This sounds great until one realizes that both Brown and Bush are in total denial about the deep roots of jihad and Islamic supremacism within Islamic theology and tradition. Can we really fight the war of ideas effectively while ignoring and denying the true nature of the conflict itself?
And then when you see what Brown is actually recommending, it just involves a further retreat from the ideological challenge the jihadists present. Instead of confronting that challenge and joining the battle, he is recommending that we ignore that jihadism represents a "cause" altogether, and treat it the way it was treated before 9/11, as a series of unrelated, distinct "crimes" that had no underlying unifying purpose or goal.
Imagine if the Allies had tried to fight World War II that way: instead of treating Nazism as an ideology and combatting it, imagine if they treated each German offensive in Europe as a separate "crime," not as part of any larger purpose, and offered outreach programs to Germans in the face of each "crime." How far might Hitler have gotten?
From the Daily Mail :
Gordon Brown will use his first formal talks with George Bush to urge a massive cultural offensive against Islamic extremism.He is set to urge America to learn from the Cold War and mount a battle of ideas rather than rely on military might alone.
Ahead of his first formal talks with President Bush, he declared: "It is our shared task to expose terrorism for what it is - not a cause but a crime. A crime against humanity."
His words contrasted strongly with the Bush rhetoric of a "war against terror".
He emphasised the importance of winning with ideas and values rather than just bullets.
"We should remember that during the Cold War, the united front against Soviet communism involved deterrence through large arsenals of weapons and a cultural effort also on an unprecedented scale, deploying what Roosevelt called the 'arsenal of democracy'," he wrote in the Washington Post.
"Foundations, trusts, civil society and civic organisations - links and exchanges between schools, universities, museums, institutes, churches, trade unions, sports clubs, societies - were all engaged."
Yes, there was a lot of attempting to win hearts and minds. There was also a lot of clear-eyed confrontation of the Communist ideology. Where is today's Radio Free Europe, beaming anti-jihadist broadcasts into the Islamic world? Who would dare to establish it?
Ok, how do these people rise to such positions? I'm not kidding, I have encountered kids who have more advanced critical thinking skills than they do. Look at the people who purport to lead us and what they say and do it is a carnival of stupidity. Are they auditioning for a role in, jackass, the political edition?
Wouldn't it be nice to read:
"Ahead of his first formal talks with President Bush, Brown declared: "It is our shared task to expose Islam for what it is - not a religion but a criminal enterprise. A crime against humanity."
Brown: And remember, we must not use the word muslim when speaking of this.
Bush: Speaking of what?
Brown: Precisely, Holmes.
Everyone needs to see this item posted on sheikyermami's website (sorry don't know how to make it a hot link):
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/07/30/londonistan-the-khilafah-is-coming/
No doubt on that the reestablishment of the caliphate is proceeding apace.
Nobody wants to say it: It's the Islam Stupid!!!!
What's it gonna take? It's going to take the patriots of a small American town to rise up together and stand for their right not to be forced to submit to an idealogy that advocates hatred and intolerance and descrimination against Christians, Jews, and all non-muhammadans.
It's going to be that "little town on the Prairie." A shining beacon of light.
Cool I thought it wouldn't come up as a hot link. Also make the last line:
No doubt that the reestablishment of the caliphate is proceeding apace.
Gordon Brown should sign a big cheque and send it to Jihadwatch.
Then maybe you could afford to hire translators taking Jihadwatch to a worldwide audience.
The New York Times is a conservative newspaper by European standards.
I hope Robert and Hugh realise this.
If more money is forthcoming you could start by having Islam 101 translated into French.
This would attract more readers leading to more donations.
And so the whole thing could snowball.
Pardon my bluntness,but,the buffoon's who occupy the political leadership in the 'West' are a direct reflection of the ignorant & stupid electorate who chose them.
Today's PC-ism (Political Cowardice) prevents the West from opening the 2nd front of 'War' in the ideologic realm where the battle must be fought eventually.
