Geert Wilders to Bush: "Saudi Arabia is no good and won't be for the foreseeable future"

All the JW site contributors and readers know that Saudi Arabia is the place that unleashed this hellhole of an ideology. It is the one country that has since the incept of Islam reaped the benefits of mass slavery of women, children and men from conquered lands. It has reaped the benefits of the booty of plundered temples and churches where the gold and riches were brought there. It is country that imports mass labor from other countries and treats them like slave labor and persecuted. It is a country that many women who come to work as maids are rapped by the men and beaten. It is a country that discriminates all non Muslims.

Geert for President!

Wilders is right.

Too bad Bush was enthralled with his personal relationship with the Saudi Royals prior to and after 9/11. Bin Laden's family still send him money. Somebody, somewhere knows where Bin Laden is hiding. Yet, that pressure was not placed on the Saudi govt. or the Bin Laden family.

Every barrel of oil we purchase from Saudi Arabia helps to fuel the Wahabbist jihad against us.

Americans please cut back on oil consumption as much as possible!

Please, Geert, move to the US. When it comes to Islamic Jihad, most of our politicians are spineless weenies.

We import Dutch beer. Think about it.

Just what we've all been saying since Sept. 11. 01

Maybe Geert lends credence to it. Maybe someone will listen.

Probably not.

And yes, let's reduce our oil consumption, I agree.

A true voice crying out in the Wilderness! Shame there are not more mainstream politicians like him.

Truth is sacrificed on the altar of delusion.

News Flash! Wilders moves into outright favoritism for the anti-dhimmi award...

Please, Geert, stay in Europe. When it comes to Islamic Jihad, most of our politicians are spineless weenies.

Thanks for the inspiration :)

Wilders will be in Denmark for a visit soon.

Geert Wider has obviously forgotten the first rule of American foreign policy; if it's good for Bechtel and Halliburton, it's good for America.

Too late.

GWB is in bed with Sowdis like all the other presidents before him. He will not do anything to 'harm his allies in the WoT...'

Mr. Wilders points out an obvious flaw in those political leaders, including current Presidential candidates (Obama) who believe, as the current sitting President believed, that through sheer force of personality, events and country policies could be (re) shaped, etc. No one disputes the power of personalities hitting it off, especially in the rarefied world of country/national leaders, but there still needs to be a foundation of some respect, some commonality of history/language/laws/religion, for this to really pay off. This (may) work with European countries, South America, etc. Unfortunately, as much as Putin darkened up his soul after Bush saw into it, we have much more in common with Russia than we ever will with a Muslim country.

No one tries to understand a rabid animal. It has a disease that will eventually kill it and will spread unless the animal is destroyed. So be it with Islam.

I also believe that most Western leaders simply overestimate the amount of power that Arab leaders have. The Arab 'dictators' have to cow-tow to Islamic leaders, or they will have Hell for 'religious' reasons, like riots in the streets and other Islamic religious sentiment.

Bush is getting a bum deal, as are most Western leaders currently.

Anyone aware of a reincarnation of Churchill somewhere?

Americans please cut back on oil consumption as much as possible!

Posted by: ALR ""

If Gen Patton was to be alive today , he would have kicked this thinking 'out'of US.These are precisely the types of sentiments that the foes of USA love and celebrate silently allowing the oil prices up precipitating compounding crisis in so many areas including food and this sentiment must be very dear to the hearts of the Sauds et al. In which way are they allies to US ? unless of course there are some serious deeper reasons for US establishment.

Americans please cut back on oil consumption as much as possible!

Posted by: ALR ""

If Gen Patton was to be alive today , he would have kicked this thinking 'out'of US.These are precisely the types of sentiments that the foes of USA love and celebrate silently allowing the oil prices up precipitating compounding crisis in so many areas including food and this sentiment must be very dear to the hearts of the Sauds et al. In which way are they allies to US ? unless of course there are some serious deeper reasons for US establishment.

Sorry for dbl posting.

OK Kash225 ... that's once. (Or is it twice?)

OK Kash225 ... that's once. (Or is it twice?)

Not to go tooo far off topic, but the below link is what the Dutch Citizens must deal with on a daily basis. Every comment in every Dutch Newspaper complains about the Islamzation of their country, yet Wilders is the only one to actually publicy voice their concerns.

http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/05/netherlands-complaints-about.html

Geert Wilders, the anti-politician. I can't think of even one American politician that comes even close to his devotion to the truth about the most crucial issue of our time.

