I have been advocating measures like these for quite some time. It is nice to see them articulated elsewhere. "The West Needs To Fight Islamofascists With Big Ideas," by Youssef Ibrahim in the New York Sun, with thanks to all who sent this in:
1.The West needs strategies conveying to the vast majority of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims that acquiescence to jihadists and their ideologies means a rupture with Western civilization. The consequences for this should be spelled out by withholding Western commerce, the Internet, arms, machinery, and know-how — all of which still represent the bulk of progress as we define it in today's world. Imagine a ban on weapons and technology, on Microsoft and IBM, on Boeing, Ilyushin transport planes, and Airbus spares.2. Draconian sanctions such as these should be applied in unison with Russia and China and clearly framed within the U.N. code. Islamic so-called moderate or client states including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Indonesia, among others, as well as enemies such as Iran, should be provided with a yardstick to define the dismantling of the infrastructure and software of terror at home — in mosques, in schools, in theocratic institutions, and inside government itself.
That will demand total elimination of the madrassa rote systems, the restructuring of religious teachings, and the outlawing of political groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood, which adopt religion as political vehicles.
3. In the West itself, the last vestiges of tolerance toward Islamic fundamentalism must be removed. Laws targeting extremist speech, Islamic dress, storefront unregulated mosques, and the traffic of immigrant Muslims who do not speak the language nor share the values of freedom must surface in the legal codes of America, Europe, and Australia. The West must clearly process the fact that it is facing an existential threat to its core values, and it cannot be shy about installing tools of war in its democratic practices.
Witholding the Internet? If you know what the Internet is (NOT a network of pipes) then you will know that it is internationally based. It is true our government has indirect control over domain name services but that can in no way stop any part of the Middle East from accessing the Internet. In truth, Internet servers exist worldwide including China and Middle East itself.
Banning multi-national corporations from doing business with the Middle-East will cause a recession in our economy because these companies do in fact make billions doing business in Muslim countries. Also these companies hold significant lobbying power in Congress particularly with Republicans so under our current system of government it would be impossible to ban something of this scale.
The last issue I have with the above list: people who do not speak the language. All right, so you are telling me that if an immigrant Muslim does not speak English instantaneously, he/she must be expelled? This sounds completely illogical and unrealistic.
The above list is great in its ideological grounding, but in reality it is too difficult to implement all of it. That is why a police state is necessary as unfortunate as it sounds.
Just a few years ago, when he was at the Council of Foreign Relations, and before that, when he was a reporter for The Times, Youssef Ibrahim was not nearly as clear-sighted nor as clear in his expression. He would, for example, occasionally offer up the expected sly views that showed no comprehension, or indifference to, the claims and rights of Israel, and one assumed that the assorted henry-siegmans of that Council had found a kind of soul-mate.
Something has happened to make Youssef Ibrahim see things much more clearly. What it is only he knows. No one won his heart and his mind. He has won his own heart, and his own mind, on the scope, and full menace, of the threat coming from Believers. Whether or not he will go further, go all the way, say, to Ibn Warraq's essay on Islam and Fascism, whether or not he will even dare to study, say, the legal, moral, and historic claims of Israel to the land it currently possesses, and perhaps -- just perhaps -- find something to it, whether or not he will read the scholarly studies of Bat Ye'or on the treatment of dhimmis under Islam and with a pang recognize how completely she has described the treatment of Copts in Egypt, with which Youssef Ibrahim is familiar, is unknown to me.
But there has been something thaqt happened to him on the mental road to Damascus, to Ramallah, to Baghdad, to Riyadh, to Cairo, to the no-doubt elegant offices in mid-town Manhattan of the Council on Foreign Relations.
"Demand...and the outlawing of political groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood, which adopt religion as political vehicles." ????
Isn't that the same as "demand the outlawing of Islam?" What is Islam if not the adoptation of religion as a political vehicle, or more correctly, the cloaking of a political ideology with the mantle of religion? Let's tell it like it is - Hamas, Hezbollah etc are the incarnation of Islam pure and simple. Islam must be outlawed as a crime against humanity.
I applaud all of Mr. Ibrahim's proposals. One in particular that has not received enough attention is the one touching on Islamic dress. One of these days I'd say there's a good chance that someone, probably a woman wearing a burqa of one of those other tent-like costumes that they like to wear, is going to be concealing a bomb or some sort of weapon which she'll use against a bus or a supermarket or God knows what. And I mean that I'd foresee this in Europe or North America - NOT Israel. So this is one idea that needs to be studied a whole lot more closely, along with his other proposals.
