There should be, and can be, no opting-out of the global jihad war being waged against us. But let it not be a war fought by the stolidly unimaginative, who believe war is only a matter of bombs, tanks and guns (though those are often necessary), and among whom there is little place for intelligence and indeed ruthless intelligence. Let it rather be a war which seeks always to exploit pre-existing weaknesses in the enemy, to make sure that that enemy remains as divided as possible, on ethnic, sectarian, and economic lines, possesses as little major weaponry as possible, and has to spend its own money. The enemy should never be able to rely on the disguised Jizyah of foreign aid extracted from Infidels, as that $450 million now being planned at the U.N. for the "Palestinians," who should be allowed, of course, to get any damn money they please -- but only from fellow Muslims. They should receive not a cent from Infidels. And the same goes for Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and all other Muslim states and peoples who forgot to be born with oil reserves.
And let Demonstration Projects, of Muslim violence and aggression, be allowed to be put on by Muslims themselves, for the benefit of Infidels still unclear as to what Islam is all about.
Finally, let Infidels and Muslims alike be forced to make the connection between the political, economic, social, moral, and intellectual failures of Muslim states and societies suffused with Islam, and Islam itself. Let inshallah-fatalism explain the failure, despite the ten trillion dollars since 1973 in OPEC oil money, of Muslim states to establish modern economies. Let the Muslim despotisms be properly attributed to the belief in Islam that a ruler's legitimacy comes only from his being a Muslim, enforcing or following the strictures of Allah as set down in the Qur'an and glossed by the hadith, and not from any supposed grant of authority from the people, who after all do not count. They are merely slaves, submissive to the will of Allah. Let the Muslim social failures, in the mistreatment of women and non-Muslims, be shown up. Draw attention to the Muslim intellectual failures ("Whenever I listen to Mozart I feel I am betraying Islam," as one Arab intellectual wrote) that have led to such mental impoverishment and such constraints on the free and skeptical inquiry necessary for science, and on so many different means of artistic expression (sculpture, all depictions of living creatures in painting, most music) that make "Islamic civilization" such a wretched thing. Let this be made clear, so that Muslims themselves will have to figure out where to put the blame, and some of them, at least, will have to, in fact, put it.
That is the outline of a war strategy.
The rest is filling in the details.
One more thing. During World War II America had allies. Some were similar in political makeup. Great Britain. The Free French. The Resistance movements, with varying degrees of effectiveness, and the Partigiani in Italy (and the Italian troops who revolted against their German masters in Albania, Greece, Yugoslavia).
And the Soviet Union, which in the largest tank battle in history, at Kursk, managed in that one battle to kill 850,000 German soldiers -- as many as were killed on Germany's Western Front.
Today, unable to grasp or to articulate the nature of the problem, and stumbling about with this "democracy" project in Iraq, we seem unable either to interest, or to sufficiently alarm, the states and peoples of Western Europe. They need to be alarmed. They should be alarmed. And so should Russians, including those that have a modicum of interest in keeping Russia as Russia, a place outside the grip of Islam. Such people exist. They have to be found, cultivated, supported, appealed to. But it cannot be done if the American government is in the control of the naive, and if those naive are, still worse, under attack by those who are also naïve as well as completely misguided and in some cases malevolent in their analysis -- as certainly James Baker and Lee Hamilton were, though not all of their colleagues on the committee, mostly camouflage and potted plants, were.
A failure of leadership, rooted in a failure of intellect.
Tsunami donations
Iran USD 627,000
New Zealand NZ 68M (USD 47.2M)
New Zealand has about 1/10 of the GPD of Iran and donated 80 times more, that makes it actullay than 800 times more than Iran, for the majority of muslim victims.
Just as an example.
Now how much goes for supporting terror in Iran?
Iran is the birthplace, heart and soul of the Islamic revolution that spawned the global jihad. Iran has declared war on America and has been killing our soldiers in places like Lebanon and Iraq every chance they get. Iran has been sponsoring terrorism all over the globe for decades. "Death to America" is their national motto, and it is chanted at government meetings and government-organized rallies. And Iran is working tirelessly to acquire the weapons that will allow them to make good on their threats.
So here is an outline for a war strategy. We do to Islamic fanatics exactly what we did to Japanese Imperialistic fanatics in WWII. We declare unrestricted, total war on Iran.
We start the attack by putting a cruise missile right through the window of every major mosque in Tehran right at prayer times (which are published in Tehran's newspapers)-- this alone will kill many of the mullahs and other leaders and many thousands of the most rabid followers.
We continue the attack, using air power alone, until all major regime structures and military installations are leveled. Destroy all oil and gas facilities, all major shipping and transportation infrastructure, all oil and gas pipelines and all significant rail, air and automobile transportation.
This will leave Iran in ruins, with no source of income, no significant leadership, no significant military facilities -- and no way to construct or acquire any weapons of mass destruction.
During the attack, we should state publicly that we do not accept any blame for the civilian deaths that result, because in a conflict between a free nation that seeks only to be left alone versus a totalitarian dictatorship that seeks the destruction of that free nation, all deaths that result, including civilian deaths, are the moral responsibility of the totalitarians that make the attack necessary.
At the end of our attack, we should state publicly that we do not care who or what takes over in the ruins of Iran, we do not care if it becomes a “breeding ground” for terrorists or a “lawless state” that terrorists think they can exploit, and we do not care if the attack “creates” a million new terrorists who want to kill us -- we do not care because:
1) We will maintain surveillance of Iran and if anything starts developing that looks threatening to our interests, we will return and repeat our devastation. (Or, if better elements take over and want to establish a free society, we will help in whatever limited ways we can.)
and:
2) We will also maintain surveillance of all other nations and will visit the same level of death and destruction on any nation that sponsors or harbors terrorists or represents a threat to America or her interests.
And we should state that in the event of another terrorist attack on America or her interests, we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons atop ICBMs to achieve an even greater level of destruction on whatever terrorist-supporting nation we deem responsible.
