One answer to jihad

A book that speaks well of our ( USA ) armed forces and its wonderful.

Sorry, should have added, wonderful service to this nation.

I emphatically declare that today's world, more than ever before, longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity; and above all longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet.

O, Almighty God, all men and women are your creatures and you have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by you, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Another call to Islam and the Mahdi....I am not laughing....This guy is a danger to the World.

http://store.gadsdenandculpeper.com/

"...as one principal manifestation of the superiority (yes) of the culture and civilization that we are defending."

There have been few Western politicians willing to not only defend, but to speak proudly of, the values and accomplishments of the West. Bush seems unwilling to do this (at least what I've heard through the media). We need to undermine the ideology of hate that is driving the jihadis by offering an alternative acceptable to the Muslim masses. (Iran is ripe for such a message. The mullahs are hated by large segments of their population.) One example might be: in a secular government there is "no compulsion in religion". Another: our scientists, liberated by freedom of thought, are discovering the very process of God's/Allah's creation.

The military option, limited as it is by the very values we hold dear, will not succeed on its own. We should send a clear message, over and over, to the world that our system, with all its flaws, offers a better way to live. Invite them to join us and live free.

There has never been a military so brave and yet so kind as that of the United States of America. The US and its brave young men and women have tirelessly aided the entire world and the entire world is better for it. Americans should be truly proud of its fighting sons and daughters.

Robert:

I hope Mr. Crocker does not place all his hope in the U.S. military alone. Even though its possible that the U.S. could, given enough determination, destroy the entire Islamic world by itself, I am convinced that this would not be sufficient, and may be very harmful in the longer run.

For one thing, if it involved the use of nuclear weapons, it could have a devastating impact on the world's environment and the quality of life of everyone in the world for generations, maybe indefinitely. Secondly, if it ever does come down to all out war, such a victory could be regarded by the Umma as merely a temporary setback, whereas what I'm convinced is needed is a devastatingly, EXISTENTIALLY demoralizing loss delivered up by the entire world or at least the clear, convincing and sobering threat of it. Further, I would expect that the occupation that followed would probably have to last for generations because the damage to the societies in the Middle East, North Africa and elsewhere that Islam has caused in its more than 1300 year run is far greater and more entrenched than that caused by the Nazi and Japanese imperialist ideologies.

I do not see war as a foregone conclusion but I have written in these pages several times before about what I see as the need to build an alliance of all the non-Islamic nations, and all of us have to be prepared to fight a total war on the scale of World War II or greater. This makes sense for everyone involved. Pretty much the entire world has, or will have at some point, an Islamist threat to deal with. Don't do it by yourself. Get the rest of us on side in Canada (our Canadian forces are fighting ferociously against the Taliban in Afghanistan taking a loss rate six times that of American forces in Iraq, but I fear this may all be for nothing if the wider Islamic world that that insurgency draws on is not challenged and what's the point anyway when Hamid Karzai is willing to allow a Shari'a regime to be imposed on the country?), Britain and Europe, Latin America, China, Russia, Japan and India - as many as possible. If the world is ever to be rid of this menace, sooner or later the Umma is going to have to be given a convincing ultimatum between total reform or complete extinction. A vast alliance like the one I'm calling for, comprising most of humanity, will take time to build, but it took a long time for the world to get together against Germany and Japan in the 1930s and '40s as well so we should all stop wringing our hands and get on with it. Moreover, there is the domestic front to consider. All western nations have to change their laws to deal with the rising Islamist threat at home.

Hopefully a demonstration of resolve to thrash Islamist aggression at home might be sufficient to ward off further agression from Islamic states elsewhere in the world and make them see the writing on the wall so that war can be avoided, but if not then war remains an option, but it had better be the real thing and we'd better all be prepared to fight hard conventionally so that we don't end up resorting to a panicked use of nukes or other WMDs that would unleash uncontrollable effects all over the world. Last, but hardly least, we all have to end our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Perhaps a deal could be worked out with the Russians or others to replace this supply temporarily but lets get on with alternative energy development in any case.

So where is the American leader who will begin to awaken the American people and the rest of the world as FDR worked so hard to do more than sixty years ago? Robert, maybe you should consider running for the job.

"the essential decency of the American fighting forces"

I spoke with a young self-defined "Salafi" Muslim (of Middle Eastern descent) for an hour about world politics. He was calm, rational-sounding in most ways, and quite intelligent. He told me sincerely that he believes the American army is "raping thousands of women every night in Iraq". He also told me sincerely that he believes the American army in the 90s was "roasting Muslim babies on spits over open fires" in Eastern Africa.

