In today's Jihad Watch videoblog at Hot Air, I discuss the question of whether or not there is a war on terror at all, and the nature of the conflict that is actually raging.
In today's Jihad Watch videoblog at Hot Air, I discuss the question of whether or not there is a war on terror at all, and the nature of the conflict that is actually raging.
I have to say, the more I hear from Romney, the more I'm getting interested in showing some support for him. He's for a fence on the southern border with Mexico, he knows what Global Jihad is and knows it needs to be confronted, and he basically told Ahmadinejad to go sit and spin when the kook came for his UN speech last year.
Yessir, there's something good about a leader that doesn't walk to the beat of the same drummer as all the rest in Washington. That's exactly what we should be looking for.
Thompson, Romney, Tancredo, Gingrich, Giulliani -- I'm sorry, but imho, the Democrats don't have a chance in the coming election.
Thank God.
The comment below the video was classic:
OK, so this isn’t quite the same scale of Jihad Watch, but the missus went to Whole Foods yesterday to buy her goddamned organic hippie chow, and at the bottom of the receipt is printed, “Your cashier today is JIHAD.”
I might have to go buy some ham and see what Jihad does.
"saint kansas" on May 1, 2007 at 9:39 AM
......... Also, on Mitt's website, he calls it for what it is, and lists as issue number 1 out of 10:
http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Defeating_the_jihadists
Is there ANY other candidate that uses language that clear?
@blues4allah: Indeed, if there is another candidate that states the cause as plainly as Romney, I have not yet heard him or her.
I'm starting to hear the clanging of tiny hammers in Romney's camp. :D
blues4allah, I wish you had bought something made from a pig to see what the reaction would be. Like ham for ham sandwiches, or something.
We need to start spewing that they are prejudiced when we just proceed on with our usual such as buying ham, alcohol, etc and they refuse us service due to that. If it is sold in a store then they should be accomodating to us - not us to them. If they cannot handle it - then quit!
When they behave in a prejudiced manner then the news needs to broadcast it and make them out to be the bad guys and we are the victims of their intolerance.
From article:How are you going to defend us against global jihad?
A better question would be. 'How are you going to defend us against growing, global, Islamic hegemony?'
A war against 'global jihad', is still ducking the issue of who/what the enemy really is. As terrorism is a tactic,Jihad is also a tactic.
It's purpose is to further the cause of Allah/Islam.
So in reality, the enemy is Allah/Islam. Few dare call it that. PC wont allow it.
The plain and simple truth is that Islam is at war with the rest of the world, is acting on it, and thats what is called jihad. The wielder of the sword of jihad is Islam...thats who the enemy is, but you will never hear any political type say so.
Even in RS, otherwise fine article, the word 'Islam' is not used once. Accurate, but not precise. Accuratly the enemy is global jihad, precisely, it is Islam....
I remember on an episode of Gilligan's Island where a "hunter" decided to hunt the castaways like in the book The Most Dangerous Game.
The classic line to the Professor who was so intelligent was by the Hunter who said, "Professor, I would have you in the bag before you planned your next move".
What difference does it make discussing definitions "global war on terror" or what is thought to be really going on. It is like tissue and fetus when the end result is a baby is either aborted or born.....pregnant is pregnant.
Islam is a proxy and this what is really going on with 4 factions at war on the west. Islam is to soften up and weaken the west, pin it down in civil wars in Europe and then Putins National Bolsheviks with Chicom fodder will make their Eurasian world war.
Until this site starts addressing the real issue of who is really using proxy Islam, it is making the most horrendous of mistakes.......shrouded by rants against posted against President Bush non stop and focusing only on Islam.
If Russia were to obtain the victory, the first issue it would settle is nuking Muslims as their purpose is finished and they do not need the problem in the empire.
None of that is addressed and all of that if Muslims understood from their Koran induced high would stop them from making war on the west and focus on the real problems, Islamocommunists, Islamofascists and their benefactors of Bolshevik Russians being increasing malevolent pointing nukes at America.
Once again Mr. Spencer offers a rational oasis in a pc wasteland.
I agree on Romney. I however am going to reserve judgement on anyone until they are tested more. What will Romney do when some donar from the ummah dumps cash in front him. How will he react? He will be tempted and tested by both the PC GOP types who want him to conform and by greed. If he can survive that he will be closer then any of them on the issues most important to us.
It still sucks however that we always have to play a game of clue to arrive at the truth that so many of us know already.
"It still sucks however that we always have to play a game of clue to arrive at the truth that so many of us know already.
Posted by: greatcometof1577"
....despite all the evidence that is non debatable, many politicians in positions of power remain clueless...maybe they should leave the madams wares to someone else...
I love Mitt, but he's probably too conservative to win. Rudy will have to head the ticket, and Rudy's no dope.
Romney is good. Haven't heard much of Tancredo lately. Newt is unlikely to run, with all his baggage from his days as Speaker.
