What's that? Don't they long for "freedom"? And what's this about their urging worshippers to "pick up a gun"? Don't they know that Islam is a religion of peace? What are they, some kind of Islamophobes?
Notice also how they present themselves as the exponents of "real" Islam. As I have pointed out here ad infinitum, this is an appeal to which Muslims who would be regarded as moderates by most Western analysts have as yet formulated no effective response. Tiny Minority of Extremists Update: "Kabul clerics rally behind Taliban: Urge worshippers to `pick up a gun' against government: Death toll from surge in violence surpasses 190 over 5 days," from the Toronto Star, with thanks to RGF:
KABUL—Clerics in Kabul mosques are urging worshippers to join the Taliban's fight against the Afghan government and international troops.Insurgency has spread recently, with many provinces falling under control of Islamists intent on driving out foreign forces. Encouraged by this growing militancy, some imams here believe the time is right to call for holy war.
"The only thing (people) can do is fight against the government and I am telling them they can do that. They can pick up a gun and fight against the government," said Abdullah, a 52-year-old imam wary of giving his full name for fear of reprisals....
The Taliban now control many rural areas south of the capital and their increasing success is finding favour with fundamentalists here.
"It's a reality, the fighters are getting stronger and stronger because the government is alienating the community and the people," Abdullah said.
"Real mullahs, imams and anyone with a knowledge of Islam has to say it's time for jihad. Those people who are fighting against the Americans and the government are doing good, but the government and the Americans say they are terrorists just because they want to give them a bad name."
How would Ataturk handle this?
How would Terminator handle this ?
The imams should be marked for termination!
I think it will be a big shock for a lot of people when everyone figures out that there are some people that don't want freedom of choice...
They want the fastest ticket to paradise to get away from their forced style of living.
Moose
Hijackers!
We should be going after the source of the cancer of islam. Get the mullahs and imans.
"Real mullahs, imams and anyone with a knowledge of Islam has to say it's time for jihad. Those people who are fighting against the Americans and the government are doing good, but the government and the Americans say they are terrorists just because they want to give them a bad name."
More and more the real truth about Islam and the Koran is coming out.
"We should be going after the source of the cancer of islam. Get the mullahs and imans"
Freewoman, over here in India, the Hindus use the word "mullah" for any muslim. They are all mullahs. NOW after whom do we get ?
And this is surprising because.....?
They are all mullahs. NOW after whom do we get ?
All of them; let the gods sort them out!
mmmmmmm.........how bout starting with all of them arjun.
l agree with Freewomen, you go after and kill those that incite killing, and that be the mullahs. they are not going out risking their lives.. oh no..they are demanding the brainwashed muslim to go out and go after the government and US and allied forces.
those who incite to kill and those who carry out are one and the same.. let them meet the one true God, and l bet no virgins for them!
More evidence that muslims prefer the primitive repression of their own culture to the freedom of ours if, in any way, such freedom impinges on their religious pride. That is why we should not try to bring democracy or freedom to them. Not only are they incapable stewards of such ideas, but they, in a blink of an eye, will lash out at such ideas as soon as they associate them, in their minds, with Jews, Infidels, Zionism, America, or Barney the Dinosaur.
This was bound to happen when our government doesn't root out the source of the problem, which is islam. same thing in Iraq. like the popular quote says "no koran, know peace".
Well the point that arjun was making was that since this jihadist mindset is a common denominator in all 'good' muslims, then really, any call to kill the those that call for jihad, would mean killing the muslim population outright, something called genocide. And since genocide is anathema to western values, arjun was saying it is futile to argue that the killing jihadists is a strategy that the west will ever implement.
So, the solution is deportation for the ones here, containment for the ones there.
Arjun, I have never heard of anything so violent as islam. They are so violent among each other , that, we can't expect anything but worse violence from them. It's nothing for them to cut off hands, feet, heads, stone, hang, burn,shoot, blow up. And they do that to their own people. I think we (civilized world) have been tolerant long enough. We should go in and take out the preachers of hate, teach a little lesson and bring a little comeuppance to these barbarians. We're spinning our wheels in those countries. Unless it's stopped at the source, it's going to continue.
Ral Mullahs Love Allah.
Real Mullahs Love Allah.
funny not hardley anything about mahmoud and his 12th demon on the mainstream news,but the man they all attack just had a great report.Pat Robertson just had a report from inside Iran on the 12th imam,althou Pat doesnt really understand the threat....CHAOS....they just cant believe thats what old mahmoud wants...
I'm afraid that we're about to re-live the Russian
exprience in Afghanistan.
Bush should have exterminated the Taliban and
captured BinLaden instead of diverting our military
to his idiotic war in Iraq.
Freewoman,
Our problem is that of magnitude. muslims are everywhere and in large numbers. afghanistan and iraq created quite a stir and there were peace protests everywhere. Now we are baulking at attacking iran. If our minds boggle at the thought of genocide, think how the feeble mind of a politician who is in the game not for patriorism's sake, but for securing his future financially, must boggle at the thought. We don't have to like it, but I, for one can see no other solution. Maybe I am a pessimist.
Green-and-purple robed Hamid Karzai, a smooth man, is more fit for being a winning maitre d' at one of those Helmand restaurants run by his sibilings (in Maryland or Massachusetts) then for crushing an Islam-based enemy. Not even close to Ataturk. But there are individual warlords, in some cases as unpleasant as they come. In order to fight the Russians, the Americans equipped the mujahedin without having 17,000 troops, or even 500 troops, inside Afghanistan. Wherever possible, let the locals do it -- do whatever it is they want, so long as the Taliban or other groups do not achieve power, and so that settled power remains impossible.
But that would be "terrible." That would be "unthinkable." That would be like allowing Afghanistan to exist in a state of permanent anarchy, like "Somalia."
"Terrible" for whom? Infidels? "Unthinkable" for whom? The Americans? A state like "Somalia" -- how much trouble has Somalia been over the past decade for the world's Infidels? What kind of trouble could it pose, even now?
It is very expensive to bring Americans to a place like Afghanistan and keep them there. It uses up political support for the counter-Jihad. It confuses people by making them think that that Jihad is always and everywhere a matter of combat, when it is primarily a demographic and propaganda matter. Where there are locals who are not "allies" -- the word makes no sense for Muslims cannot be "allies" of Infidels -- but who see their self-interest as furthered best by temporary collaboration with Americans or other Infidels -- they can do what otherwise, at much greater expense, and with much greater and at times crippling inhibitions, would otherwise be done by Infidels -- Americans, British, French, Germans, Canadians. And in all casess, now including the Americans, the fact of diminished political support for such ventures must be factored in.
FROM THE THERE IS NO JIHAD AND ISLAM MEANS PEACE FILE;......Intelligence officials said Nasar's doctrine has made waves in radical Islamic chat rooms and on Web sites about jihad -- holy war or struggle -- over the past two years. His capture, they added, has only added to his mystique.
"He is probably the first to spell out a doctrine for a decentralized global jihad," said Brynjar Lia, a senior counterterrorism researcher at the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment, who is writing a book on Nasar. "In my humble opinion, he is the best theoretician among the jihadi ideologues and strategists out there. Nobody is as systematic and comprehensive in their analysis as he is. His brutal honesty and self-criticism is unique in jihadi circles."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/22/AR2006052201627.html
"Terrible" for whom? Infidels? "Unthinkable" for whom? The Americans? A state like "Somalia" -- how much trouble has Somalia been over the past decade for the world's Infidels? What kind of trouble could it pose, even now?
___
You're kidding, right?
I dont think that Musharaf would take too kindly to his Americans allies re-arming the warlords and stirring up another civil war next door.
We need Musharaf to stay in power. An Islamic-rund Pakistan is unthinkable.
Naseem,
To expect that you are going to have a free ride with your TAQQIYA is a mistake.... Now
its high time to dipel some of ur illusions once for all...
