Sayyid Qutb has got ya by the throat, Henry Kissinger's got you tied up in knots. Seriously, Henry, wow. No way. Clash of civilizations? Really? Zowie. What was your first clue?
From AFP, with thanks to Jihad Watch News Editor Anne Crockett:
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger warned that Europe and the United States must unite to head off a "war of civilizations" arising from a nuclear-armed Middle East.In an opinion column in the Washington Post, the renowned foreign policy expert said the potential for a "global catastrophe" dwarfed lingering transatlantic mistrust left over from the Iraq war.
To head it off, Henry counsels dhimmitude:
"A common Atlantic policy backed by moderate Arab states must become a top priority, no matter how pessimistic previous experience with such projects leaves one," Kissinger wrote."The debate sparked by the Iraq war over American rashness vs. European escapism is dwarfed by what the world now faces.
"Both sides of the Atlantic should put their best minds together on how to deal with the common danger of a wider war merging into a war of civilizations against the background of a nuclear-armed Middle East."
How can they do that, Henry, when the best minds are one side of the Atlantic are doing their best to make that clash of civilizations a reality?
As our President pointed out in the only acceptable part of his speech last monday September Eleven, we are talking about a war FOR civilization, not "of civilizationS".
And it is an important point.
The islamobarbarians want to delete everything we cherish, mainly because they are ignorant and unable to understand it.
A hill of mud, silence over the divine voice of Mozart, Mr. Kizzinger, that's what we face, and I don't see the "other" Mozart on the other side of the border. I see beheadings and stonings of women instead...
Henry's way over the Hill. He still sees the world with post-WW2 eyes.
Very well-said indeed, Mr. Poitiers.. It is indeed a clash FOR civilisation as there is only ONE civilisation involved.
We need to take charge of the language for sake of accurate definition.
How shall we properly rephrase "the clash of civilisations" from now on?
Henry Kissinger speaks when it suits him. This was the same guy who sent US vessels laden with weapns when India and Pakistan were at war. The crook then wanted to contain India under the guise of Cold War tactics. But had it not been for US threats to intervene, the Indian army would have marched over and settled the issue with Pakistan once and for all. Kissinger called Indira Gandhi, then Prime Minister of India a bitch and several other choice words as declassified documents now reveal.
People like him are responsible for the greatest ally in terrorism to be the biggest threat to international peace.
REMEBER HENRY K, IN 1972?
Thus, I might have mentioned Kissinger's recruitment and betrayal of the Iraqi Kurds, who were falsely encouraged by him to take up arms against Saddam Hussein in 1972-75, and who were then abandoned to extermination on their hillsides when Saddam Hussein made a diplomatic deal with the Shah of Iran, and who were deliberately lied to as well as abandoned.
GOOD ole Henry, knows all about Muslim and lying. He set up the Kurds and Sadaam almost wiped them out.
Henry should go buy a condo in Tehran and stay there.
The "clash of civilisations" (by whatever name) will result in Israel's people being gainfully employed marking the dead of the Iranian & allied invaders, and burying them at Hamon-Gog.
Islam (the "Religion of Peace") is about to pass its use-by date.
===============================================
Islamic History Expert: Never Will be Moslem Peace With Israel
18:16 Sep 14, '06 / 21 Elul 5766
by Ezra HaLevi
Islam History Professor Moshe Sharon of Hebrew University told a
counter-terrorism conference Thursday that, "There is no possibility
of peace between Israel and the Palestinians whatsoever - ever.”
Sharon, speaking at the annual conference of Herzeliya’s Counter
Terrorism Institute, said that Iran is dead serious about obtaining
and using nuclear weapons in order to bring about its vision of an
Islamic End of Days.
[...]
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=112066
An indictment of Henry Kissinger for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes would include (but not be confined to) the following.
VIETNAM: Kissinger scuttled peace talks in 1968, paving the way for Richard Nixon's victory in the presidential race. Half the battle deaths in Vietnam took place between 1968 and 1972, not to mention the millions of civilians throughout Indochina who were killed.
CAMBODIA: Kissinger persuaded Nixon to widen the war with massive bombing of Cambodia and Laos. No one had suggested we go to war with either of these countries. By conservative estimates, the U.S. killed 600,000 civilians in Cambodia and another 350,000 in Laos.
BANGLADESH: Using weapons supplied by the U.S., General Yahya Khan overthrew the democratically elected government and murdered at least half a million civilians in 1971. In the White House, the National Security Council wanted to condemn these actions. Kissinger refused. Amid the killing, Kissinger thanked Khan for his "delicacy and tact."