Although Giuliani repeats the ROP garbage, given his record as mayor, he is unlikely to tolerate Jihadi activity in the name of religious freedom. I'd be okay with him remaining frontrunner. As for Thomson, I don't really see what people see in him. I do wish the other miscellaneous Conservatives - Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, et al would coalesce around Tancredo. That said, I haven't heard Tancredo discuss Jihad much lately. Maybe it's just him trying to get his campaign off running.
Only thing - I'd like to see McCain go down in flames. His campaign, that is (better elaborate, since certain posterettes that shall remain unnamed would take this opportunity to get my post deleted, and then me banned).
exsgtbrown
I always prefered games like "Risk" and "Chess".
In fact the game Risk is what the Jihadis are playing right now....
"The Conquest of the World"
You know the strange part of that game was the "Middle East Territory" was almost impossible to hold until the very end. I cannot tell you how many of my "armies" went up flames there.
:ame Cherry sez:Islam is a proxy and this what is really going on with 4 factions at war on the west. Islam is to soften up and weaken the west.
I bet Islam does not know it is being used as a proxy by infidel plotters.
Knowing that, and going along with it, would be an exreemly unIslamic thing to do. In fact it would be the end of Islam, the entire structure would crumble into apostatitis. Maybe Bin Laden knows about this, but dont tell Al-Sadr, he still thinks he is fighting for Allah and justice. Just look what it would do to the Islamic psyche if they knew they were really fighting for a bunch of rich white guys.
However, having said that, I can see where this could be a battle between the NWO/globalist types and Islam. They both want world domination.
If the Islamists defeat the NWO/western interests, they will start working on China and other resistive nations. We will all be dead or dhimmis, If the NWO dominates we will all be 'benevolent slaves', as one of their documents calls us.
Either way, we are in danger of becomming dead or slaves, no matter who wins the global war on whatever it is. The people in the west are going to have to take direct action and get noisy and active if they want to avert either of these possibilities. If real muslims decide that they are indeed being used as a proxy, and further decide that you cant proxy Allah, they should take steps to locate the problem, and discontinue it.
Lame Cherry;
Clearly the Russians and Chinese have been, are and will be using the jihaddis against us at every opportunity. In fact it would be rather surprising if they were not.
And I agree that the greatest likelihood is that there is a techtonic power struggle happening slowly and rather less dramatically between the large power centers, which tends to be ignored in favor of the dramatics and fireworks of the jihad.
And N Korea is a significant part of this equation as well.
However I don't think that it is quite right to characterize the jihaddis as proxies in the sense of Ho Chi Min or Pol Pot or other Soviet or Chicom fronts in SA or Africa.
I raise the objection both in terms of ideology and organization/authority.
1 - the jihad ideology is native and has a long track record for persistance, widespread public appeal and effectiveness.
2 - The communists proxies have generally had a certain level of dependence on and deference toward the big communist powers.
In re 1 - While communism has always been able to tap into the underlying background of tribalism and altruism in the cultures where it makes popular inroads, it has never had the thorough integration into the popular culture that jihad has. Also, there is considerable traditional, cultural common-sense expertise on the part of the jihaddis in how to apply and advertise their ideology that the communists had to work out by trial and error. The jihaddis actually have real history and tradition to go by.
In re 2 - The example of Iran is instructive. While the communists were instrumental in the overthrow of the Shah, and went into the enterprise certain of their inclusion in the regime to come, they were betrayed and destroyed by the jihaddis at the earliest possible opportunity. And I think this will be the pattern everywhere that a foreign power tries to employ the jihaddis for its own ends.
---------
None of this is to say that the commies do not or will not attempt to exploit the opportunities that the jihaddis present, against us.
I'm sure for example, that the ChiComs would have no problem using them to destroy us, and then move in to take the oil by force -- nuking as many cities and people as necessary to enforce surrender -- this is after all, the new Chinese empire.
Doesn't seem terribly controversial to me.
I just don't think that one can characterize the interests and maneuvers of the communist powers as the "real issue" as you do.
The jihad has an independent existance that would present a lethal threat (and has in earlier periods) regardless of other enemies of the free world.
It really must be studied as such to understand it. And it must be opposed as such if we are to defeat it.
If Russia and China were to become California and Connecticut tomorrow, the jihad would still be with us.
Romney's statement is a good thing, but I don't think he has said anything so far to lead me to believe anything will be different if he is elected. Bush has used the term Global Jihad and it hasn't changed him (at least not that I can tell).
There is only one question that, if answered to my satisfaction, would make me optimistic. Any other answer other than a resounding "NO", will not make a difference no matter who is elected. The question?
"Mr or Mrs Candidiate, do you agree with President Bush's statement, made more than once since 9/11, that "Islam is a Religion of Peace that was hijacked by extremist and that it (Islam) teaches the value and importance of charity, mercy, and peace.”