While we cannot withold the internet so to speak, we can blacklist it. If nations can do it from inside, as China and Saudi Arabia do, consortiums such as those that exist to block spammers could block jihadist sites, emails etc. to the outside world. It can be done.
All these are very sound suggestions.
#3 means the most to me because THE reason to wear muslim garb is to deounce/protest Western dress and Western Civ.. So, we have protection of religion and expression in the USA. The way to plug up the loopholes is to categorize islam as cult, not an organized religion. Certainly not an Abrahamic faith.
Bravo.
We must proceed on the basis that islam is a cult of hate lies and decenption. Stop muslim immigration. Deport the immams and whomever others it is possible. Close the mosques.
It's for the muslims to reform themselves. Let God sort them out.
The problem I see here with these solutions (which I think until recently would have worked fairly well) is that China and Russia have joined forces and may decide to continue their enabling of jihadist nations in spite of the western democracies' efforts to levy sanctions against jihad-sponsoring countries. China now has an economy two-thirds that of the USA's and is growing at 11% annually. Russia, newly flush from vast fossil fuel sales, is cohabiting with China and many Islamic countries. Neither needs America or the west any longer and they may decide to manifest that to the world by ignoring them. Russia is all too happy to arm Hugo Chavez' Communist hellhole and Iran's mullah monsters while China is currently busy bankrolling Sudan's genocidal Islamic regime in Khartoum--for petroleum supplies. India is playing both sides and can't be counted on. It is doubtful at this point the western democracies will have much bargaining power with them at this point. If China and Russia say 'no' to these requests (which is almost certain)or, worse, they decide to play a double game with us, then what is Plan B?
Seeing that human life is nothing more than a bargaining chip to acquire power in Communist and Islamic societies, I suspect that Russia and China would definitely attack the western democracies with nuclear weapons in order to gain worldwide tribal, economic and ideological supremacy over the western democracies. Islamic global jihad warfare against the western democracies saves them the trouble--for now. Based on this realization, the almost inescapable conclusion is that the western world's other option could end up being forced into nuclear warfare against these horrid countries (Islamic and Communist) to stop them foisting their ghastly ideologies on the rest of the world.
THAT may turn out to be Plan B. And that's what comes of powerful governments failing to accord value to human life--the whole world pays.
stopthem, "We in the USA are too soft to do what need to be done (kill off all the muslims)."
Good God man! There are enough enemies of this site who declare it 'rasist' or 'islamophobic' etc. without actualy giving them the ammunition to defame it further and undermine the the work of Mr Spencer and team. (Even if you say it in jest).I am often reluctant to point people to this site because I know if they read such comments they will dismiss the whole site.( never afraid to recommend the books however)
Such things as outlawing of political groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood as well as laws targeting extremist speech, Islamic dress, storefront unregulated mosques, and the traffic of immigrant Muslims would send out a loud message to those muslims living or inteding to live in the west that they must adapt or leave. Steps 1 & 2 may be more aspirational than realistic in todays world but even if western governments stated the intention to do so, again the message would be loud and clear. I think the west should adopt some sort of "technology for religious and social reform" policy, such as "you may buy our new aicraft when you allow women to drive" or "yes, we'll build your new hospital just as soon as you repeal sharia" etc. thereby if they wish to remain level with the west in technology they will have to do so socially.
Bravo, Youssef Ibrahim.
These measures will become increasingly possible as more attacks occur around the globe. It's a shame we can't start with this sort of thing now, but the western masses and politicians are still numbed and blinded by political correctness (the evil of our time IMO).
BUT, 1 QUESTION: Even if we enact Mr. Ibrahim's suggestions, how will we cope with the Muslims' central rulebook—the Qur'an—which will always be a training manual with which to spawn more jihadists?
Pissing in the wind, Youssef? What doggerel all this "fix Islam" talk is.
You can fix Islam no more than you can fix syphilis. Either eradicate it entirely or die a slow death. Youssef's speech implores us to sign up for option B, which has been our direction to date.
Ibrahim's suggestions are certainly interesting, but they would be difficult to implement, especially on a global level. Consequently, I'm not sure about their practicality.
Individually, we can all read translations of the Qur'an online and encourage those we know to do the same- Sura 9 is especially interesting. I've found that most people, even well read, educated people, just assume the Qu'ran is similar to the Bible.
It's not.
Red-Green Alert!