CHILE: Kissinger helped to plan the 1973 U.S.-backed overthrow of the democratically elected Salvador Allende and the assassination of General René Schneider. Right-wing general Augusto Pinochet then took over. Moderates fled for their lives. Hit men, financed by the CIA, tracked down Allende supporters and killed them. These attacks included the car bombing of Allende's foreign minister, Orlando Letelier, and an aide, Ronni Moffitt, at Sheridan Circle in downtown Washington.
EAST TIMOR: In 1975 President Ford and Secretary of State Kissinger met with Indonesia's corrupt strongman Suharto. Kissinger told reporters the U.S. wouldn't recognize the tiny country of East Timor, which had recently won independence from the Dutch (sic). Within hours Suharto launched an invasion, killing, by some estimates, 200,000 civilians.
If you want to end this conflict, then you have to be prepared to hurt the enemy to a degree that even zealots and maniacs that believe they are going to be presented young virgins in Paradise will fear. This means the war is going to have to be bloody.
So, that said, if we are all so afraid of losing more Americans and Westerners (and anyone else outside the domain of Islam) in battle, I suggest we start figuring out ways to kill our enemies with new means. More missiles? More airplanes? New battleships? Robots and drones? It's all possible.
Believe it or not, the time is fast coming when we are no longer going to be able to allow even a small and rebellious segment of Western Society to run from reality any longer, if we wish to win this and survive. War is a part of freedom. Fighting is a part of being alive. We can't just give up because we condemn violence. Nobody sane wants this conflict, but it is here, so now we have to face it.
Pundits and scholars and politicians and diplomats can all talk about "possibilities" til they go mad from the futility of it all, but the rest of us are wiser and braver and see the future very clearly, I believe. It's here. Be ready to sacrifice and be ready for pain, because one way or another, our enemies are going to hurt us worse than 9/11 eventually and we are going to have to own this conflict and look ourselves in the mirror.
"Do I want to survive? Do I want my children to prosper? Do I want what's best for the world? Or do I just roll over and give in to fear and intimidation and let the Islamo-fascists turn the planet back to the 7th century? Do I allow all the victories of the past two hundred years to amount to nothing?"
That feeling in your gut right now is anger, resentment, angst, fear, loathing and revulsion. None of this is going to be pretty, but in the end we will win because of one thing that our enemies do not understand and never will: we love our freedom and our children --we love life, not death.
Islam will fail and be brushed away with the dust of history. We will see to that. Have the faith and courage to do what is right, because those traits are what will matter most in the coming years.
Kissinger believes everything in foreign relations can be managed (yes by appeasement and guile)
Unfortunately at a certain point it cant.
You can only ask the alligator to eat you last.
Islam is a repulsive ideology of hate lies deception slavery and aggression.
It must be confronted firmly, and if necessary, massively.
Here's the complete opinion piece, published in Tribune Media Services a few days ago:
After Lebanon
By Henry A. Kissinger
Two misconceptions dominate public discussion on the crisis in Lebanon. The first is that Hezbollah is a traditional terrorist organization operating covertly outside the law. The second is that the ceasefire marks an end to the war in Lebanon. Neither of these views is valid.
Hezbollah is, in fact, a metastasization of the al-Qaida pattern. It acts as an overt state within a state. It commands an army much stronger and far better equipped than Lebanon's on Lebanese soil, in defiance of two UN resolutions. Financed and trained by Iran, it fights wars with organized units against a major adversary. As a Shia party, it has ministers in the government of Lebanon who do not consider themselves bound by its decisions. A non-state entity on the soil of a state with all the attributes of a state and backed by the major regional power is a new phenomenon in international relations.
Since its creation, Hezbollah has been almost permanently at war. The first of three Hezbollah wars occurred when, in 1983, its attack on US barracks killed 241 Marines and convinced America to withdraw its peacekeeping forces from Beirut. The second was a campaign of harassment that induced Israeli forces to withdraw from southern Lebanon in 2000. The third was inaugurated this year with the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers inside Israel that led to the Israeli retaliatory attack.
We are witnessing a carefully conceived assault, not isolated terrorist attacks, on the international system of respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. The creation of organizations like Hezbollah and al-Qaida symbolizes that transnational loyalties are replacing national ones. The driving force behind this challenge is the jihadist conviction that it is the existing order that is illegitimate, not the Hezbollah and jihad method of fighting it. For the jihad's adherents, the battlefield cannot be defined by frontiers based on principles of world order they reject; what we call terror is, to the jihadists, an act of war to undermine illegitimate regimes.