If the above is too complicated then I will settle for a nine word, simple question " Do you think Islam is a Religion of Peace?"
Sometime between now and Nov '08 someone needs to ask that question of each and every candidate before any other. Unlikely to occur though, becuase the answer is so potentially incendiary that no one will give a truthful answer, even if its the right one.
Lame Cherry
The competetion of Contending States such as Russia and China exists in a universe we can understand, comprehend, and deal with strategically-- even if their motives were as malevolent as you believe. Islam and Jihad, however, exist in an alien and alternate universe, completely self-referential, and requiring us (and our leaders) to learn to think differently in confronting it. The existential threat to us from the Islamic world is here and now, the outcome by no means certain, and who benefits later is secondary. Jihadists know their enemy, they don't need Putin or the Chinese to tell them.
The US went from a Military posture capable of fighting 2 Major conflicts to one and a Half. During the 90's. the Military was shrunk further to the Capability of one major conflict.
The Jihadist need to be armed somehow so the Communists provide them with all they need.
The Russians are just practicing pay back for Afghanistan. While testing through proxies the capability of 2nd-3rd generation Military hardware. Now Russia is ending a NATO treaty covering Conventional Deployment along The new Russian-NATO Border.
The United States pretty much left Germany as a result of the 1'st Gulf War and never sent the Troops and equipment back. Europe had already disarmed itself with most of them unwilling to even fight in the current conflict.
Europe is in for a real crash once the Kool-Aid wears off.
Seconding the remarks of joeblough and Nick Danger.
With some further notes: IF Russia and/ or China or anyone else is trying to use the Muslims to sabotage/ weaken/ attack their rivals, someone needs to remind them that OTHER Great Powers and Lesser Powers throughout history, on the borders of the Islamic world, have also tried that game, and it has always proven a disaster. He who sups with the devil - Mohammed - needs a L.O.N.G spoon. Mohammed's Little Green Book is a whole lot older than Mao's Little Red Book and a hell of a lot more dangerous.
The Chinese have 25 million Muslims within their borders - not only the easily recognisable, ethnically distinct, easily contained Turkic peoples of the northwest, but ethnic Chinese - the Hui Muslims - visually indistinguishable from other Chinese, and present in every province and city of China.
China has sporadic persecutions of Christians - but the church in China continues to grow, the most conservative estimate is 30 million but it is probably a LOT more than that, maybe as many as 7 % of the population and increasing at anything up to 7 % per annum. And these people aren't 'census Christians', they're smart and tough and totally committed.
The Russians have 15 million Muslims (10 % of the population) rapidly increasing in numbers.
We should not forget that the Russian Federation, at the moment, has a fair amount of religious freedom and Christians of all descriptions - Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant - comprise 50% of the population (and as in China, many of these people are very committed, the older ones have survived persecution, prison, torture, you name it). There is a huge effort of Bible translation (80 separate projects!) into the non-Slavic languages ; there is a Tatar-speaking Church. Currently, religious instruction is permitted in Russian schools. So: if Lame Cherry fears Russia and China, perhaps Lame Cherry should donate to the work of the Bible Society in Russia and the Bible Society in China, in the interests of encouraging the further spread of a stabilising freedom-promoting system of belief that is neither Communist nor Muslim.
Islam - as a totalitarian imperial system - has a track record of 1400 years, consistent in its behaviour from AD 634 to now. The Russian, North Korean and Chinese Communist systems are less than 100 years old and they do not activate quite as many dangerous 'hot-buttons' in humans as does Islam. They are totally this-worldly: MAD works with them because neither their elites nor their soldiers believe in an afterlife paradise, which means that the threat of an entire planet rendered unlivable is capable of scaring them. They have had their fanatics - but has anyone EVER heard of a Chinese Communist or Russian Communist suicide bomber? Whereas...someone like Ahmadinejad has NO BRAKES AT ALL, he'd be perfectly happy to vapourise the planet, kill all the Kaffir at once and turn all the muslims into instant martyrs.
Also: the Arab oil states (and Indonesia and Sudan, which also have oil, while Indonesia and Malaysia have rainforests they can gut for fast cash) don't exactly NEED the Russians or the Chinese - they can make and pay for their own propaganda and hatch their own plots, all by themselves.
My own guess would be that the jihadists - far from being puppets of Russia and China - are trying to play both of them against each other, and against the West, precisely as they have always done with their infidel neighbours.
Great Hot Air clip, Professor Spencer! I voted for Mitt when I lived in Mass. He's always been very concerned about Jihad, and he's always called it that. He raised the ire of Mass. newspapers when he came out in support of monitoring mosques and foreign students. Bottom line: Mitt is ALL OVER this topic. Hope we see it in the debate on Thursday.
I'm undecided between Mitt and Rudy. If Rudy keeps worshipping Bush, then I'm done with him.
It would be nice if you had proper links for posting this video.