H.W. Crocker had a great article in Crisis magazine last month: Monasteries and Madrassas:
Five Myths About Christianity, Islam, and the Middle Ages.

Link:http://crisismagazine.com/julaug2006/feature1.htm

Highly readable! A few excerpts:

"Despite the alleged glories of Islam's past, we're told that militant Islam is now stuck in the Middle Ages. But Islam is no more stuck in the Middle Ages than it is stuck in the Renaissance or the Counter-Reformation. As Margaret Thatcher's official biographer (and Catholic convert) Charles Moore has written, “‘ Mediaeval' should not be a synonym for ‘barbarous.' Ely Cathedral and trial by jury and Giotto are mediaeval.” So, indeed, are the Magna Carta, Chaucer, and Dante. So are the great monastic orders, the invention of the university, and the development of science. So are chivalry, capitalism, and the idea of progress. We don't associate any of these things with modern (or for that matter, historical) Islam."

"....Europe blossomed in the high and late Middle Ages (1000 to 1500). Wealth and learning spread, and in place of the ruins of Rome, medieval man created a society that was far more humane, far more respectful of women, far more elevating of the individual, far more bourgeois (that is, with a far larger middle class), and far more inventive than the glorious civilizations of the Classical world. The Middle Ages were a wonderful bloom of their own even before they flowered into the Renaissance."

"Thanks to Danish cartoonists, we're all pretty familiar with Islamic attitudes about drawing or painting a likeness of Allah or his Prophet. The Prophet himself, however, actually forbade to his people any visual art that represented any form of fauna, from men to cattle, which puts rather a crimp on artistic freedom—freedom that was widely enjoyed in the Middle Ages, let alone the Renaissance. While Islamic architecture is rather attractive—to my taste, anyway—it is not often noted that it took its inspiration from Byzantium, and in some cases was even built by Byzantine workers. Islamic literature—aside from The Thousand and One Nights and a handful of other poems or stories—is paltry compared with the Western stuff; and unlike the Western stuff, it is largely the work of dissenters and heretics. It seems that Muslim literateurs have always tended to play the role of Salman Rushdie to the reigning imams."

The Rights we all take for granted most of each day are only truly protected by the American soldier, not the lawyer, the politician or the pundit.

Alongside with the troops, the builders of the military hardware that is carried, flown, sailed on, etc, should be considered the national asset that the are in our protection. Freedom is always under attack, they, with the armed forces provide the counter balance of our liberty.

More and more people have the answer to WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?

http://cashblogger.info/blogs/arlington-hotels/30792/

It's so simple, one wonders why it's taking so long for everyone who is not Moslem to figure it out.

Scroll down on the right side to:

Comment on Making the World Safe for … Islamic Extremism? by MRS DJ

at

http://cashblogger.info/blogs/arlington-hotels/30792/

Also can be read at

http://armageddoncocktailhour.wordpress.com/2006/09/13/making-the-world-safe-for-islamic-extremism/#comment-899

Maybe one day soon the US soldier will not be so kind and stop handing out candy to kids and building roads.

US soldiers need to start destroying and killing on an industrial scale with no mercy. Islam is a paper tiger. Kill a few million in a few days and watch the whole thing collapse into a pit of self pity begging for help.

It's easy to take the wind out of their sails. They are not the Germans. They are not even the French. They are muslim arabs. Stop apologizing to them, stop buying their oil, stop educating them and start killing them. That is what soldiers do. They kill. They don't hand out candy.

I have to register a protest at August22's words. No! Murder is not what soldiers are about! Not American soldiers and Marines. You have the USA confused with some other country, nazi Germany perhaps. We will not sully ourselves with the murder of "millions" as you put it.

These ugly, racist, and fascistic remarks do "the cause" no service. Such posts should be removed from this blog.

Desertdawg:

I can appreciate your shock at August22's statements. I first encountered him when I was new to these pages and I found that he comes across at times as a one-trick pony and a stubborn little pit-bull puppy that just can't let go of a thing once he's taken hold of it. At times he seems to be of that type that is virtually indestructible, but at other times seems willing to engage in reasonable discussion. I'm hopeful that he's just engaging in a habit of hyperbole in his comments above. If we read his statements this way, he does make a good point.

