"The Muslim faith disqualifies him from leading the Muslim nation because he is comparable to an infidel"

Sp just why is he comparable to an infidel? Because he's not imposing sharia?

IMO, the Barbarian Mohammedans are the Infidels.

"Kill the Infidels" and "Slay the Unbelievers!"

How do you like them apples, Barbarian Mohammedans? You like your Koranic commands in reverse?

We need to give you a taste of your own medicine.

darcy, that what I've been saying for a very long time. I hate it when our side calls us "infidels".

We believe in the Ten Commandments. Or some close variation thereof laid down in our Laws. I include Hindus, Buddhists and all others than moslems as respecting these basic Mandates as expressed in the Ten Commandments.

To adhere to these moral precepts does not make one a Christian or a Jew. It makes us Humans. I simply don't know the equivalent texts of the other Great non-Western religions but I know they follow these Divine Principles just as we do.

Which is exactly what has made them vulnerable to islamic aggression as we are now.

Which makes us anything but "infidels".

It actually makes us something far better than "infidels".

But we have to come to terms with the fact that this is also our Achilles' Heel.

Until we find the appropriate response without losing our very essence - hard-won as it is - we will continue to suffer despite our Superiority in virtually every field but perfidious and mindless aggression.

""The Muslim faith disqualifies him from leading the Muslim nation because he is comparable to an infidel"

Is that because he believes in women's rights, fair trials, polio vaccinations, and loves BET TV>..

The subtext of this story is something that is often overlooked here at JW, that there are divisions in the Muslim world that transcend sect and ethnicity. I'm referring to ideological divisions...they exist and we ignore them at our peril.

Just as Maliki in Iraq is preferable to Al Sadr or the AQI, just as Karzai in Afghanistan is preferable to the Taliban, and just as the local warlords in Somalia are preferable to the Islamic courts movement, so is Mauritania's current junta certainly preferable to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. The same can be said of the governments in Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, all of whom are bona fide allies in our war against Islamic terror.

Those who advocate cutting all ties with the Muslim world are - I believe - short-sighted. We ought to prefer the battle-ground against Islamic terror to be centered in Dar ul Islam, not Dar ul Harb. And that won't be the case if we abandon our friends and clients there.

Excellent point, Cornelius. I'm with you. I don't like Islam but that shouldn't translate into a refusal to work with some Muslims against others. Divide, conquer (i.e. Western norms triumph) and prevail should be the strategy. Figuring out the nuts and bolts of how to do so with individual leaders of Islamic states, who ideally would emulate Ataturk, would be the tactics.

Cornelius, Wellington,

Haven't we BEEN working with some Muslims against the others? We keep looking for the "good" Muslims. WHERE ARE THEY? Divide and conquer hasn't worked yet. They keep playing us for fools, making us think that if only we give their organization or resistance movement some money, they'll be able to rise up against the current ruler. They've been playing divide and conquer, and it's been going fine. What country are we going to spend billions in next?
Turkey was our ally during the Cold War. Once the perceived threat ended, so did the alliance. Its only basis was military, at the end. Ataturk didn't leave a clone of himself. Sure they're part of NATO but it's clear (or should be) that they are not friends of the US. Islam trumps our alliance, as the Iraq war proved.
You don't cut off all ties but you don't pick sides either. It's more a case of standing back and letting them fight and KEEPING THEM OUT.
We ignore the divisions in the Muslim world at our peril? We involve ourselves in their divisions at our peril. It's their fight.
Which Muslims do you think would make good allies? Which Muslims are willing to co-exist with the rest of us, even in cases where they think they hold the upper hand?

Is that because he believes in women's rights, fair trials, polio vaccinations, and loves BET TV>..

Posted by: pu

--

Not even! He only believes in the slow jihad.

Ummah Gummah

you might find it helpful to read these two articles, side by side.

This one is a classic:

http://antiprotester.blogspot.com/2006/04/life-in-iraq-part-ii-civilization-of.html

Friday April 28, 2006: Life in Iraq Part II, A Civilisation of Deception. Posted on The Autonomist web-site.

It states the Problem, unforgettably. It discusses the Civilisation (??) of Deception - of aggression and suspicion and fraud - that is fostered by Islam. The 'case study', so to speak, is Iraq; but the phenomena he's describing seem to prevail pretty much everywhere else in Islamosphere.

This one

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000157.html

contains, I think, some good ideas as to how Civilisation might respond to the Muslim Barbarians.

Be patient - you have to scroll down slowly, reading the whole thing. Let the ideas sink in.