A ceasefire does not end this war; it inaugurates a new phase in it. This twin assault on the global order, by the combination of radical states with transnational non-state groups sometimes organized as militias, is a particular challenge in the Middle East, where frontiers denote few national traditions and are not yet a century old. But it could spread to wherever militant, radical Islamic groups exist. Leaders therefore are torn between following the principles of the existing international order on which their economy may depend, or yielding (if not joining) the transnational movement on which their political survival may depend.
The crisis in Lebanon is a classic case of that pattern. By the rules of the old international order, the war technically took place between two states - Lebanon and Israel - which, in fact, have very few conflicting interests. Their sole territorial dispute concerns a small strip of territory, Shebaa Farms, occupied by Israel from Syria in 1967 and indirectly certified as not being part of Lebanon by the UN in 2000. The UN ceasefire resolution affirms that the crisis was provoked by Hezbollah, which had kept the Lebanese armed forces out of the southern part of Lebanon facing Israel for thirty years. Yet by the existing international rules, the secretary of state was obliged to negotiate on the ceasefire with the Lebanese government, which controlled no forces in a position to implement it while the only forces capable of doing so have never formally accepted it.
The real goals of the Lebanese war were transnational and not Lebanese: to overcome the millennia-old split between Sunnis and Shia on the basis of hatred for Israel and America; to relieve diplomatic pressure on Iran's nuclear program; to demonstrate that Israel would be held hostage if pressure became too acute; to establish Iran as a major factor in any negotiation; to scuttle the Palestinian peace process; to show that Syria - the second major sponsor of Hezbollah - remained in a position to pursue its ambitions in Lebanon.
This is why the balance sheet of the war in Lebanon must be assessed in large part in psychological and political terms. No doubt the war inflicted heavy casualties on Hezbollah. The overriding psychological reality, however, is that Hezbollah remained intact and that Israel proved unable (or unwilling) either to suppress the rocket attacks on its territory or to gear its military power to political objectives capable of providing bargaining positions after the cessation of hostilities.
Much of the discussion over observance of the ceasefire applies traditional verities to an unprecedented situation. One of the principals in the war is not a party to the ceasefire and has refused either to disarm or to release the two Israeli prisoners it kidnapped, as called for in the UN resolution. The countries needed to enforce the agreement have been ambivalent because of the importance they attach to relations with Iran, their fear of terrorist attacks on their own territory, and, to a lesser extent, their interest in improving relations with Syria.
The mandate for the UN force in southern Lebanon reflects these hesitations. The secretary general of the UN, Kofi Annan, has declared that the mission of the UN force is not to disarm Hezbollah but to encourage a political process that, in his words, "must be achieved through an internal Lebanese consensus, a political process for which the new UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) is not and cannot be a substitute." Syria has declared that it would consider the deployment of UNIFIL forces along its borders as a hostile act, and the UN has acquiesced. How is the political process going to work when the UN force is precluded from dealing with the most probable challenges? The Lebanese army - composed largely of Shia and armed with obsolescent weapons - is in no position to disarm Hezbollah or to control the Syrian border.
To compound these complexities, Hezbollah, as a political party, participates in the Lebanese parliament and, on the ministerial level, in the central government. Both institutions generally make decisions by consensus. Hezbollah thus has at least a blocking veto on those issues on which the cooperation of the Beirut government is needed for enforcement.
Hezbollah's likely next move will be an attempt to dominate the Beirut government by intimidation and using the prestige gained in the war, manipulating democratic procedures. In such a situation, Iran and Syria will be in a stronger position to shape the rules of the ceasefire than the UN forces, which - as experience shows - are likely to be withdrawn when terrorist attacks inflict casualties. The challenge for American policy and all concerned with world order is to recognize that the ceasefire requires purposeful management. A principal objective must be to prevent the rearmament of Hezbollah or its domination of the Lebanese political process. Otherwise, the UN force will provide a shield for creating the conditions for another even more dangerous explosion.
The war in Lebanon has transformed the position of Israel dramatically. Heretofore the Palestinian issue has for all its intensity been about the traditional principles of the state system: the legitimacy of Israel; the creation of a Palestinian state; the drawing of borders between these entities; the security arrangement and rules for peaceful coexistence. From Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's "land for peace" formula, to Saudi Arabia's offer of peace and mutual recognition, to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's concept of unilateral withdrawal from occupied territories, the so-called peace process was conceived as culminating in an internationally accepted peace between internationally recognized states.