It seems lost on most who have posted here so far that Geert Wilders is "a passionate supporter of Bush and the war on terrorism." Just so. And Dennis Prager today on his radio talk show played segments of Bush this very week chastising the Arab Muslim world (in its own backyard no less) for its backwardness and for its inspiring hate in Muslim youth. Prager went on to rhetorically ask, what Democrat or, for that matter, what major politician in the entire Western world would do as much?

I am only too conscious of the fact that so many who post here at JW, and with whom I share a deep skepticism of Islam, have no regard for President Bush, but I would ask all of these fine folk where is the American politician, in command of a viable national stage, who is ready to challenge the dysfunctional Muslim world as much as Bush has? McCain maybe; Obama and Clinton forget it. Bush has given Islam a chance to prove that it can come into the modern world. Extremely knowledgeable people about Islam have also supported this. Daniel Pipes and Bernard Lewis are two of them. So what say you, all those who think Bush an idiot, a retrograde, an ignoramus, to whom do you look for inspiration and enlightenment in America, in the West, who are powerful, knowledgeable, capable and electable?

My larger point here is that defeat of Islamic totalitarianism will come in stages and expecting it all done at once is evidence of truly ingenuous thinking (although well intentioned). Defeating what Islam has in store for the world will take mankind the better part of a century. Accurate knowledge of Islam (which so many who post here have) is not enough. More is needed. Much more. And, unfortunatley, it will take time, like a century.

"He said the shared enemy [those conducting Jihad, through various means, including but not limited to terrorism treated as qitaal (combat), campaigns of Da'wa, deployment of the Money Weapon, demographic conquest] demanded closer trans-Atlantic ties."
-- from the article above

We have at this point two candides. Neither one is nearly sufficient in his grasp of this problem. One, McCain, apparently is willing to go down with the ship of fools that is the Administration, and its mad pursuit, and squandering of men, money, materiel, to bring "democracy" to "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East. McCain talks of "victory" in Iraq without telling us in what that "victory" would consist, and a "victory" can only consist, for Americans, in an outcome that weakens the Camp of Islam. A unified, even prosperous Iraq, will not weaken the Camp of Islam, will not have allowed the ethnic and sectarian fissures within Iraq to grow, and to have desirable destabilizing effects on the immediate neighbors, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. McCain is too easy on himself, for he does not follow the matter further, until even he would see that the Iraq policy, or the Tarbaby Iraq policy, does not make sense. McCain, like Bush, is a sentimentalist, and wishes good things for people rather than seeing some of them as an dangerous enemy that needs to be weakened. Nor does he see that the very best policy will be one that will force Muslims themselves (and long before that, force Infidels) to understand that the political, economic, social, intellectual and moral failures of Islamic states and societies are a direct result of Islam itself. That is niot hard to show. The themes have been adumbrated, and more than adumbrated, at this webiste many times. McCain will have to jettison his insistence on clinging to Tarbaby Iraq, and he has to begin by seeing that "war" is much more than a matter of the merely military.

What about Obama? He is opposed to the war in Iraq, but his opposition does not appear to be of the right kind. After all, Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill were also early opponents of the war, and their worldview is a dangerous one. It is clear that Obama has some kind of notion -- he's a sentimentalist like McCain -- that his very being, as the son of a Kenyan father, and his childhood years spent outside the United States, somehow make him particularly sensitive to, and particularly attractive to, others who would otherwise be unsympathetic to America. It's the kind of thing that puts one in mind of the teacher who choose books for students to read not on the basis of literary merit, but solely on the basis of the racial, ethnic, religious, or other background of the writers.

Barack Obama may be fascinated by his own heritage, and may have all sorts of racial or postracial or transracial consideratoins that may begin to fascinate others, but at this point, the most important foreign policy question is how to rescue Western Europe, the historic West, from growing and seemingly inexorable islamization. Can someone who looks to Kenya for a genetic memory that he has made much of, and to a few years as a child in Indonesia for what is essentially merely a variant on the sinclair-lewis babbittish "travel-is-so-broadening" idea, be expected to feel keenly what is happening to France, Italy, Great Britain, and all the other countries under assault, and where a new kind of transatlantic alliance is necessary, is indispensable --will Barack Obama, with his declared interests, background, and affinities, feel this need as keenly as he should, as he must?

Wilders is wrong.

If we stop holding up the Al Sa'ud, Al Qaeda will take the whole country, turn off the spigot, and Western culture will go down the tubes.

That is why, endless Hannity-style BS about "environmental Nazis" is wrong, and why James Woolsey is wrong.