When do they start analyzing and criticizing the contents of the Koran?
The playbook of Islamofascism and unholy Muslim terrorism.
Without a serious challege to the Mohammedan dogmas, this is all just jousting with windmills by blowhards.
Communism's violent and intolerant tenets were critiqued and opposed.
When will Islam's?
I have to admit that I was a little bit surprised to see all this. At this late date, after all that has taken place and all we see happening around us, to know that 'the people in charge' are thinking this way is very scarey indeed.
Pray, Plan, and Prepare to take care of yourself and your family.
America was built by people who could stand on their own and work together with their neighbors and families to accomplish almost anything. I really believe we're about to enter that era once again. Hang tight folks!
What is not needed is to torture Guantanamo prisoners, or to invade more Muslim countries to "help them". What is not needed is a "cultural offensive" to try to "win the hearts and minds" of the ummah.
What is needed is a cultural defensive; to teach the infidels the danger that Islam presents to infidels purely because they are infidels. What is needed is to point out how different the infidel and the Muslim values are, and to say that our cultural values and our way of life are worth saving, and our citizens are worth protecting, regardless if it hurts the ummah's feelings. What is needed is to once again say that our borders are our own, and we have every right to decide who we will or will not allow into our nation.
This "massive cultural offensive" is, because it is based on a deep misunderstanding of the nature of Islam and ignorance of the history of Islamic conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims, going to be futile, and sinisterly, dangerously, time-wasting, attention-squandering, futile. Lots of government money will be thrown the way of the Khaled Abou el Fadls and Fawaz Gergeses and a Mustafa Akyol or two, and the farce of "Isalmic reform" -- oh, there will be plenty to go round, for solemn conferences and the starting up of "institutes" on "European Islam" and "American Islam" and "the challenge of pluralism in a changing world" and so on. God, sign me up. I want some of that money for myself. Oh, I forgot. There is no chance that any of that money available to Bright Young Muslim Reformers and Their Friends (even now Noah Feldman is figuring out how he can thrust himself forward, and become the head of something or other).
Yet again, Islam -- the Islam that any defector from Islam can tell you about, or any truth-telling Muslim (they tend to be the thickest or truest of true believers, disbelieving only in the need to sweeten the message for Infidels), that is -- any Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Ali Sina or Ibn Warraq, or indeed practically any of the others who signed that St. Petersburg Declaration, or for that matter any Western scholar of the old, truth-telling, unassailable school, the school of Snouck Hurgronje, Lammens, Vajda, Schacht, and a hundred others, now carefully being hidden from students by the ernsts and espositos who craft those syllabi as artfully and cunningly as they can.
There is a propaganda war to be conducted. But it would require learning about, and taking careful note of, the main features of Islam:
First, its division of the world between Believer and Infidel. Second, its inculcation of hostility, and teaching that a permanent state of war exists, between Believer and Infidel, Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb.
Second, the inculcation of the duty of Jihad, at times collective and at other times also individual, a Jihad that may, but need not, be conducted by military means, but can also be conducted by the use of the money weapon, by propaganda ("pen, tongue"), by campaigns of Da'wa, by demographic conquest.
Third, the various ways in which Islam limits political freedom and favors despotism, opposing in its essence the very notion of the free individual, who must instead be a willing slave of Allah, and of the will expressed by Allah in the Qur'an (and glossed for most Muslmis by the Hadith and Sira).
Fourth, the way in which Islam, with its inshallah-fatalism, limits economic development. Were it not for the accident of geology, that manna from under the earth, no Muslim society would be rich, and without the Jizyah of foreign aid, the oil-poor Muslim states would be even worse off.
Fifth, the way in which the habit of mental submission, encouraged by Islam at every step -- do not question Allah, do not question the behavior of Muhammad, the Perfect Man, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, also naturally has other effects -- such as preventing the development of any tradition, or practice, of free and skeptical inquiry without which the enterprise of science, and indeed of ameliorating the variable and miserable condition of man, cannot conceivably take place.