1. First of all the glorious Moghual rule you are talking about is hardly any Glorious,
when the so called Akbar the great, the noblest of Mughals, after the fall of CHITOD rounded up
35000 Men and massacred them...
2. Aurungazeb's Islamic Zeal is well know , no need to recount his rule..
3. Now Shaha Jahan The great Builder, that many scholars have credited him with is absolutely false .The World has been duped into beleiving that The TAJ MAHAL is built by Shah JAHAN to show case his love for his beloved....is absolutely false.
a) Indian GOVT doesnt allow any tourists into the underground Storey's, Moreover the entrance to these storeyes have been virtually sealed of with Lime brick from the times of Shah Jahan itself.
b) Indian GOVT doesnt allow the CARBON DATING of the TAJ MAHAL,WHY????
An American has illegally plucked a peice of wood from the TAJ door and got it carbaon Dated and found that that TAJ is a couple of Century's old than it is belived..
c) Moreover the European Travellors befor the time of Shaha Jahan has attested in their Travel Journals the existence of a grand palace in AGRA which they have visited.
d) Humayaun's daughter (Shah Jahan is Humayun's Grandson) mentions and acknoledges the beauty of Taj mahal.if Taj Mahal is built by SHah Jahan, how does it finds a mention by Shah Jahan's grand aunt???????????
These are only a few anamolies that total 107, the architectural analysis does also lead to the
conclusion that TAJ is a TEMPLE PALACE.....and it is built more than 200 Years before SHah jahan
Detailed proofs about the Truth about TAJ MAHAL(108 reason):
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/tejo.html
Photographic Evidence of the truth about TAJ MAHAL
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm
Architectural analysis of Taj Mahal by Proffesor Marvin H Mills,Pratt Institute, New York is
convinced enough that Taj Mahal is in Hindu architecture....
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/an_architect_looks_at_the_taj_mahal_legend.htm
This above link also provides other Historical Buildings of Hindu India that has been branded as
Islamic
Washington time's Report of the tussle about Taj Mahal:
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050520-090732-4620r.htm
"You're kidding, right?
I dont think that Musharaf would take too kindly to his Americans allies re-arming the warlords and stirring up another civil war next door."
We need Musharaf to stay in power. An Islamic-rund Pakistan is unthinkable."
- from a posting above
The "unthinkable" that you wish to head of has, I regret to tell you, already happened. Pakistan is and always will be "an Islamic-run" state. You appear to think Musharraf is not Muslim; the Pakistani generals are not Muslim; the I.S.I. is not Muslim; the citizeny that worships as the greatest hero the thief of nuclear secrets "Dr." A. Q. Khan.
If you mean that Musharraf is now colaborating, reluctantly and not very effectively, and at every step there is evidence of Pakistani foot-dragging and meretriciousness (and it need not be from Musharraf directly -- up and down the Pakistani chain of command there are those who are secret supporters of Al-Qaeda, and of course no true Muslim could conceivably feel real friendship for Infidels, no matter what aid those Infidel Americans extend).
The Americans are devoting far too much effort, money, men, and political support (which needs to be husbanded and nurtured, not squandered) in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In the first, one should be indifferent, or welcome, the ethnic and sectarian hostilities that George ("History will absolve me") bush thinks the Americans should be working to dampen, in order to creaate this splendid Light Unto the Muslim Nations. The light dimmed long ago; no Sunni Arab state will be oleased, much less wish to emulate anything about, a "new" Iraq, the historic site of the Abbassid Caliphate of Haroun al-Rashid, being purple-thumbedly transferred from Sunni to Shi'a control.
In Afghanistan, Musharraf is doing the minimum necessary to please the Americans. He is now a target, and having chosen to collaborate, however minimially, he will have to keep doing so. The notion that in order to placate a place called "Pakistan" the American government must refrain from using local warlords, if it can, to fight and keep the Taliban in check, makes no sense.
Are we to be held hostage in making policy in Afghanistan to the desires or whims of any Pakistani? And why do you call it "stirring up civil war"? There is not one but many "civil wars" in Afghanistan. There are the Sunnis who do not need the Taliban to instruct them in why they should treat the Shi'a Hazaras roughly. There are ethnically-defined divisions between Pashtun and Tadzhik, not to mention other groups -- no need to "stir up" civil war. There is the Taliban, which at this point is merely the name one gives to all those who like their Islam straight up, instead of on the rocks, and who are a permanent feature not only of Afghanistan, but of every Muslim country. The only question is: how well are such people held in check, and by whom?
In Algeria, for example, the "civil war" of the generals against the Algerian equivalent of the Taliban will never end. And what do we care? As long as it is Algerian Muslims fighting Algerian Muslims, and not Americans, wasting their money, their materiel, their men?
Of course I wasn't kidding.
You want to protect some portion of this world from this menace? I have the simple solution:
1) Remove Constitutional protections of religious practice with regards to Islam with a new amendment.
2) Declare that Islam is no different than the practice of Nazisim or Communism, meaning, quite truthfully, that its practice is antithetical to the United States Constitution and the ideals that the U.S.A. was founded upon. NO theocratic government can ever be allowed to rule in the United States and the idea that Islamic leaders on all levels admit that they wish to one day see that very event transpire is proof enough that Islam has no place in the United States. (And if that isn't good enough, we can bring out the body counts and the historical timelines. 1300 years of Jihad should be a pretty ugly multimedia presentation in a court of law, but hey, we stomached the O.J. trial, we can handle this....)
3) Give the 2.5 million Muslims in the United States 6 months to remove themselves from the country. Canada and Mexico seem to have no problem with sending their people here to prosper, so Canada and Mexico can handle 2.5 million Muslims. We probably have 2.5 million Mexicans illegally cross the southern border every single YEAR, as it is.
4) If people do not want to leave the United States, they have a solution available to them: openly declare apostacy and renounce the practice of Islam. Any that do this will be given Federal protection assurances until such time that all remaining Muslims are off U.S. soil.
5) The United States withdraws from the United Nations.
6) The U.S.A. attacks Iran. Massively. No holds barred short of actually using any WMDs -- unless of course they are used on us. After the air attacks and missiles are done, send in the troops from Afghanistan and Iraq for a cleanup, give it 6 months and then bring the troops HOME.
Final Stage) Make an example out of Iran. Make an example out of the Muslims here in this nation by expelling them. Leave the Qur'ans in the bookstores (it's still the best proof that we have of why it is so dangerous AND we are still a nation of free speech and I'll never condone book-burning) but have open discussions like we do here, yet go farther: make them national discussions. Show the literal translations of all key elements of the Qur'an for the entire world to digest on National Television. Make movies about the life of Muhammad. Ridicule him with more cartoons. Put up posters about the menace. In essence, get REAL about it.
When the troops get home, build a few new bases near the Southern border. Let some of the wargames and practice and training start being done where they can best be used to make drug dealing cartels stand up and take notice.
And if anyone complains about it all, just remind them that if it's ok for Muslims to keep every non-Muslim out of Mecca, it's perfectly ok for the United States to keep every Muslim out of the USA.
And yes, if you're wondering, I have read Patton's biography and yes, I do believe in a direct approach to a problem: The hammer and nail has worked for a long, long time.
If Pakistan becomes a full-blown Islamic state,
it will start spreading nuclear know-how to the
entire Muslim world. We cannot afford that.
Musharraf, is, for now, a useful ally.
Hugh: In Algeria, as well as in Pakistan and Turkey
the Army has political power and is quasi-secular.
Some Arab dictatorships (Syria, Iraq, Libya) are
also secular in nature.
We have to work with someone in the Muslim world-be
it military or civilian dictatorships.
Muslims will proliferate nuclear weaponry, in time, no matter what we try to do. That is why we must realize that our best protection from them is our borders and our oceans. Muslims should be kept to the Middle East, Africa and parts of Asia where they originate. That way at least, if any of them do get crazy, we'll know exactly where to send the missiles and it will keep loss of non-Muslim lives to a minimum.
I mean, if they want to play rough, we can learn to play rougher. This is about SURVIVAL.
Foehammer,
Agree with you 100%. I think our first priority should be to secure the nucleur technology. By securing pakistan's bombs, and by bombing iran HARD. Once we have the weapons, we at least are safe for a few years.
We should be going after the source of the cancer of islam. Get the mullahs and imans.
No, we need to have a global book burning. I can think of several sacred Islamic texts that, if they disappeared from the face of the earth as the source of the cancer of Islam, well, that'd be better than chemo and radiation therapy combined.