Thx, Hugh, accurate as always.
My friends tell me that they dislike the war in Iraq, mainly because they view Iraq as a hopeless case. That really agrees with your analysis of the democracy project as a vain effort.
At some point I'd like to hear your opinion of Charles Krauthammer's idea of dropping back to Kurdistan (you've probably expressed it and I missed the posting), which is relatively stable, and would let us still be present militarily. Along the same lines, Daniel Pipes has suggested moving troops into the desert.
Just to add fuel to the fire, John Gibson on Fox reported that Iraqi troops are using the equipment we've supplied them to attack non-insurgent Sunnis. Thus, we are actively aiding one side in Islamic sectarian warfare, the side allied with Iran. Of course, the other side is Hamas-like.
The trouble with Iraq, for me, is that I really can't tell who the good guys are, outside of our troops, of course. There are just bad guys, and worse guys, but no good guys.
l can see the tv screens of the leftist media of starving palis with no food, shelter because big meanning Americans did not send in money and food. and blame Israel for all their woes. it would be wonderful to cut off all aid from infidel lands. hey if the Saudi can send in money and weapons to the Sunnis in Iraq, and iranians send in the same to the shites in irag, lebanon,etc. it would be a great world. do you really think that fellow rich oil muslims would give money for food and aid to their wretched poor palis? of ocurse not they would oblige the UN and EU to do this. and our weasel politicians and media will cave it. Everything Hugh proposes is clear and logically, when ins human history have we prevented a world war? oh l forgot to mention Bono from U2, yeah another Irishmen who scolled the Bush adminstartion for not giving more money to AFrica. holding back money. Unfortuanately muslims only respect power and those appearing to have power, why do they want Bush out of there, and are pleased as punch to have the Dems in control?
even the Eurpean weasel politicians leftist are pleased at the Dems for winning, and want a more lean leaning butt kissing US!
l heard some words from Churchill about having two choices, you can vote for appeasement or go to war in a limited way, and if you voted for appeasement you will have a much larger, ie World War. (not esact words, but the jest of it.
l like what Michael Smith, but we have proven at this time to fight the war PC style and do not have a government that can articulate this waring this well. ps prefere non military strikes, such as holding back money, but logic has not been human history's method.
"The enemy should never be able to rely on the disguised Jizyah of foreign aid extracted from Infidels, as that $450 million now being planned at the U.N. for the "Palestinians," who should be allowed, of course, to get any damn money they please -- but only from fellow Muslims. They should receive not a cent from Infidels. And the same goes for Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and all other Muslim states and peoples who forgot to be born with oil reserves." Posted by Hugh
I couldn't agree more.
Michael Smith's posted comments are harsh......... and absolutely necessary for our own defence against such an enemy like Iran.
We need more thinkers like Fitzgerald, that is a certainty. Our leaders will never get the simple truths to the enemy we all face, any hope to the thought that the governments will just wake up and "get it" one day are as absurd as believing Islam is a religion of peace, that we can negotiate or reason with those indoctrinated in the Jihad ideology, or paying the Jizya tax in order to fund our own funerals. We will not make any progress in our own defence until we get rid of the lesser men in positions of power today that are crippling our society from within.
It is the leaders, both in government and academic levels, that have betrayed the people of the west and through either malice or foolishness lead us now to our doom.
I don't blame Team Islam for doing what they are fooled into believing as much as I blame our leaders for allowing Team Islam to bite us.
Hugh
I don't think the genocidal quotation marks (""Palestinians"") are exactly moral.
I do a lot of blogging about Islam on MySpace. My latest is called Sophia Operates Even Through Muhammad and George Bush.
You've certainly got the attention of this Gnostic heretic, and I'm happy to give you plenty of whithering firepower. I'm about to pour through the Koran, and I'll tell you where the other chinks are. I'm already coming up with very interesting insights on Muhammad's night journey.
O.T. but important, the House just voted to allow drilling for oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico. If it passes the Senate it is a good first step.
I am reminded of a scene in a movie where Jack Nicholson is playing an officer and is being hounded by a lawyer played by Tom Cruise. Nicholson's character responds in court,
"Truth, you couldn't handle the truth."
Hugh, good post. The underlying issue is one of finding truth and illuminating it for all to see. The truth of Islam (I've decided to drop the modifier "radical" because I believe Islam is radical on its own merits) has been clouded by our own sensibilities (they can't be that bloodthirsty, can they?), our media, the left-wing multiculturists, our own desire to keep our Starbucks lifestyle, and, most importantly, our lack of leadership in the West, especially from President Bush.
Our leaders lack guts at a time when we need that fortitude the most. Many Americans now believe that if we leave the Muslim world alone and appease Palestine then we won't be at risk. Of course its a pipe dream, but who is providing the truth that blows that dream apart. No one.
It doesn't help that the ISG report basically says we have lost in Iraq and now its time to carve up the middle-east with our new allies, Iran and Syria.
Islam's goal is clear and its savage methods are clear. Its time to tell the truth - I guess I will get my lamp and start looking for that honest person.
Michael Smith is correct. Rather than trying to rebuild Islamic nations, we should just destroy them, then leave and go to the next one. American troops are a limited resource that shouldn't be squandered as they are in Iraq.
Zena: Is this the quote?: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war."
One additional thought. If I was president I would have a weekly update on the latest horrors perpetrated by Muslims, such as the killing of teachers in Afganistan, the beheadings of young Christian girls in Indonesia, the slaughter in Somalia and the Sudan, and so on.
In addition, I would highlight the amount of giving and charity that the West, particularly Christians in America, have provided to help Muslims in need (the tsunami is a great example). And I would draw other comparisons between us (Western Civilization) and the barbarians in terms of human rights, education, innovation, etc.
Let the truth be its own message and let the Muslim world respond. Lets drop this pretense that Islam is a peaceful religion and that they are not at war with us.
Americans and the West may not like it, but it is the truth. And, the response by the Muslim world will be telling and will bolster the message, because their culture is indefensible.