Sixth, Islam stunts not only mental growth, but moral growth. In the permanently fixed mistreatment of women and all non-Muslims, it fixes the Muslim believer on a permanent lower plane of morality.
There is more. But not to be picked up, one supposes, by those who presume to rule us and who think they know best how to "deal with Islam."
God, they don't.
George Almighty ibn-Bush, just identified the enemy: "It's a group of cold-blooded killers that thinks nothing of using murder to further their objectives."
I believe that's what the jihazis also say about us.
============
Are we getting anywhere?
It is difficult to comprehend, given the current state of affairs in the UK regarding Muslims, that Blair's successor, Gordon Brown could actually be worse than what the super-dhimmi Blair displayed.
I can't wait for 2008 here in the US. That's our chance to see if we can elect someone more clueless about Islam and the threat it poses, than Bush has proven to be.
Choose your candidates wisely in 2008.
It is difficult to comprehend, given the current state of affairs in the UK regarding Muslims, that Blair's successor, Gordon Brown could actually be worse than what the super-dhimmi Blair displayed.
I can't wait for 2008 here in the US. That's our chance to see if we can elect someone more clueless about Islam and the threat it poses, than Bush has proven to be.
Choose your candidates wisely in 2008.
"a battle of ideas". what? whose ideas? ours? the Wests? freedom versus a totalitarian idealology which is known as Islam. So this is really a battle against Islam. Now GB, was that so hard to say? or are you hiding behind double speak and coded language.
It is true that Mr. Brown does not know (or denies) what the real problem is but just the fact that higher politicians mention to battle of ideas is something good. I mean, has anyone at that level ever mentioned fighting ideologically as during the cold war?
Pardon my bluntness,but,the buffoon's who occupy the political leadership in the 'West' are a direct reflection of the ignorant & stupid electorate who chose them.
Posted by: billybob at July 30, 2007 11:08 AM
Not always Billybob. When you have the option of electing buffon A or buffon B, you dont have much options.
Why does Gordon Brown bring up the Cold War? The Cold War and jihad have no similarities. The Soviets weren't a bunch of suicidal maniacs with no fear of death. They didn't want to get nuked by the U.S. so they had reason to talk/negotiate. I see no point in doing that with Muslims. They aren't going to change their thinking and jihadist ways. Why can't people see that there is real evil in the world?
Choose your candidates wisely in 2008.
Posted by: awake at July 30, 2007 12:02 PM
Check out Tom Tancredo. He seems to be a refreshing change: http://www.teamtancredo.com/
"We should remember that during the Cold War, the united front against Soviet communism involved deterrence through large arsenals of weapons and a cultural effort also on an unprecedented scale, deploying what Roosevelt called the 'arsenal of democracy'," he wrote in the Washington Post.
During the Cold War it was not necessary to convince people of Russia that communism was evil. They new it very well. We had a Communist states, but ordinary citizens were not communists.
Islam is different: Islamic states full of Muslims. Communism crumbled so quickly because it did not have popular support. Islam will not react in the same way.
Radio “Free Europe” will not work.
We know there are solutions. Will they be implemented? No. So instead of trying to preserve western values, arming yourself and so on, just go and buy a nice prayer rug and make room in the house for 3 more wives.
If Gordon Brown wants to win the battle of ideas with “militant Islam” he might need to start with the curriculum covering what is taught in British Schools.
It is saturated with political correctness.
I doubt if an honest account of the Crusades has been taught in a British School for decades.
Or indeed the centuries of jihadist-conquest.
I guess all he is proposing is more of the same, something like the Radical Middle Way Website/ CD.
Hopelessly inadequate.
Didn't Brown hint that the law may need to be changed after Nick Griffin was found NOT guilty after he strongly criticised Islam. He certainly didn't seem pleased for a victory for free speech.
Incidentally, it was the BBC who recorded Griffin, in an undercover operation, making his remarks about islam. Another waste of licence payers money.
More of the same.