Big-ass bonfire. A heated glowing moment of extremely positive thinking and overall salvation for every non-asshole on the face of the Earth.
MO KHIMARS MO WHITE CARS MO DHIMMI JAIL BARS MO ISLAMIC MOVIE STARS MO
Think of this forthcoming feiry production as Koreishite 451.
evil is not pretty or cute.. evil does not have rights.... evil is just evil !....GOD told the children of ISRAEL to wipe evil out---they didnt listen....neither do we......we call islam peace and watch children die...evil is just evil...it has no rights!..
speaking of evil....Hizbullah leader warns his group can hit all areas of northern Israel
The leader of Lebanon's militant Hizbullah group warned Israel on Tuesday it will answer any attack by firing thousands of rockets on all parts of northern Israel.
Hassan Nasrallah's comments were made as part of Lebanon's celebrations of the 6th anniversary of Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon after an 18-year occupation. (AP)
Click here for more Israel news from Ynetnews.com
Hi guys:
This article inspired me to do a little research on Afghanistan and I found some interesting stuff. Did you know that there was an ethnic grouping close to Afghanistan that was known to Afghanis as Kafiristan? It was conquered in 1896, the people forcibly converted to Islam, and renamed Nuristan. Check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuristani
BTW:
I read this great little letter to the editor in a local paper in which the author quotes from Capt. F.S. Brereton's, With Roberts to Canadahar(A Tale of the Third Afghan War) (published 1896). The author of this letter quotes from page 59 of the book:
"This will be no ordinary war, as we have in Europe at times, but a jehad, a holy war, something like the Indian mutiny. Their moullas will preach and harangue, and every ruffian will come out, longing to destroy the feringhees."
Sound familiar?
Great post Foehammer, I agree 100%.
Foehammer,
I believe that a constitutional amendment is desirable but not be necessary to declare a quarantine on Islam.
It is obvious to you and me and to any open-minded and informed person that Islam , by its fundamental and immutable tenets, is an ideology dedicated to the abrogation of every concept embodied our current Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights.
What is needed is a strong national leader to state the obvious, to use his executive powers to act in defense of the Constitution, by measures such as you suggest, and then to ride the political storm that follows. A Lincoln, or a T.R., or a Patton, as you suggest, is what we need right now.
But our legal scholars should nevertheless have a Constitutional amendment researched and ready to go. When and if the jihadists set off the first nuke on our soil (or the soil of one of our traditional allies), the amendment should be submitted to Congress. It will then be swiftly passed, and then quickly ratified by the fifty states. Prior to a nuclear (or WMD) incident, I don't think such an amendment would survive the ratification process (sad to say).
In the mean time, we have to defend ourselves vigorously against the dawa, kitman, taqiyya, and, of course, the volent jihad. This defense will require a true warrior president, someone who will mobilize the entire country against the clear and present danger.
A state like "Somalia" -- how much trouble has Somalia been over the past decade for the world's Infidels? What kind of trouble could it pose, even now?
Hugh, it becomes a problem when we import Somali immigrants for "humanitarian" reasons, as we are doing now.
Fear of the Jews motivates Anti-Semitism
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to “wipe Israel off the map.” Why? Could he be afraid of Israel, the nation that comprises less than one-one thousandth of the world’s population? Pharaoh, Haman, Nebuchadnezzar, Titus, Hitler and the leaders of the Inquisition did everything in their power to wipe the Jewish people off the face of the earth. Why? Fear and dread.
Anti-Judaism, anti-Semitism and more recently, anti-Zionism are all results of fear of the Jewish people. Fear is an agitated state brought about by danger. The cause is sometimes unknown to the one afraid. The uncertainty of danger produces insecurity and one stands helpless in the face of one’s emotions. Where should we turn when we do not know from where the threat is coming?
We may fear people when we don’t know them or their characteristics, leading to an aversion to a person or group of people. This leads to the desire to get rid of the cause of the fear, to destroy it or, in the words of the Iranian President, “to wipe it off the map.”
This ancient fear of the Jewish people can only be overcome through faith in the one true God. The deeper that faith in God penetrates into us, the more the fear in us is purified and transformed into a holy fear of God. This reverence of God is stronger than the fear of the unknown. This is the only way anti-Semitism can be defeated.
Thus, the lust for war and the anti-Semitic violence from the neo-Nazis, anti- Zionists and Arabs is a consequence of an inferiority complex with regard to the am segula, the chosen people of God, Israel. The Jewish religion is one with strong national ties, which will only reach their Messianic-universal fulfillment as promised by God in the Last Days.
Saber rattling: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to ‘wipe Israel off the map’
Ahmadinejad and CAIR need to know the end has already been written you lose!
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/
Pakistan is a full-blown Islamic state,
it has spread nuclear know-how to the parts of the Muslim world that are more lethal - Iran and Libya - of which, the latter is said to have abandoned its nuclear ambitions.
High time we cut our losses
You know, it seems to me that we are either going to have admit we are in a religious war and declare a full war against Islam - outlawing it's political aspirations - or we are going to have to keep to punishing surgical strikes.
These people just aren't going to accept living side by side, accepting help from those who they consider infidels. They consider that humiliating.
Why we haven't wiped out the poppy fields, I don't know. It would be in our national interest to do so.
First step, is to outlaw Islam. To get where the world should want to be, this must happen first.
Only after Islam takes a seat with those other cult minded ideas (k.k.k, nazi,shinto, etc) will progress be made.
I agree with Foehammer. Of course the smart thing to do is give mohammad some tough love. That is obvious.
But how in the world is that ever going to fly in a liberal society? I maintain the pessimistic attitude that liberal democracy as we know it today, is fundamentally incompatible with self-preservation for it has already made a suicide pact with liberal ideology.
The only way for the west to be victorious against islam, is for the west to change from liberal democracy to a secular conservative autocracy. Shutting down mosques just for suspicion of sedition, should be legal. Invading the homes of muslims for no better reason than random searches should be legal. Deporting people without appeal should be legal. The practice of islam should be made illegal.
In otherwords, we need to apply methodologies that are anathema to our liberal consciousness in order to really win this war Patton-style. And I don't see that happening. Not now, not tomorrow, not after the first nuke goes off. What do I see after a nuke going off?
A billion-dollar memorial with flowers and flowing water.
That is the reality. As a culture, we are no longer made from the same cloth that comprised our forefathers. In New York on September 12, there was no anger, no righteous fury, no vigilantism, no nothing. America swallowed it. Mohammad put his dick into our mouth, shot his wad down American's throat, and America swallowed it. Not a single Islamic was killed in retaliation in the entire country. Not a single mosque was bombed. Not a single beheading. In fact, there wasn't a single protest. Indeed, the only protests came from the islamic side.
Don't subscribe to this fantasy that Americans, as a people, will stand to kick islamic ass as soon as the first bomb goes off.
somethingaboutislam: good analysis, I agree with
your pessisimism and the self-destructive nature
of Western democracy.
But they dont need to destroy us with nukes. They
can very easily destroy us with demographics. It
is happening in France, the UK, Scandinavia.
Mexicans (not that they're as bad as the Muslims)
are eroding our national identity here.
Iraq arms 'leaking to insurgents'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/5006196.stm
I am with Foerhammer, except in the war with Iran, I am for isolationism, it´s the best way, send troops to foreign is a waste of lifes, money and time.
A poster above suggested that I "must be kidding" when I wrote that direct involvement by Infidel forces should be kept to an absolute minimum, and everywhere local armies, whether that of the current government, or of warlords, or militias belonging to this or that group defined ethnically or on sectarian lines, should be exploited, feeding them carefully-doled out equipment, forgetting entirely about squandering resources on "winning hearts and minds" and still worse, on giving aid to make Muslim countries economically better off. That is the wrong thing to do. Only when their own failures, including economic ones, become clear, and that cannot happen as long as the Jizyah of Western aid is availalbe, is there a chance for a local version of Ataturk to obtain power and then to constrain the practice and effect of Islam. Otherwise we will simply be allowing Muslims (and Infidels tempted by Islam) to continue to idle under the delusion that they can combine Islam and genuine prosperity. Take away the accidental wealth of oil, take away the Infidel Jizyah, and there would be little left. In any case, Muslims would have to work so hard that they would not have the leisure that so many of them now have to engage in Jihad.
