Andrew C. McCarthy tells the truth about Pakistan, a truth that eludes the government and the learned analysts, in National Review:
A recent CNN poll showed that 46 percent of Pakistanis approve of Osama bin Laden.Aspirants to the American presidency should hope to score so highly in the United States. In Pakistan, though, the al-Qaeda emir easily beat out that country’s current president, Pervez Musharraf, who polled at 38 percent.
President George Bush, the face of a campaign to bring democracy — or, at least, some form of sharia-lite that might pass for democracy — to the Islamic world, registered nine percent. Nine!
If you want to know what to make of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto’s murder today in Pakistan, ponder that.
There is the Pakistan of our fantasy. The burgeoning democracy in whose vanguard are judges and lawyers and human rights activists using the “rule of law” as a cudgel to bring down a military junta. In the fantasy, Bhutto, an attractive, American-educated socialist whose prominent family made common cause with Soviets and whose tenures were rife with corruption, was somehow the second coming of James Madison.
Then there is the real Pakistan: an enemy of the United States and the West.
The real Pakistan is a breeding ground of Islamic holy war where, for about half the population, the only thing more intolerable than Western democracy is the prospect of a faux democracy led by a woman — indeed, a product of feudal Pakistani privilege and secular Western breeding whose father, President Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto, had been branded as an enemy of Islam by influential Muslim clerics in the early 1970s.
The real Pakistan is a place where the intelligence services are salted with Islamic fundamentalists: jihadist sympathizers who, during the 1980s, steered hundreds of millions in U.S. aid for the anti-Soviet mujahideen to the most anti-Western Afghan fighters — warlords like Gilbuddin Hekmatyar whose Arab allies included bin Laden and Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the stalwarts of today’s global jihad against America.
[...]
But we should at least stop fooling ourselves. Jihadists are not going to be wished away, rule-of-lawed into submission, or democratized out of existence. If you really want democracy and the rule of law in places like Pakistan, you need to kill the jihadists first. Or they’ll kill you, just like, today, they killed Benazir Bhutto.
Read it all.
Mushy is blaming extremists.
Thank you Mr. McCarthy.
How completely disgusting!
Anyone who continues to toe the liberal party line about the "poor, poor Muslims" following their "peaceful religion" should be ROUNDLY DENOUNCED. And chased out of the debate, office, or wherever they may be found.
Is this the straw the breaks the camel's back? Let's hope so. Islam MUST be shut down NOW.
A beautiful woman and soul has been destroyed today - and those utterly evil "people" responsible for it must pay.
The Truth About Islam - need I say more?
Once again we get platitudes on democracy from Bush. One man, one idea, one time.
...not one more dime to this ungrateful country....not one more dime....
...to any of these ungrateful countries is more like it.
It is suprising that Pakistian does not end up having a civil war. Some folks are even blaming Mussariaf for this and I had read elsewhere that one of the presidential canidates calls on for the removel of him, I think Gov. Richardson of New Mexico.
Take/destroy thier nukes, cut off the jizya and ban immigration from these countries and see how long islam holds up.
I just heard one of the stupidest statements on TV in a loooong time. A mouth piece for the Center for American Progress, one Brian Katulis, asked on Fox news why we cannot get Bin Laden. He stated that is was so easy for AL Queda to kill Bhutto, why can't we get Bin Laden just as easy.
The guy on right now in place of Shepard Smith could have explained that Bin Laden is not making any public appearances, but I guess he was thinking about something else.
It is so sad that this womans life has been sacrificed, but if it makes these issues come to the general conversation perhaps it has a purpose.
Thank you, Mr. McCarthy.
As a Christian, I can't help but wonder how awful it must be when that moment comes after death for a pseudo-Islamic when they realize how they have been fooled by the devil.
Greetings:
From the above article:
"We don’t have the political will to fight the war on terror every place where jihadists work feverishly to kill Americans. And, given the refusal of the richest, most spendthrift government in American history to grow our military to an appropriate war footing, we may not have the resources to do it."
For a while now, I have held the opinion that re-instating the military draft is a necessity for success in the war against Islamic terror. It's time to see what kind of menfolk the current generation has produced.
The volunteer military may be working well for the politicians and the generals, but, in war, numbers are important. The idea that the men of this country have no obligation for its defense is sophomoric in the extreme. I would at least require that, when registering with the Selective Service, the young men indicate their availability (which service, which specialities). Make them confront what kind of men they are.
This free-ride, let-someone-else-do-it, nonsense needs to be removed from our collective psyche. Let's have a two-year military obligation or a four-year public service one.
"Take/destroy thier nukes, cut off the jizya and ban immigration from these countries and see how long islam holds up."
So well articulated! Brilliance in brevity.
Waging war on a tactic will bring us nothing but tears
We cannot suffer good Muslims to possess nuclear weapons. Would that we had leaders with the compassion of a Truman to deal with the mortal threat of good Muslims armed with nukes. Please remember that there was never a dog’s chance in hell of Imperial Japan nuking us. Would that we as a people were not so rotted from within by political correctness that we had still had the courage to comprehend how truly compassionate Truman was.
What city do you think good Muslims will nuke first?
What about helping the 50% who disapprove of Bin Laden and his cronies to kill the other 50% who support him.
Now that would be a good idea.
We should take a massive chunk of the Middle East and only allow Christians to live there. Make citizenship hard to get, and not allow Muslims in at all. Within a few years you'd have a thriving community that's economically successful. They'd really really hate that.