The advice seems to boil down to this - Punish the Cheaters.

To be frank - Islam is a Religion tailored for Cheaters, for "Screw the Other Guy", an ideology that encourages its adherents to place themselves outside of, to consider themselves superior to, unrestrained by, the principles of Reciprocity and Agreement that have governed all halfway decent human civilisations and belief systems.

So: they're Cheaters. Islam throws the Golden Rule right out the window. It openly and expressly *teaches* people to be Cheaters, to Screw the Other Guy (the Other Guy, the Designated Prey, is *supposed* to be the non-Muslim, the person who has obstinately refused to join the Cheaters' Gang; but Muslims seem to be able to find plenty of excuses to Cheat other Muslims, fellow Gang-Members, as well).

OK. Then the rest of us, the non-cheaters, have to come down on the cheaters like a ton of bricks. We have to inflict Consequences, at various levels, but with resolute consistency, whenever the Cheaters break the rules of decent human conduct.

We need to think about how the Thuggee cult was dealt with; or the use of RICO to tame the Mafia.

But there is stuff that can be done at neighbourhood and street level.

Ummah Gummah - you're a New Yorker. Read Malcolm Gladwell, "Tipping Point", chapter four, 'The Power of Context: Bernie Goetz and the Rise and Fall of New York City Crime', especially section 3, on how the work done by Wilson and Kelling, then applied by Kelling and subway director David Gunn and William Bratton, sorted out the subway, from graffiti to fare dodging and then, under Giuliani, extended their campaign to the whole city, with quite remarkable results.

At street-level, here and now, this will entail things as simple as encouraging and supporting non-Muslim cops in non-Muslim countries, when they have to enforce the Law of the Land upon Muslims as well as non-Muslims: starting with the small stuff, like traffic violations and welfare fraud.

Think about it. Read Gladwell's discussion of the effect of 'broken windows' and then reflect on the nature of the Stealth Jihad. It struck me, when I read that section of Gladwell's book, that Muslims - consciously or unconsciously - *set out* to *create* 'broken windows', to 'run things down', to create a crime-friendly environment.

That's a level at which ordinary non-Muslim citizens, in areas encroached upon by Muslims, can fight back. We have to muster the energy, whenever Muslims actually or figuratively break windows, to undo that 'window breaking', to Enforce the Law of Civil Conduct. Every time they try to push a kafir off the street, the kafir has to muster the courage to refuse to be pushed aside. We *are* still in the majority. We can do it.

NO more 'sensitivity training' - instead, we'll teach our cops what's in Mr Spencer's and Mr Ibrahim's books, and Mr Fitzgerald's 'Islam 101'.

And our cops in their big black boots, with their dogs, will march unannounced, search warrant in hand, right into any suspect mosque, or any Muslim suspect's house (just as they do to kafir crooks!) any time that jihadist/ criminal activity is reasonably suspected.

And if and when Muslims riot and start burning cars or churches, and especially if they attack policemen and police stations, the 'big guns' will be called in earlier rather than later, to hammer them flat.

We're dealing with a deeply sociopathic gestalt. We can't give it an inch.

PMK: I concede upfront that your position may be the better one. But I would offer the following counters to your assessment: 1) You maintain that divide and conquer hasn't worked yet. Well, perhaps this approach needs more time. As Harry Truman observed, strategic patience is imperative. Look how long it took to win the Cold War. Besides, are you really willing to just assume that more Ataturks are not out there? 2) Why, specifically, when we involve ourselves in the divisions of the Muslim world do we do so at our peril? Arguably, isn't this precisely the opportunity we should seek and relish so that some Muslims look to the West for security and other good things and thus do our bidding and not others (e.g., a regressive Russia or a thug-led China, both only too willing, and foolishly so, to align with and allay the most obnoxious elements in the Islamic sphere, in large part because of stupid animosity towards the West)? 3) Muslims who would make sensible allies (I hesitate to use the word "good") would include Tunisia, an Iraq far more dependent on America than perhaps it realizes, Jordan (yes, playing both sides but that's precisely why we should woo the Hashemite monarchy, which, after all, knows which side its bread is buttered on) and very possibly Mauritania, now run by a sensible bloke, it seems, who should be embraced, at least temporarily, precisely because Islamic radicals hate the guy.

Your turn.

PMK: "Turkey...it's clear (or should be) that they are not friends of the US. Islam trumps our alliance, as the Iraq war proved."

RESPONSE: The Turks did not support the invasion, but neither did they oppose us. Kuwait, Qatar & Bahrain all DID support us without conditions. Islam did not trump our alliances with these countries.

PMK: "Which Muslims do you think would make good allies?"

RESPONSE: The Kurds of Iraq, Algeria, Tunisia, and Mauritania, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Morocco, Tajikistan, Kirghistan and others...continue to cooperate with us on a myriad of issues.

"To be frank - Islam is a Religion tailored for Cheaters, for "Screw the Other Guy", an ideology that encourages its adherents to place themselves outside of, to consider themselves superior to, unrestrained by, the principles of Reciprocity and Agreement that have governed all halfway decent human civilisations and belief systems."

So: they're Cheaters. Islam throws the Golden Rule right out the window. It openly and expressly *teaches* people to be Cheaters, to Screw the Other Guy (the Other Guy, the Designated Prey, is *supposed* to be the non-Muslim, the person who has obstinately refused to join the Cheaters' Gang; but Muslims seem to be able to find plenty of excuses to Cheat other Muslims, fellow Gang-Members, as well).

"OK. Then the rest of us, the non-cheaters, have to come down on the cheaters like a ton of bricks. We have to inflict Consequences, at various levels, but with resolute consistency, whenever the Cheaters break the rules of decent human conduct."
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy

A great second link , quite interesting. The will to "go there" is slowly moving ahead, others will catch on as the ideas are set into motion.

The fight against islam will change, it is changing even now. Poison gas was first used in WW-1 , and other sides quickly responded with it's use as well.

That was the "Tit-for-Tat" of that era, or at least close. By seeing the "advantage" of this weppon leave, it's use became history.

The enemy of islam has weakness, it has to be understood and acted on. The weekness and opening to counter islam is vast.

The enemy of islam has not yet met the policy it has followed for centurys, served to all others, and it must be given a seat at the table, set in their actions.

Served with a healthy dish, from free thinking people of the free world. The fight will not end with islam's next attack.

Only with islam understanding the end of jihad has come. It's use becomes history, it has made the journey.

All I can say is:

THANK GOD THAT WE ARE INFIDELS!

Wellington,

1. Are you prepared to go forward blindly, assuming that there are more Ataturks out there? If there are, it is up to THEM to show themselves, not up to us to seek and discover them. They're like men from Mars. We can't base our policies on an assumption that they exist and will appear when the time is right. We have extended a hand in friendship more than once.
During the Cold War, we knew who the enemy was and, more important, so did the people the enemy ruled over. We KNEW they wanted to be free. Many risked their lives to get out and some of them lost their lives in the attempt. Those that made it to freedom didn't set out to establish Communist outposts in the West.
Today, every Muslim is our friend until he actually kills someone. To think otherwise is considered bigoted. WE cling to the notion that no one in those twenty-odd Muslim countries really wants to live under Muslim rule, that he will fight against it with all his might. IT'S NOT TRUE!

2. We imperil ourselves by involving ourselves in their fight in two ways:
-the immediate one is our people die because they are there fighting on one side or the other.
-the more insidious one is that we actually fool ourselves into believing that those we side with also side with US. We'll hear how we can't abandon our friends and we must bring them to the US if they lose their fight. Look at Somalia. We have all those Somali refugees and what are they doing? Setting up their own enclaves. They wouldn't pick up travelers carrying alcohol. They want to impose sharia law in their own way. They aren't here to become Americans. They are Muslims in America, nothing more. Look at Detroit. Look at Dearborn.

3. "Jordan (yes, playing both sides but that's precisely why we should woo the Hashemite monarchy, which, after all, knows which side its bread is buttered on)"
And what makes you think the Hashemite monarchy will make a good ally? How much more money are we going to have to spend to woo them? Divide and conquer will not work. They're playing both sides. They won't stand by us if we're in trouble. They can't be trusted BECAUSE they're playing both sides. Their friendship is for sale to the highest bidder. It's up to us to drop out of the bidding.
- "an Iraq far more dependent on America than perhaps it realizes"
Here again, dependence doesn't make an ally. We are expected to spend billions every month in the forlorn hope that we can count on Iraq when the chips are down.
Our only "sensible" allies are those whose own existence is threatened. Remove the threat and the alliance fizzles.

All we can hope for are allies WITHIN a country. The people aren't our allies. They never can be, as long as Islam is the law of the land. I used to think it was just another religion. I have since been disabused of that notion.