"US soldiers need to start destroying and killing on an industrial scale with no mercy. Islam is a paper tiger"

Sounds horrible I know but it is true that a general war against the Islamic world, if it does come some day, as I think it likely will, will have to be fought with a great deal more rigour, determination, and sheer savagery, than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As I've said above, I do not shrink from the thought that, should it come to this, we must inflict on the Islamic world, or at least the core Islamist nations such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, at least as much damage and destruction as what the Allies did against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. This, to my knowledge, has not happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, where militaries are just as concerned about public relations as they are about gaining clear victory. There are two primary qualifications I would make to August22, while agreeing with what I think is his main point, even if he makes it badly.

First of all, the whole world must be part of the effort, or as much of it as can be gotten on side. Not only such a war, but the occupation following it must totally remake the culture of the region, imposing reforms that either transform historic Islam into something else entirely, or simply extinquish it. This can only happen if the preceding war demonstrates unmistakably to the Umma that it has completely, utterly and irreversibly failed in all of its historical objectives, been completely humiliated before the entire world, been permanentely and unequivocally rejected by it, and been utterly abandoned by God. Only this can stamp out Islam's arrogant supremacist grandiosity and endless bullying. (I would suggest that you consider reading the essay "Five Arguments Against Conciliation" over at gatesofvienna.blogspot.com if you doubt that this is so). Therefore, it must not be American soldiers fighting by themselves but their allies from many other nations as it was against Germany and Japan in a previous era. This will also help ensure the second part, which is the following:

Please, no nukes! Most of the region is not only presently habitable but has been the homeland of great civilizations in the past. Any significant use of nuclear weapons will not only render it uninhabitable at all in the future, a dreadful tragedy in itself, but will probably affect the rest of the world scarecely less (including us). Surely we want the region to be available for repopulation by the region's non-Muslims and even by those who might choose to follow whatever might be born from the remains of what used to be Islam. Besides this, the region has its place in the global ecosystem that will be terribly disrupted if it is simply destroyed.

It should not be done the way that August22 would seem to suggest if we take his words at face value, but there is no doubt that Islam is such an intractable and unreasoning enemy that it does have to be defeated brutally, such that it can never rise again, before any healing and rebuilding of human societies in the areas historically effected by Islam can succeed.

Sorry dessertdawg for offending your sensibilities. Soldiers exist to kill. We need to use them for that purpose. This war will not be won with hearts and minds. It can only be won through death and destruction inflicted on the muslim world on a massive scale similiar to that of Nazi Europe.

There is no difference. We have to remove the psychological impediment to killing on that scale if we are ever to make a lasting impression on the islamic world that will be to our benefit. So far, the impression we have given them is one of a paper tiger, ourselves. They latch onto that and exploit it. We see the result.

In islam, there is a saying that there are no civilians. That is islamic doctrine. They apply that doctrine to us and to themselves. They consider all muslims to be part of a war effort to destroy the non-islamic world. And for the most part, the islamic population agrees with that. So, like the German population, they must be targeted for destruction.

Fighting islam is not about using the police to foil terrorist attacks. That approach will never end this war, except by its own failure. Fighting islam is about inflicting on the islamic world such a wound that it will force a reformation from within. If that is not forthcoming, the final measure is to de-program the culture manually through occupation like we did with the Axis powers. Outlaw islam, and introduce Christianity as the official religion. But the first measure is one of punitive destruction.

Inflicting death does not make a nation corrupt. It is the reason for which one kills, and not the scale, that determines that. Our reasons are defensive and rooted in in the need to protect freedom and progressive human decency and civilization. For that cause, there is no price too high for them to pay.

What if the jihadi maggots get the nukes first? Once you decide for aggression, then all is fair in love and war. These brain dead suicide bombers have been trained to lock out their fear of death and any compassion for their victims. These diseased viruses are not deterred by seeing their wives and children being blown to bits by bombs. If we want to fight them we have to prepared to accept the consequences. Are we prepared to accept the possibility that our families might be bombed/nuked? Are we ready to pay that price? Are we convinced that whatever might be the end, the disease must die. Let the whole world be blown to bits fifty times over, but the disease must die. Unless there is an inherent overwhelming hatred for the disease from the core of the heart, all this talk about containing this menace is just lipservice parrottalk.

"What if the jihadi maggots get the nukes first? Once you decide for aggression, then all is fair in love and war"

Posted by Hawk19

I strongly urge everyone to consider that:

a). any preemptive nuclear attack on Islamic targets would likely provoke a nuclear terrorist attack against Western targets - the very thing we are all trying to avoid.

b). any significant, large scale use of these weapons is HIGHLY likely to not only kill the enemy but, because of the spread of nuclear fallout all over the planet, will likely - slowly and painfully - do the same to us as well, and may damage the whole planet permanently and severely enough to make it inhospitable to all life!