While the West spends billions fighting "ghosts" of the Jihad, the real threats inside our borders usurp our societies without fear of any obstacle short of running out of oil money.
Such wise and courageous leaders we have in the West.
...
Many who have already expressed an opinion on this article by Robert Spencer have conveyed their dismay that Western leaders still won't call a spade a spade and that they still don't get it. I share these sentiments completely. Islam is rotten to the core (and no other major religion is) and sooner or later (I prefer sooner) we in the West, including our politicians, must say something like this loud and clear-----and in large numbers. But the fact that it's not occurring yet is proof again at how Islam gets a hell of a lot of traction out of being a religion. Were it a secular totalitarian ideology, it would have been condemned openly by now by far more than we see at present. I suppose it was inevitable that eventually a religion would come along that was intrinsically evil. It has and it continues to hide behind its religious front. Time for this to end. Sadly, though, I think this lethal pretend game as evidenced in the past day or so by the new Prime Minister of the UK, is not going to be ended anytime soon. So, the West's dance with the Beast goes on. Very disconcerting.
"Sixth, Islam stunts not only mental growth, but moral growth." Indeed. I think this lack of sound morality is what is most problematic with Islam. If there were a solid moral (universalistic) foundation underpinning Islam -- I think all the other problems would become minor/trivial...(or at least they could be dealt with). Without the moral foundation we get murder, lies, corruption, fraud, hypocrisy, tyranny, etc., etc.
I have news for brown, the only cultural offensive Muslims want to for the west to increase their jiyaza payment, increase Islamic prostylization in infidel lands, and encourage even more Islamic immigration. While giving those here sharia laws and freebies.
During the beginnings of the U.S. revolutionary movement the 'patriots' were in the minority. Those who saw a future removed from colonialism were in the minority. Those who stood for freedom, dignity of the individual and self governance were in the minority.
In Boston, this split was approximately in thirds:
loyalists at 33.333, revolutionaries at 33.333 and fence sitters, disinterested and willfully ignorant took up the remaining 1/3.
Why would it be any different today? We are in the minority and most likely will always be. This isn't about poll numbers or popularity contests. It's about defending Western Civilization. Numbers of people don't matter as much as the quality of ideas and having the courage and ability to defend them. Leave concerns about majority opinion to game shows like American Idol. Defending self-governance, the dignity of the individual and the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The Founding Fathers and the patriots that supported them were few and rare in the best of times.
A large part of the defense business of the UK and USA comes from militant Islam.
Phobia - an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something
Phobia (combining form) - an extreme or irrational fear or dislike of a specific thing or group.....
hmmm..... irrational. When a "thing" or "group" wants to kill me, I don't think that's irrational. Am I the only one? So, what should we do to tell our "leaders" about the truth? Let them know the definition of Islamaphobia first? Teach them to read history and the manual of subjugation? Franklin, Washington, et al. must be spinning in their graves...
The purpose of the cold war doctrine of 'mutually assured destruction' (MAD), the foundation of deterrence, was to discourage an adversary from making a commitment to use weapons of mass destruction; even the slightly evidence that such a commitment had been made was sufficient to unleash an overwhelming response. And hence no one dared to speak of or suggest such a thing.
But certain Islamic terror groups, like so-called al Qaeda, have already made such commitments. And the president of Iran routinely makes provocative declarations about destroying the United States and wiping Israel off the map while his country pursues nuclear weapons.
So, how does Gordon Brown see a policy of deterrence working against the global jihad?
One would hope that rather than hash and rehash false cold war analogies our leaders would begin to think creatively, cunningly, and with a knowledge of Islam as an ideology that goes beyond BBC-esposito-ernst-Islam-and-democracy-are-compatible-Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace-everyone-wants-freedom-democracy-makes-everyone-happy nonsense.
B & B still don't get it.
1. Islam is a religion. It is also a governing ideology. How do we separate the two other than through a total ban on Islam within the confines of the United States UNTIL the religion's adherents renounce the very concept of external jihad? Fight for your redemption, like everyone else does, within yourself.