Cornelius,

The Kurds of Iraq prove my point. They are a piece of the country and their existence as a free people depends on us. What happens if the Arabs move into the Kurdish area, beyond Kirkuk? Or is the US supposed to guard Kurdistan in perpetuity?
By being there, we will be drawn into THAT conflict when it comes, and it will. Neither side will trust us.
What Muslim country that is not dependent on the US for some form of protection is our friend?
How many of these allies treat their non-Muslim populations with anything approaching respect?
Cooperating with us on issues is a far cry from being allies. The Soviets cooperated with us on a myriad of issues during the Cold War. That didn't make them our allies.

Cornelius,
Which Muslims are willing to co-exist with the rest of us, even in cases where they think they hold the upper hand?
Expecting help from the US in fighting their own terrorist problem doesn't make them our allies.
Look at the people in Pakistan. Suddenly, they're going against the Taliban. The people of Iraq are going against al Qaeda or whoever is killing people in Iraq. In both cases, it took a spate of local deaths for them to join the fight. Until then, they sat back and watched.
Even though they've seemingly joined the fight, they are not looking for freedom. They are still looking for Islamic supremacy. They still want US to submit to THEM.

PMK,

Your speculation on the future of Iraqi Kurdistan is...well, speculation. I'm not at all convinced that an Iraqi civil war is imminent.

For the sake of argument, let's hypothesize and say that you're right...but let's assume the Iraqis keep a lid on things until the bulk of our forces has departed in 2011, as per the recent Iraqi-US agreement.

Do we sit idly by and hope the two sides destroy each other? Or do we follow the advice of Hugh Fitzgerald, and send material support to the Kurds? You seem to be assuming that any inter-Muslim conflict is beneficial to the West. I suggest that it depends on the duration of the conflict and who eventually triumphs.

PMK: "Cooperating with us on issues is a far cry from being allies. The Soviets cooperated with us on a myriad of issues during the Cold War. That didn't make them our allies."

RESPONSE: Absolutely true, but their value as the meat-grinder that exhausted the Warmacht is indisputable. Had the Soviets collapsed in late '41 or in '42, our war with Hitler would have been prolonged mightily. Our decision to help them as the lessor of two evils was absolutely in our best interests, just as is our assistance to moderate Muslims who need and deserve our support.

I guess I see the conflict through a less ideological prism than you do. Islam must certainly be fought on an ideological level, but the effective practice of geo-political statecraft necessitates - in my humble opinion - that we don't fall into the trap of perceiving all Muslim entities as equally malevolent.

PMK: Well, then, following your advice would lead, would it not, to effectively, if not actually, decaring war on the entire Islamic world? No Muslim nation need apply as an ally. We will help no Muslim because all are enemies. Good-bye to the new leader of Mauritania, to King Abdullah, let's leave Iraq forthwith, to hell with Tunisian co-operation and so on. OK, be careful what you wish for.....

Where we are in agreement, though, is that Muslim immigration to America must stop and any Muslim nations we would help in the future must know this and if they don't like it, too bad. And if they won't do business with us unless we allow more Muslims into America, then too bad; we stop doing business with that nation.

Guys,
America didn't start this war. We have not been looking to destroy the Islamic world. Not even Thomas Jefferson sought to destroy the Islamic world. THEY WANT TO DESTROY US!
Until ISLAM changes, there is nothing we can do.
How is standing back declaring war on the Islamic world? That's Muslim thinking. Unless we help them we want to destroy them? What is wrong with just getting out of there and letting them rot?
They have to choose freedom. We can't choose it for them.
As long as ISLAM has as its central goal the elimination or subjugation of all non-Muslims, then what are we to do?
I'm not suggesting we fight them. I'm saying we should keep out of their internecine feuds. If they want to be our allies, they know what to do. And it's NOT playing the other side against us.
We drop out of the bidding for their friendship. Make them want US as friends. How is THAT a declaration of war?

Where we are in agreement, though, is that Muslim immigration to America must stop and any Muslim nations we would help in the future must know this and if they don't like it, too bad. And if they won't do business with us unless we allow more Muslims into America, then too bad; we stop doing business with that nation.

Posted by: Wellington

THAT"S IT! LEAVE THEM BE!

Doing business with us? They know what we expect. They won't give it to us. Why are we obligated to help them in that event? Leaving the Muslim world is NOT a declaration of war. Keeping out of their feuds is NOT a declaration of war. What Muslim nation do you want as an ally? What Muslim nation do you trust, AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, to not only not work against the interests of the US but to end the dhimmification of its non-Muslim citizens and to welcome non-Muslims?

PMK: "What Muslim nation do you trust, AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, to not only not work against the interests of the US but to end the dhimmification of its non-Muslim citizens and to welcome non-Muslims?"

RESPONSE: I read recently where Iraqi Kurdistan was welcoming Christian refugees from other parts of the country.

PMK: "Keeping out of their feuds is NOT a declaration of war."

RESPONSE: But it is short-sighted.

I'd rather we try to retain some influence in that realm, rather than become passive by-standers.

Hugh Fitzgerald himself has written as much, advocating differing levels of intervention on behalf of the Kurds of Iraq, the African Muslims of Darfur, and the Berbers of North Africa.

PMK: I trust no nation. Not one. After all, countries don't have friends. They have interests. I might trust an individual leader who governs a decent nation (e.g., Margaret Thatcher while PM), but that's about it. As for a Muslim ally, I'll use one of Cornelius' favorite examples: Tunisia. Would you be prepared to tell Tunisia that cooperation with it is over because it is a Muslim nation?

Cornelius,
We're damned if we do, damned if we don't.
If we involve ourselves, we're butting into their "internal affairs". They are sovereign countries. When we leave them alone, we are ignoring the situation. We can't win, so why should a single American die on their behalf?

You keep bringing up Iraqi Kurdistan. It is not a country. It is a province of a sovereign nation. Until Iraqi Kurdistan is separated from Iraq it is not a COUNTRY we can do business with. The relations go through Baghdad.

Wellington,
Is Tunisia preventing the movement of funds through its country to al Qaeda?
Where is Tunisia in the war on terror? Will it stand with us or with its fellow Muslims?
Is Tunisia providing free and equal rights to any and all non-Muslims, or have they already driven them out? What are they doing to combat terrorism? Just last year two Tunisians tried to kill a Danish cartoonist. They want jihad. Is that being heard in Tunisian mosques?
Tunisia has a long history of working with the US but that doesn't mean they aren't working against our interests RIGHT NOW.
Cooperation doesn't mean we have to fund their economies and it doesn't mean we have to send our young men and women to fight on their behalf.
We cooperate with a lot of countries. The problem is that now "cooperation" is interpreted as "foreign aid". They want money from the US BEFORE they'll work with us. All cooperation must be paid for. That's not cooperation. It's extortion. If Tunisia is not imposing such a condition, terrific.

http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/07/denmark-tunisian-terror-suspects-to.html

PMK: Do you have direct knowledge that the Tunisian government is facilitating in any way funding for al Qaeda? I don't, but would be interested in any information you have respecting this. In fact, from what I know, the bigwigs in the Tunisian infrastructure (an exception here or there being possible) probably loathe al Qaeda and their ilk. Look, I believe it to be the case that Tunisia and certain other Muslim governments have provided us with valuable information about Muslim extremists over the years. Assuming this is the reality, are you prepared to say we don't want such information any more, that we're done with exchanging information with such governments? (And, yes, to be sure, some foreign aid greases the wheels of this interaction---welcome to the real world.)

Look at Jordan over the past half century. Covertly it has exchanged intelligence with Israel about Muslim terrorists. Would you want this to stop?

You know, William Lloyd Garrison and Abraham Lincoln both wanted slavery to end, but the former took positions quite at odds with the 16th President, such as saying that the Constitution was a pact with the devil, while the latter pursued a more moderate course to advance slavery's ending (like offering the slaveholders of Delaware compensation for emancipating their slaves or even advancing the idea that a Constitutional amendment would get his support which stated that slavery in the existing slave states would remain unless said slave states themselves abolished it). Who was the wiser of the two, do you think? Idealism is fine, in fact it is to be relished, but I prefer the Lincoln variety over the Garrison brand.

PMK: "You keep bringing up Iraqi Kurdistan. It is not a country. It is a province of a sovereign nation. Until Iraqi Kurdistan is separated from Iraq it is not a COUNTRY we can do business with. The relations go through Baghdad."

RESPONSE: You're splitting hairs here. Iraqi Kurdistan is a self-governing, autonomous region. Its militiamen have fought and often died side-by-side with US forces over the last 5 years.

Meanwhile, we get excellent security cooperation from Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Mauritania, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and others. The Bahranis are currently supporting us in naval maneuvers in the Persian Gulf. You can't refute this.

You recently claimed on another thread that there is no Muslim we can trust anywhere, this while Muslim Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to fight and die alongside our boys. Sure, there are going to be double-agents, as in any war...but to say this negates the trustworthiness of those who continue to prove themselves in battle, is hardly a rational argument.

You keep re-stating your position, without any effective refutation. I think we've gone as far as we can on the issue. As they say, let's agree to disagree.

Up with Moorish Infidels (especially those with diplomatic ties to Israel)!