Hezbollah and other rejectionist groups are determined to prevent precisely this evolution. Hezbollah, which took over southern Lebanon, and Hamas and various jihadist groups, which marginalized the Palestinian Authority in Gaza, disdain the schemes of moderate Arab and Israeli leaders. They reject the very existence of Israel, not any particular set of borders.
One of the consequences is that the traditional peace process is now in shambles. After being attacked with missiles from both Gaza and Lebanon launched by non-state jihadists, Israel will find it difficult to view unilateral withdrawal as a road to peace, nor will it be able under current conditions to find a partner to guarantee security. Finally, in the aftermath of Lebanon, the current Israeli government lacks the authority or public support to withdraw even the 80,000 settlers from the West Bank envisaged in the Sharon plan.
At the same time, an indefinite continuation of the status quo is not sustainable. Some new road map must emerge to underpin the comprehensive Mideast policy that must follow the Lebanon war. To deal with the crisis produced by the combination of non-state fanaticism and state power politics, a joint project among America, Europe, and the moderate Arab states is needed to work out a common approach. Only in this manner can a leadership accepting peaceful coexistence emerge in the occupied territories.
Everything returns to the challenge of Iran. It trains, finances, and equips Hezbollah, the state within a state in Lebanon. It finances and supports the Sadr militia, the state within a state in Iraq. It works on a nuclear weapons program, which would drive nuclear proliferation out of control and provide a safety net for the systematic destruction of at least the regional order. The challenge is now about world order more than about adjustments within an accepted framework.
A common Atlantic policy backed by moderate Arab states must become a top priority, no matter how pessimistic previous experience with such projects leaves one. The debate sparked by the Iraq war over American rashness versus European escapism is dwarfed by what the world now faces. Both sides of the Atlantic should put their best minds together on how to deal with the common danger of a wider war merging into a war of civilizations against the background of a nuclear armed Middle East. This cannot be done through ad hoc bargaining over Security Council resolutions; rather, the Security Council resolutions should emerge from an agreed strategy.
Many of the countries in such a grouping have a more optimistic view about the prospects of diplomacy than the American administration. We should be open to these concerns and be prepared to join a serious exploration of prospects for turning away from confrontation. But the European allies need to accept that this process should not be driven by domestic politics or media pressure. It has to include a bottom line beyond which diplomatic flexibility cannot go and a time limit to prevent negotiations from turning into a shield for developing new assaults.
In the Lebanon crisis, one can detect the beginning of such a process. Europe shared enough of the American perception, and America paid enough attention to European concerns, to produce a coordinated diplomacy in the Security Council and to supply a significant peacekeeping force for southern Lebanon.
It remains to be seen whether this cooperation can be sustained in the next phase, specifically, whether the UN effort in Lebanon can become a means to deal with the dangers outlined here or become a way to avoid the necessary decisions. This is even more true of the impending Iran negotiations. Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, thoughtful observers have wondered whether the Atlantic ties can be maintained in the absence of a commonly perceived danger. We now know that we face the imperative of building a new world order or potential global catastrophe. It cannot be done alone by either side of the Atlantic. Is that realization sufficient to regenerate a sense of common purpose?
Henry writes:
"Both sides of the Atlantic should put their best minds together on how to deal with the common danger of a wider war merging into a war of civilizations against the background of a nuclear armed Middle East. This cannot be done through ad hoc bargaining over Security Council resolutions; rather, the Security Council resolutions should emerge from an agreed strategy. "
Someone should tell Henry that Security Council resolutions have never worked. The Enemy is Islam and they openly declare they will use Nuclear weapons.
Henry, ole boy,we gotta take em out,no negotiations, no resolutions, no appeasement--what are you missing?
close the U.N.,change the locks,have a grand re-opening call it the U.N.For Freedom.All the money given to the U.N.will be used to defeat terrorism and give people their freedom.Organize an Army of the willing Nations for freedom around the world.Have this Army strike at terrorist as soon as they attack any country. The Free World must unite and defeat these savages who want to kill anyone who disagrees with their sick ideology,they have shown the world they will do it.It is time for the Free World to unite.The Terrorist will not win, good will always triumph over evil.Lets Roll,Free World. Millions of people can be sacrificed the longer we wait the more we loose.
Henry K did so well with Vietnam. Let's all gather around him and listen respectfully while he sorts the Islam problem out for us. Personally, I can never follow someone who believes that the best we can do is to postpone an inevitable defeat.