One final thought (I promise). This year I traveled extensively through Muslim regions and countries (Bosnia, Turkey, palestinian territories, and Egypt) to get a sense from Muslims what was important to them. I found that being free was less important to them than compliance with Islam.
Michael Smith -
Great plan except for one thing, do you have any idea how much it will cost us to rebuild all that destruction and police it? Oh! Wait... you don't plan on doing that?
Michael Smith is a genocidal maniac who desires the slaughter of millions of men, women and children.
I suspect the same of Fitzgerald, but I'm not aware of the subtleties of his views on the Palestinian question. Am I right in interpreting his use of quotation marks around the word 'Palestinian' as an assertion of the view that they should be destroyed as a people?
What's the point of being against Islamo-Fascism if you are a fascist yourself?
Yes, indeed, let it be a war beyond just bombs and bullets:
http://910group.com/
schmegal wrote:
"What's the point of being against Islamo-Fascism if you are a fascist yourself?"
You bring up the 'Palestinian' question and expect to be taken seriously here? You have much, much, much to learn about the nature of Islam, the Qur'an and the real reasons behind the propaganda/terrorist machine that is the PLO and all its many veiled allies.
I tire of "Moral Equivalence" spewers that seek to destroy the West by acts of Darwin's Law and sycophantic propaganda. Go read Carter's newest book if you want to revel in the imaginary.
A failure of leadership, rooted in a failure of intellect.
Posted
If only it were a failure of intellect. IF ONLY!! We coul then correct this situation rather easily by bringing in more capable people. I mean hey.. over 90% of the Jihadwatch crowd coan do better than these goofs we have running the circus!
so I deduct it's not a failure of intellect but rather a failure of heart, a failure of guts and most of all a failure of HONESTY and a failure of making the right decisions that are in the Best interest of the Amercian People - rather than in the interests of the SOWdi paymasters they serve.
They do what they do IN THE FACE of BETTER KNOWLEDGE!!!!!
I call that TREASON more than I would call it stupidity!!!!
TREASON, Mr. Bush!! YOU ARE A TRAITOR>>>
Save your legacy and TAKE OUT IRAN NOW!!!!!!!!
Then BRING THE TROOPS HOME and let alla[piss be upon it] sort them out!!!!!
Michael Smith is a genocidal maniac who desires the slaughter of millions of men, women and children.
I suspect the same of Fitzgerald, but I'm not aware of the subtleties of his views on the Palestinian question. Am I right in interpreting his use of quotation marks around the word 'Palestinian' as an assertion of the view that they should be destroyed as a people?
What's the point of being against Islamo-Fascism if you are a fascist yourself?
Posted by: schmegel
How IS THIS TROLL???? I thought AreFART was DEAD and GONE!!! We INDEED need to go fascist on islam and IN A MAJOR HURRY!! I don't CARE what you call it!!
WHO gives a RAT'S @SS about the "palestinians"??? The "palis" who murdered the athletes at the Olympics you mean??!! The palis who invented things like plane hijackings???
Are THOSE the people you mean??
And WHY am I now supposed to care about them??!!
The people who blow up things constantly and who hold no jobs???!!! They who always try to extract more money from us???
They who need to go to SOWdi Arabia and to Iran for their handouts instead of US???
Go take a HIKE, troll!
We start the attack by putting a cruise missile right through the window of every major mosque in Tehran right at prayer times (which are published in Tehran's newspapers)-- this alone will kill many of the mullahs and other leaders and many thousands of the most rabid followers.
NICE!!!! We should also strafe and carpet bomb any Hesbo and Hamas groups when they parade around with their guns. We KNOW what they intend to do so we have the RIGHT to take them OUT!
Foehammer
I didn't spew out any notion of 'moral equivalence'. I merely asked whether Fitzgerald's constant use of quotation marks around the word "Palestinians" entailed the view that they should be destroyed as a people. It was a genuine question not a rhetorical one.
We continue the attack, using air power alone, until all major regime structures and military installations are leveled. Destroy all oil and gas facilities, all major shipping and transportation infrastructure, all oil and gas pipelines and all significant rail, air and automobile transportation.
We need to bomb them so fast and HARD that the media never have the time to get in there and cause problems for us. In fact we should BAN our media from going over there.
It's either Hugh's way or it's Michael Smith's way. Hugh still allows the enemy a way out peacefully.
If the enemy steps out of line then Michael Smith's way will have to apply.
The "palestinians" are trying to commit genocide against Israel/ They have been actively doing this AND STATING THEIR GOALS quite clearly so there is no GUILT in self-defense.
The gloves need to COME OFF!!!
Boy do I have a bad hangover!
There is only one commentator on TV that is not right wing conservative and that is Keith Olbermann, and even he isn't liberal..just more fair and balanced, which is something that Faux news.
All of the major media is in fact establishment, and that means corporate, because in a capitalist society like ours, existence depends on profitability, and profitabily drives stock prices..which is what CEO's are hired to protect and increase.
The only liberal media are a few non mainstream publications, like the Nation or Mother Jones, but the myth of the liberal media was created by well paid intellectual whores, as a diversion and distraction from reality.. for the morons on the right that want to believe that.
Muslims so much love to play victim, they wallow in their "victimhood" and so do so called conservatives, alas you are not at all conservative and should be sued for befouling that honorable word.. fascist radicals is a more appropriate label for those who call themselves "conservative" today.. and frankly you guys are as much an enemy of freedom and liberty as the muslims.
Hugh Fitzgerald's use of quotes around the word Palestinian refers to his, ours, and histories judgement that these people are not so called Palestinians, and that Palestinian People is a phrase created for propaganda purposes by Arafat.
In the beginning of the 20th Century, there were about 800,000 or less inhabitants of that region which was part of the Ottoman Empire, and the property of which was totally owned by the Ottomans.
The inhabitants of the region were various, as it has been since at least Alexander the Great, Bedouins, Jews, Christians, Syrians, Phoenicians, even Macedonians, Celtic, Greek and Egyptians..