When I answered that I did not, he then came back with two postings:
Posting #1:
"If Pakistan becomes a full-blown Islamic state,
it will start spreading nuclear know-how to the
entire Muslim world. We cannot afford that.
Musharraf, is, for now, a useful ally."
Posting #2:
Hugh: In Algeria, as well as in Pakistan and Turkey the Army has political power and is quasi-secular.
Some Arab dictatorships (Syria, Iraq, Libya) are
also secular in nature.
We have to work with someone in the Muslim world-be it military or civilian dictatorships."
Note that this poster overlooks what I had been advocating all along, which was the minimizing of American or other Infidel troops on the ground (and certainly none of that "reconstruction" nonsense, building highways in Afghanistan, or power grids in Iraq, that sort of thing) and has come, more or less, to accept that idea, but either inadvertently or deliberately ignores that I have no objection to some small arms sales to local armies, or even in some cases military aid (to, for example, Kurds who agree to funnel them to other Kurds in Iran).
So perhaps it is a matter of outlook. Musharraf is completely untrustworthy, and if he does some of what we wish him to do, it is not out of sudden love for Americans. The Americans have treated Pakistan with kid gloves. It was Pakistan that created and then nurtured the Taliban, and hence the refuge for Al Qaeda; it was A. Q. Khan, supported to the hilt by the Pakistani military, that on the basis of stolen technology managed to give Pakistan nuclear weapons, and what's more, to supply important information to both Iran and North Korea. Pakistan for decades was the recipient of all kinds of American aid and American solicitousness that was based on a misperception of Islam solely as a "bulwark against Communism." It may be that, though many Muslims have displayed far less animosity toward Communist totalitarians (and overlooking their behavior toward Muslims in Chechnya) than they have the liberal democracies. That is not surprising. Islam itself emphasizes the collective, not the individual; Islam offers a Complete Explanation of the Universe, just as Communism does, with its lutte des classes, and as did National Socialism.
But let's repost that Posting #1 here:
"If Pakistan becomes a full-blown Islamic state,
it will start spreading nuclear know-how to the
entire Muslim world. We cannot afford that.
Musharraf, is, for now, a useful ally."
The writer above claims that Pakistan is in danger, if we don't treat Pakistan just as nicely as ever, of becoming "a full-blown Islamic state." No, it is in no danger of "becoming" a "full-blown Islamic state." It is a "full-blown Islamic state" right now. General Zia ul-Haq -- yes, one of those "generals" whom Americans keep thinking must somehow be "secular" -- saw to that. And it was during the period when Pakistan and Pakistani generals could do no wrong as far as Washington was concerned, when those generals received large amounts of American military aid, that Pakistan created and nurtured and then sent back to Afghanistan the Taliban, and supported the Taliban regime diplomatically and inevery other way. And it was during the period when Pakistan was supported by Infidel Americda that A. Q. Khan managed to steal nuclear secrets, use them to build an "Islamic bomb," and to spread the same stolen technology to Iran, North Korea, Libya, and perhaps other countries.
Of course Pakistan isn't quite in the Saudi Arabian category; no mutawwa rushing around hitting people on the streets. But it's awfully close, in thought, word, and deed, and don't be fooled by any unrepresentative, well-educated, English-speaking scions of some family (the Ispahanis, the Bhuttos, the other zamindars and landlords, of whom there must be -- oh, at least 5000 out of Pakistan's 125 million people). As for the "danger of spreading nuclear knowhow" that he worries about -- A. Q. Khan's been there, done that. He's done it with Iran, he's done it with North Korea (the enemy of my Infidel enemy is, in a limited way, my friend), he's done it with Libya, he may have done it with Egypt and Saudi Arabia (still unclear). Why worry about what has already happened?
Now for Posting #2:
"Hugh: In Algeria, as well as in Pakistan and Turkey the Army has political power and is quasi-secular.
Some Arab dictatorships (Syria, Iraq, Libya) are
also secular in nature.
We have to work with someone in the Muslim world-be it military or civilian dictatorships.
Well, yes and know. It is true that the generals who run Algeria, and sipon off money, have "politicla power" as the army does in Pakistan (the army is the government) and Turkey (where the army in the past has been the remover of governments deemed insufficiently loyal to Kemalism). It is not true that these are "secular in nature." Not only is the Pakistani army not "secular in nature" but it was a Pakistani general, Zia ul-Haq, who did the most to institute a much stricter Islamic line, in the law and in attitudes. And much of the army is true to that; Musharraf has been, and if he chooses to collaborate with the Americans now, it is not because he is in any sense "secular." As for Turkey, the army has been hampered by the slow but steady undermining of Kemalism, as well as by Erdogan's clever exploitation of demands made by the E.U. to undo some of the ways in which the army managed to limit the freedom of maneuver of those intent on undoing Kemalist restrictions on the practice of Islam, and in any case, the word "secular" even here is relative. The willingness to believe the worst of America and American soldiers, depicted in a box-office smash and in the Turkish press, as behaving "worse than Nazis" in Iraq, a sentiment which can hardly go unshared by many Turks in the ranks, even if high officers remain immune to such attitudes that would arise, naturally, in any Muslim society (for are not the Americans Infidels?), gives one pause; no American military or civilian planners should count on the supposed "seculareness" of any Muslim army. It is a question of whether their own self-interest, in local matters, would cause them to crack down harder on the mullah or imam pur et dur.
For anyone to construct a myth of the "quasi-secular" crooks of the Algerian military (they are FLN boys, they just want to get their cut of the oil loot, they are not as incorruptible as the FIS terrorists, but they remain Muslims with a Muslim world-view -- just look at what Boumedienne said in 1974 about the demographic conquest of Europe by Islam, and at the U.N. yet), is dangerous. It sets up the notion that we "can work" with our "Muslim friends." Good God. We can, here and there, obtain collaboration, temporary and limited, because our interests and their interests are, for the moment, the same. Mubarak may wish to crack down on the Muslim Brotherhood, but that is not because Mubarak deplores their anti-infidel fanaticism but because he deplores their hatred of him and their opposition to his son succeeding him. The Saudis may attack members of Al-Qaeda within Saudi Arabia, but not becuase they deplore (no, they enourage, they welcome) the anti-Infidel activities of Al-Qaeda. Not at all -- all they care about are the activities directed against them, the corrupt al-Saud.
When you then, rather hastily and misleadingly, and quite casually, write that "Some Arab dictatorships (Syria, Iraq, Libya) are
also secular in nature." one hardly knows where to begin? What "dictatorship" in Iraq are you talking about? Have you forgotten the purple-thumbed achievement that has so far cost American taxpayers $300 billion? Iraq is now a "democracy." Or did you mean Saddam Hussein, who never left Islam, and who was "secular" only in the sense that of all possible opposition that which he feared most was presented by the Shi'a clerics. Ba'athism was not so much "secular" as it was a subset, or variant, on Islam, one which allowed a fascistic party organization, essentially in Iraq a Sunni dictatorship, to present itself as open to non-Sunnis as well (Shi'a Arabs, Christians, even Kurds and Turcomans). Theoretically, it was; in reality, it was always a Sunni-run dictatorship. In Syria, too, what you describe so blithely as a "secular" dictatorship is nothing of the sort. It is a dictatorship of the Alawites, who constitute 12% of the population, a military caste that controls the officer corps (correction: constitutes the officer corps), and that is "secular" only in the sense that it regards its most dangerous opposition as that which comes from local versions of the Muslim Brotherhood, who rightly view the Alawites, with their worship of Miriam (Mary), as unorthodox in their Islam. But this is not "secularism" and the eagerness of the Alawites, outside of Syria, to prove their Muslim bona fides, either by cooperating with the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, or with Shi'a in Iran and Hezbollah, simply shows the unusefulness of this term you apply to offer a kind of vision that bears little relation to reality: this word "secular."