Ole Henry actually said this:
"If we do what is necessary, all the odds are in our favor"
Too bad he does not practice what he preaches.
Maybe he should take his place on the bench next to Robert McNamara and Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Henry Kissinger, whose accent has deepened ever since his Sammy-Glick days working for Nelson Rockefeller and training those Future Leaders of the World at Harvard Summer School (making his contacts, filling his Rolodex, spreading his fame, making his moves), no doubt to the chagrin of those who, purely in intellect but not in sammy-glickdom, were his clear superiors, such as Stanley Hoffmann (who alas came a cropper over Israel, and now over Islam --some who had taken his course "On War" thought he was Raymond Aron, and he turned out...not to be.)
Kissinger, who never gave any sign of understanding Islam during his active career, before he began trading on government "service" to open Kissinger Associates, and pocket a half-million a year from Bear Stearns, the kind of fellow whose "insights" and "understanding" are breathlessly reported by Barbara Walters ("well, Henry says this" and "Henry says that" to those on the other end of the telephone), a kind of up-scale version, for the select few at some blend of Harmonie Club-Lazard Freres--Park Avenue Synagogue do, with a touch of busy, hectically busy, investment bankers and men of the world who don't have time to read or think for themselves, so they'll let the honorable Henry Kissinger of Kissinger Associates do it for them, tell them what it all means, tell them what makes sense. Not quite as bad as the groups of businessmen at conventions whose steering committee has rented, for an hour lecture of perfect simpleton-simpleminded simpliccissimus simiplicity, Mr. Tom Friedman who 'splains it all to you. But close.
If Henry Kisssinger says it, must it be true? The recycling of a by-now banality, "the clash of civilizations," is telling. He can't phrase things on his own, he can't see what's wrong with the pre-fabricated phrase, he thinks he has to run with it. Easy on his own mind, and easy on the minds of others. The kind of celebrity only Charlie Rose could love.
It is not a "clash of civilizations" -- the Indic, the Sinic, the Orthodox, the Catholic, and so on. If China is in a rivalry with the United States it is not because of any natural "clash" between the "Sinic" and the advanced Western civilizations, but is merely a case of Great Power rivalry, of the kind that Great Britain and Germany in 1914, or England and France in 1860, exhibited.
Were China and the United States to become rivals, it would not be because of the “Sinic” clash with the “Western,” and if China and India were to become rivals in Asia, it would not be because of some necessary clash of the “Sinic” with the “Hindu.” In effect, all the non-Muslim powers are part of the same world. But Islam is different. Islam teaches its adherents to divide the universe between Believer and Infidel, Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. Henry Kissinger fails to recognize this. The phrase “clash of ciivilizatios” is both prefabricated, a phrase on tap, a tell-tale sign of mental laziness as are other fixed phrases and received ideas, which does not correspond to the truth.
The truth is not that there is a “clash of civilizations” nor that there is a clash of Islam and the West. Islam is as hostile to the Hindus, of Inidia, of Kashmir, of Bali, of Malaysia, or those still living in Bangladesh and Pakistan, as it is to Westerners, as hostile to the helpless black Africans, non-Muslim, or non-Arab and therefore distinctly inferior Muslims, of the southern Sudan and Darfur and southern Nigeria and everywhere that the forces of Islam, of Arab Islam in this case, meet with any opposition or obstacles.
The war was declared 1350 years ago. It goes on, when and wherever it can, wherever the instruments of Jihad exist. It required the OPEC oil bonanza, and then the millions of Muslims so foolishly allowed into the countries of the West, and then the technology of that same West used to disseminate the full message of Islam and aid campaigns of Da’wa, in order to take the doctrine of Jihad, and put it into effect. “Terror” is only one of its weapons – the only one that the timid Bush Administration seems inclined, at this point, to talk about. But Da’wa and demographic conquest, especially in Western Europe, are at present the main instruments of Jihad. They won’t be, if the Muslim states acquire better weapons, or manage to seize control of the armories of Western countries, through the very effect of that demographic conquest that might allow them to take over, without military conquest, some or many or all of the Infidel states of Western Europe.
Kissinger is getting there, perhaps.But his solemn misstatements, and his record – compared to Scowcroft and Baker and Brzezinski he may impress, but that is setting the bar right on the ground, and hardly much of an achievement if someone manages to step over it.
A little more is demanded. Kissinger was weighed and found wanting long ago. He hasn’t gained weight, figuratively speaking, since.
The truth is not that there is a “clash of civilizations” nor that there is a clash of Islam and the West.