They were not known as Palestinians, and such designiation is an artifact of Arafat's propaganda.
In 1948 the vast majority of peoples living in what we now call the Palestinian Territories fled, of their own accord, to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.. forwarned in mosque and word of mouth they knew of the planned Arab invasion of the newly declared state of Israel, and were told that the battle would only last two weeks at most, so they fled out of the line of fire taking the keys of their homes with them.
The few that stayed lived and their descendants live comfortably in Israel as citizens with full rights and priviliges, including political parties and representatives in the knesset.. there is no "Arab" or muslim country which grants Jews similar respect and rights, on the contrary they persecute and drive them out..
The vast majority of peoples who live in the so called Palestinian or "Palestinian" territories, are not even descendants of the 1948 Arabs but the children, grandchildren and great grandchildren of migrant workers, mostly from Egypt, who swarmed the territories (like Mexicans swarm the U.S.) attracted by the jobs and decent income that the Jews were providing.. but like morons the world over (Mexican, Muslim) in their fit of self righteous, triumphalist chauvinism.. they would (and try actively) to kill the goose that laid the golden egg..
In other words these so called "Palestinians" are feckless, shortsighted and Stupid as a result of their blind belief in their identity and ideology.
Just as those millions of Mexicans who flee across our southern border to escape the poverty which is the legacy and a necessary outcome of their own bankrupt culture, would and try mightily to tear down and render as dysfunctional this culture which has given them the opportunity.
Imagine fleeing the bankrupt and backwater culture of Mexico, and marching and flying a Mexican flag, demanding in essence that America become a carbon copy of that miserable country and culture which they fled.
Same thing with the so called "Palestinians"..they can't build themselves up, their religion and culture prohbit and inhibit that, so they wage war on Israel to destroy it.. that way they don't have to confront the blatant evidence that their culture is indeed backwards and inferior..
In that regard they are no different than any Leveler ideology, be it the French or Bolshevik Revolution or Pol Pots Khmer Rouge or Mao's revolution.. eliminate the differences between the near do wells and feckless by eliminating the middle class and the better off. Muslims won't be happy until everyone is brought down to the lowest common denominator (except of course for Imams, Qadi's,Islamic Scholars, and those who claims special privileges for themselves as religious authorities).
this may belong in Dhimmiwatch..
Muslim probable replacement for Bolton at U.N...
"President Bush was reported by aides as looking for someone who approximates Bolton's combination of toughness and diplomatic skill and has tentatively decided on Khalilzad. A native of Afghanistan, he has served in government posts dating back to 1985 and is the highest-ranking Muslim in the Bush administration."
...
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2006/12/09/boltons_successor
"Michael Smith is a genocidal maniac who desires the slaughter of millions of men, women and children.
I suspect the same of Fitzgerald, but I'm not aware of the subtleties of his views on the Palestinian question."
-- from a posting above
The person who wrote this has wilfully misread everything I have written here -- about five thousand-odd (some very odd) postings. A constant refrain has been how unnecessary major warfare is, and how wasteful of our resources. The major instruments of Jihad are not military. They are: the use of oil wealth, Da'wa, and demographic conquest. "Terrorism" and other forms of "qital" (combat) are not the most dangerous instrument. As long as no Muslim state is permitted to acquire, or if having acquired, to continue to posssess forever, or certainly not to possess the means of adequate delivery, of weapons of mass destruction, that is all that needs to be worried about militarily. Keep those weapons from all Muslim countries, or pry them from the hands of the Pakistanis through the infliction of severe economic damage. Halt and reverse the growth of Muslim populations in Bilad al-kufr, the Lands of the Infidels. Through steadily rising taxes on all uses of oil (especially gasoline), and through subsidies to mass transit and government-funded nuclear energy projects and tax credits for solar and wind energy, and coal gasification projects, and many other things, do everything that can be done, in concert with all oil-consuming states, to drive down the total revenues of OPEC. End forever the disguised Jizyah of Infidel foreign aid that is given, for no good reason, to Muslmis without oil revenues even though the rich Muslim states are perfectly capable of funding their fellow members of the umma al-islamiyya. Finally, find every conceivable way to exploit the natural fissures -- sectarian, ethnic, and economic -- within the Camp of Islam, and start exploiting, and not, as Bush is trying to do, create harmony where there is none, and where that lack of harmony works to our Infidel advantage.
All of this requires education of the Infidels. None of it requires, as is absurdly suggested by that sinister poster, "genocide." There would be far less fighting needed now, or needed in the future, by Infidels if they followed the outline offered above.
"Am I right in interpreting his use of quotation marks around the word 'Palestinian' as an assertion of the view that they should be destroyed as a people?"
-- from a posting above
Though you have been answered by others, I will offer my own reply. The use of quotation marks is deliberate, intended to show that I do not accept the carefully-fabricated invention of the "Palestinian people" that took place after the Six-Day War. This was accomplished in several steps. First, the word "Palestinian" had previously been used, in the 20th century, only by Jews talking about other Jews who lived in Mandatory Palestine. You will not find a single example in the literature of the Arabs, of any Arab being called, without more, a "Palestinian." Furthermore you can look at the many tens of thousands of pages of U.N. Records from 1948 to 1967, and you will not find -- I know, I've looked -- a single appearance of the word "Palestinian" as a noun being used, by Arab spookesmen, to refer to Arabs living in Gaza or "the West Bank" (note those quotation marks, please, intended to mock, and to call into question, the replacement of the toponyms "Judea" and "Samaria," used in the Bible, certainly used by Jesus, used for 2000 years throughout both the Jewish world and Western Christendom, and then suddenly, in 1948, the Jordanian government attempted, like the Romans 1800 years before, to efface the Jewish connection by changing the placenames, and substituting for the millenniel-old "Judea" and "Samaria" the utterly misleading "West Bank").