2. Not even Stalin was suicidal. Neither was Khrushchev. Neither were the people they ruled. In contrast, Ahmadinejad and other leaders suggest that destruction of their own countries is desirable if it means the ultimate appearance of the hidden imam. The people, even if they're not enthusiastic, go along. Then of course ordinary people are willing to kill themselves or offer up their own sons and daughters if it means an easier road to paradise. You have both a government and individual citizens willing to wage war. Even where the two countries are ostensibly at peace, the status of Islam as a religion gives the adversary cover for his war against you.
3. Communism exercised total control over its domain, even to the point of preventing people from leaving. Those who made it out did so because they were willing to risk their lives for freedom. Contrast that with the Muslims who come here openly for the sole purpose of acquiring education and the necessary tools for jihad. There's a reason we only see the middle and upper class Muslims committing acts of jihad against the West - they're the ones with the resources to move. Saudi Arabia doesn't imprison its people in their stretch of desert. It exhorts them to seek out new places to plant the flag of Islam and to destroy its enemies.
Islam will never allow this unless special laws are past to advance their rights above ours.
This is 'political correctness' in the making.
Islam seeks nothing less than the submission and/or destruction of Western Civilization. This struggle isn't about territory, and it isn't about revenge, but it's about cultural domination.
Therefore....
giving up the fight against their ideology on foreign battlefields only brings the war closer to our shores. We are literally in a fight for the survival of our Judeo-Christian/Western Civilization.
From article: He is set to urge America to learn from the Cold War and mount a battle of ideas rather than rely on military might alone.
Dear Georgie and Gordy. A war of ideas sounds great, IF YOU HAD ANY.
Hmm a cultural offensive.
Yes, let's do that. Let's send some ballet dancers over to Iraq, so that the insurgents will be impressed by western culture and want to cease waging war with each other.
"cultural" offensive?????
More window dressing.
Nothing like proposing something 30 years late.
The cancerous poison has already taken root...only solution is to rip the root out thoroughly.
Mr Brown...the house is on fire-a garden hose, even at max pressure, isn't going to work.
cultural offensive?
Isn't that the recipe for even more jihad?
"Western civilization is good" cannot be said in a Muslim country or to a Muslim audience.
A "massive cultural offensive" from the West would be taken as proof that we want to destroy Islamic "culture" and Islam and it would be taken as yet another declaration of war.
Nothing can coexist with Islam. A cultural offensive suggests that we would attempt to teach them some of the values of Western Judeo-Christian culture in order to allow them to at least soften the murderous aspects of Islam.
Meet Gordon Brown - the new CRUSADER.
"Nothing can coexist with Islam."--------PMK
This is the essence of it all. If the West grasps this kernel of truth through and through, we'll be OK. The grasping has yet to occur.
PMK-
Unless they mean bacterial culture?
Brown is a manipulator in the grandest sense. Don't believe a word he says.
At the end of the day he wants a full term and he will say anything to get it.
Hey Brown, how about a "cultural offensive" for your own people?
Schools in Britain think teaching about Winston Churchill is "irrelevant" now.
A restaurant in Britain stopped selling soft ice cream cones because the swirl looked like "Allah" in Arabic script and guess who complained?
Some bakeries won't sell hot cross buns anymore because it will offend Muslims.
Her Majesty's prisons remodels their bathrooms so the toilets don't face Mecca.
Schools in Britain now serve halal meat for Muslim AND non Muslim students.
The Three Little Pigs aren't read in preschools because... well you know why...
Publishers drop Piglet in the Beatrix Potter books because it offends you know who...
So, Mr. Brown... when you say "cultural offensive" what exactly do you mean???
Communism's violent and intolerant tenets were critiqued and opposed.
When will Islam's?
Yes, but the Russians were white Christians. So they were considered, by our moral conscience, to be equal to us. The muslims are various shades of brown non-Christians, so they are considered, by that same moral conscience, to be inferior. Because they are considered inferior, they, and anything to do with them, are now escorted as a protected group. That is how the game is played according to the PC rules of engagement. Protected groups can not be considered dangerous. They can only be considered endangered - regardless of whatever book they happen to be reading at the time.
