Above was an earlier title for my Human Events column this week. I like that one better. But now it's called "Republican Candidates Understand Jihad Better":
Among the biggest differences between the Republican and the Democratic presidential candidates is their judgments of what began on September 11, 2001, and why. In last Saturday’s ABC News debates, according to Investor’s Business Daily, the Republican candidates “referred to terrorists and terrorism as ‘Islamic,’ while also citing radical ‘Islam’ as the problem, no less than 22 times.”The Republican candidates seem more terrified of labeling the source of terrorism correctly than they are of what terrorists could do. All were anxious to avoid the giving the impression that they thought that jihad terrorism represented a problem within Islam. Mike Huckabee even spoke of “the radical Islamic faith” and said that the enemy was “not all Islam, and that’s what’s very important. This isn’t an Islamic problem. This is a jihadist problem. This is an Islamo-fascism problem.”
Huckabee didn’t explain how a problem involving jihad, a central principle within Islam, could not be at least in some way an Islamic problem, but his intention – to divorce peaceful Muslim individuals and entities from so-called “radicals” – was all too clear. Similarly, Giuliani described the “Islamic terrorism threat against us” as having to do with “the way they’ve perverted their religion into a hatred of us.” He offered no explanation for why the adherents of this “perverted” Islam are so many, and why peaceful Muslims have mounted no large-scale opposition to their challenge.
Nonetheless, the candidates’ awareness of the nature of the threat was refreshing. Countering Ron Paul’s contention that if the U.S. military had no presence in Muslim countries, the jihad would disappear, Huckabee also explained that the jihadists “believe that they must establish a worldwide caliphate that has nothing to do with us other than we live and breathe and their intention is to destroy us.” Mitt Romney likewise chided Paul: “Well, unfortunately, Ron, you need a thorough understanding of what radical jihad is, what the movement is, what its intent is, where it flows from. And the fact is that it’s trying to bring down not just us, but it’s trying to bring down all moderate Islamic governments, Western governments around the world, as we just saw in Pakistan.” He also spoke of “a battle that is going on within the world of Islam, of radical, violent jihadists trying to bring down all moderate Islamic people and nations and replace them with a religious caliphate.” Continued Sponsored Links:* Barack Obama Exposed! A Human Events Special Report
* Newt Gingrich Weekly: Winning the Future
* China Stock Update: Free Special Report on global emerging markets
* Over 1,500 Failing Mutual Funds to Dump Right Now!Fred Thompson also raised the specter of “a global war with radical Islam,” and John McCain, for his part, declared: “I think the transcendent challenge of the 21st century is radical Islamic extremists.”
Did the Democrats say anything like this? Nope. Not once. At one point in the Democrats’ debate, moderator Charles Gibson asked “what you’d do if the Islamic radicals actually took control of the Pakistani government and, therefore, were in control of nuclear weapons.” The responses rambled and focused on particulars of the situation in Pakistan, but one common feature of them was that “jihad” did not figure in. Bill Richardson spoke of the war in Iraq as an agent of Muslim radicalization. John Edwards spoke vaguely about the possibility of an undefined “terrorist group” getting hold of a nuclear weapon. Barack Obama, equally vaguely, warned of the need to deal with “long-term threats,” and Hillary Clinton about the need to counter “stateless terrorists.”
Why does this matter? It matters because the United States cannot possibly defeat an enemy that we are afraid to name. And we are presently at war with people who identify themselves not as terrorists, stateless or otherwise, and not even as “radical, violent jihadists,” but as jihadists pure and simple: warriors of Islam, intent to establish the rule of Islam over the world, erasing all traces of secularism and cultural accommodation from the Islamic world, and subjugating women and non-Muslims as inferiors.
As the Saudi Sheikh Wajdi Hamza Al-Ghazawi put it in a sermon in Mecca shortly after 9/11, “The meaning of the term ‘terror’ used by the media...is Jihad for the sake of Allah.” It really ultimately matters little whether or not these men are espousing a correct understanding of Islam or not, for their views are influential: jihadist groups are gaining adherents among peaceful Muslims all over the world by presenting themselves as the exponents of pure and true Islam. And protests in the Islamic world have been far larger against cartoons of Muhammad and some remarks of the Pope about Islam than they have ever been against Osama bin Laden.
The longer that presidential candidates, to say nothing of government and law enforcement officials, continue to ignore or downplay the breadth and the nature of the jihadist threat, the longer is postponed the formulation of a comprehensive defensive strategy to counter it. The jihad is not a matter of a few isolated crazies, or a military threat in a few countries. It is a global movement, touching on many cultural as well as national security issues, and ultimately involving nothing less than two opposing visions of the most basic values for individuals and society.
The Republicans showed some signs of understanding this. The Democrats didn’t.
The word "pusillanimous" has left me clueless. :(
I must be a Democrat. :D
"jihadist groups are gaining adherents among peaceful Muslims all over the world by presenting themselves as the exponents of pure and true Islam. "
....the adherents are often joining as the Jihadists have recently made a strong statement when they have raped and beheaded the "more docile Muslim"s family in front of him....the message is clear....it is "you can join or you can die"...
Pusillanimous = Cowardly
One reason at least some of the Republican candidates may be unwilling to openly point our that there is a problem within the core teachings of Islam is that any such statement would be reported as a sound bite and the candidate would never be given a fair chance to defend and explain the basis for his comment. As such, the comment would sink the candidacy.
Trying to explain the problems with Islam requires a patient listener and many hours of explanation. Our news media do not grant campaigners such a forum.
Our best hope is that someone who truly understands the problems inherent in Islam and its founder can get elected and THEN begin to articulate those problems to the public, using the bully pulpit of his office.
Got it, though it would have been much easier to use the noun and say that the Republican candidates are a bunch of pussies.
What would our foreign policy look like if those inside the Beltway read the Qur'an?
What would our presidential election look like if the candidates read the Qur'an?
You would certainly not get the old Islam "hijacked" by "extremist" elements in the ummah arguments.
It may be a strategy to try and reach all the "moderate" Muslims, but there is a saying in the East - "The big fish eat the little fish, so the little fish have to be careful." "Moderate" Muslims are sitting on the fence and waiting to see which side will win. If the west does, you will see "moderate" Muslims coming out of the woodwork. If the jihadists win, the "moderates" will disappear like a raindrop in the Sahara.
This situation is demonstrated in Iraq. When the jihadists appeared to be unstoppable, no one would cooperate with the Allied forces. When the "Sunni Awakening" took place, ordinary citizens started to phone in the locations of terrorists.
If there were a vast majority of "moderates", do you really think that the jihadist would have the progress they have to this point?
As a Canadian I can only watch from the sidelines, but I believe any Republican candidate would be a better choice than any Democrat.
I'm in the middle of reading Mark Steyn's terrifying, "America Alone". Please, American friends, realize the results of your election will affect the entire world.
I've I always felt that the President and now those who are potential candidates for the most powerful office in the world are and continue to be reluctant in branding the entire umma with the brush of being practicing jihadists or fully into the mode of the Dar al harb. Thus they allowing for some diplomatic wiggle room with moderate Islam.
I continue to be concerned that the most likeley presidential candidates to win the democratic vote seem to show very little concern about the aspirations of what is so clearly read in the Qu'ran.
Bush has so tainted the Republican-Jihad agenda with his Saudi 'friends' etc. that we need Hillary to win. Let a dirty bomb or six happen on HER watch and maybe JUST maybe we can have the great anti-pc revulsion and the awakening of the SURVIVAL instinct and God-willing a Churchill to lead us.
The worse thing that can happen to an infidel, is to become a muslim, the second worse thing that can happen to an infidel is to become a politician.
Think of the pain Ken Ellison must experience since he is both. An automatic case of cognitive dissonance. That's because Jesus was right when he said you can't serve two masters. Our leading candidates are doing just that. They are trying to serve the mastership of voters, while not disturbing the mastership of Islam. This makes them what? Traitors? Uninformed? Stupid? Dhimmi's in reality?
We are going to get another CFR stooge and apologist for Islam, while our men and treasure are committed to fighting phantom's. The Insanity will continue and the camp of Islam will profit, and expand because of it...
ImNoDhimmi,
You're reading Mark Steyn. Why IS America alone? Why aren't you more concerned about what Canada has done to bring this about?
What do Canadians want to see from the next president? More reliance on international institutions? It won't save us from Islamism.
In 2003 Canadian author Michael Adams assured his countrymen that America and Canada were moving in opposite directions. He presented Americans as too socially conservative, fat and deferential to authority figures, while Canadians were more tolerant, open to risk and willing to question the institutions that governed them.
This was after the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax attacks and Osama bin Laden was and remains at large. Canadians try to mask their antipathy toward America by separating Americans from the government. It can't be done. We are not like the countries of Eastern Europe during the Cold War, people being held captive by a dictatorship.
Canadian attitudes toward America are more like those of Europe than many care to admit.
Whom do Canadians want to see win?
Hillary? Barack?
Some people on JW have said he's the worst but I find myself more and more drawn toward Ron Paul, though I'm not there just yet. The most compelling argument he made was to bring American troops home from everywhere in the world. Then no one can complain about American interference.
From the Mirriam-Webster Dictionary:
pu·sil·lan·i·mous
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Late Latin pusillanimis, from Latin pusillus very small (diminutive of pusus boy) + animus spirit; perhaps akin to Latin puer child — more at puerile, animate
Date:
1586
: lacking courage and resolution : marked by contemptible timidity
synonyms see cowardly
— pu·sil·lan·i·mous·ly adverb
............
Seems pretty accurate a description of Republican attitudes to the Jihad. Still better than the Democrats, though, as noted. This following had to be one of the oddest responses:
At one point in the Democrats’ debate, moderator Charles Gibson asked “what you’d do if the Islamic radicals actually took control of the Pakistani government and, therefore, were in control of nuclear weapons.” . . . Hillary Clinton about the need to counter “stateless terrorists.”
........
Um, if "Islamic radicals" took control of the Pakistani government, wouldn't they be, by definition, terrorists with a state?
Using the term "stateless terrorists" can be useful, at times, but it is often used to denote a point of view that addressing terrorism calls for nothing more than use of the civil justice system--that it is not a concern for the country at large.
You hear a lot in the Democratic camp about the "politics of fear"--the idea that anyone who tries to take the "war on terror" seriously is baselessly fear-mongering--usually, it is assumed, for personal political gain.
It is true--and disturbing--that most Republicans fail to clearly and accurately name the enemy. Many Democrats, though--despite 9/11 and over 1000 terrorist attacks around the world in its wake--refuse to believe that we face any real enemy at all. Oh, except for George Bush, of course.
Democrats will openly surrender. Republicans will send Americans to die for the freedom of others while refusing to defend our own right to exist. It's a distinction without a difference.
PMK -
I wondered how long it would take before someone took responding to my comment as an opportunity to bash Canada.
How do you know I'm not concerned about what is happening in Canada? Never having read Adam's book, I can't comment on it. But I am absolutely convinced that 99% of Canadians (not including muslims) would rather live next to our neighbours to the south than to any other country in the world. Both nations have faults. But we are more alike, in our shared history, our ideologies and cultures, than we are different.
I don't know who Canadians as a whole, want to see win. I haven't taken a poll. But at least I can name the candidates, which I wager is more than most Americans can do in Canadian federal elections. Not that our elections count for much in American eyes. And right now, your country isn't being held captive by a dictatorship, but by a President who apparently believes, "islam is a religion of peace".
Right now two brave Canadians, Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, are fighting a monumental battle for free speech in this country. More Canadians than you can imagine are beginning to see the light regarding islam. And for the purposes of this website, isn't that the main thing? We are all on the same side here.
ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ -- The following is a copy of an article written by Spanish writer Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez, published in a Spanish newspaper on 5-22-07. It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate the message to the rest of Europe -- and possibly to the rest of the world. =====================================================REMEMBER AS YOU READ -- IT WAS IN A SPANISH PAPER Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 14:30:20 -0500 ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez(*) I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz . We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world. The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned. And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride. They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime. Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts. And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition. We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs. What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe. ***********************************
Huckabee knows more about Mormonism than Islam.
Typical though.. Implicit criticism seems to be that Giuliani misunderstands islam b/c he said thy twisted their religion. Are WE allowed any form of taqiyya at all?!! If he came out like Tom Tancredo he'd be even further behind in the polls than he is right now.
Actions speak louder than words my friends.
I and others have mentioned Rudy's ACTIONS before. Like kicking Arafart out of a UN concert at the Public Library in Manhattan.. and refusing a $10m check from a SOWdi who wanted to attach verbal abuse against Israel to the 'donation'.
Contrast that with McLAME who wants to stop all enhanced interrogations - no matter what, close Gitmo and have the terrorists tried by US courts with tax-payer funded ACLU lawyers.
McLAME talks a good game - sometimes, but his actions have been to undermine the conservative security agenda time and time again.
why is the MSM sponsoring McLame so much..? because he is a Dhimmicrat-in-sheep's clothing.
Now they are pushing the idea that Dhim voters in the Mich primary come out and vote McLame since their own Primary is dead.
I heard this suggestion, er.. idea.. floated today on both npr and on CNN before going to work. It had my blood boiling!!
How dare the MSM interfere in the Repubicaqn Primaries in this open and blatant manner?!
They keep saying how Mitt Romney MUST win, yes, he MUST win Michigan or he is TOAST, hear ye hear y we say if he don't win Michigan Mitt Romney is TOAST.. hear ye hear ye.. and then they go right on to talk about Dhim voters going on to vote in the Repub Primary.. and suggesting that McLame is the candidate they feel Dhim voters are "naturally" [Brian lehrer on npr] most likely to support.
Tells me I will support Mitt Romney if Rudy starts to fail. I also heard the MSM suggesting that Rudy is done already and the most sensical thing his supporters can do is to now get behind McLame.
The manipulation of it all is simply an outrage!!
Are these clowns all getting paid by the SOWdis??!!
The thing to do when choosing a candidate is: How would Osama like it if this person were President?
How would the SOWdis like it?
Hmmm.. I have a feeling the preferences of both Osama and the SOWdis are pretty much the same :-)
These people need some good advisor's. It's our job to make sure the (same) point keeps getting made: Islam itslf is the problem.
One day, the message will get through - it just needs more education, more lobbying, more work.
lAUGH IF YOU WILL, BUT LETTERS TO POLITICIANS DO COUNT!
Sent letters re dangers of Islam and importance of reading Qur'an and "Infidel" by Hirsi Ali to Mayor of my city, Head librarian of my library, Editor and Publisher of giant newspaper daily in metroplex, two Congressmen, one Senator plus Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy!
I heard by return mail from the two Republican Congressmen - both agreeing with me 100% and thanking me for recommending "Infidel."
I may not hear from any others, but I gave them all something to think about!