We have no Muslim allies. Here and there we have some Muslim groups that we can use, as they can use us. We could support the Kurds in Iraq and northern Iran against both Arabs and Persians. We could support the Berbers against the Arabs in both France and Algeria. We could support the blacks of Darfur against the Arabs of Khartoum. We could support Musharraf, keeping in mind his essential untrustworthiness, and the very limited nature of his cooperation, and also that he represents a very small group, even within the Pakistani military.
Cooperation can be obtained -- through all manner of means, including threats. A real alliance -- never. Muslims cannot conceivably, to the extent that they remain Muslims, be allies with Infidels against other Muslims.
Can't be done. And should never be counted on, never even considered to make sensible policy, especially if it is an alternative chosen instead of policies, colder and to some crueler, that do make sense.
FROM THE MAHMOUD COULD NEVER CAUSE CHAOS ON EARTH FILE:...Pakistan’s Shiite’s Support Iran’s Annihilation of Israel
May 23….(FOJ) Activists of a Pakistani Shiite Muslims groups burn the mock coffins of US President George Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during a rally to show their support for Iran and Palestine. The Pakistani Islamic rally also called for support from the entire Muslim world for the Iranian President’s pledge to wipe Israel off the map!
http://focusonjerusalem.com/index.html
Wow, so many excellent postings, so little time to comment. Great post Mentat.
On the featured story: I'm surprised that the Toronto Star, which generally leans in the pro-Islam direction, would allow those words to be published.
On this issue of jihadists using Muslim civilians as human shields, here is a brief article on the doctrine of tattarrus.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/islkill.htm This deals with the doctrine tattarrus.
Next up: Some of you might have seen this already, but here's Bernard Lewis saying "it is 1938."
People also should heed the warning delivered by Princeton University professor Bernard Lewis, one of the nation’s foremost scholars of Islam, before the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life here last month.
Lewis, now 90, cast the struggle with Islamic extremism in WWII terms — it is 1938, he said, and “we seem to be more in the mode of Chamberlain at Munich rather than of Churchill.”
Osama bin Laden and other would-be Hitlers, he said, consider the United States “an effete, degenerate, pampered enemy incapable of real resistance.” It’s part of the pattern that we fight among ourselves as much as against our enemies. This is more than serious. It’s dire. http://www.leadercall.com/opinion/local_story_142102747.html?keyword=topstory
Finally, there are often not enough hours in the day, but check us out when you make your daily rounds.
http://www.islam-watch.org/
A poster above suggested that I "must be kidding" when I wrote that direct involvement by Infidel forces should be kept to an absolute minimum, and everywhere local armies, whether that of the current government, or of warlords, or militias belonging to this or that group defined ethnically or on sectarian lines, should be exploited, feeding them carefully-doled out equipment, forgetting entirely about squandering resources on "winning hearts and minds" and still worse, on giving aid to make Muslim countries economically better off. That is the wrong thing to do. Only when their own failures, including economic ones, become clear, and that cannot happen as long as the Jizyah of Western aid is availalbe, is there a chance for a local version of Ataturk to obtain power and then to constrain the practice and effect of Islam. Otherwise we will simply be allowing Muslims (and Infidels tempted by Islam) to continue to idle under the delusion that they can combine Islam and genuine prosperity. Take away the accidental wealth of oil, take away the Infidel Jizyah, and there would be little left. In any case, Muslims would have to work so hard that they would not have the leisure that so many of them now have to engage in Jihad.
When I answered that I did not, he then came back with two postings:
Posting #1:
"If Pakistan becomes a full-blown Islamic state,
it will start spreading nuclear know-how to the
entire Muslim world. We cannot afford that.
Musharraf, is, for now, a useful ally."
Posting #2:
Hugh: In Algeria, as well as in Pakistan and Turkey the Army has political power and is quasi-secular.
Some Arab dictatorships (Syria, Iraq, Libya) are
also secular in nature.
We have to work with someone in the Muslim world-be it military or civilian dictatorships."
Note that this poster overlooks what I had been advocating all along, which was the minimizing of American or other Infidel troops on the ground (and certainly none of that "reconstruction" nonsense, building highways in Afghanistan, or power grids in Iraq, that sort of thing) and has come, more or less, to accept that idea, but either inadvertently or deliberately ignores that I have no objection to some small arms sales to local armies, or even in some cases military aid (to, for example, Kurds who agree to funnel them to other Kurds in Iran).
So perhaps it is a matter of outlook. Musharraf is completely untrustworthy, and if he does some of what we wish him to do, it is not out of sudden love for Americans. The Americans have treated Pakistan with kid gloves. It was Pakistan that created and then nurtured the Taliban, and hence the refuge for Al Qaeda; it was A. Q. Khan, supported to the hilt by the Pakistani military, that on the basis of stolen technology managed to give Pakistan nuclear weapons, and what's more, to supply important information to both Iran and North Korea. Pakistan for decades was the recipient of all kinds of American aid and American solicitousness that was based on a misperception of Islam solely as a "bulwark against Communism." It may be that, though many Muslims have displayed far less animosity toward Communist totalitarians (and overlooking their behavior toward Muslims in Chechnya) than they have the liberal democracies. That is not surprising. Islam itself emphasizes the collective, not the individual; Islam offers a Complete Explanation of the Universe, just as Communism does, with its lutte des classes, and as did National Socialism.
But let's repost that Posting #1 here:
"If Pakistan becomes a full-blown Islamic state,
it will start spreading nuclear know-how to the
entire Muslim world. We cannot afford that.
Musharraf, is, for now, a useful ally."
The writer above claims that Pakistan is in danger, if we don't treat Pakistan just as nicely as ever, of becoming "a full-blown Islamic state." No, it is in no danger of "becoming" a "full-blown Islamic state." It is a "full-blown Islamic state" right now. General Zia ul-Haq -- yes, one of those "generals" whom Americans keep thinking must somehow be "secular" -- saw to that. And it was during the period when Pakistan and Pakistani generals could do no wrong as far as Washington was concerned, when those generals received large amounts of American military aid, that Pakistan created and nurtured and then sent back to Afghanistan the Taliban, and supported the Taliban regime diplomatically and inevery other way. And it was during the period when Pakistan was supported by Infidel Americda that A. Q. Khan managed to steal nuclear secrets, use them to build an "Islamic bomb," and to spread the same stolen technology to Iran, North Korea, Libya, and perhaps other countries.
Of course Pakistan isn't quite in the Saudi Arabian category; no mutawwa rushing around hitting people on the streets. But it's awfully close, in thought, word, and deed, and don't be fooled by any unrepresentative, well-educated, English-speaking scions of some family (the Ispahanis, the Bhuttos, the other zamindars and landlords, of whom there must be -- oh, at least 5000 out of Pakistan's 125 million people). As for the "danger of spreading nuclear knowhow" that he worries about -- A. Q. Khan's been there, done that. He's done it with Iran, he's done it with North Korea (the enemy of my Infidel enemy is, in a limited way, my friend), he's done it with Libya, he may have done it with Egypt and Saudi Arabia (still unclear). Why worry about what has already happened?
Now for Posting #2:
"Hugh: In Algeria, as well as in Pakistan and Turkey the Army has political power and is quasi-secular.
Some Arab dictatorships (Syria, Iraq, Libya) are
also secular in nature.
We have to work with someone in the Muslim world-be it military or civilian dictatorships.
Well, yes and know. It is true that the generals who run Algeria, and sipon off money, have "politicla power" as the army does in Pakistan (the army is the government) and Turkey (where the army in the past has been the remover of governments deemed insufficiently loyal to Kemalism). It is not true that these are "secular in nature." Not only is the Pakistani army not "secular in nature" but it was a Pakistani general, Zia ul-Haq, who did the most to institute a much stricter Islamic line, in the law and in attitudes. And much of the army is true to that; Musharraf has been, and if he chooses to collaborate with the Americans now, it is not because he is in any sense "secular." As for Turkey, the army has been hampered by the slow but steady undermining of Kemalism, as well as by Erdogan's clever exploitation of demands made by the E.U. to undo some of the ways in which the army managed to limit the freedom of maneuver of those intent on undoing Kemalist restrictions on the practice of Islam, and in any case, the word "secular" even here is relative. The willingness to believe the worst of America and American soldiers, depicted in a box-office smash and in the Turkish press, as behaving "worse than Nazis" in Iraq, a sentiment which can hardly go unshared by many Turks in the ranks, even if high officers remain immune to such attitudes that would arise, naturally, in any Muslim society (for are not the Americans Infidels?), gives one pause; no American military or civilian planners should count on the supposed "seculareness" of any Muslim army. It is a question of whether their own self-interest, in local matters, would cause them to crack down harder on the mullah or imam pur et dur.
For anyone to construct a myth of the "quasi-secular" crooks of the Algerian military (they are FLN boys, they just want to get their cut of the oil loot, they are not as incorruptible as the FIS terrorists, but they remain Muslims with a Muslim world-view -- just look at what Boumedienne said in 1974 about the demographic conquest of Europe by Islam, and at the U.N. yet), is dangerous. It sets up the notion that we "can work" with our "Muslim friends." Good God. We can, here and there, obtain collaboration, temporary and limited, because our interests and their interests are, for the moment, the same. Mubarak may wish to crack down on the Muslim Brotherhood, but that is not because Mubarak deplores their anti-infidel fanaticism but because he deplores their hatred of him and their opposition to his son succeeding him. The Saudis may attack members of Al-Qaeda within Saudi Arabia, but not becuase they deplore (no, they enourage, they welcome) the anti-Infidel activities of Al-Qaeda. Not at all -- all they care about are the activities directed against them, the corrupt al-Saud.
When you then, rather hastily and misleadingly, and quite casually, write that "Some Arab dictatorships (Syria, Iraq, Libya) are
also secular in nature." one hardly knows where to begin? What "dictatorship" in Iraq are you talking about? Have you forgotten the purple-thumbed achievement that has so far cost American taxpayers $300 billion? Iraq is now a "democracy." Or did you mean Saddam Hussein, who never left Islam, and who was "secular" only in the sense that of all possible opposition that which he feared most was presented by the Shi'a clerics. Ba'athism was not so much "secular" as it was a subset, or variant, on Islam, one which allowed a fascistic party organization, essentially in Iraq a Sunni dictatorship, to present itself as open to non-Sunnis as well (Shi'a Arabs, Christians, even Kurds and Turcomans). Theoretically, it was; in reality, it was always a Sunni-run dictatorship. In Syria, too, what you describe so blithely as a "secular" dictatorship is nothing of the sort. It is a dictatorship of the Alawites, who constitute 12% of the population, a military caste that controls the officer corps (correction: constitutes the officer corps), and that is "secular" only in the sense that it regards its most dangerous opposition as that which comes from local versions of the Muslim Brotherhood, who rightly view the Alawites, with their worship of Miriam (Mary), as unorthodox in their Islam. But this is not "secularism" and the eagerness of the Alawites, outside of Syria, to prove their Muslim bona fides, either by cooperating with the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, or with Shi'a in Iran and Hezbollah, simply shows the unusefulness of this term you apply to offer a kind of vision that bears little relation to reality: this word "secular."
We have no Muslim allies. Here and there we have some Muslim groups that we can use, as they can use us. We could support the Kurds in Iraq and northern Iran against both Arabs and Persians. We could support the Berbers against the Arabs in both France and Algeria. We could support the blacks of Darfur against the Arabs of Khartoum. We could support Musharraf, keeping in mind his essential untrustworthiness, and the very limited nature of his cooperation, and also that he represents a very small group, even within the Pakistani military.
Cooperation can be obtained -- through all manner of means, including threats. A real alliance -- never. Muslims cannot conceivably, to the extent that they remain Muslims, be allies with Infidels against other Muslims.
Can't be done. And should never be counted on, never even considered to make sensible policy, especially if it is an alternative chosen instead of policies, colder and to some crueler, that do make sense.
“We’re going to terrorize this nation.” Malvo said Muhammad also outlined a plan for six sniper shootings a day for 30 days, to be followed by a bombing campaign that would target schools, school buses and children’s hospitals http://focusonjerusalem.com/newsroom.html
ANOTHER FILE FROM THE MAHMOUD DOESNT REALLY WANT CHAOS FILE.......Iran Test Launches Shihab-3
21:18 May 23, '06 / 25 Iyar 5766
(IsraelNN.com) Iran has conducted a test launch this evening of the Shihab-3 ("Comet") intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM), with a range capable of striking Israel, all US forces in the region and Iran's Arab rivals.
The Shihab-3 is estimated to have a 1,300-1,500 kilometer operational range, with a respective 1,000-750 kilogram warhead. As a first generation nuclear warhead has typically a weight of about 1,000 kilograms, the Shihab-3 could theoretically be used to deliver an unconventional payload. Israeli officials estimate that Iran has dozens of the Shihab-3 missiles. Additionally, Iran has longer-range Shihab-4 missiles and has recently acquired superior North Korean modified BM-25 missiles, as well.
JPost.com » Iran » Article
May. 18, 2006 14:21 | Updated May. 23, 2006 14:40
Blog: Eye on Iran
Iran. What about this word has been triggering so many readers to respond and react as of late? Is it the aura of the word "nuclear," or perhaps the near-perfect good guys/bad guys structure that has unfolded before our eyes? Could it be the degree of threat Israel and the Western world face?
Whatever the reason, the most popular articles on JPost.com for over two months have been about Iran.
So our thinking is, "Let's give the readers a podium to comment about Iran in a new blog that is written exclusively by JPost.com readers." Send us your entries, and the best candidates will be posted on our new Iran blog on JPost.com.
Just one request: Let's create a forum that is written intelligently and creatively.
Give it your best shot. (Please include your name and location in your entry)
Print E-mail Subscribe
SATANS RIGHT HAND MAN SAID HE DIDNT DO IT...LET HIM GO!......Tape: Bin Laden says Moussaoui not part of September 11
Osama bin Laden said Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person convicted in a US Court for the September 11 attacks, had nothing to do with the operations, according to a Web site audiotape released on Tuesday.
Bin Laden said he had personally assigned tasks to the 19 hijackers who carried out the attacks on U.S. Cities on September 11. (Reuters)
Hugh-
You regularly beat on the Bush administration for having a "sentimental" view of democracy in Iraq. Yet you seem to have a very sentimental definition of the word "ally". Allies are nations who coooperate for some period of time in matters of war and/or statecraft. Of course they do this to advance their own interests. History is full of the tales of disasters that have befallen kings and nations that were reckless enough to believe that "ally" meant "friend". Having said that everyone is expected to say kind things in public about their wartime allies. You can't very well go around saying "Yes they are our 'friends' now but wait until the next war, we'll get them then". At least not in public.
It is not the rhetoric as much as the reality that worries me about Bush. He is as clueless about Iraq and Afghanistan as Carter and Reagan were about Afghanistan or FDR was about the Soviets in WWII.
Islam needs to be confronted head on. Muslims take our generosity and tolerance as weakness and take advantage of it. How many islamic countries can anyone name that allows non-muslim institutions to flourish as we do with theirs in the west.
I am reading the "Prophet of Doom" at the moment. This book should be a required reading for all our politicians and school teachers.
Pakistan is taliban country in all but name and Musharaff is playing George Bush and the Americans like a glove puppet. He is laughing at us all the way to his islamic bank.
George, this gets to the heart of what I wondered about as a young man. It has been noted that no empire has ever lasted. All the great empires eventually succumbed to something, usually an internal force combined with an outside force.
Growing up, however, it was assumed that America would last forever. Meaning that no power on earth could destroy America. The American way of life was supreme and the most powerful. Whereas the Roman empire crumbled from decay and barbarians, America was "constantly renewing itself" and its armed forces could protect it indefinately. We were told that the constitution was a supremely wise document which was the source of America's strength and longevity.
But then I also noted that America is a young country, only 230 years old. Young for an empire in the historical timeline. But I did wonder that America would last forever. I could see no adversary or ideology capable of defeating it. Still I recognized the wisdom that nothing lasts forever, especially empires. History attests to that.
And now we see why America will fall. While no military force can defeat it, she can defeat herself from within. While the military is powerful, it has no ideology and no conscience. It will do as the executive branch wishes. It does not exist to protect the American way of life, but to take orders from the person that wins a popularity contest. Should an Islamic be the most popular, the military will now do the bidding of mohammad. While the constitution protects the American, it also protects the foreigner. While our enemy tortures us, we are not allowed to tortue him. While the poliice protect the Christians, they also protect those that seek to enslave and kill the Christians. Liberal democracy is a moral relativist. It will never take a stand to protect itself if the measures required to do that conflict with its ideology. So liberal democracy is programmed to self-terminate if challenged.
That challenge is upon us now, and liberal democracy has not even taken the smallest step for self-preservation. Not because it can't see the threat, but only because it does not want to see the threat because the measures needed are not in the playbook. Islam knows this and is taking quick advantage of it.
Today I saw a van with a sticker that said: I LOVE THE PROPHET MOHAMMAD. So what this driver was saying to all in traffic was that he loves a pedophile, a child rapist, a warlord, and a murderer.
If I was to put a sticker on my car saying I HATE THE PROPHET MOHAMMAD meaning I hate pedophiles, child rapists, warlords, and murderers, I would have my vehicle vandalized and I could be arrested and charged for inciting hatred.
That is the society we have created. It is our own creation. We created this Frankenstein monster. Our own ideology can condemned us to a doctrine that not only is intellectually dishonest, but that also is mortally dangerous if exploited. Yet we can not change this doctrine. It is not only written on sacred pieces of paper, in our law books, but also in our collective consciousness.
While Islam is a sickness, so is liberalism and its moral relativism and its associated left-wing pathogens. But while islam's sickness makes it violent it also makes it unapologetic, dominant, cocksure, and judgemental. Our sickness, conversely, makes us weak, submissive, laissez-faire, and accommodating. So in a conflict between these two pathologies, the islamic one wins. Darwin would say that the traits of liberal democracy are recessive and fundamentalist theocracy genes are dominate. A quick look at the history of islam would concur with that view. It has swallowed up every culture it has come into conflict with. Nothing has ever swallowed islam. Why not? When islam was stopped at the gates of Vienna, it was allowed to retreat to regroup. It was not destroyed. Islam has never suffered a genocide. But it has perpetrated many. While islam would never allow an enemy to retreat to regroup, it would be aniliated, the western world did exactly that. Today, the west has the power to destroy islam, but chooses not to. Why? Because it is in our genes. It goes against our programming. This Program Has Performed An Illegal Operation and Will Be Shut Down.
Islam gets no such error message.
While some may see hope for the future, the dhimmiwatch side of this side, gives me no hope.
somethingaboutislam: Liberalism indeed, renders us
powerless against Islam or 3rd world immigrants
bent on changing our society to accomodate them.
However, do not forget that liberalism, when
"applied" to the melting pot of European amd Asian
(Chinese, Korean, etc) immigrants made America
great.
And we do not need to fight Islam--we only need to separate ourselves from them: no immigration, no students, maybe even no tourism from Islamic lands.
Ban travel to Islamic countries, as it is done
today with Cuba. Limit our country's interactions with Islamic nations to commerce and basic diplomatic relations. No contact, no conflict.
We could compensate (very generously) our current
Islamic citizens for voluntary relocation to
an Islamic country of choice. Basically, bribe
them into leaving. No need to opress innocent
people, especially US citizens.
Meanwhile, Cindy Shehan arrived in Australia to spread her anti-war agit-prop-dandruff.
In Berlin yesterday a turkish-German politician from the far left PDS party was yesterday reported kicked and beaten by Neo-Nazis.
Seems as if turkish Mohammedans are not the 'natural' allies of the militant right wing fascists.
It is laughable that America and the free nations of the world can believe and endeavor to install democracy in a land that has been ruled dictatorially by islam and islam's followers for over 1300 years.
You can not free masses that have been brainwashed for centuries to believe in and accept dominance by islam and the islamic religious/political leaderhsip.
The Russians could not change the mind set with the horrendous attacks against the resistance for the Russians did not destroy the religious/political leadership of the resistance.
Very simple fact for victory in the Middle East: Either destroy the dominance of islam and the islamic religious/political leadership or the middle east will continue to be subjugated under the dominance of islam and the islamic religious/political leadership.
This fact applies to America and the free nations of the world. Either destroy the islam and the islamic religious/political leadership or America and the free nations of the world will be subjugated under the dominance of islam and the islamic religious/political leadership.
How many 100's of billions of taxpayer dollars and soldier's lives have been wasted in this endeavor in afghan and iraq. Freedom is a lost cause in afghan and iraq for this war will never be fought to be won. The only advantages that America and the free nations have obtained is the dethroning of sadam and the elimination of tens of thousands of potential terrorists.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only cost at any cost and the cost will be immense.
Hugh
You omitted addressing the question of Libya, and its Gaddafiesque Green Book "Secularism". Since they are just a step away from being described as an "ally" (after all, how could they be worse than Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, Pakistan, et al?), you might have to visit that issue sooner or later. Shouldn't we infidels be cheering on the man-made river that runs into the Gulf of Sirte, since it diverts their oil millions from weapons and funding terror? Or should we be more concerned about Gaddaffi emulating Naseem?
A solution to Islamic problem compatible with
Western values: give each Muslim resident of the
Western world a substantial sum of money (order
of millions, if necessary) under the condition that
they leave the country within, say, 1 year.
Israel should do the same with the Palestinians.
Buy them off, do not kill them or intern them in
concentration camps. It is humane and it cannot
fail.
Speaking of the dangers of an overly simplistic
world view, how do you reconcile that with the following:
But shortly after September 11, ordinary Iranians held a spontaneous candlelight vigil in Tehran in solidarity with the victims. Yet some of Iran’s leaders don’t appear to understand how drastically the world has changed after September 11.
http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=181838
"Canada and Mexico seem to have no problem with sending their people here to prosper, so Canada and Mexico can handle 2.5 million Muslims. "
Foehammer, your ideas overall are good, but you don't want 2.5 muslims in your neighbourhood, do you? Why not encourage those who love sharia to emigrate to islamic nations? They'd all love it, shouldn't they?
Lili -- Canada IS an Islamic Nation.... Sorry to be the bearer of bad news...
In Islamo-think, the worst Muslim is better than the best infidel.
So the land must be cleansed of even the most noble, self-sacrificing non-Muslims, whether doctors, engineers or teachers.
Infidels infect the Ummah.
Haram dogs that they are.
They must be expelled to return the honor the Mohammedans.
Until the global infidel suckers stop wasting money, time, and energy on these incorrrigible ingrates, this pattern will rise up to smack them in their silly faces over and over and over.
Jeepers, why do they hate us?!? We do everything to try to help!?!
It's the Koran, stupid!
But shortly after September 11, ordinary Iranians held a spontaneous candlelight vigil in Tehran in solidarity with the victims
No, I will stick to my simplistic world view. What percentage of the ordinary Iranians held a vigil? 0.00012%?
In a country of 60 million or so, you can find a hundred people to rally for anything and get the MSM to take a photo.
somethingaboutislam writes: "As a culture, we are no longer made from the same cloth that comprised our forefathers. In New York on September 12, there was no anger, no righteous fury, no vigilantism, no nothing. America swallowed it."
That is simply false. I don't know which Americans you were listening to at the time, but I can tell you that the reaction from Americans posting to the Internet, calling into radio talk shows, etc., was white-hot anger. Even mainstream liberals. (In New York City itself, of course, the immediate reaction was shock.) The headline in the Boston Globe, not exactly a right-wing newspaper, read "New Day Of Infamy," which tells you what analogy they were drawing. If you like, I can point you to online archives of those days and you can see for yourself.
It was our leaders who started wallowing in weak half-measures and political correctness, dampening down the American reaction rather than channeling it into productive pursuits. In the days immediately after 9-11, I did not hear any average non-Muslim Americans, not even mainstream liberals, claiming that "Islam is a religion of peace" and that Osama had "hijacked" it. That bizarro notion originated not from the grass-roots but from Richard Clarke (as he stated publicly and proudly), who sold it to Bush and it became Bush Administration policy ever since.
I didn't hear any average Americans telling Bush to send only a few U.S. troops to Afghanistan and rely mostly on the Northern Alliance and other Afghan warlords (which led to Osama's escape). No, that idea probably came from SecDef Rumsfeld, who was a big proponent of minimalism in warfare. As for why there weren't any revenge attacks against Muslims living in America, Bush told Americans not to do that. He spent nearly as much time trying to protect Muslims living in America as he did planning a military response. He met repeatedly with Islamic "leaders" in America (some of whom we later found out had ties to terrorism), to reassure them that this was not a "war against Islam."
In American history, when an American President has reflected the gut instinct of the American people in a crisis, it usually works out well. Bush didn't do that.
"You regularly beat on the Bush administration for having a "sentimental" view of democracy in Iraq. Yet you seem to have a very sentimental definition of the word "ally". Allies are nations who coooperate for some period of time in matters of war and/or statecraft. Of course they do this to advance their own interests."
-- from a posting above
No. Nothing sentimental about my refusal to think that calling Egypt a "close ally" and Saudi Arabia a "staunch ally" and the Gulf states "our close allies" (all of which I read in major papers today) shows that I have a dreamy idea of what an ally is. I know that the Soviet Union was an "ally" of Great Britain and the United States during World War II; I also know, or think I know, that we all understood that the meaning was limited to that conflict.
When it comes to Muslim states there is no much misinformiation, and is simply a holdover from the Cold War, when many believed that all one had to know about Islamic countries was that "Islam is a bulwark against Communism," and decades of ARAMCO propaganda for the Saudis (see, on this, J. B. Kelly's "Arabia, the Gulf, and the West") painted a portrait of the "sturdy yeoman of Nejd," as Kelly puts it, that "the ghost of Scheherezade could not have bettered."
Given all this pro-Islamic propaganda, and given the penchant for the American public to deny the disturbing truth or truths about the belief-system of Islam, its tenets, its attitudes, its atmospherics, the word "ally" here should be used with great caution. I would use it to distinguish countries that are organically linked, by civilization, to the Western world, to the ideas of individual liberties. Australia is an ally; Great Britain is an ally; Italy is an ally; Israel is an ally; Denmark is an ally. Some of these countries are willing to contribute troops because we ask them, to show solidarity (Australia for example), others will refrain from doing things even to defend themselves becuase we ask them (Israel during the First Gulf War, or giving up that plane sale to China); still others may seem to exhibit the same kind of idiotic anti-Americanism that one finds everywhere in Europe, but their heart just isn't and can't be in it (Italy). These are allies, even when they are maddening.
Egypt is not an ally. Saudi Arabia is not an ally, and it is not an ally even if it contributed arms and money to defeating the Red Army in Afghanistan, which was precisely the same goal as the United States. But the Saudi goal was to defeat the Infidel invader. The American goal was to weaken the Soviet Union. The difference is this: some regimes will, out of self-interest, a self-interest quite different from what we have in mind, or our reasons for doing the same thing, will overlap with us. Saudi Arabia fights Al-Qaeda members at home but is indifferent to their attacks on Infidels abroad; ditto with Egypt; ditto with Syria. These are not "allies" and the use of that word by Bush, Rice, or by The New Duranty Times, makes the public believe, wrongly, and merely by dint of repetition, that they are.
They aren't.
And the reasons for being so careful have just been outlined in the previous paragraph. Nothing sentimental about it.
reaction from Americans posting to the Internet, calling into radio talk shows, etc., was white-hot anger.
Steven, a few angry people calling into a talk show hardly embodies the American people. Phone-in talk shows always have angry people phoning in. LOL. About everything. The fact is that Americans took 9/11 sitting down without a peep. Not a single anti-terrorist, much less anti-islamic, protest took place. Lots of vigils and hand wringing, but no angry protests, no attacking of islamic embassies, no revenge attacks, no vigilantism, nothing. And this is the thing that some posters here say will happen if Iran attacks the US.
I say it won't happen. Post is prologue.
(and even if it did, the authorities would clamp down on it right away, using our own national guard if necessary. How's that for irony?)
I am with Foerhammer, except in the war with Iran, I am for isolationism, it´s the best way, send troops to foreign is a waste of lifes, money and time.
Posted by: Franze at May 23, 2006 02:32 PM
+++++++++++++++
No troops, just bombers and missiles.
I'm glad to see so many agreeing with my "simple" procedure, even though we all know it will be anything but "simple" to ever see implemented.
I have a few responses:
I agree completely with Hugh in that we do not have any Muslim allies and never will have. None of them are to be trusted.
However, I believe that Musharaf is not a threat. I saw an interview with him years ago on 60 Minutes. I read people pretty well when I can see them speak for a prolonged period of time. He's benefited us more than most people realize. If he had not taken power when he did, and somehow has stayed alive, we might already have seen a nuclear terrorist attack somewhere in the Western world.
Musharaf strikes me as pragmatic and secular and highly intelligent. He's also got serious brass to be in charge of Pakistan; it's not exactly Disneyland.
But, frankly, I don't think that Musharaf will remain alive much longer because his list of enemies just keeps getting longer. His only real chance will be to come to the United States before all the poop hits the fan -- like a certain former Cold War Soviet President did. (And yes, that comparison was intentional.)
Why I did not call for a complete continental expulsion of Muslims from North America was simply me being realistic: getting Muslims expelled from the USA will be a war enough unto itself. I'm not expecting 'miracles' by getting them an ocean distant, but if many chose to return to the Middle East, that would, of course, be highly desirable. Perhaps some cash incentives might make that choice more common....
To those that think that my scenario is impossible, you may very well be correct. I have floated many different outcomes to this war in my head and there are many ways that this can all go very bad for the West. Our biggest single threat is ourselves. If we do not have the metal to start acting like our ancestors have in the past, when such metal was needed most, then we are done. End of story.
On that note though, I will say that there ARE definitely men and women that have the metal. But will it be enough? I guess we will all find out eventually.
And this is the thing that some posters here say will happen if Iran attacks the US.
I say it won't happen. Post is prologue.
(and even if it did, the authorities would clamp down on it right away, using our own national guard if necessary. How's that for irony?)
Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 23, 2006 11:17 PM
+++++++++++++++++
I guess we will just have to wait and see,won't we....
You are normally spot on, but you obviously missed the speech the Musharraf gave his country following 9/11. It was delivered to his people in Urdu, for their consumption: read the part about where he alludes to what Mohammed did when he signed a treaty with the Jews before the battle of Khyber Oasis.
Hugh is right above when he says that Musharraf isn't in any sense of the term secular or trustworthy. Note that Musharraf was also the commander of the Pakistani troops that lost the border skirmish with India badly (known in India as the Kargil war), and staged his coup to avoid being held accountable for the defeat.
Hugh has the situation in his grasp. The whole big picture. Some of the posters said to deport all muslims from western lands. Nope. Not a solution.
Infide Pride,
Saw true lies. But, the thing is, I won't use a missile to blow one zombie away. There are smaller, cheaper projectiles. The reference to Terminator, is cos I am beginning to believe that a VERY cold-hearted approach is needed. I myself do not have such a heart. But, I want this planet to be a safe place for my kid. And when I think of that, I can do anything.
In response to the last couple of comments:
I beg to differ. I'm not convinced that we know what really goes on in the mind of Musharaff. I judge based on actions, not necessarily on words. Words can be used to blind. A smart military man is not going to show his cards to anyone, in other words. Musharaff knows to play the Muslim when it suits him, just like Sadamn Hussein did, but Hussein was no Muslim, he was a Stalinist.
Now, I have no way of proving my theory correct, but I have not seen good enough evidence worthy of disproving my theory either. I think we are dealing with a reader of Kaplan, Tzu, Thucydides and Machiavelli in Mr. Musharaff. I'll leave it at that.
As for anyone that believes removing Muslims from American soil isn't a solution, you would be right only if it is not implemented. The solution is simple, concrete, and logical. On the other hand, it is also heavy-handed.
I'd rather be heavy-handed and right, and politically correct and dead.
edit: ...not politically correct and dead.
:P
Foehammer,
Don't get me wrong, I am 100% you, but, the thing is, removal is a solution that leaves these people to wage war with WMD's . Like we are seeing in the case of iran. Removal will ensure that riots will not break out in U.S. But the external threat will still be there.