As long as the muslim world is poor and backward and as long as they run around in sandals and robes, they will be considered an inferior group requiring special protection.
Strange eh? That the only way to conquer the west is not to do it like Hitler or the Russians, being technologically and militarily superior to us, but by being like bin laden, technologically deficient, socially deficient, and culturally deficient, so deficient, that the Left feels a need to protect you, regardless of your aims.
That was the key to the approach that the Germans and the Russians could never adopt. They were the wrong race, the wrong religion, the wrong everything. They tried to conquer us from on top. The reality is, in order to conquer the west, you need to come from underneath. By coming from below, our society's moral conscience will protect and aid you.
The trick to conquering the West, is not to come as soldiers with tanks and airplanes in a blitzkrieg. The US is impervious to that classic approach for domination. The water alone makes the logistics impractical. The trick is to come as citizens by way of airliner, with a tan, robes, sandals, holy books, propaganda and bide your time. The demographic approach is what works in the West. It takes longer than the blitzkrieg approach, but it is legal, so it is protected, 100% feasible, and it is guaranteed to work because there is no way of stopping it that does not violate our collective moral conscience or our constitution.
A "cultural offensive", wow, that sounds really lame. Reminds of Jimmy Carter's Moral Equivalent Of War (M.E.O.W.) declaration a couple of decades ago.
elric66 said
That's why it's even more important to vote in primaries than in general elections, because you get to choose between buffoons A through K.
And they're not really buffoons. They don't understand the concept of jihad. Neither do most of the population. When the people understand it and demand action, our "leaders" will follow.
The JW sitemeter is coming up on 13 million hits. We'll get there. It may get messy, but we'll get there.
Aghh, those insufferable English........
Tell me something new.
Where is today's Radio Free Europe, beaming anti-jihadist broadcasts into the Islamic world? Who would dare to establish it?
You wanna fund me??!! I'll be more than GLAD to!!
I'll put you guys in chareg of programming for the most part anyway.. I'll reserve ONE HOUR a day for my own PERSONAL take on pigslam.. nothing to do with the other 23 hours of the program of course :-)
I'll launch a cultural offensive against islam.. facing my toilet toward meca.. getting my mohamet toilet tissue ready.. mmmmmhh.. moh-tissue..
and when i get done.. mmmmhhh.. Beeeeeerrr...
A M E R I C A ! ! ! ! ! !
I Sp[h]it in mahomet's ugly face!!!
let's ROLL..
They just don't care about anything, literally, but making the whole world, however much of it is left, Islamic.
Posted by: Accem Ezimota
H.E.L.L.O. !!!!!!!!
jihadwatcher
***ON*** POINT!
jihadwatcher's right on...
paraphrasing Lincoln's thoughts, that enemy armies will never see the interior of our country personally...we will never be taken from without, only from within...the enemy within-and that enemy, via multiple axes of evil, are already here...at point blank range.
God forgive our stupidity at not purging this enemy NOW.
Stupid, stupid, stupid...
Only way to stop Muslims from conquering the world is full scale deportation from the West and building huge walls to keep them away.
However incomprehensible this is for average Westerner, that is the only way.
THE ONLY ONE!
They must be isolated. We must live separatly.
Forget about everything you've learned about Western values and have taken for granted. Radical aproach is badly needed. This is not communism, this is not ideology. Hearts and minds CAN'T be won. GOD ordered them to conquer! Not Marx, not some mortal dictator, but GOD. Their God. And they conquered, and still conquer, and will conquer until stopped or destroyed. Or until they conquer everything. If another 1300 years are needed, they will wait them out. They will still wear robes and sandals in 3300s, but they will rule the world.
I'm frustrated, desperate, sad... If (when) Clintons return to White House in a year and a half (God forbid), we better leave for Mars. It'll be too much to bare.