The issue of whether global warming is a danger (it is, IMO) is absolutely MOOT in terms of the fact that AS LONG AS THIS ) *&^-UP COUNTRY HAS MOST OF THE WORLD'S LIGHT SWEET CRUDE — AND IS EVER-SO HAPPY THAT THE IRAQI PIPELINE IS ALWAYS FULL OF HOLES SO THEY HAVE TOTAL WORLDWIDE CONTROL — THEY ARE IN CHARGE OF US. PERIOD.

Wilders needs to put a sock in it on this one. Oh yeah, right, Geert, let's let the Al Sa'ud all get their throats cut and let Al Qaeda run the world oil economy, instead of the debauched, indolence rich princes having multiple prostitutes in Marbella and Ibiza shrines to the sexuality they indulge in while denying it to everybody else.

We are all watching a slow motion train wreck. The US has reached its peak and is actually in decline. The new enemy alerted us on 9/11 but the government and state department run around like a Chinese fire drill and get nothing done. They haven't even got a consensus on who the enemy in the WoT is seven years later. How can the military do it's job?

The Saudis have been pulling the wool over the eyes of younger generations for nearly forty years and the discontent left is helping. Mr. Wilders is truly a voice crying out in the Wilderness.

Will the decent Americans one day end up like the Maronite Christians and the Druze in Lebanon, living in the mountains with their guns and their iron 'no surrender' wills?

Morgaan Sinclair, I believe that Wilders is saying that we should hold the Saudis accountable for what eminates from their Wahabbi country. They are not our allies, they also should know that if the Western economies go into recession, less oil will be bought. The Saudi's should also know that we will take the oil fields if we think they will fall into the hands of the likes of Ahmidinijad. I cannot believe that Al Qaeda will take over Saudi Arabia, Ahmadinijad is still a threat to Sunni rule in the region. The Sunnis and Shi'ites in Iraq have not yet joined hands around the campfire.

Bush should demand that their oil production be increased. The war against Islamo-Fascism is going to get hotter, sooner or later. I wish it would start now, I would hate to go to my grave not knowing who won.

Morgaan, do you think we should just close our eyes to what they are doing?

rishika: The US is not in decline but merely in another repose which is not warranted. It will eventually awake from its slumber, as it always has before.

Morgaan Sinclair: If Al Qaeda takes over SA (not to be confused with the Sturmabteilung, though there is an uncanny resemblance in ways) it will not mean the end of Western culture. Please, get a grip.

Hugh: There is no one's opinion whom I respect more than yours on this site but to state, however conditionally, that Obama's opposition to the Iraq war does not "appear" to be of the right kind, is not defensible in light of Obama's foolish statement to the effect that he is ready to meet with the Iranian leadership without pre-conditions. The tyrants of the earth will eat Obama for lunch if he is the guy sitting in the Oval Office.

We're nice to Saudi's because we need their oil and have had a pact with them since it's discovery. However Geert is right on.....You Go Geertie!

What do I think?

I think we have NO LEVERAGE to get anything done with the Saudis at all. They own us.

The only people having impact right now are the NGOs. They raise so much hell about human rights issues that the Saudis MUST pay some attention — the Iranians, too — but governments are powerless, as is the UN.

I prefer the Al Sa'ud to what comes next. That's all I'm saying.

And JOB #1 FOR EVERYBODY IN AMERICA IS TO GO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY AS FAST AS POSSIBLE (BUT BACK-END, NOT FRONT-END ALTERNATIVE FUEL ... SWITCH GRASS, not corn!!!) AND THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD POUR AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE INTO THE BEST-LOOKING NEW ALTERNATIVES: metallurgical packing, radio-wave salt burning, sonoluminescence, etc.

Otherwise, we have only to look forward to the President of the USA groveling and Abdullah tossing him a humiliating crumb in public.

But what's worse is Al Qaeda owning the country (you think THOSE guys are going to be supportive of women's rights??????) and shutting the whole country down in 3 months.

who is ready to challenge the dysfunctional Muslim world as much as Bush has?

Wellington,
And just how much has Bush "challenged" the Muslim world?

"You're with us or you're against us" went the way of the dinosaur.

His only real challenge came in the first year of his administration, before 9/11. That was when he said he wouldn't deal with Arafat. But when he needed friends he quickly reopened negotiations with the Palestinians, once Arafat was dead. He continues to deal with Fatah. How is that any better than dealing with Hamas? Both harbor the same goal: the destruction of Israel.
His only real challenge to them has been: what can we do to show you how much we love you?
Look at what we're doing: refusing to speak of jihad, lest it offend Muslims.
TRUTH HURTS. But President Bush would rather not hurt.
In any case, it doesn't matter what any of us think of President Bush. We could put him on a pedestal and it would make no difference. He will still be out of office in about nine months. His vice-president isn't running to succeed him. None of his likely successors fill me with confidence but that doesn't matter either. Barring some political cataclysm, one of them will take the oath of office approximately nine months from today.