We know exactly why this was done. Zuheir Mohsein, head of the PLO-linked terrorist group As Saiqa (a special favorite and ally of the Syrians), spelled it out. I will simply offer an excerpt from a two-year-old posting here:
"In 2002 the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church was a certain Rev. Abu-Akel, from Atlanta, who takes a deep interest in promoting the false, but palatable, view of the Jihad against Israel, as an Infidel sovereignty, as simply a conflict "between two tiny peoples" -- in one fell swoop, dismissing the Jihad which is completely uninterested in borders, and reinforcing the recently-invented "Palestinian people" (a phrase never used, of course, prior to the defeat in 1967, after which it was felt something better than Shukairy's truthful, but unpalatable, "push the Jews into the sea" rhetoric would have to be changed). Zuheir Mohsein, leader of As Saiqa, put it more truthfully in an interview with James Dorsey in the Dutch paper Die Trouw: "There is no difference between Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, etc. We emphasize the Palestianian identity purely as a political weapon against the Zionists." (this is not verbatim, but from memory: readers may wish to google).
___________________________
This whole "Palestinian people" business was meant to redescribe the conflict, that implacable Jihad (I call it the "Lesser Jihad" as I do all the little Jihads that are merely local manifestations of the one big world-wide Jihad, or Jihad with world-wide ambitions) against Israel by Arabs and other Muslims, as one disguised as a conflict "between two tiny peoples" and for one group of the 300 million Arabs, with 22 sovereign states (the most of any one people in the world) and untellable and completely unearned riches that are the result of a mere accident of geology, and not the result of hard work or entrepreneurial flair or anything at all), to pretend that a particular group of Arabs suddenly had become a separate peop[le, the "Palestinian people."
It's crap.
In Iraq we talk freely about Arabs and Kurds.
In Algeria we talk freely about Arabs and Berbers.
In Egypt we talk freely about Arabs and Copts.
But the Arabs want us to accept -- and many lazy or unthinking Israelis have gone along with the farce.
I'm not going to. And if every last Israeli decides to do so, I'm still not going to.
Just how I see it.
Under Islam, stability is possible when a secular dictator controls the military and holds a gun to the heads of everyone including the imams who control the people with Islam. I see the behavior of Muslims reflecting more closely the behavior of fire ants than human beings. When the dictator chooses or looses control of the imams, everything non Islam in the country is doomed.
Based on my recently acquired understandings, Islam will start a decline without an external source of income. Sending aid to an Islamic country at this stage of the game, I agree, is well, outrageous behavior for any rational government. Therefore, our government automatically looses the rationality test... I'm not amused.
Fitzgerald, you are getting very close to it but the only question I dwell on is can we get that crap back into the bottle before we all get killed by the fumes. I see little promise.
In my own case, I have had an Islamic propagandist do his best to convince me that "Its the Jews". Yep, they did it, they did everything, everything that has ever gone wrong for Islam is because of the Jews. I guess he left the Christians out of the deal because, you guessed it, he knows I'm a Christian. If he wasn't so damn serious, I would have laughed in his face but I couldn't bring myself to do it. In fact, you might say I am part of the problem. I just let him talk knowing that there is nothing I could do to change his mind. He is such a sweet person...unassuming, polite, thoughtful... All the characteristics of a real human being.
He says that the criminals are the ones blowing things up. Arafat was still alive then and he was a criminal too. Actually, he and Sharon were both criminals and just like gang leaders, keeping things stirred up so they could stay in power. I do not see a way to combat this kind of thinking. You can see where the allegiance lies but there is difficulty in arguing the other side in a way that will change minds.
This guy would never side with the West and he is a good man even by my standards first a Muslim, a 5 times a day praying Muslim. I tried to voice my opinion about his prophet but lost my audience very quickly. The rule is that he cannot hear of it and he won't.
After 9/11 someone threatened his wife and children on a public road and my friend sent his family back to Jordan. This guy is doing his part for the cause. He has 6 children now, one was born here and is a US citizen. He tried to get them back into the country but the immigration folks would not cooperate - yea. My friend has a hard sought green card and is on sabbatical in Jordan with his family.
Aside from myself, I do not think that this guy ever associated with another non Muslim person, on purpose at least, that did work for the company i.e. that he had to associate with. That poses a hough problem and speaks to the mind set of these people in general. Assimilation is just not going to happen.
As others have pointed out, when the trouble stats, Islam will dominate all other possibilities of behavior for religious Islamic people. The Islamics in this country will become our enemies with little choice. They will not be capable of hearing anything else.
My opinion.
I find it increasingly difficult to comment on Hugh's articles-they speak for themselves and make a great deal of sense.
schmegel said
It's not enough that Israel is tarred with "genocide" for acting in self-defense against jihadists who openly state their goal as the total destruction of the Jewish state. Now the term "genocide" is so freely used by the jihadists and their apologists that it applies to the use of punctuation.
"Genocide" is not committed with punctuation marks, it is committed, for example, by rat-poison-ball-bearing-suicide-bomb-vests on a public bus, or in the case of Sudan, by Kalashnikovs fired from horseback.
Number of Israeli citizens killed 2000-2002: 2,200. (Thanks, Dan Radlaur). Number of people killed by jihadists in the month of November, 2006: 2,160. (Thanks, thereligionofpeace.com). Number of people killed by Hugh Fitzgerald's choice of punctuation marks: 0.
Hugh said
Another excellent point. If it wasn't so long, I'd have this (and the rest of the paragraph) tatooed on my forehead.
War used to be a brief, very violent event, with plenty of collatoral damage; it was so horrible that no-one who experienced it would ever again wish to be near it again. Nowadays, we seem to be attempting to learn to live with war. Make it nice, clean, well-regulated, low-level, and then it can just go on forever. All the macho-bravado of the current class of politicians, most of whom did everything in their power (or Daddy's power) to avoid serving in the military themselves, now walk around with the world's most powerful military as their hammer, and everything starts to look like a nail to them.
There are so many better ways to push our own agenda, and to stop the push of the jihadist agenda, than the military option. We are being intellectually lazy, unimaginative.