On Mars we'll be out of their reach, because they won't prosper beyond sandals and robes.
If another 1300 years are needed, they will wait them out. They will still wear robes and sandals in 3300s, but they will rule the world.
--from WallsofByzant
No. A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Sorry, guys - I meant to post this letter last night. Someone I know is going to have a meeting with someone important, and I want him to be aware of these two items. - Surak
The first item is the necessity of properly understanding the war we are in, which in turn determines our goals. To understand it correctly, we must name it correctly. Even the name “Global War against Islamic Terrorism” is inadequate and misleading. To understand why, consider the analogy in World War 2, which would be the “Global War against Japanese Sneak-Attacks” (and German Submarine Attacks). We weren’t at war with certain tactics; we were at war with certain societies, namely Germany, Italy and Japan. It was necessary to defeat those societies and cause their surrender in order to end their attacks.
Today, we are not at war with terrorism. There is a jihad taking place against the entire non-Muslim world. Terrorism and other forms of violence are only one means to the enemy’s goal, which is the establishment of Shari’a law throughout the world in a unified Caliphate. This will enable fulfillment of Sura 9 of the Qur’an: our conversion to Islam, our submission as dhimmis and payment of the jizya tribute tax, or our death. While jihadist actions are recorded on Robert Spencer’s website JihadWatch, its sister site DhimmiWatch records the equally important tactics of intimidation that are being used to destroy our postmodern, relativistic, multicultural society and replace it with seventh century Arabian society.
We must acknowledge this total war in the war’s name, which must identify the society that is waging the war against us. Thus I call our present war the “War Against Militant Islam”. If you object that this sounds dangerously close to saying that we are in a war against Islam itself, well – maybe we are. You may object that there are good Muslims, to which I respond, of course there are! There were good Germans and Japanese during World War 2, but it was necessary to defeat their societies. It may be possible for good Muslims to redefine their religion in terms of its Meccan tolerance, rather than its Medinan jihadism. In order to create an opening for the tolerant Muslims, it is necessary to defeat utterly the militant Muslims.
However, let us not repeat the mistake we made in referring to a recent military campaign as “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. We are not at war to benefit our enemy, but to insure our own survival against a mortal enemy who is willing to fight to the death.
Remember, we are not at war against a tactic, but against a society – a 1300-year-old war that has never stopped. If you don’t want your wives confined in their houses wearing bur’qas, the enemy must be identified and defeated. This enemy, by the way, isn’t merely the Wahabists, but also anyone else who wants to engage in jihad to establish a global Caliphate in which Shari’a is strictly enforced.
An oft-quoted figure is the guess that about 10% of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims are militant. We know from the recent Pew survey, however, that even in America, the land that allegedly assimilates Muslims better than Europe, that at least 26% of Muslims find homicide bombings to be acceptable in some cases. If a similar proportion held worldwide, that would amount to about 300 million militant Muslims. I do not call them radical, because we non-Muslims do not have the authority to define what is and what is not normative Islam. The number 300 million impresses me as much larger than the combined populations of Germany, Italy and Japan during World War 2. I am sorry to say that President Bush has failed miserably in describing the scope of the threat facing all non-Muslim civilizations. An agenda of democracy – one man, one vote, one time – will not transform Muslim societies, or more importantly, ensure our survival.
The second item is President Bush’s continuing pressure on Israel in order to appease militant Muslims. The latter have made clear that they will be satisfied with no compromise or “two-state solution”, but only with the complete destruction of Israel. In contrast to the President’s ringing words of September 20, 2001, however, he has broken his campaign promise to move the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem; he has pressured Israel to yield strategic territory and border crossings to terrorists; he has pressured Israel to release terrorist murderers, who have often gone on to commit additional terrorist murders; he has provided American funds and even ammunition to terrorist groups (and as Diana West points out, that makes us state sponsors of terrorism); he has hosted a terrorist leader in the White House who continues to call for the murder of Israelis.