This is simplistic: Muslims know that the West is the geopolitico-cultural epicenter and vanguard of the Dar-al-Harb; and as such, the West is the Head of the Beast they inveterately desire to conquer and domesticate for Islam.
Indeed, the West is, and has been for the last few centuries, the reason why Muslims cannot successfully conquer the Rest.
Henry K, reminds me of Russia''s Rasputin. Everyone loved to have him around and he was worthless.
Rasputin had more character. He made David Koresh look like a seminary student.
From recent reading Kissinger is persona-non-grata to both Right and Left. Why is he still talking.... never mind. I just realized: Jimmy Carter put him up to it.
I suspect that this old geezer is suffering from senile dementia if he truly believes that giving up our identities as citizens of the western democratic world (which is what we would be doing by adapting dhimmitude) is any kind of solution to anything.
Prof. Samuel Huntington published "The Clash of Civilizations" in 1993. That was thirteen years ago. Isn't Kissinger a little too late?
The wheels have been spinning for a long time. Islam against the rest of the world is a reality. Muslim scholars divide the world into Darul Salam (abode of Islam, i.e., Muslim world) vs. Darul Harb (abode of War, i.e., non-Muslim world), more than a millenium ago. Jihad was declared in the 7th century. The Sword Verse (Surah 9:5) was given in 632 A.D., just before Muhammad's death.
This clash wasn't the first. It may well be the last. Muslims are expecting al-Mahdi to appear, to re-establish the Caliphate and also lead the Muslims in jihad against the rest of the world. This expectation is very real (see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speeches) among Muslims, and the fervor is getting stronger.
Al-Mahdi & Antichrist
Robert --
That "tied up in knots" line is by Henry Timrod, Bard of Charleston and also of burned-to-the-cold-cold-ground Columbia. When you gonna wake up, when you gonna wake up? Any crisrixian or rosicrucian or even rosy-fingered Dawn herself, pulling the covers down, might ask.
Kissinger writes:
The same failed thinking that got us into this mess.Stuck on stupid.
Funny, I thought this mess was the new world order.
No, we don't need a "new world order." We need a policy designed to weaken the Camp of Islam in every way, and that includes exploiting the pre-existing fissures that need to be widened, not narrowed, through Infidel efforts. Such a policy would include:
1) Collaboration among the Infidels, and joint financing, of energy projects, draconian measures of forced conservation, discouragement of car use, encouragement through subsides of mass transit, government funding for nuclear power plants, subsidies and tax benefits for solar and wind energy, much higher and steadily rising gasoline taxes.
2) An end to all transfers of wealth from the Infidels to any Muslim people or state, save for the purchase of oil and gas.
3) Very high tariffs slapped on goods and services -- including education and medical care -- in the Infidel lands, that are purchased by Muslims either abroad, or who visit as patients or students.
4) Ending of all Muslim migration to the Bilad al-kufr.
5) Popular education in the tenets of Islam, emphasizing the division that Islam teaches between Believer and Infidel, the permanent state of war between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, the uses of taqiyya and kitman, the Model of Muhammad (with details of his biography), an understanding of the meaning of the Qur'an, including a full understanding of those handful of passages -- 2.256 and 5.32 -- often trotted out as part of the apologetics for Islam.
6) A willingness to remove all those Muslims who are in the Western world and have not yet attained citizenship.
7) A willingness to remove all those Muslims who have obtained citizenship but have demonstrated a lack of loyalty to the principles which they have sworn to uphold, including those enshrined in the Constitution. A clearer understanding of the nature of Islam would help others to recognize why this is policy is both rational and justified.
8) A willingness to consider, if need be, measures designed to make the political, legal, and social institutions of the West impervious to Muslim demands for changes, and instead to make sure that the practice of Islam, where it flatly contradicts the Constitution or another embodiment, whether written or not, of the understandings that can be considered foundational, will be discouraged.
9) A willingness to recognize that no matter how outwardly charming, or plausible, this or that adherent of a belief-system may be, what counts in the end is the nature of that belief-system, when there is evidence that loyalty to that belief-system will trump or efface every other potential loyalty.
10) An understanding that for several decades, those in the Western world who suffer from pre--existing mental conditions -- antisemitism and anti-Americanism, which often now overlap -- and who are therefore particularly vulnerable to the siren-songs of Muslim apologists, should be carefully prevented from dominating, as they do today, such institutions as the BBC, or major newspapers such as The Times, Le Monde, The Post, and many others.
Ten items. Could be expanded. That, for now, will do.