Here is a little more about Zuheir Mohsen and the full text of the quote I referred to in a posting above:
"Zuhair Mohsen is widely known for having made the following statement in a March 1977 interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw:
'The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.'"
And there are so many others in that line, including Arafat's repeated remarks in the same vein, that he delivered to Arab audiences. Such as this in 1973:
"Palestine does not interest us. It is but a drop in the Arab ocean from Morocco to the Gulf."
You can find others just like this all over the Arab world. The whole point of Arabness, or uruba, is that the Arabs are one people, united by language, culture, religion (the Christians don't count, unless they are islamochristians, and then, for a while, they may be endured or even given such tasks as dealing with the outside, Infidel world -- think of Tariq Aziz, or Hanan Ashrawi. Uruba, Arabness, which does not contradict, but is reinforced by, the pan-Islamism that is now again swelling Muslim hearts as no longer a dream but a distinct possibility (given the ten trillion dollars in OPEC oil money over the past one-third century). The "Palestinian people" business is entirely a political construct, or better, fabrication. The fact that some local Arabs now deeply believe this nonsense should mean nothing. They are still unable to come up with any particular defining feature that marks off so-called "Palestinian" Arabs from, for example, those in Jordan, or those who are carefully distinguished (at least by the innocent Israelis) as "Israeli Arabs."
There was never a need to accept this nonsense. And there is no need now.
"Foehammer
I didn't spew out any notion of 'moral equivalence'. I merely asked whether Fitzgerald's constant use of quotation marks around the word "Palestinians" entailed the view that they should be destroyed as a people. It was a genuine question not a rhetorical one."
I can't speak for someone else, but I myself use quotations around the name "Palestinians" not because I believe they should all be slaughtered, but because the name in general is a sham, it was made up for propaganda purposes in order to further there agenda of eliminating the Jewish state. Palestinians are not a race, they are Arabs. Jews were also "Palestinians" there were both Palestinian Arabs and Jews. The "Palestinians" have used the name to describe the Arabs that have lived there for so long that society has now fully established that name with those people. It has nothing to do with wiping them out in how I use the quotes or when I read the posters quotes.
A failure of leadership, rooted in a failure of intellect.
Which in turn is rooted in a failure of education, both basic (school) and ongoing (media).
Keystone Cop said
Yes, I don't know how anyone could ever get the idea that we don't all love the cuddly "Palestinians". They have given so much to the world. For example, the idea of smuggling missiles in UN ambulances. That's something. Or, the idea of smuggling bombs in baby carriages. Or, my favorite, smuggling explosives in a woman's private parts. The list of contributions made by "Palestinians" just goes on and on.
I don't want to slaughter them, I want to slather them in hugs and kisses.
Special guest said
"Yes, I don't know how anyone could ever get the idea that we don't all love the cuddly "Palestinians". They have given so much to the world. For example, the idea of smuggling missiles in UN ambulances. That's something. Or, the idea of smuggling bombs in baby carriages. Or, my favorite, smuggling explosives in a woman's private parts. The list of contributions made by "Palestinians" just goes on and on.
I don't want to slaughter them, I want to slather them in hugs"
I don't disagree with you a bit. I don't like the "Palestinians" any more than you do, but what I responded was specifically addressing the simple fact that when I see the quotations around the name "Palestinians" I don't think the writer who placed the names around Palestinians always means he wants them slaughtered.
Like I said, I don't disagree with you for a second regarding those lovable Palestinians, and they get and will get what they deserve. I just am saying putting quotations around a name means someone wants them slaughtered, as I myself use quotations around the name for a completely different reason such as the name in general being a sham and a political tool in order to screw over the Israelis with the agenda of deceiving the western dhimmis.
schmegel said:
In certain situations, quotation marks -- or most any other form of symbolic communication -- conceivably could be genocidal in effect. Recall the genocidal broadcasts in Rwanda a little while back. But if you slow down and take a little time to read a few of Hugh Fitzgerald's articles, you'll see he's not talking about anything remotely resembling genocide.The Romans, about nineteen hundred years ago, renamed Judea "Palestine" in order to de-Judaize it (after two Jewish revolts against Roman rule). After the second Jewish revolt in 135 C.E., the Romans tried to exile all the Jews from "Palestine" but did not succeed, and so the Jews have remained a significant part of the population of the area right up to the present. In the last century, after a long hiatus, they achieved a state again, and have returned in large numbers from all over the world.
Referring today to "Palestinians" is in significant part an attempt to cause people to assume, without question, simply through the use of a name, that Jews are not "Palestinians," not native to the area. It is an attempt to deligitimize the very existence of Israel and the Jews. But the Jews have been in Palestine continuously for over two thousand years.
Keystone Cop, I don't disagree with you one bit either. I used your quote, because it said exactly what I wanted to say. No further explanation is necessary, you said it quite well!
Hugh,
It's good you mentioned Russia, although it requires much more attention. If you read Russian media (some people suggested you could), you will see that "Islamisation of Russia" is a project well under way, professionally managed and well funded. You see jourmalists publishing clearly paid-for articles, you see ultra-left organisations embracing Islam, you see neo-Nazis talking about alliance with Arab countries.
There is no sound realistic policy to keep Russia friendly, from what I can see. I think that's stupid.
("Whenever I listen to Mozart I feel I am betraying Islam," as one Arab intellectual wrote)
Hugh - Whenever I listen to islam i am betraying Mozart.. and Beethoven.. and Dvorak.. and Liszt and Chopin and Scriabin.. Satie of course.. and Webern and Schönberg and Duke Ellington and Bean and [well NOT Miles sorry] BACH [mmmmmmmmhhh] and...
The list could go on and on.. and turn into an exercise in name-dropping.
First off, this Arab guy is NO intellectual - he's a moslem ineffectual.
Second.. it reminds me how sad and dark this world has become. Being that I am not quite as conservative in some ways as some of the others on this page I have to tell you I used to think of those happy days before AIDS came along.. yes, those were heady days for a nice-looking guy! Plenty of willing girls all over the place..