Cheers for Geert.

PMK: You're correct about Bush backing away from his Churchillian challenge of 2001. Unfortunate indeed, though remember all the stupid flack he got from all four quarters of the world for precisely that challenge (just as President Reagan did when he called the Soviet Union the Evil Empire), itself indicative of what the leader of the free world faces and how theory and reality have a hard time on most occasions forming a rendez-vous. But the fact remains that Bush is prepared to challenge the Arab Muslim world still to this day more than any other major Western poltician. Go ahead, prove me wrong on this one.

That's part of the reason why he was received so cooly in the Arab world this week. You see, whatever faults Bush has exhibited, and they are there, there is no one waiting in the wings to do better than he has (which should in itself be demonstrative of the problem we face). McCain is another Bush (I don't mean this in the stupid negative way that Obama supporters do) and he will be the best the West will get for now, if elected. Everyone else is worse. Not good. We're drifting.

"I think Islamization presents a threat to the public safety of the entire West, including the United States," he told UPI. "Direct and indirect dangers are present in (Muslim) politics and culture."

He said the shared enemy demanded closer trans-Atlantic ties.
-from the article

No argument Geert, but what will Europe do in response? Islamization is affecting your society more than ours. What are Europeans doing to combat Islamization? You don't need US help to defend your own cultures.
It takes two to make a relationship. You may support the US but what about your countrymen? What about the rest of Europe? How many equate fundamentalist Christians with Islamic radicals and think America is just too religious? America cannot fight Islam alone.
No, we CAN fight Islam alone but we might not win if we are alone. Your movie shouldn't be the end of your involvement in this fight. It should be the beginning. You may support Bush but he'll be out of office within a year. What will you do to further the cause of freedom if a Democrat is elected? What are you doing that will survive the next president?

What if a US president turns his back on Saudi Arabia? It might alter the balance of power and have other unforeseen consquences that might jeopardize the flow of oil to Europe. Are you prepared to live with the results of such an action or will America be blamed for the state of the Middle East all because we said good-bye to Saudi Arabia?

I see no indication that the USA is going to seriously develop alternative sources of fuel until every last drop of oil is pumped out of the ground and used up (if in fact that ever happens, which is far from certain). The oil-money machinery is too well entrenched to ever let any serious effort to replace them succeed.

What do you think the Saudis would do if we suddenly started making fuel out of "switchgrass" and somehow managed to reduce our purchases of Saudi oil by 50%? Why they'd suddenly find a way to reduce their prices to bring their oil into competition with switchgrass gas, that's what they'd do, and they'd drive the switchgrass refinery right out of business. Then they'd jack the price of crude right back up.

No, we are stuck with the Saudis unless we start drilling in our own back yard, which will suddenly start looking much more attractive in the face of $8 per gallon gasoline and a deep recession. The Chinese are already drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Are we going to let them suck out all our oil?

This country is run on money and oil. The Saudis have both. Sucks, don't it?

Please, somebody tell me I'm wrong.

"We're nice to Saudi's because we need their oil" --Bonniea

Exactly. End of story. If they didn't have oil, we wouldn't be giving these desert Barbarians the time of day. For us, a horrible geographical accident. Aside from oil, we have nothing in common.

cumulusnine: You're certainly not wrong about our need to drill for oil in our own backyard but you can thank silly Democrats, wussy Republicans and extremist environmentalists for why we haven't. A moronic trinity to be sure. And there's no end in sight to this national stupidity.

Ilamification of the west to create better business profirs useing islam[submission]as
the key mode of control it can be the only answer to whats going on.

I applaud this man!!

but I would ask all of these fine folk where is the American politician, in command of a viable national stage, who is ready to challenge the dysfunctional Muslim world as much as Bush has?

None; not one of the American politicians frankly, have been more opposed to islam that has bush -- and bush is the best friend islam and the saudis have!

You raise a troubling question indeed; I regard bush as a traitor for many reasons that I will not go into here -- and I was one of his loudest backers on 9/12 -- but I have to wonder about a man who as a child, killed frogs with firecrackers strapped to their backs, according to many sources.

Is the man a psychopath who mimics emotions but has none -- for his fellow man let alone his country?

He knows how to psycho analyize people and situations and seems to know the right buttons to push for great effect; but does he have the national interest at heart?

And bush is the best we got -- I have no dispute with this notion; I submit that this fact should be a very scary realization for any reasonable person to consider.

I fail to see how the future bodes well given the line-up of bush's successors.

In a word, I believe our nation is pretty well F--KED; and it is only just getting started!

Wellington,
It's why I take Wilders' words with a grain of salt. Europeans want Americans to act but what are Europeans willing to contribute to the fight? Moral support doesn't cut it.
Wilders is a brave man for standing up to the Islamists who threaten HIM but he is calling on the president of the US to act. Where is Europe? Why isn't he instead calling on Europe to do what it can to help us? But all he can do is criticize Bush. Meanwhile, Europeans won't act and they call on America to take action but once we even begin then we're savage warmongers.

You said:
Bush is prepared to challenge the Arab Muslim world still to this day more than any other major Western poltician. Go ahead, prove me wrong on this one.

I ask:
Show me. How is Bush prepared to challenge them? It's been seven years already! Osama bin Laden should be dead and buried. Where is the challenge? Is spending billions of dollars building up Iraq and Afghanistan some kind of challenge? Looks more like jizya!

Witness,
Bush is the best we got? What if he is?
He'll be gone in nine months, home to Texas.

Witness,
Bush is the best we got? What if he is?
He'll be gone in nine months, home to Texas.

Posted by: PMK at May 19, 2008 8:08 PM

I pity the frogs in Texas and wonder if there is a firecracker shortage looming on the horizon in that part of the country.

We are in a world of doo-doo big time.

Hugh,

You posed the following question about Obama ...

Can someone who looks to Kenya for a genetic memory that he has made much of, and to a few years as a child in Indonesia for what is essentially merely a variant on the sinclair-lewis babbittish "travel-is-so-broadening" idea, be expected to feel keenly what is happening to France, Italy, Great Britain, and all the other countries under assault, and where a new kind of transatlantic alliance is necessary, is indispensable --will Barack Obama, with his declared interests, background, and affinities, feel this need as keenly as he should, as he must?

Posted by: Hugh at May 19, 2008 4:48 PM

The answer is no, Obama does not "feel this need as keenly as he should" to resist islamization. In fact, he doesn't even recognize the enemy ... do you think his muslim background is having an influence on his thinking when he comes out with inanities such as ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/opinion/16brooks.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

excerpted ...

The U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.” He knows these movements aren’t going away anytime soon (“Those missiles aren’t going to dissolve”), but “if they decide to shift, we’re going to recognize that. That’s an evolution that should be recognized.”

"legitmate claims" of Hezbollah and Hamas?

Excuse me?

Here's hoping that McCain pins Obama's ears back for that remark at some point in this campaign.

Pelayo ...

Greetings [s] ...

Of COURSE I do NOT think we should ignore what the Saudis are doing. I am only saying that without the USA right now, the House will collapse. If the House of Sa'ud collapses there will be (1) a bloodbath in the peninsula, disrupting oil supplies, (2) the Royals will all be drunk or in the sack with somebody and the terrorists will win, disrupting oil supplies, and (3) Al Qaeda will enable every bad guy in the world with oil and shut down everybody else. Now, I dunno why that is so hard for people to get. Just the stock market crash alone if the Al Sa'ud collapsed would be a worldwide disaster. Of course, the Royals, who own about 10% of American banking already and a bunch of real estate and 80% of our mosques will flood into the USA in robes and be pandered to by the rich and famous and then abandoned.

You have to remember that these guys WANT the end of the world, so entertaining notions like Al Qaeda wouldn't take the Kingdom and shut down worldwide oil supplies is foolish in the extreme.

That leaves us with the problem of how vicious they are on human rights. What do you do about that?

You ransom all the stuff they want from us, and they DO want some stuff from us.

(1) Stop all student visas until human rights issues are COMPLETELY CLEARED UP. They REALLY want to own US education.

(2) Ban all foreign contributions of ALL kinds to US religious institutions, educational institutions, etc.

(3) Shut down ALL immigration and tourist visas until they meet basic benchmarks.

Will this make them mad? Yes.

What will they do about it? Play with our oil supply.

So, what do we do??????

AS FAST AS POSSIBLE WE GET OFF FOREIGN OIL and work on getting off it altogether.

Woolsey is a great resource on this and is advising McCain.

If we reduced transportation consumption by 5%, we'd be off FOREIGN oil.

If we switched to plug-in cars rather than gas-fillers, we'd be down 18%, because oil used to power electrical plants is a far more efficient use of oil than putting it in your car. So you get 5x as much transportation energy out of a plug-in car than a gas-filler using the same amount of oil.

But truly, if the USA wants to do something for human rights on this planet, DO AN EINSTIEN OR AN EDISON AND CREATE A WAY OUT OF THIS.

As long as oil is our principal means of energy, we are hostage to it, and oil is the most corrupting influence BY FAR on the planet.

Remember, the only way to deal with a bully is actually to get off the gameboard, because bullies, who have no ethics, will take every shred of energy you give them and turn it into a weapon against you.

So the only solution is to STOP GIVING THEM ENERGY IN ANY FORM. Shut them out. Remove their ability to make money to fund terrorism.

I just cannot figure out why conservatives would rather have a fight over environmentalism just to
"be right" while leaving the biggest threat to our national security complete intact.

"American relations with Saudi Arabia should be revised," he said

Revised? Yes indeed, more kissing is in order. 'Kiss me once and kiss me twice and kiss me once again'.
Bush and the King have a...relationship. The conman and the conned, holding hands and kissing in the garden...Isn't that just to precious??
I wonder if President Obama also will kiss the King? I guess we may find that out...

"Islam's growth is the greatest threat of this century and we need to interact more on how we (the United States and the European Union) will protect traditional Christian and Jewish (territory)," Wilders said. "I see America as an ally in that fight."

I don't particularly disagree, but I think this is a short-sighted formulation.

I don't quite understand (or at least I hope I don't understand) why western thinkers seem to go for this angle so consistently.

The fact is that a HUGE part of the world's population is either Hindu, Bhuddist or Pagan, and those populations are equally under threat by the same enemy.

This is a world-wide issue folks!

I'm pretty convinced that it will take a world wide alliance of sorts to defend human freedom and civilization from the jihaddi threat.

Don't get me wrong, I'm convinced of the superiority of western civilization. It's just that that is not the only issue here.

At issue is the survival of any civilization, or even folk culture in the face of mohammedan imperialism. And it is an issue in which everybody has an equal stake, from the wealthiest sophisticates of Chicago, Osaka, Prague and Sidney, to the most naive and humble yam farmers of central Africa and Brazil, and the fields of rural Thailand.

What is needed is a world-wide coordinated and cooperative resistance movement.

Am I primarily concerned about the welfare of western civilization? Sure. But it doesn't help me if the jihaddis get Thailand or Sierra Leone. On the contrary. Every inch of human ground they capture is lost to the cause of freedom.

We have to get off the parochial and defensive view.

If we have to make a stand on the walls of the Alamo, we'll do it.

But why plan for it?

We MUST bring the fight to the enemy. And one of the essential steps is to surround them completely with a cordon of determined coordinated resistance.

GO GEERT! I'm going to have to try that Dutch beer. I'm assuming that Muslims don't work at breweries; the color of the beer might disguise some unwanted additives.

I just bought some Danish cheese today, in honor of those valiant cartoonists!

LOL, duh_swami! Bush and the King are married, don't ya know. Didn't you catch the photo of Bush walking him down the aisle? They make an unusual couple, but they look very happy together. :-D

Holding hands? I think the King is holding on to something else and won't let go!

In Europe already $ 8,00 gasoline prices.
Some have a dual system in their car, they have what they call, "Benzine" like our gasoline and then an extra tank in their trunk for the cheap
"GAS". When they have the system in their car, they drive on "GAS", in case it is not available when they travel, they switch to "Benzine".
It is very limited available here in the U.S.
Why is it not more available here???
Switching to a dual system will not be cheap.
Give the people a tax break for the price they pay for instaling. The low income people give them a voucher of a certain amount to help with the cost.
The people of the Netherlands hate, that there soldiers are in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They hate the site of Burkas, Chador and Hijab, not learning the native language. How they are abusing the system. The same discontent as here in the US.
Bush was just in Saudie and asked if they would increase the amount of oil that is pumped, but is was denied.
What is the answer??? Too much politics involved and it will take a lot of time before we can switch over to an other source of energy
Too bad, that gas is not only used for our cars, but also for many other products. If they could use an other source it would be a big help.

Wilhelmus van Nasouwe
Ben ick van duytschen bloet
Der Vaderland getrouwe...

Geert Wilders tells it as it is. Sa'udi Arabia, the fountainhead of Wahabbism, is indeed part of the problem rather than part of the cure.