Both Hugh and stopthem have GREAT points and suggestions. if ONLY we could implement any of them!
If I may add my little 5¢.. we should invde and occupy Mecca and Medina where all this terrorism started.. a HUGE united Amero-European Crusade.. Throw ALL of them OUT of these cities and impose the harshest of martial Law everywhere else. The slightest sign of unrest.. stone throwing etc.. shall be grounds for summary execution. They wish to rule with terror. Let's SHOW them how it's done in the ADULT world.
Finally we carve up their idolatric black rock into ashtrays and Hindu deities and other trophies and trinkets to give to our friends in the various armies.. to be handed out to those who have served with bravery and distinction. I certainly hope at least India would be on board as a non-Western Power.
However, a kind of Malta conference may have to be held, including China and Russia, as to how this war shall be conducted and how the spoils thereof shall be administered and distributed. That would avoid potentially more serious conflict and would serve to assault the muftis with unsurmountable force. The only language they understand clearly. That's what I call Shock and Awe!
We have indeed everything but one in our favor: R E S O L V E
How could I forget to mention the invaluable services that the Israeli Army [IDF] will provide in this Conflict I envision?! The more the merrier! Let the Israelis occupy Mecca and carve whatever they see fit from that silly rock. Once that idolatric fetish has been carved up and dissemminated across the globe then - and ONLY then - this evil cult will forever be vanquished!
Brings to mind the stories and legends of Vampires and how they stay dormant until the time is right for them to emerge and conspire...
Since I am German I feel free to quote Winston Churchill: "The hun is either at your throat or at your knees" Unfortunately most of the "hun" is on his knees indeed - before their mufti masters. Let us all hope that when time comes to go for the throat the Germans will know what throat to go for! A few of us already do. Those who think for themselves.. didn't go to University and thus avoided a brainwashing... or who have left the country and witness with increasing sadness the state of encroaching dhimmitude our countrymen are being subjected to.. as are our counterparts and European Brothers in England France Holland and elsewhere!
LONG LIVE ORIANA FALLACCI!! Sei proprio una Heroina!!
All the above suggestions -- the measured and mature ones as well as the half-cocked ones -- suffer from a curious obliviousness to a mountain range standing in the way: A PC Multiculturalism that dominates the West. Before anything can be done about Islam, we must first level that mountain range.
But don't let me spoil your daydreams.
Good old Henry! Sounds just like the odious Peanut Khadr...
Yesterday on Larry King (again!) he went on and on how he would make 'peace in the ME'-(as if he could!) what a vain and stupid man! But Kissinger has other motives, he always follows the money! Isn't his law-firm the biggest lobby to advance Arab/Saudi interests in Washington?
Isn't Henry the one who refused to be part of the 9/11 commission because of 'conflict of interest?' This is one guy who simply can't get enough $$$$, I wouldn't call him naive & stupid like Khadr, but Henry sees the dollars, nothing but the f*#ing dollars...
And of course, for a clash of civilizations you need two. This is a full frontal collision with the vandals, with barbarism of the worst kind. Yes, call it religious war if you will, but the sooner we face reality we will be able to do something about it and take the necessary measures. When I see the overall reluctance in the US-administration, the public and in Europe I despair!
Fat chance of that happening...!
Exsgtbrown, Hugh, DeutscheLandsmann im Amerika, etc:
While I agree that HK was probably one of the most overrated people ever to pass through Washington, the business of his being a War Criminal was simple Leftist fatuousness. Never mind that "Progressives" slaughtered a whopping 170,000,000 by government decree during their 70-year dominance of the Eurasian continent. Indeed, among the horrid cretins with whom HK became infatuated were the vicious Mao Zedong and his liar-in-chief Zhou En-lai (rhymes with Joe One-lie). As for the Pakistan-Bangladesh conflict, chalk it up to an unwise policy whereby the USA decided to guarantee all borders existing at point X in modern history--regardless of how disfunctional they were--simnply because we believed it somehow upheld the UN charter.
As for Chile, if the Leftist self-anointed conscience of America decrees Young Bush illegit with the 49.60% of the vote he garnered in 2000, what about Allende's 39%? As for Cambodia and Laos, would any self-respecting power have truly thought those countries truly "neutral" from 1958-75? No, it was Ho Chi Minh, the Left's secular saint, who decreed that they would be santuaries for his armies--and one reason why Sihanoukh got the boot from his own people in 1971 was that they were fed up with the damn "Yuon" camping all over the eastern part of their country and doing whatever they wanted there (like helping the already murderous Movement for Democratic Kampuchea).