NOW I have a second such time division: The time before 9/11. The time before the World woke up to moslem terrorism. Problem is that 99% rolled over and went right back to sleep. for me hower it is THE watershed. And it informs everything I do. It makes me cringe in horror when I see a photo of a mosk on German soil.. Hey on English, French or American Soil is just as bad.. but it doesn't HIT HOME quite the same way than seeing it in your place of birth which you left over 20 years ago.
The other Germans can't see the changes because they happen day by day.. But for me.. SHOCKING!!
So now I have to think what can be done about this islamic fascist menace that our German Beast Hitler is largely responsible for. It saddens and shames me to say that but I try to be honest when i analyze things.
So instead of listening to Mozart WE are forced to listen to PISSLAM!!! The caterwauling of eeemamz from their towers of Hell.. very Lord-of-the-Rings feel to it too...
THAT is what our world has become.. and now you wonder why I say NUKE THEM TOdAY!!!
Muslims so much love to play victim, they wallow in their "victimhood" and so do so called conservatives, alas you are not at all conservative and should be sued for befouling that honorable word.. fascist radicals is a more appropriate label for those who call themselves "conservative" today.. and frankly you guys are as much an enemy of freedom and liberty as the muslims.
Posted by: Nariz
VERY patiently.. imagine i am Mr. Spock for a moment.. and I am asking you: "That doesn't sound very logical. Please explain."
PLEASE DO.
equires much more attention. If you read Russian media (some people suggested you could), you will see that "Islamisation of Russia" is a project well under way, professionally managed and well funded. You see jourmalists publishing clearly paid-for articles, you see ultra-left organisations embracing Islam, you see neo-Nazis talking about alliance with Arab countries.
There is no sound realistic policy to keep Russia friendly, from what I can see. I think that's stupid.
Posted by: Terry Crane
Terry Crane - you ought to be in government! I've been reading a lot of stuff lately re. the Islamization of Russia. What you say paints an even grimmer picture.
And what's up with these stupid GODDAM neo-Nazis always wanting to ally with moslem countries? We have the same sh*t in Germany. I used to like America for being a little to the right but not too much while being friendly to Israel and Jews in general.
Like my grandma said today on the phone [re. Holocaust and moslems in Europe now]: We traded thinkers for butchers.
Hugh,
The Zahir Muhsein quote is constantly disparaged by leftists.
I actually had the original article that quote was taken from - however, due to an inability to find somebody Dutch to translate it, it languishes, forever Dutch.
By the way, "Schmegel" if quote marks are genocidal, what then are actual weapons? Even walid Shoebat, ex-PLO talks about going to sleep one day as Jordanian and then waking up the next, a "Palestinian", courtsy of Arafat's naming inspiration.
*I agree totally with comment by Michael Smith, but I make two additions. In the first attack. nuke the Teheran government while in session to kill the most law-makers possible. At the same time target all nuclear installations we know about. So there may be no one to order pushing the "red button" and nothing left to shoot. After the suggestions of Michael Smith, launch a deluge of education using all mass media as Fitzgerald suggests, offering an alternative culture and religion. Judaism is the closest. After that, and doing the same in Syria and Gaza, I think it will be an easy job to "convince" the Saudis of the error of their ways and redirect their money to constructive education.
Hugh:
You make many excellent points.
I agree that a central objective of this war against the Islamic totalitarians must be to keep weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems out of the hands of the enemy.
As you wrote:
“As long as no Muslim state is permitted to acquire, or if having acquired, to continue to posssess forever, or certainly not to possess the means of adequate delivery, of weapons of mass destruction, that is all that needs to be worried about militarily.”
However, while I agree with most of your proposals, and while I am certainly not an expert on Islam or the Islamic world, I must respectfully say that I do not see how your proposals will stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them.
- I fully agree that it is foolish to send foreign aid to Islamic countries or entities that are our enemies -- but at present, Iran is not receiving any foreign aid from the U.S. So cutting off foreign aid to Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinians -- which I wholeheartedly support for its own merits -- is not going to affect Iran’s program.
- I agree that Muslim immigration should be restricted -- if not outright prohibited for the duration of this war, on the grounds that every Muslim must be viewed as a potential enemy combatant, a terrible necessity brought on by the actions of their fellow Muslims, not by us. But I don’t see how this restricted immigration will hurt Iran.
- I agree that there is, as you say, a “connection between the political, economic, social, moral, and intellectual failures of Muslim states and societies suffused with Islam, and Islam itself”, and that we should point out Muslim failures at every opportunity. However, it is not clear to me who you hope this will influence.
It seems to me that evidence of Islamic failure will have limited effect within Muslim societies, because Islam (as far as I know) does not make secular promises of economic, social or political success -- except in terms of conquest and domination. And even in that respect, it does not promises success as much as it guarantees damnation of those who don’t try hard enough to achieve the conquest and domination.
Again, I concede only a layman’s understanding of the Islamic world. But is it not true that what Islam damns the west for are the very things we hold as our successes -- our prosperity, our technological and scientific progress, our social openness? And don’t they hold the things we regard as failures to be their virtues, proof of Islam’s superiority? How can you educate a person who sees poverty, depredation and death as superior to prosperity, wealth and life?
In any event, I don’t such an education program stopping Iran’s development of nuclear weapons.
- I agree that the splits within Islam should be exploited and intensified where possible. But while this might, for instance, help rally the support of the Sunnis in Saudi Arabia against Iranian meddling in, say, Lebanon, I don’t see it preventing North Korea and Russia from selling Iran nuclear materials and missile systems.
- I agree that allies could be helpful. But do you really think we can educate the Chinese, the Russians and the Europeans into being more helpful? They have the jihad in their own backyards (well, not the Chinese, at least not yet) -- they have terrorist attacks on their own soil. In my opinion, the problem is NOT that they do not see the danger, the problem is they think it can be appeased or “managed” by UN resolutions or bribed away. In spite of decades of overwhelming evidence that appeasement leads only to disaster , there are countless millions of people in those countries that still vehemently believe that we can talk to our enemies, find out what they want and persuade them to be nice.