Geert does call on the governments of the Netherlands and Europe, but the Dutch political leaders have isolated him and call his warnings and questions "seeding hate".
It is the old story: the one that brings the message is blamed for the message.
Geert has to live underground and has guards with him around the clock. Nobody seems eager to arrest the ones that are threatening him. The Dutch say: "you should have kept your big mouth shut".
The Dutch leaders are afraid to offend the growing Muslim population, setting new standards for freedom of speech and they arrest people (cartoonist Nekschot, for example) who make use of this right. No, we cannot count on our leaders to take a firm stand against the radical Muslims.

joeblough - you wrote 'it doesn't help me if the jihadists get Thailand'.

I agree. We have to care about *all* the threatened lands. My heart would break if those glorious Thai dancers were stripped of their exquisite costumes and smothered up in the hideous black burqa and niqab, never to dance again.

There was a news item posted about a de facto sharia state in part of Pakistan - in which there was going to be a ban on 'MUSIC AND DANCING'.

Think about that. Now: we won't even begin to think about what that would mean for the Russian Ballet, or 'Riverdance', or the Berlin Symphony Orchestra and the Vienna Philharmonic, or the Kings College Choir.

Let's go outside the West and think about Japanese kabuki and Chinese opera and dragon dancers; Hawaiian hula; Thai and Indian temple dancers, Native American drummers and dancers; google 'The Tenth Dancer' and see if you can find a profoundly moving documentary about a woman who was almost singlehandedly reviving classical Cambodian dance, after Pol Pot had slaughtered nine out of every ten such dancers (she was one of the 10 % surviving).

I could go on, and on, and on. It makes me want to scream, to think that there are madmen in this world - men in Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons; mullahs in Iran, which is racing to acquire nukes - who seriously intend to obliterate,who spend their time feverishly scheming how they may forcibly obliterate, from this world....music, musical instruments, singing and dancing.

We could also think about traditional Islam's ban on the visual arts: the representation of animated forms is officially anathema, not merely inside the mosque, but everywhere: even though in some times and places (Persia, Mogul India) lax practitioners of Islam did manage to push the boundaries.

Again, leave aside the immense treasury of Western art (try to catalogue it; try to imagine the sheer, shuddering horror if St Paul's in London or the Sistine Chapel in Rome was seized by the Mohammedan mindless barbarians, as Hagia Sophia was seized and, as Charles Williams put it: 'the most beautiful church in Christendom became a mosque'. What would happen to Chagall's glorious ceiling, painted for the Paris Opera? To Da Vinci. Giotto. The Ravenna mosaics. The Pompeii paintings. The Pieta. The David. Rodin's Burghers of Calais, and The Kiss?).

Think, instead, of all the rest of humanity's extravagant creativity, Pacific and Polynesian, Eastern and Southern Asian, southern African, sculptures, totem poles, Maori tiki figures; and native Australian art (we have caves, and caves, and caves, some layered with twenty thousand years' worth of vivid, lively, historically and spiritually significant paintings or engravings of humans and animals and spirit beings, many of them - the Quinkans, the Bradshaw figures, the enigmatic Wandjina - extraordinarily beautiful.) Tibetan mandalas.

And the insane followers of Ubul Kassim Ha-Meshugga, in their blind desire to destroy, want to erase it ALL, just like we saw them doing to the Bamiyan Buddhas.

Ishaq: 204 - “‘Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man [Muhammad]?’ ‘Yes. In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.’

Well: all mankind, if it wants to be able to go on laughing, loving, painting pictures, carving sculptures, singing, dancing, and enjoying the sight of women walking in the sunlight with their long hair shining, be they dressed in the bikini or the grass skirt or the kimono or the sari, is going to have to wage war right back!

This is a world-wide issue folks!

joeblough,
So where is the world? If the non-Muslim world decides to fight it then it will be defeated. But too many would rather sit on the sidelines because they are under no immediate threat. Many harbor a secret pleasure at seeing the US brought low. Palestinians weren't the only ones who celebrated 9/11.
It affects Hindus but India thinks it's only obligation is to defeat the Muslims within India and control Pakistan. It doesn't see a worldwide issue. It sees only what is in its own backyard.
Until even countries that have never known a serious jihad decide that this affects them too, they won't join the fight. Until they do, we're on our own. Muslims who oppose the radicals will also have to join in. They can create a serious insurgent force if they were so inclined. So far there is no reason to believe they oppose these radicals enough to fight against them.
A country like Thailand will have to take unpleasant steps to rid itself of this plague, but do they want to? Are they prepared to fight fellow citizens? I'm not sure they are. Political correctness is not confined to the US and Europe.

dumbledoresarmy:

You certainly address my personal sentiments in the matter square on.

And you put it quite eloquently. A world without music or dance ... one shudders to think.

Cultural desertification to be sure.

========

The particular point I am raising in that post is that while the jihaddis in southern Thailand, to continue with that example, undoubtedly have contacts with and at least informal understandings of mutual support with jihaddis elsewhere and their paymasters in either Arabia or Persia or both, I doubt that the Thai resistance has much contact or support from outside Thailand.

And it should. And we would all benefit thereby.

And the same goes for India, Africa, Malaysia, Bali, etc, etc...

And I will add the other Christian parts of the world, like f'rinstance Central and South America!. The tri-border region between Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay is a rat hole of jihaddi activity, (encouraged no doubt by the likes of Chavez).

It would be well, I think, for Wilders and most other western folks who comment on these matters to broaden their attention to include non-white Christendom and the non-western world in their concerns and efforts.

PMK

Point taken.

PC, exclusive concern with one's own country, and plain damn laziness and wishful thinking are and will remain sources of difficulty.

All I am saying is that we should see and speak of this as a global issue, and aggressively seek to find willing participants in a world-wide resistance. I have little doubt that such people are out there to be found in every country of the world, regardless of how foolish their gov't may be.

And I believe it is particularly incumbent on those prominent in the cause, like Wilders, to keep this in mind and act on it.

PMK: You asked how is Bush prepared to challenge the dysfunctional Arab world? As I mentioned in a previous post, Dennis Prager just the other day played Bush's address to a collection of Arab honchos while in the Middle East last week. Bush chastised them for keeping folks in prisons who merely have different ideas from Arab leaders (this was particularly directed at Mubarak), for preaching hate in their schools, for not developing their economies and for letting half their populations languish in dire poverty. Now, you may say that's not enough and that would be true, but my point is that what other Western politician has gone to the Middle East and criticized the Arab Muslim world to their faces?

Bush receives a lot of criticism here at JW, some of which I agree with and some of which I don't, but I would argue that Bush is 1) the best the West has for now with no prospect of an electable candidate who is clearly better and 2) Bush made the assumption (which apparently he still holds to) that Islam has been hijacked by radicals and that a good Islam exists that can be rescued from the nutjobs. Many others hold to this, for instance just about every other Western leader and scholars of Islam like Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes. Personally, I don't think this is the case and I find the entire Islmaic faith, as I believe you do, fundamentally flawed and incapable of being rescued. I do believe it may be just barely possible to have a shell of Islam observed in some Muslim countries and have a semi-functioning democracy along the lines of the Ataturk model (which itself is in trouble in Turkey). But even here I have become increasingly doubtful.

Since I think this struggle against Islamic hegemonic impulses will go on past the foreseeable future, I look at the American effort in Iraq (and Afghanistan) as an almost necessary first chapter in what will be a very long war. If the Muslim world blows the chance that America, way too good for the Islamic portion of the earth in my opinion, has given it to rescue itself from all the hate and idiocies that plague lands wherever Islam is dominant, then it will have been demonstrated to virtually all that the Muslim world is hopeless and then we can go from a divide and conquer strategy to what will, in effect, be an all out hostility to, and war on, Islam. My deepest regret here is that good American young lives had to be spent on a region of the world which has been poisoned by Mohammed's creed. Even if Bush's gamble pays off (and it doesn't look so good, does it?), this particular regret is really not diminished by any such success. Damn the Islamic world for what is. Deep shame on it. I'm sick of it, as I know you are.

Good engaging in another give and take with you. I think our similarities on this matter eclipse our differences. Take care.

http://www.local6.com/news/5182853/detail.html

This from Texas in 2005:

"A cab driver in Dallas, Texas, was allegedly caught on surveillance video sprinkling dried fecal matter on cookies and pastries at a grocery store, according to a Local 6 News.

Behrouz Nahidmobarekeh, 49, is on trial for allegedly throwing the feces on pastries at a Fiesta grocery store.

Police said that during an investigation, they found a pile of human feces by his bed. Investigators believe Nahidmobarekeh would dry the feces, either by microwave or just letting it sit out, grate it up with a cheese grater and then sprinkle it at the store.

"(We are) unable to identify him; just a young boy, maybe 3 years old, on the surveillance tape you can see him eating one of the cookies and that's the worst part about it ,I think."

Attorneys in the case were unclear about a motive in the case.

Prosecutors will show a surveillance videotape of the defendant, which shows him sprinkling a substance on the food.

The FBI arrested Nahidmobarekeh but turned the case over to local prosecutors after they determined it was not a national security issue."

" ...I think the king is holding...."
Champ

You naughty girl you!!!