If any such weapons are ever used - and GOD FORBID (!) that they ever need to be - let it be only against a very narrow range of very carefully selected targets, carefully calculated to destroy the Umma's morale, its military assets or its industrial infrastructure for military production, and with very careful prior consideration to its environmental effects.

It comes down to this and THIS IS CRITICAL TO THE SURVIVAL OF ALL OF US - THE ENTIRE WORLD, I SAY INSISTENTLY!: Try everything short of the nuclear option - even if western targets are hit first - limiting the nuclear response severely (to zero if possible), and use methods such as the carpet bombing with conventional explosives instead, like the waves of bombing over Europe in World War II, before even contemplating it.

August22:

I appreciate your contribution to the discussion in this forum, but I would strongly urge you to use more nuanced rhetoric than you have in this thread.

Your second message is a great improvement over the first, by the way, but I have to note that call for the death of "a few million in a few days" quite frankly shocked me as well and made me think twice about whether I should come to your defence.

I agree with you that the West needs to harden its resolve in many ways, but please consider that the moral constraints that people in Western society are struggling with right now have been a critical part of what makes us a civilized people and elevates us over the crude, feral ethos of the Umma. People will come around much better to where they need to be if we use rational argument rather than shock treatment to persuade them why some of that constraint, regrettably, has to be set aside in the present conflict. It is important not to utterly abandon our higher ideals in the process of waging this war, as some of your more abrasive statements seem to do at times.

You and I are in agreement on the justifiable recourse to the total destruction of the Umma in the prosecution of the approaching war if it does come, but please remember that even in World War II, our soldiers tried, as much as possible, to show mercy to the enemy when it was appropriate to do so. We must be prepared to do the same in the present age, with appropriate precautions, of course, against deceptive Muslim tactics and realities such as their reliance on principles such as "taqiyya" and "kitman".

Please consider your words carefully.

August22 and desertdawg29palms

ok, we do not want our military to take it upon themselves--individuals or groups-to start killing everything that squeals inshallah! indiscriminately.

But what is the military for, if not to defend the country? If this could be done without shedding any enemy blood, it would be fun, like chess or computer games (well sort off, they can piss you off, if you lose.)

Wars are not won with candy. We are at war.

What happened to:" once you got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow?"

Too rough for us nice, fair, morally superior Americans? Then we will be eating Islamic feces.

Nice American soldiers, marines and sailors don't kill? They sure as shootin' did in World War II. The constant bombing of the German homeland, the firestorm in Dresden, the vaporization of two Japanese cities. This wasn't being nice and friendly, The candy was handed out to the vanquished BUT . . .

I don't believe that the Russians gave out much candy when they went into Berlin though. They remembered Stalingrad etc.

If we dilly-dally with the Taliban in Afghani-Waziri-stan, we will lose. If we go to war half-assedly as we did in Korea, Vietnam, and yes--after a brilliant military campaign--in Iraq, we we have lost. What we (our "leaders") naively thought would be a "democracy"--like "ours"--because the purple-fingered populace voted--and would be our "ally" in the Middle East, is a close ally of our nemesis Iran.

If we are not willing to kill--millions--to keep our country--not an Islamic Republic of America, I mean--then we will lose. Our overlords will be the Arabs and arabized Moslems that will rule us with their laws.

If you want candy-toting soldiers to defend you, then I hope that you are in the minority. If there is a majority of Americans with your sentiment, then we are doomed to bow towards Mecca or die by the millions.

Do we die by the millions, or do they? That is the choice we will be facing.

Where will you stand?

" . . . even in World War II, our soldiers tried, as much as possible, to show mercy to the enemy when it was appropriate to do so."
-templar

The Germans were not ALL convinced of their superiority--not late in the War. The point is that not all German soldiers were Nazis (all SS were). All jihadis are Muslim, ergo they are, as was the SS, brainwashed.

Experience has shown (at Gitmo for example) that jihadis are never to be treated as were the German POWs. I remember them serving us on the chowline, in WWII. [Would I have trusted food served by Moslems?--Recall the urine, feces, sperm, etc. thrown at the benign guards at Gitmo.]

The Japanese were not treated as mercifully during WWII [not that they weren't getting back what they had been dishing out--which is not the way we want to do things, I agree].

I recall "Life" magazine photos of strung-up ears, trophy skulls, and other grisly souvenirs. Then there were the atomic bombs. No mercy shown there.

I have reservations about being TOO merciful to the jihadis. The Japanese became civilized again, after their foray into Asia was stopped.

Whether the jihadis can be rehabilitated is not clear [to the authorities--it is clear to me: NO!]

re-testing typekey