BBC Wants Bush Killed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5302598.stm
And of course if that were to happen, you know how the Red-Green camp would react. Before the body was even cold, they would be focusing attention on their "fears of a backlash, which are making ethnic minorities feel unsafe."
As an Indian myself, I've seen the jihadi apologists use that trick countless times, in order to tamp down any notion of accountability from their side.
What a bunch of predators.
Great ideas by Youssef Ibrahim, but getting Russia, China and especially the UN to go along with them would be an abject impossibility.
Like usual, it's all up to us.
Sanman
BBC is British arm of Al Jazeera.Check out their journos and you will find half of 'em have either worked for or are going to work for this Jihadi propaganda machine.Red Ken's Qatari Buddy runs the show : filthly rich Emir of Qatar funds it.
Of course British Bastards Calling LOVE seeing Bush ASSASINATED on screen.Remember how much space this organization gave to Galloway's remarks on how 'Blair DESERVED to be killed-not that he [taquiyya] was advocating it...'
Urge JWatchers to support Youssef Ibrahim as his remarks make good sense to me.It is our Dhimmi Leaders who 'lack the balls' to implement them.
sanman:
The BBC is a real piece of work. Not only has it thrown away its hard-earned reputation as a pillar of professional journalism, but it cant even put out a written article with proper grammar and punctuation. I guess if bashing America and praising islam are the goals, poor writing is a must.
The Bush assassination movie depicts an investigation of a Syrian born man for the fictional murder. $10. says it will portray the man as an innocent victim of islamophobia, and the real assassin Will be an angry, Christian right-winger.
Commerce, weapons, technology -- check.
Terrorist infrastructure -- check.
Restricting external fundamentalist dress and speech - check.
No, wait. The Al-Qaeda manual already tells them to dress, act and speak like us. So we still allow English speaking immigration?
And how do we approach demography?
And the welfare jihad?
Courtroom jihad?
Media propaganda jihad?
It's been "close but no cigar" for 5 Allahdamned years. I'm jonesing for a real cigar, real bad! Is a real cigar too much to ask for?
Slapped back to pathetic, tragic-comic reality: Yes.
What this essay seems to omit is the need for leaders to get this started. As of now, there are none, nowhere. The people who aspire to become senators, representatives, and presidents cannot or will not speak the truth and use plain language that everyone can understand. Tom Tancredo comes to mind, but he is only one voice with little power. He is one out of 435 US congressmen.
Truman, Reagan, and TR Roosevelt are dead along with the prospects for our future. It will take a cataclysmic attack to get these bed-wetting, little politicos off there fat rear ends.
September 11, 2001 was not the "big one."
It should have been 4 good ideas for fighting jihad. Mr. Ibrahim left out one key idea.
We absolutely must stop their economy. Once they are back to being dirt poor, they will not be able to do much to hurt us no matter how bad they hate us. Once Iran and Saudi Arabia no longer have billions of petrodollars pouring in, they will no longer be able to fund jihadist organizations.
We must become independent of middle east oil. Not only do our petrodollars fund their efforts to destroy us, but our dependence on middle eastern oil gives them all too much power over us and our economy. They do not need to sell to us, but we need to buy from them.
Even if we become independent of oil imports, that alone will not cut off petrodollars to muslim countries that support terrorism. They can always sell oil to china and their supporters in europe.
So we need to use green technology ourselves and spread it to other nations, so they can stop buying middle eastern oil. In addition to that we need to quit operating and maintaining the oil fields for these countries.
If that doesn't cut funding of terrorism and jihad, we might need to seize the oil fields of the middle east, and destroy them, once we have reached energy independence.
And yes, my next vehicle WILL be either electric or flex fuel, or compressed air (if available).
However, my current vehicle, a 6 cylinder Buick Le Sabre, does get 32 mpg, so I don't feel too bad about that, although I dislike the French name.
On August 25 at the New York Sun, another pretty radical article by Youssef Ibrahim appeared. An excerpt:
A poster above said:
We do have to do whatever we can to become independent of oil. But in the near future, poverty will be far from an insuperable obstacle to wreaking mass destruction. WMD are ever more quickly becoming cheaper and cheaper, due to the inherent acceleration of technological development.
In the coming decades, managing the increasingly destructive possibilities of technology may compel a desperate effort to establish "transparency regimes" worldwide, i.e., to throw over everyone a pervasive and continuous surveillance such as democratic peoples are quite unaccustomed to. At the same time there would, one hopes, be efforts to maintain that surveillance under democratic checks and balances and with continued freedoms, so that it would be a more or less benign system and unlike 1984 or Brave New World.
As time goes on, accelerating technological development not only makes it ever more quickly possible to create more and more with less and less, it also makes it possible to destroy more and more with less and less. In other words, the increasing "popularization" of WMD will take place, so that within a relatively short time, through bioweapons for example, it will be possible for even a very few people, with little training and few resources, to kill millions. See Martin Rees on this.
This means that not only radical Muslims are an increasingly large danger; but any disaffected, suicidal individual will become a life and death problem for others. And these possibilities don't even encompass the technological accidents by which scientists could kill huge populations. There is reason to believe that such accidents will become increasingly likely with the advent of superpowered technologies expected to come on line in the next decades -- such as the fusion of nanotech and biotech.
If all this seems implausible, consider the near miraculous leaps technology has made since the Industrial Revolution, when for the first time in history, science and capitalism and freedom really joined forces. Historians frequently agree the Industrial Revolution was the biggest leap in civilization since the discovery of agriculture ten thousand years ago or so. And the acceleration brought by the Industrial Revolution in England was not a one-time affair. It continues worldwide. Nukes are unlikely to be the last word in prodigies of destructive power. Perhaps we must hope that democratic checks and balances can be synthesized with new forms of hypersurveillance into a benign Brave New World. Grasping at straws, maybe, but it's better than giving up.
OT
Two years since Beslan, lest we forget:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1316935651894423094
One major solution that does not require much thought is that we could all just stop using oil within the next 10 years and, boom, every oil sponsored regime from Iran to Venezuela will collapse. Russia will become far more docile as well. The reason these countries, Muslim as well as others are acting up is becuase they feel protected under their oil wealth. And why not? Even the US plays nice with Saudi Arabia.
I agree completely with Stopthem.
La Frontera,
muslimes' sole objective is annihilation of Israel(sic) and slaying (and or subjugation)of infidels in the name of *inshaallah*. And the majority of the vested interests approve them tacitly.
If the Unconquered & Wise among us want their total extermination, they HAVE to accept whatever befalls them as *inshaallah*.
One who imagines he can please everybody ends up pleasing nobody.
Why this fetish for coexisting with inimicals??
La Frontera
"I am often reluctant to point people to this site because I know if they read such comments they will dismiss the whole site."
I agree, I have the same problem. We all have a responsibility to our cause when posting here. People who write clearly inflammatory comments that bring this site into disrepute are sabotaging the anti-jihad movement.
"I think the west should adopt some sort of "technology for religious and social reform" policy, such as "you may buy our new aicraft when you allow women to drive" or "yes, we'll build your new hospital just as soon as you repeal sharia" etc. thereby if they wish to remain level with the west in technology they will have to do so socially."
I like this idea. NZ trades with all sorts of dismal dumps, because we're small and pathetic, basically. But a large, strong country could stand up for its ideals. And if NZ and Australia had any sense at all, we'd be connecting chiefly with non-islamic countries for alliances and trade and thus also stand up for our ideals.
Stopthem, you're obviously a saboteur infiltrating this site.
And newcomers, please don't take that poster's comments as the general opinion here, or any reflection on Robert's writings!!
Ibrahim's ideas # 1 and #2 are utopian. #3 might be possible if the peoples were to take charge of their respective governments and kick the dhimmis out.
But a major obstacle to all three is that the vast majority of the people of both The West and The East still do not understand that the 1.2 billion people of Islam are in an "officially declared" war with them. Official by their Book of War. We are their "Land of War", as all at this site know, although some comments above leave me wondering a bit
Lili, please stop apologizing for someone who understands the problem (Stopthem). If there were only one true believer in Islam, we would still be under the threat of a terrorist attack. Also Lili, you seem the think that we can negotiate and reason with the unreasonable. Once you figure out why Lebanon is no longer a Christian country, and North Africa from Egypt to Algeria is no longer Christian,you might agree with Stopthem.
The only reason that there are any Jews left on this planet is because the Roman empire scattered them throughout the Empire in 79 AD, thus "saving" them from eradication by the Islamic armies.
I'm with Lili on the issue of toning down the rhetoric. This is not "our" site. It is Spencer's site.
"If it comes down to it we may well have to kill them all, except we can spare those that are left if they surrender islam"
posted by: stopthem
Now, do I think he is in his basement sharpening his knives, collecting his grenades, making automatic modifications to his firearms, preparing for a vigilante bloodbath? No, I don't. But visitors who read this site might. People who hate this site will say he is. So if his opinion could be equally validly expressed as
"This may need to be a battle to the finish, save those who shun their imperialist fantasies"
then shouldn't he, for sake of Robert and all of us with those bumperstickers and T-shirts who would prefer that those enjoying their catharsis won't have us painted with the same broad brush of "Islamophobic" "genocidal" "maniacs".
Please, a little discretion.
"a major obstacle to all three is that the vast majority of the people of both The West and The East still do not understand that the 1.2 billion people of Islam are in an "officially declared" war with them."
I agree with this observation of Jimmy Bones above (though I would leave out the "officially" part, as I think it's more complex). I would go even further, since I have noticed a tendency among "jihadwatchers" (defined broadly as all people who "get it" that Islam is evil) for years now:
There are 3 Problems:
1) the Problem of Islam
2) the Problem of the PC West not noticing #1
3) the Problem of Jihadwatchers not noticing the immensity of #2.
The third problem can itself become an obstacle insofar as it would cause people to imagine they can directly tackle #1 without dealing with the gigantic hurdles posed by #2.
Concerned Citizen:
If Stopthem wants to write about killing all muslims, that's his business. It's a mistake to think the people who oppose what Spencer has to say will support him if commentators like Stopthem show "a little discretion." There are no fence sitters who will be swayed to the side of ignorance and intolerance by Stopthem's remarks.
People who demonize Spencer are either ignorant of islam's intentions, or they support jihad. The former can see the truth printed by this site no matter what Stopthem writes, and the latter are hopeless.
Being kind to your enemies is always a mistake.
Besides, if Robert or Hugh or Marisol have a problem with such comments, they can and will remove them.
Also note the disclaimer at the top of every comment page.
"If Stopthem wants to write about killing all muslims, that's his business."
posted by: Jeff Bargholz
"Besides, if Robert or Hugh or Marisol have a problem with such comments, they can and will remove them."
Posted by: Agent Orange
Sorry, I still disagree (but thoughtful backup plan, Orange). I, and many others, need this site to be something I can recommend to others, and informative, insightful and reasonably temperate. I think that is what the owners of this site wish it to be.
Robert, Hugh, and Marisol don't even see a lot of the posts on this site. WE have to be sensitive to this and show some restraint.
"Jihad Watch is dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts. We hope to alert people of good will to the true nature of the present global conflict." [emphasis added]
The macho chest-beating and saber-rattling may make the powerless individual poster feel better, but does nothing positive to advance the agenda of this site. Taken out of context (quoted out of context), especially by those unfamiliar with the poster, this appears to be grass-roots vigilante violence condoned by the site, despite all the disclaimers.
Don't get me wrong. I think anyone who posts something offensive to Islam (e.g. Mohammed was a pedophile, Allah is a false god), who is not armed to the teeth is a fool. But there is a big difference between "I will defend myself and my country" or "we must defeat our enemies utterly" and "none of this is going to work, we'll have to kill them all".
I've been reading this site for far longer than I've been posting. Many of the posters here quite knowledgeable on a variety of topics and add valuable content to the threads. Some excellent posters "go off" every now and then, and sometimes it seems excusable, after having read numerous postings, that they are having an emotional reaction, a frustrated ineloquent moment. Some come back and try to attenuate or moderate their prior comments. But nobody is going to print the remorse in the NYT.
We all have to be aware this site is being monitored by CAIR (F U if you are reading this) and others for "hate speech", and they do (erroneously) attribute our comments to Spencer. Let's not give them any ammo to dissuade visitors of "good will".
Traeh,
Yes, I absolutely agree with you.
In the long term, the threat from WMD's will increase.
However, collapsing the economies of muslim countries will go a long ways towards protecting us, and buying us some time. Quite a bit more time. Which we can put to good use getting rid of the madrassahs and figuring out how to deconstruct islam. Not an easy task, but our ultimate survival depends on it.
I also think we should start isolating them from the west and our technology. No more foreign muslim university students learning biochem, engineering or even medicine. No more western technology sold to muslim countries. Yes, the Europeans will continue to give education and technology to muslim countries, and we need to do whatever we can to stop this. We can't continue to give them the weapons and know how to kill us with.
No foreign aid.
If they have a famine, or an earthquake, or another tsunami, tough for them. Boo frickin hoo. No more US military to save them, no more disaster relief aid for them to steal either.
They seem to think that that Allah is punishing them for not being devout enough muslims, in which case, why should we interfere with Allah's will? More power to Allah.
"Being kind to your enemies is always a mistake."
No it's not - it can be very strategic, as muslims well know.
Thanks Concerned Citizen, you make excellent points.