Or, in the case of the leaders of many of those countries, they think that the jihad and a nuclear-armed Iran is a much bigger danger to the US than to them -- and they are happy to tolerate some amount of terrorism on their own soil in exchange for seeing the US imperiled.
I fully agree that we desperately need to better educate our own leaders here in America -- AND the people that vote for them. Unfortunately, the problem is that our intellectuals -- the professors and teachers in our universities -- have conducted their own jihad against western civilization and have turned out generations of brain-washed, addled little America-haters who believe that we are the source of every conceivable evil that plagues the world today. These are the foot soldiers of the left in America today. I don’t think they can be re-educated to understand the threat of Islam.
- And I agree that cutting off Iran’s oil revenues would be enormously helpful. However, I am opposed to the idea of using increased taxation on gasoline and federal subsidies (which is simply still MORE taxation) to develop alternative transportation and alternative fuels for several reasons.
First, at this point there is little reason to believe that an economically viable alternative to crude oil can be developed. All of the alternative energy ideas put forth so far suffer serious limitations and problems. For instance, consider the much-touted use of ethanol to replace gasoline; calculations show that to replace the crude oil we import for gasoline with ethanol would require dedicating 95% of all US farm land to corn production (See the Popular Mechanics web site for details of these calculations). We simply cannot do that without an enormous upheaval in our food supply.
And even if we did, it would not end our dependence on crude oil because we get a great deal from crude besides gasoline, which accounts for only 45% of crude consumption. Other things we get include liquefied gases, specialized aviation gas, kerosene and kerosene-like jet fuel, fuel oil, a huge range of plastics, pesticides, lubricants, waxes, asphalt, etc. As far as I know, none of the alternative energy sources currently being discussed can provide these things -- only crude oil can.
Second, setting aside for a moment the technical problems mentioned above, it is going to cost an enormous amount of money to fund a change-over to alternative fuels. There is a vast existing infrastructure already paid for and in place for the delivery of crude oil and its refinement into all the products it yields -- a whole new infrastructure will have to be paid for.
The cost of the development of alternative fuels and the changeover to their use amounts to a huge economic penalty imposed on America. Why should we permit the Islamic totalitarians to impose such a thing on us? The costs of a military strike are essentially negligible by comparison.
Third, America's consumption of middle-eastern oil is relatively small. Less than 15% of OPEC’s output goes to America. NONE of Iran‘s oil goes to America. (You can see the figures here: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_imp_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_a.htm)
To make a significant dent in the oil dollars flowing into Iran would require the cooperation of the Europeans, the Russians, and the Chinese. But we can’t even get these guys to agree to pathetically weak diplomatic measures against Iran -- I see no possibility of ever getting the cooperation of these parties in a costly, huge project to develop alternative fuels, alternative sources of plastics and chemicals, etc.
The fourth and final problem with this approach is the issue of time. Even if all of the difficulties mentioned above can be overcome, a program like this is likely to take years, a decade or more. I don’t think we have that long. And I see no reason to take the risks.
These are the reasons why I favor the use of overwhelming force to destroy the Iranian regime and its economic infrastructure.
To those who accuse me of advocating genocide: It is Iran -- it is Islam -- that is forcing a terrible choice on the west: Suffer mass death here, in the U.S. and/or in Israel and/or somewhere else in western civilization -- or inflict mass death over there, in Iran. I know which I choose. And I know which side bears moral responsibility for the resulting deaths.
America and western civilization have bestowed upon the world a fantastic bounty of life-giving, life-saving, life-extending and life-enhancing technologies and sciences; no sane or rational view of morality can demand that the west permit itself to be placed in mortal danger so that 5th century barbarians can continue their effort to drag us all back to the dark ages.
Sometimes I have to wonder, nariz, if the MSM has to come right out and Scream their hatred of all things 'Right,' for the like of you to buy a clue.
"you wrote:
'As long as no Muslim state is permitted to acquire, or if having acquired, to continue to posssess forever, or certainly not to possess the means of adequate delivery, of weapons of mass destruction, that is all that needs to be worried about militarily.”
However, while I agree with most of your proposals, and while I am certainly not an expert on Islam or the Islamic world, I must respectfully say that I do not see how your proposals will stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them.'"
-- from a posting above
But I have written, possibly a thousand times since late 2003, when the site began, that Iran's nuclear project had to be destroyed, or damaged, and that military force would be necessary to do this. Have you missed this? I did not mean in the article above to suggest that military force is everywhere unnecessary. I merely meant that military force is not the main way to deal with the main instruments of Jihad - the money weapon, Da'wa, demographic conquest. It is the way to deal with those weapons projects that are too far gone to be stopped otherwise.
We may wage a war of weapons and manpower, but first we should wage the war of truth.
The war of truth is not being waged by much of the media these days. Those who own our media or hold major shares have unchecked power that corrupts the very mandate of journalism. The popular phrase of the day, "Speak truth to Power," is not embraced by corporate media conglomerates.
If the media wants to survive, particularly, the flailing newspapers, journalists should start speaking the truth about Islam. Cartoonists should run a cartoon every day in every newspaper depicting the lies and deeds of Islam and its followers. We must innoculate 'moderate' Muslism (if any do exist) that Islam and Mo-Mutt are a deception perpetrated upon them to galvanize military and political power by invoking religion.
I want to see a turbaned Mo-mutt on the cartoon page. Print the same cartoon everyday, if you like. I'll smile every time I see it. I would buy the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and the Socialist Times (if needs be) just to see Mo-mutt with a loaded turban!
No guns, no knives, no explosives have the same power as debunking the myth, the fable of Islam and Mo-mutt through "speaking truth to power."
The Pope knows this and so does our government. Why can no one summon the courage, the intellectual integrity to cite Islam for its current heresy against peace and humanity?