Kinda like being a day late and a dollar short, henry k.
Whenever anyone talks about a war of civilisations, I always remember a line of V. S. Naipaul's, which went along the lines of: there is only one civilisation in the world today: it has a variety of sources, but for the sake of convenience we call it western civilisation: everything else is just folk-lore.
All this led by Ahmadinejad. CIA MUST put him as their #1 target. Perfect opportunity on monday. Why do I say this? Well #1, Ahmadinejad has a great brainwashing ability. Hes like a crazed pathelogical liar except with an army and soon, nuclear weapons and words that are uniting the entire world against us. Everyone hates us ladies and gentleman, now we must fight for our civilization and our very . At cuba's recently hosted summit, something like 110 nations condemed us , the uk, and israel and are in support of iran and NOW they are saying if we invade, they will not stand by silent. Ahmadinejad is now in a position of real power...what he has been seeking this whole time. The third anti-christ has risen. Lets take it to em America. Pray for all the lives we have lost and will lose. Notice all the terror that has spread throughout the middle east? Turkey all the way to Egypt(who is now by the way withdrawing from their peace agreement with israel) Ahmadinejad is fighting proxy wars until its time for him to have backing from other nations. Now he got it. The mans smart, too smart for bush and WAY to smart for the europeans(possibly the stupidest people on earth-hate to say it). Iranian officials present at north korean missile tests? Iran gives Hezbollah 100 Mil a year. North Korea is so desperate for any money or food, what do you think they would sell one of their nukes for? Bootleg prices. lol we are basically in a "pre cease fire" of World War III. Now all that is pondered is, who will strike first?
our very existance*
I don't think Kissinger's forcing anyone into dhimmitude, and his opinions are usually quite good.
That said, Iran can not be allowed to build a nuclear weapon.
Unfortunately, we did go to war in Iraq for some of the wrong reasons. We relied too heavily on the weak argument of "maybe they have WMDs" rather then "he hates us, swears to get us, supports terrorists, kicked out wmd inspectors, and we can't afford that kind of behavior anymore".
Granted, what the Left doesn't admit is Saddam has admited he pretended to have such weapons... to scare his enemies.
(Amongst many, many other things.)
And the main reason I supported Iraq, personally, is so we can fight Muslims and attract terrorists... so we can have a front in the war where it should be -- the center of the ME, Iraq.
Regardless, now we are in a tough spot diplomatically with Europe. We did fumble the ball.
Ultimately, what we need here is a stealth attack on their facilities... so we can avoid all of the unpleasantries of an air strike or outright invasion.
Unfortunately, we are too incompetent to pull that off.
Considering that Henry is high on the list at the Council on Foreign Relations, and has of late become more vocal about the Islamic movement, it might be time our federal govt listens to the threat.
NovaRocket, your mind runs along the right tracks, as far as I can tell, navigating the twin dangers of optimism and skepticism, while using the correct compass. Too many here at Jihad Watch, while they have the correct compass, lurch sideways into either one (or both) of the twin dangers too often.
For some interesting articles on possible Russian and Chinese Communist clandenstine sponsorship of Islamic jihad, check out the website of J.R. Nyquist.
Also contains articles on Islamofascists in South America.
The articles are current; He also wrote a 1998 book titled "Origins of the Fourth World War".
http://www.jrnyquist.com
Hugh's lists are exactly on the money. I would throw in a formal war declaration against Islam, mainly to get on top of the out-of-control Muslim invasion and infiltration, but also to tame foreign states that are or get out of control.
Remote, your caution on overcoming multi-
culturalism first is valid, unfortunately. Overthrow of PC in the Senate and much of the Administration, as well as among the citizenry, almost seems like an insurmountable task.
We cannot keep going through dummy elections that keep putting these same partisans back in office and win this war. The present Senate and some in the Administration are willy-nilly Al Qaeda's and Iran's best allies.
Bowing to Mecca 5 times a day is not to my taste, but after 5 or 10 nukes go off in assorted cities, you can count on the Beltway crowd and a lot of citizens yelling "WE accept Islam", or singing "give me dhimmitude, and where do I pay the tax?" You gotta wonder if the government will still function, if the country will still function, after such an attack.
There does not seem to be any leadership to involve the citizenry in this war (a la WWII), or any understanding by the leadership that that involvement is vitally necessary.
Hugh,
"When you gonna wake up?" is something I ask the world every day, as every good crisrixian should.
Yrs
Robert