, no one wants to hear it. NOW, the 'War-Against-Terrorism' is a chess game between "Those who love America" and "Those who want to destroy/neutralize) America". (same thing). 'Moderates' are pawns. They do damage, but are expendable. Muslims in America are pawns for the king of global islam. Islam is Self-Defeating. Why Bother?!