These actions of President Bush constitute a shameful betrayal of America’s closest ally in the world, a tiny nation beleaguered by genocidal neighbors. (At the UN, Israel votes with America more than 90% of the time; the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau vote with us more than 80% of the time; and every other country votes with us less than 60% of the time.) While many excuse this behavior by pointing to Israeli political choices, I would like to point out that there is a strong impulse in Israeli society to please America, even if it requires endangering Israeli lives or even sacrificing Israeli lives so that the American president can maintain friendly relations with the terrorist-promoting House of Saud.
Michael Ledeen gave a speech a few years ago in which he identified the Axis of Evil’s Middle Eastern branch as consisting of not only Iran and Iraq, as the President said, but also Saudi Arabia (source of most of the hijackers of 9/11, funder of Wahabist mosques and literature around the world) and Syria (home of numerous terrorist organizations; for some reason we inexplicably maintain diplomatic relations with them). I might have added Pakistan as a cause of concern, because of their nuclear weapons which will eventually fall into someone else’s hands at the time of President Musharaf’s death; and possibly even Egypt as well, one of the main intellectual centers for jihad.
- End of letter. Well, I guess these are the inconvenient truths of our time, the truths that dare not speak their name.
Ynkedoodl2,
house will be unified against other house, don't you have any doubt about it!
Surak,
good letter, fine points, sad reality.
President Bush made those mistakes because of notorious syndrome of powerful individuals and nations. And that is history-starts-and-ends-with-me syndrome. And because of Arab petro-dollars. U.S. is based on dollar anyway. NON OLANT, Romans used to say, heh? Well, we shall yet see about it. I think I know the answer, and I think that most of us here do. But are we in such minority? Looks like it...
How many nations encountered Muslim conquest in last 13 centuries? How many perished? How many are still fighting on? Is it that dificult to read history, learn from it, analyse it and find answers?
U.S. directly helped Bosnian and Albanian muslims in 1990s against two world wars ally Serbs. Helping them still against all of their Balkans neighbours. Helped Afgan and Chechen muslims against Russians. I can understand Afganistan to a certain extent, it was Cold War, Russia invaded Afganistan, but why Chechenia? What about Christians in Middle East? What will happen with Israel? Are they irrelevant? What is relevant then? Dollars? Elections?
Nazis used Muslims against Slavs and Jews too. Nuf said, heh? Sorry for my bitternes, but what can possibly be the result of tactics of allying with Muslims? Defeat of Christianity (of the West as a whole) and victory of Islam... Muslims will always fight non-muslims, and if non-muslims help and support them in that, battle is lost before it began.
Western (nominaly U.S. and U.K.) shortsited policy of short term (dubious) gains will result in long term catastrophe for all the Christian West: Catholic, Protestant and Ortodox, because Muslims are not in a hurry. They will wait out another millenium if necessary, using every Dhimmi given opportunity to grab some more land, to destroy some more churces, to kill some more infidels... While we count our dollars and try to get reelected...
Very very sad...
Ynkedoodl2,
house will be unified against other house, don't you have any doubt about it!
Posted by: WallsofByzant
=======================================
Ah, so you think the house of Shia will be united with the house of Sunni? You think these murderous muhammadans will suddenly become tolerant of one another after waging reciprocal Jihad for 1400 years? Ya think???
I think you are as clueless as George Almighty Bush and his sidekick Condi.
Not gonna happen!
Ynkedoodl2,
Shias and Sunnis WILL unite against Christians and/or Jews when they start to feel that Islam in general is in jeopardy. Besides, Sunnis are in overwhelming majority. Surely neither will ally with us against each other. They know who their real enemy is, don't you worry. Incentive strong enough will unite them against all others.
Shias and Sunnis WILL unite against Christians and/or Jews when they start to feel that Islam in general is in jeopardy.
--posted by WallsofByzant
I stand by what Jesus prophecied: "A house divided against itself won't stand."
btw, I have heard Sunnis (takfiris) describe Shia as much, much worse than infidel Jews or Christians.