So the pan is flashing up in Pakistan now, and Iran, Syria, Gaza and Saudi Arabia, and the lovely Islamics spread out over the Western world are on a back burner and off the radar scopes for awhile. I want everyone to recall your own particular couple dozen Islamic terroristic incidents since the 1960's to spice up your feelings and animosity with and for anything Islamic at the moment and, you know what will eventually cut the jugular of this bogus religion? and kill it? A platform must be set up where the goal is to render the Islamic religion on par and equivalent to the Mayan, or Aztec religion in the minds of the masses.
I'll begin the rallying cry: "Neuter the Koran. It is not inspired from the Creator God." No, let me take the time to think how to spice up a good message, to present my message more palatable to the incorrigibles ..., hmm? No chicanery. I'm straight and up front with my words to an audience ...? Hmm?
How to go about doing this will take time, and much thought by sober, rational individuals, but the goal is not as impossible as one may think on first thought ...
One has to believe in the reality that will be in the future: within the minds of rational people living a thousand years from today Islam is considered and rendered similar as is the Aztec and Mayan religions in thought, deed, and conversation with people today. The future will have less and less individuals applying the words inside the Koran as being inspired by a (the) Creator God.
Now, let's everyone think and try to do things to speed up this reality that will be.
... and to think I'm just warming up now, for the big day ...
"If you really want democracy and the rule of law in places like Pakistan, you need to kill the jihadists first."
from the article
First we need to define "jihadist". If moderate islam is an illusion then what Muslim isn't a jihadist? If he isn't a jihadist is he truly Muslim?
A revision:
"If you really want democracy and the rule of law in places like Pakistan, you need to kill Islam first."
Where can the two coexist without Islam ultimately gaining the upper hand?
More statistics from 2 polls a few weeks ago.
World Opinion Poll
- between 60 and 76 percent of those polled seek the growth of Sharia throughout Pakistan;
- only 26 percent say Sharia should play the same role (15 percent) or a smaller role (11 percent) and 15 percent do not answer;
- only 44 percent favor the Pakistani Army pursuing Al Qaeda
- only 48 percent support the Pakistan Army acting against “Taliban insurgents who have crossed over from Afghanistan”;
- nearly 80 percent are against US pursuing Al Qaeda or Taliban in Pakistan;
Terror Free Tomorrow poll
- 76 percent of the responders believe implementing strict Sharia law throughout Pakistan is “important” (41.2 percent viewed this as “very important”, 34.8 percent that viewed this as “somewhat important”)
Andrew C. McCarthy for Attorney General in 2008.
Testing
The inherent peacefulness of Islam is clearly demonstrated by the strength of the condemnation of Benazir Bhutto's murder throughout the Islamic world.
I haven't actually heard any condemnation yet, but we will shortly, surely?
Won't we?
Oh.
I've listening to talking heads all day talking about the fantasy Pakistan. Reading Andrew C. McCarthy is a breath of fresh air. Bravo!
Andrew C. McCarthy for Attorney General in 2008.
Posted by: USorThem at December 27, 2007 7:59 PM
I was thinking more in line of "Secretary of State".
11B40
I 've been thinking along somewhat similar lines.
All the time I was growing up, my dad used to talk about his experiences doing National Service army training in the 1950s. I got the distinct impression he'd found it interesting and challenging.
All Infidel countries facing the prospect of cross-border Jihad against them, not to mention Paris-style intifadas - and that's ALL of us - who do not already have National Service, should consider emulating Singapore, Israel and Switzerland. Post-high-school high-quality national service military training for all non-Muslim citizen children, both male and female.
Primary aim: preparedness for homeland defence, homeland defence, homeland defence and internal security (plus disaster relief: e.g. in Australia after we had a massive category 5 cyclone come ashore, General Cosgrove and the Army did a great job of managing the relief effort).
Secondary aim: targeted assistance to fellow Infidel lands threatened with Jihad; and, for neighbourly relations, disaster relief to same, as applicable or requested. Australia's current involvement in Timor Lorosae is an example.
Tertiary aim: pinpoint smash-and-grab in-and-out raids to destroy any WMD in hands of Jihad-enabling regimes, or rescue operations. Models: Osirak and Entebbe.
For those three aims, but above all else, the first, I would be willing to risk my two beautiful sons - and my two lovely daughters - in the army. (Just as Israeli mothers have to do).
But I wouldn't want anyone wasting my children by sending them into hell-holes like Iraq or Afghanistan to try to herd a lot of murderous Kilkenny cats. THAT I intend on making quite clear to my government, when I write to recommend the re-institution of National Service such as my own father took part in, in the 1950s.
Bottom line: I'd feel much safer if I knew the current cohort of young Australians had all had disciplined professional training in how to handle themselves in a fight, and how to do so as part of a team effort.
Re. "the real Pakistan".
Now would be a very good time for us all to re-read the chapters on Pakistan, in V S Naipaul 's "Among the Believers" and also in "Beyond Belief".
The real Bhutto government - the ones where she called for the lynching of Kashmir Governor Jagmohan shortly after she was elected in 1989, as well as her initiation of a Pakistan policy supporting the Taliban, were very much compatible with the real Pakistan - both yesterday and today.
Her problem - the Jihadi forces in her country didn't appreciate her taquiyya value, which given her Radcliffe and Oxford backgrounds, were far greater than anyone else in that country (excepting probably Imran Khan Niazi, their former cricket superstar, and leader of one of Nawaz Sharif's alliance partners).
That day is not far, when the ummah brings blood and death in USA. Ooppss... ummah has already seen to that:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14082298/
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005204.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54293
Back to sleep zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz