Hamad al-Majed can see it. Is it only Americans who can't perceive the disaster that the post-American President is already? And it is doubtful that he will improve.
"Saudi Columnist: Obama Will Be President of the 'United Collapse of America,'" from MEMRI, November 25 (thanks to all who sent this in):
In a November 16, 2009 op-ed in the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Hamad Al-Majed, founder of the Saudi National Human Rights Association and a lecturer in education, mourns the U.S.'s military, political, and economic collapse. He pointed out that the U.S.'s failures are affecting many countries, and that the countries fighting terror should be particularly concerned.Al-Majed writes that Barack Obama is the first black president of the United States of America, but may also soon be president of the "United Collapse of America."
Following are excerpts from Al-Majed's op-ed:
"The acknowledgement, in a survey [by] the U.S. military, that the morale of its troops fighting on the Afghanistan front is plummeting does not surprise me. It would be surprising if morale were not plummeting. The hardest thing for any army in the world is to convince its soldiers and brigade commanders of the benefit of the war.
"Such a survey is a good indication that these troops are not sufficiently convinced [of the justice] of the war. This is why the Taliban's morale is higher and its fighting is better than those of the alliance led by the U.S. The number of volunteer fighters in the Taliban's ranks has doubled... as has the number of their attacks...
Why should they be convinced of the justice of the war? They're fighting for one Sharia entity against another -- and meanwhile Obama is trying to make concessions to the enemy Sharia entity. It's madness.
"As the morale of the American troops [in Afghanistan] falls, the morale of the American troops in Iraq rises - not because their fighting situation is any better, but because the U.S. government has informed the troops in Iraq of the beginning of a gradual withdrawal from [that country]. [...]"On the economic level, several American banks collapsed recently and declared bankruptcy. These banks join several more respectable American banks that went bankrupt as Obama began his term in office. Also, the unemployment rate [is evidence of] collapse - so much so that it looks to the observer like a car with no brakes going [down a slope].
"If the U.S. sneezes, the entire world catches a cold. Its political collapse in its war on terror, together with its economic collapse, have made the entire world sink into a political and economic quagmire. No one knows how our star will emerge from the maelstrom.
"The failures of the U.S. in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia will have an impact on the countries that are fighting terrorism and extremism. These countries must prepare for the stage that follows these collapses and retreats - because there is no critical American/Western victory on the horizon in the fight against [extremism and terrorism].
"Obama fought tooth and nail to be the first black president of the U.S., and he was successful at it. But in the future he may also gain the title of 'President of the United Collapse of America.'"
Hang in there, Hamad. November, 2010, is coming, and after the Republicans sweep congress, it'll be a party in the UCA.
""Such a survey is a good indication that these troops are not sufficiently convinced [of the justice] of the war....It would be surprising if morale were not plummeting. The hardest thing for any army in the world is to convince its soldiers and brigade commanders of the benefit of the war."
It is not the "justice" of the war that soldiers worry about -- it is that the war appears, to the most discerning, the ones who have observed how meretricious are the local "allies" (in Afghanistan as in Iraq), how unlikely they are to remain "allies" once the money stops, to be pointless, to be based on assumptions about "our Muslim friends" that miss the central point of Islam. And that point, one more time, is this: Muslims are taught that the distinction that counts among men, the only distinction, is that between Believer and Unbeliever, Muslim and Infidel.
Maybe al-Majed can persuade the Saudi government to stop its own funding of terrorism via all the mosques it's building throughout the world and staffing with Wahhabi imams; and instead use a few hundred billion of its ill-gotten petro-dollars to help pay for the war on terrorism. Or maybe he can't.
True enough, Hugh, but I believe there is another element in the mix in addition to that distinction between believer and non-believer. Perhaps not as fundamental, but still relevant. That element is a growing lack of confidence in our current civilian leadership, beginning with the President. Rightly or wrongly, soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen will go through walls if they have confidence in their civilian leadership, but morale will quickly collapse without it. Those in the military in Afghanistan know that our civilian leadership's heart is not in this war - they have no strategy, cannot articulate what constitutes a win, cannot and will not name the enemy, and are only looking for a way out - an "exit strategy." If I were still in the military, I would also be disheartened.
The more time goes on, the more it appears that American involvement in the Muslim world should be limited to Special Operations and some tactical diplomatic initiatives. Iraq has been the laboratory experiment and the results here are inconclusive when they should have been by now not inconclusive. Further working with Muslims against other Muslims would be unwise to rule out (just as working with Communist Tito against Communist Stalin proved beneficial or President Nixon's creating a futher wedge between Communist China and the Soviet Union did), but it should be limited in scope and with an understanding (just as in the Cold War with Marxism) that there is no good Islam, only a more passive kind and a more active kind. Again the essencs of the issue is the realization by Western governments and peoples that Islam, all of Islam, bodes ill for Western Civilization.
To follow up here, the guy presently in the Oval Office will remain clueless forever about Islam (and much else). Obama should be seen by all sensible people as a temporary annoyance, a brief obstruction, to the West finally prevailing over a system of thought that would destroy the West if it could.
In a weird way, I think this crazy, mixed up Muslim actually expects the US to save Islam from the extremism and inhumanity it itself generates. No way! only the Muslims can save Islam, most easily by leaving it.
From article..."Obama fought tooth and nail to be the first black president of the U.S.
Now 'that's' funny...Rasool Obama never fought 'tooth and nail' for anything, he was propelled upward by a large discharge of hot gas, he's still up there, but he's starting to fall...And he's not the first black US President, Bill Clinton has that distinction...
To state it bluntly, most Muslims globally are hoping that the U.S. and all other non-Islamic nations fail. Being unable to question or criticize Islam, many Muslims genuinely believe that an Islamic theocracy under Sharia law is only just and acceptable way to run a society. This recipe for certain disaster and obscene cruelty is laid out as plain as day in the Islamic texts. Until the day that Muslims themselves are willing and able to abandon Muhammad’s evil creed, they will continue to work and hope for the implementation of Sharia everywhere. Taken in totality, Islam is pure darkness the likes of which the world has never seen before.
As for Obama, it cannot be any clearer that this guy does not understand or does not care about the very real threat that the Islamic religion poses to all of mankind. My money is on he doesn’t care. I am betting that all that Obama really cares about is Obama and riding off into the sunset on the horse that this empty suited narcissist has hoodwinked from the American public. Ali Sina made a great comment awhile back, something along the lines of -- Obama will leave the world a much more dangerous place. Damn sure looks that way. It is looking very likely that, aside from a handful of good decisions, made mostly by the odd wise person of integrity that he has surrounded himself with, this fake is going to mess things up Big Time.
So what happened to the comments? At the bottom of the article, it says there are 7 comments, but when one clicks on this, one gets just one comment.
So now they're back! Reminds me of the days of Intense Debate.
This is a terrible article. And, quite frankly not one worthy of the usual
( but decreasingly) high standards of Jihad Watch.
I feel that this is one of the most important blogs on the internet and the scholarship of Robert, Hugh and the rest is invaluable. However, this site has turned away from one of its initial principals, that being: "the fight against Jihad and Islamic supremicism is not a liberal nor a conservative issue"
The problem, as I see it, is that anyone with moderate to liberal leanings, who may visit this sight out of curiosity is going to identify it as a dreaded "right wing! website".
As Robert has indeed become a new darling of the right ( I feel he should be the darling of the right,left and in between ) his postings concerning Obama have, for a large part, gone from thoughtful insight to cynical speculation. Combine that with the overwhelmingly conservative bent of the comments and what you have is forum that, unnecessarily, alienates some of its best possible allies.
As of now, the conservatives have done a much better job of identifying and confronting the spread of political Islam. However, to a large degree, liberals have even more to lose. But as this country (USA) drifts into ever increasing political polarization, people end up going primarily to news services that give them their news with the political slant they are looking for. (Just look at how little honest and constructive dialogue there has been on the whole health care issue.) My fear is that many people who are "liberals" won't even give this site a chance. Should they? of course Will they? many will not.
IF we are to win this war with political Islam, we must do it as Infidels of all types.
Please take this post in the spirit it was meant There is so much great stuff on Jihad Watch. Let's not limit it's audience unnecessarily
I think you are being extremely naive and gullible Saleem if you think Obama does not know and understand islam. He was born to a Muslim father adopted by a Muslim stepfather and all his genetic family are Muslims.In fact Granny who we were told was a Christian before the election is even now at the Haj in Mecca.
Obama practiced Islam while in Indonesia, regularly attending prayer services at the mosque. He was registerd at BOTH the schools he attended as a Muslim and one of those schools Franciscus Assisi was a Catholic run MULTI FAITH International school According to one of his Indonesian school principals, Tine Hahiyary, the young Obama studied “Mangaji” (or “Mengagi”), which involves the recitation of the Quran (or Koran). Note that Mangaji, in Indonesian schools, requires learning to recite the Quran in the Arabic language, not the student’s native tongue; non-Muslims or even moderate Muslims would not send their child to Mangaji classes it is for DEVOUT Muslims only . Mangaji is much more demanding than what is expected of a Christian child who attends “Sunday School.” Obama likely was taught to read and write in Arabic, to recite from the Quran, and study the laws of Islam. (In his book, Dreams From My Father, Obama relates, “In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies.”) Although Obama may insist he was never a Muslim, many Indonesians wonder why Obama is hiding his Muslim past. Former classmate Emirsyah Satar (now CEO of Garuda Indonesia) states that Obama “…was quite religious in Islam but only after marrying Michelle, he changed his religion.”
He can recite the Shahadah flawlessly and in perfectly accented Arabic as a result of his mengagai training. He is also on record as saying the Muslim call to prayer is 'the most beautiful sound on earth' and also that 'if things get rough HE will STAND with the Muslims' and in afredian slip sais 'MY Muslim faith'.
No its CHRISTIANITY this Muslim does not understand and what he is when he denies his Muslim past??? is a LIAR.
I respectfully disagree with you Wally. This is a great article. Mr. Barrack Hussein Obama, due to a number of unfortunate circumstances, has managed to acquire the most powerful and influential position on earth. He is president of the United States of America. The USofA has always been and will always be a true beacon of light despite the challenges and mistakes that those who call her home may make over time.
Who is this guy Obama anyway - other than smooth-talking feel-good charmer with a great memory and the uncanny ability to tell people what they want to hear and avoid or re-frame what they don’t? Look at how ignorant and harmful his views on Islam are. This speaks volumes.
So what if the left is turned-off. They are largely deaf anyway. Reality will likely make them tune-in soon enough. JW just gives it to you straight and factual.
Interesting comment Realist. In so far as Obama being a closet Muslim I tend to agree with you. When the psychological profile on this guy is completed and becomes widely known, the world will have a much different opinion of him.
Much like the depraved butcher of Arabia, Obama’s formative years were very unhealthy and they took there toll on him.
Spot on, Realist! ...excellent post! Obama most certainly does know the ins and outs of islam and the qur'an, and I get annoyed when I hear people say things, like, "Obama is so naive about islam" ...blah, blah, blah. My gawd, THEY are the one that is naive.
SaleemSmith,
I am very curious about your upbringing and circumstances that led to your apostasy. What was different than other muslims, who are never able to see the obvious evil?
How do we make them see the light? Any suggestions/ideas? :)
"The acknowledgement, in a survey [by] the U.S. military, that the morale of its troops fighting on the Afghanistan front is plummeting does not surprise me. It would be surprising if morale were not plummeting. The hardest thing for any army in the world is to convince its soldiers and brigade commanders of the benefit of the war."
--from the Saudi article
U.S. troops--especially Marines--are trained to fight and defeat an enemy.
Gen. McChrystal's proposed policy of not allowing airstrikes nor going after the enemy (Taliban and whoever else attacks our troops) if there is a chance that Afghan "civilians" might be hurt or killed, as well as troops trained to fight expected to do social work, is not a morale booster. Quite the opposite in fact.
We all know about trying to identify "civilians" and distinguish the ones who might or will kill U.S. troops from Iraq. In Afghanistan, Afghan "security" forces have turned on NATO troops and killed them.
Moreover, the absence, since the General was appointed to head the war in Afghanistan, of any clearcut policy nor of a definition of "victory"--except for the Iraq-like turning the war over to the Afghans, and letting them try to defeat the Taliban--does nothing for U.S. troop morale.
Then there is the problem of the U.S. armed forces' "commander-in-chief."
The troops that I have spoken to do not hold him in high regard.
When I mention how I feel about him, I get no argument.
From post above...The problem, as I see it, is that anyone with moderate to liberal leanings, who may visit this sight out of curiosity is going to identify it as a dreaded "right wing! website".
Liberal/leftist/communist/Marxist's are mentally challenged people with fixed delusions...'Anything at all' that bumps their delusional system is automatically labeled 'right wing hate'...Personally I have no interest in convincing these people about anything. They don't need to be 'convinced', they need to be defeated...2010-2012-or sooner would be appropriate...A powerless liberal is a good liberal...
"Liberal/leftist/communist/Marxist's are mentally challenged people with fixed delusions...'Anything at all' that bumps their delusional system is automatically labeled 'right wing hate'...Personally I have no interest in convincing these people about anything. They don't need to be 'convinced', they need to be defeated...2010-2012-or sooner would be appropriate.." - duh swami
Agreed. Why in the world would I be interested in going to Daily Kos or Huffington Post? And I certainly don't expect those Libs to fashion their articles with conservative me in mind!
For JW to fashion it's articles to accommodate Liberals would be sheer lunacy! That would defeat the whole purpose of JW as the Leftists defend Islam! Hello!
To some extent, I agree with you, Wally. JW should not be a forum for gratuitous liberal-bashing. However the struggle against the Islamic conquest of the world is fought on many fronts, and on most of these, the liberal-left is on the wrong side.
1) Military -- The LL has for decades endeavored to diminish American (and European) military strength, reducing our ability to combat Islamic aggression directly.
2) Culture -- The LL has embraced the PC-MC insanity, denigrating our own culture and heritage while boosting Islam. And the LL has awarded "victim status" to Moslems, giving them special privileges and protections, to the extent that at present the Moslems are the "top minority" in the U.S. Their "rights" trump those of everyone else, even those of the feminists and homosexuals.
3) Demography -- The LL has for decades defended mass abortion and population control (in the West), so that our indigenous populations are declining, while our enemies' numbers soar.
4) Immigration -- This is closely connected with (3). The LL has for decades supported virtually unlimited immigration, flooding the West with Islamic 5th-columnists.
5) Energy -- The LL has for decades opposed efforts (especially in the U.S.) to develop our own energy resources and reduce our dependence on Islamic oil. They destroyed the American nuclear power industry, once the world leader. They have closed vast areas of great potential to any exploration for oil. They fight tooth and nail against any expansion of our energy capabilities, whether a new power plant, or a new refinery, or a new pipeline. They DO support pie-in-the-sky schemes like solar power, wind energy, and gasohol, which can at best supply only a few percent of our energy needs, and which depend on tax subsidies, and thus on federal bureaucratic control, for their viability. All this has only increased our dependence on imported energy, and enriched and strengthened the Islamist enemy.
It must be admitted that the LL does support the expansion of mass transit in our metropolitan areas, while the Right in general does not. Here at least the LL is on the intelligent side. But there has been much more talk than action.
6) Security -- Again, the LL for decades has done its best to limit the ability of our intelligence and security agencies to counter Islamist activities. Federal agencies have been prohibited from exchanging information. Police forces are prohibited to "profile". In the name of PC (see #2) Islamic moles have been enthusiastically recruited into our armed forces (see Fort Hood) and security agencies.
Thus there are many issues that are closely connected to the Jihad issue, and I think that they are fair topics for discussion in JW. I'm certainly not the first to point this out. I know that Hugh, among others, has at length discussed the financial jihad, the demographic jihad, and the cultural jihad.
From Darcy... Why in the world would I be interested in going to Daily Kos or Huffington Post?
I did that once and immediately started morphing into a toad...I shook my head really hard and took a shower...I fully recovered in a week...
Too bad our biased main-stream media won't report this.
SaleemSmith wrote:
So what if the left is turned-off. They are largely deaf anyway
To a large degree the Leftist establishment may be, but many of the people who happen to identify themselves a as center or left of, are not. The message of anti Jihad should, and often does resonate with them.
duh-swami wrote:
Liberal/leftist/communist/Marxist's are mentally challenged people with fixed delusions...'Anything at all' that bumps their delusional system is automatically labeled 'right wing hate'...Personally I have no interest in convincing these people about anything. They don't need to be 'convinced', they need to be defeated...2010-2012-or sooner would be appropriate...A powerless liberal is a good liberal...
Thank you, you just proved my point
Darcy wrote:
Agreed. Why in the world would I be interested in going to Daily Kos or Huffington Post? And I certainly don't expect those Libs to fashion their articles with conservative me in mind!
Again, Kos and the Huffington Post (which does have stuff of value from time to time) are LIBAREL blogs. THeir goal is to push the liberal world view in all of it's manifestations. Jihad watch is a Subject specific site. Bashing liberals who turn a blind eye to the Jihad or facilitate it is 100% legitimate. However, it often goes far beyond that
and digresses into name calling and character attacking that brings down the credibility of any serious site.
Ebony Stone wrote:
Thus there are many issues that are closely connected to the Jihad issue, and I think that they are fair topics for discussion in JW. I'm certainly not the first to point this out. I know that Hugh, among others, has at length discussed the financial jihad, the demographic jihad, and the cultural jihad.
I agree that every topic is worth discussion on it's own merits. Although #3 is a bit of a
stretch. Abortion is one area where the conservatives, sharia, and myself seem to agree.
But on all those other topics it is not as simple as Liberal vs anti jihad.
When Clinton was decreasing the size of the military ( and the deficit ) I am guessing you weren't protesting that we would not be able to fight the Jihadists. (if so I apologize) most of us saw the threat of Russia as being greatly reduced.
Immigration into Europe in particular has been facilitated by both sides of the chamber.
Energy dependency? well, I won't even touch that one.
All these subjects have many angles that have nothing to do with Islam. So accusing the other side of being soft on or even pro jihad because they may take the "wrong" side" is counter productive.
Is it only Americans who can't perceive the disaster that the post-American President is already? And it is doubtful that he will improve.
No, he won't approve. This dude is a living breathing Affirmative Action doll, with his sidekick Michelle doll. We're sleepwalking now, have been since the ex-hippies too over.
Eight yrs after 9/11 and we have a born Moslem schooled in the world's largest Moslem nation during grade school, who did a small-time Moslem real estate mogul with questinable connections, who was the key lawyer in setting loose the blizzard of federally-funded voter fraud when he counseled them on how to play the registration process, a guy who launched his political career in the living room of two anti-American terrorists of the Weathermen branch.
*** 92:8 ***
No, Prez Obama has no upside. The outlook now is bleak, with a man who was fast-tracked to the top by his benefactors with such great certitude that Barach wrote his autobiography while stil in his 20s. A braggart, a dumbass, a poorly educated Ivy League Man, a con, a committed globo-socialist, a dyed in the woool Marxist.
*** 70:1 ***
But Prez Obama does have a downside. He could suffer a losing streak during which Obamacare, Cap n' Tax, and Immigration "Reform" are all defeated.
This would be a blow to the Big Plan in which Barack and Harry and Barney and Nance and Waxman and all the team work together in the cause to convert America to socialism.
If those 3 conversion bills go down, this pampered effet egomaniac president of ours will turn his energies elsewhere, overseas. And that means Moslems, for good or bad.
LOL. Thanks for the chuckle.
And, concerning a current topic: You know the old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?"
Well, JW ain't broke.
And, concerning a current topic: You know the old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?"
They used be fond of that saying in Detroit.
Wally, not everyone here IS a dyed-in-the-wool conservative.
I once flirted with the Communist party of Canada-Marxist-Leninist, but I didn't like their global scope. I was only interested in doing something for Canadian poor and workers, ie, getting actual training and education programmes that are available to federal EI recipients open to provincial welfare recipients, that sort of thing. Also, I don't really give a shit about who owns what industries, just as long as employers would give someone on welfare or in a homeless shelter a chance at a job (these folks are usually rejected out of hand, in my experience.)
As for the demographics argument above, I'm all for a smaller worldwide population; it would certainly help solve a lot of environmental pressure, and take the pressure-cooker lid off overcrowded cities. It seemed to me that the world was quite a bit better off down around a population of 3 billion, whereas the present level of nearly 7 billion seems to just add misery to misery, and is the OTHER reason western countries, all bundled up with guilt, seem to want to allow all these surplus third-worlders to come to the West (thereby adding to "carbon footprints" and other leftist bugaboos - but they don't DARE talk about population and immigration as it relates to environmental degredation.) I also think it's damned retarded to keep the immigration rate so high here, when so many Canadians are out of work as it is; and I dislike the attitude of employers who say they'd rather hire someone from Pakistan because "they're such hard workers", than give a fellow Canadian down on his luck a chance.
I also despise hunting unless someone absolutely needs to for food (which to me would limit it to stone-age people, basically.) We raise and kill enough domestics to feed ourselves. I once heard a quote attributed to Mohammed, which to me would appear to be one of his rare, better pronouncements - IF IT'S TRUE - that he told his followers that Allah gave us the cattle and sheep and goats, what more do you need? Don't be so greedy as to go out and kill the wildlife, too (though it didn't stop Muslims from nearly wiping out the oryx and the bustard and other midestern animals for sport. It always did kind of bother me that, whereas the old testament has some rules for treating your animals kindly - feed them before you eat, and such, which is only wise advice - neither the old nor the new testament really has anything about treating nature kindly, or even leaving it the hell alone.) And yeah, I think they should keep the alaskan wildlife refuge closed; I'm sure there's more marginal land from where oil may be gotten; the Alberta Tar Sands were never, from what I've heard, an ecological paradise, thanks to all that toxic oil mixed in with the soil.
Yeah, these things will probably make my conservative friends here look askance, but we're not really here to talk about those things are we?
We're here to talk about the threat of Jihad and creeping islamization in non-Muslim countries.
That, to me, is a subject that should cross ALL other ideological lines that we might quibble about amongst ourselves here in the West, because Islamists threaten ALL of us, whether one is a gay atheist environmentalist or a fundamentalist Christian who thinks that god will come save us all from ecological disaster, or just a plain, average, apolitical type who just goes to his job every day and has a drink after work, as well as the chronically unemployable loser begging on the streetcorner who is just trying to survive day to day.
And that's what I'm here for, because I do give a damn about my country and the principles on which it was founded.
"If it ain't broke then don't fix it"
Is a clever enough ipse dixit.
But when you work it both ways,
We can't tell what it says;
So it all depends now on who picks it.
I recall Bush getting beat up pretty good here at JW, and deservingly so, so I don't subscribe to the theme that Obama shouldn't be rightfully criticized as well for fear of alienating liberals, for in reality, it is liberals and liberalism that currently provides support and cover for Islam.
Wally's use of the term "political" Islam is quite revealing, but he should try to remember that the truth is the truth no matter who utters it.
Yes, Bush was criticized, deservedly. But it was nowhere near to the degree that Obama has been. And maybe deservedly so.
My point is that Many conservatives are no longer able to look at Obama or his words or policies with any rational objectivity. Just as so many liberals were guilty of irrational hatred of Bush/Reagan etc..
This is not healthy for any functioning Democracy.
While I think that Islamophobia is nonsense, I do think Obamaphobia, like Bushphobia before it, is, unfortunately, a real thing.
Now that I have shared my amateur psychologist veiws on various phobias, I would be curious to know what my use of
"political Islam" reveals.
And by the way, I agree that the truth is the truth no matter who utters it. But the delivery and the context can determine whether or not some people are willing to consider it.
I welcome liberals who see the threat Islamic supremacist designs pose to all of us in the West, wally, but good luck with trying to get most of them on board here. Don't forget that modern liberalism has given us the twin idioicies of political correctness and multiculturalism, which have done grave damage to Western Civilization and the appreciation of it. Of course, many conservatives have sheepishly gone along with PC/MC nonsense, but their origins lie entirely on the Left. The modern Left also doesn't understand, indeed it smirks, at the concept of peace through strength. The Left tends to take Western freedoms for granted, not understanding that freedom isn't free.
There's an additional problem with modern liberalism and that is that, unlike modern conservatism, it has become a substitute, secular religion for many. That's why when one disagrees with a liberal on sundry topics (e.g., gay marriage, man-made climate change or affirmative action) it's not enough ordinarily for the liberal to tell you that you are wrong but also that you are a bad human being. There are those seven or eight words they use to shut down the exchange of ideas. They include "bigot," "fascist," "hater," "sexist" and, of course, "Islamophobe." And whenever a speaker is pied or shouted down or in some manner prevented from speaking in a public forum it is virtually ALWAYS those on the Left who are responsible for this infringement of free speech.
So, wally, I would very much like to see liberals wake up to reality where Islam is concerned but good luck with that. Right now, I'd have to say that the vast majority (at least 80%) of those in the West who "get" Islam are on the right side of the political spectrum respecting most or all matters.
Well said Spirit!
We are all on the same team as despite our other diferences.
Wally, thanks for reading my post. You reply: "All these subjects [imigration, energy, security, etc.] have many angles that have nothing to do with Islam. So accusing the other side of being soft on or even pro jihad because they may take the 'wrong' side is counter productive."
As you say, many of these topics have other angles. But my point was that they have SOME angles that do connect with Islamist aggression. As such, they are fair topics for comment here at JW. Their discussion might help expand the mental horizons of any leftist reader of JW. It might help them "connect the dots", as some commenters here like to say. To take my energy category as an example, there are "other angles" of our present energy policy that are detrimental to our country, such as its impact on the foreign trade balance, and its impact on American employment. For the latter, it's not just the jobs lost by not developing our own resources, it's also the loss of jobs by American energy industries. Up to the 1970's the U.S. was the world leader in nuclear power technology, so that the French (who must be considered the present world leader in the field) bought their initial series of reactors from an American company (Westinghouse, I believe). Today, what country would consider buying nuclear technology from a country that hadn't used it itself for 30 years?
You also say: "When Clinton was decreasing the size of the military ( and the deficit ) I am guessing you weren't protesting that we would not be able to fight the Jihadists. (if so I apologize) most of us saw the threat of Russia as being greatly reduced."
I must admit that the global jihad wasn't much on my mind in the 90's. But Clinton's reductions were only the latest round of a continuing trend of reducing our military power (excepting a few of the Reagan years). And the experience of the 20th c. showed that new foreign dangers were always coming along. And that a weak U.S. was an invitation for potential adversaries to "try their luck". They did so in Teheran in 1979 with success, and Saddam tried it again under Bush-1.
All the categories I mentioned have other "angles" that are not related to Jihad, but to the extent they are related, they should be open to comment at JW.
As for partisanship, many "conservatives" such as Bush-2, and McCain, have come under criticism here at JW, as Awake noted just above.
Color me different, but I see this whole issue from a very different perspective. Instead of "United Collapse of America" I see a "United Collapse of Arabia", because they do not have the intellectual and material productivity resources that does the West, so they are more in danger of "collapse from within" as their Islam implodes with Arabic neo-conservatism, now even led by the neo-con women's movements in Arabic lands. So starting with super-conservative women's movements in Islam, detailing down to the slightest way what one may do or not do, in total slavery to Islam, and ending with the spectacular economic snafu of Dubai and co, it is Arabia that is more likely to implode and rot with internal factions fighting than American. We have a long history of debate, they do not. Any dissent within their slavish ranks, whether by women or factionalism, descends very quickly into violent fighting. That will tear Arabia apart, and we should not step in to help them do so. Take away their oil wealth, and they're toast.
Sorry... the link above was to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7710822.stm
"Syrian Islamic revival has woman's touch" BBC news.
The thing is, if the US collapses, all the miserable failed Moslem states that it helps prop up will collapse, too, and don't count on the Sauds to bail them out.
They'll go first, long before our constitutionally evolved system of governance fails; the Arabian dreams of world Sharia will have failed onto the dust heaps of history.
If we were still living in pre-Renaissance, Byzantine Europe, I'd be concerned. But centuries later our legal and philosophical evolution of the "Rights of Man" have become so entrenched that we can even court self induced Liberal PCMC dangerous nonsense (and still survive) shows how much the world had evolved away from the primitive Medievalism of the past. Of course, Islam is left out of the loop, so they can't even begin to fathom what had happened to the West, and they are still stuck with that primitive paradigm of tribal fighting, something we of the Western world had pretty much eliminated (after two disastrous world wars). Let them fight it out, we stay out of the way, preferably cut off funding in support of their failing states, get away from dependence on their oil, and watch the show. It will be a spectacular collapse, fueled even more by mass desertions from Islam by average "moms and pops" so cherished by Bush and co. Simply stop propping them and watch them fall of their own primitive weight.
From Wally...Thank you, you just proved my point...
I calls em as I see's em...If that bumps into your 'point' I'm sorry for you, that must hurt a lot...
As Wellington points out..." Don't forget that modern liberalism has given us the twin idioicies of political correctness and multiculturalism, which have done grave damage to Western Civilization..."
2010...2012...sooner...
Consider this a roundabout way of supporting wally's post, though in certain ways apparently from a different angle.
I see that Jihad Watchers still see things in black and white -- Leftists/Liberals vs. Conservatives.
I used to see things this way too, but over time, I began to notice some curious, massive data: it seems that most centrists and conservatives are soft on Islam too. How could that be? I thought only Leftists/Liberals were soft on Islam! So I thought about it over the last four or five years, and I have analyzed this most curious, yet quite complex fact in dozens of essays on my blog.
This is not to say that Centrists/Conservatives are the same as Leftists/Liberals: the latter are significantly worse with regard to the problem of Islam than are the former. But the point is, the latter would not enjoy the amount of sociopolitico-cultural traction and influence they do in fact enjoy, were not the former doing their part to enable the general whitewashing of Islam throughout the West.
Part of my analysis of this most curious phenomenon has been the development of suitable terminology. Clearly, I concluded, if most Centrists/Conservatives seem to be whitewashing Islam (when they are not simply clueless about it), we cannot use terms like "Leftist" or "Liberals" to describe the situation -- and that, among other places, is where I differ from Lawrence Auster, who insists on using "Liberal" to describe every Conservative who demonstrates the effects of the phenomenon. The terminology thus breaks down, or on the other hand, using such limiting terminology, a good deal of reality goes unnoticed and thus becomes skewed.
The phenomenon therefore needs a Right-Left-neutral term: for want of a better term, I use Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism (or PC MC for short). PC MC is the descriptor for the phenomenon that has the following characteristics in terms of its sociology (and no doubt this is incomplete), while I do not, other than parenthetically in passing, include in this post its characteristics in terms of ideological content per se:
1. It concerns principally the problem of Islam, and less so other sociopolitical problems (such as health care, abortion, gun control, gay rights, public decency, etc.). I.e., we can find Centrist or Conservatives who may indeed by "conservative" about any number of these other, unrelated issues, yet suddenly when the discussion turns to Islam and Muslims, they reveal a markedly soft and naive stance (at best).
2. It is significantly larger than Leftist/Liberal, and seems to affect a majority of people one would reasonably describe as either Centrist or Conservative.
3. It is not merely the province of "Elites", but also seems to affect a large swathe of ordinary people -- from my perspective, I'd say the majority of ordinary people throughout the West.
4. Its effect is not uniform, but seems to affect different people in a variety of ways; however, there does seem to be a uniformity about its content.
5. Because of its resemblance to "liberalism", I have sometimes termed it "Leftism Lite" -- the "Leftism" part of the equation is its resemblance to liberal ideas (e.g., all peoples are at bottom the same; xenophobia is always bad, even if the xenoi in question are themselves dangerous xenophobes; only white Westerners are capable of bad qualities like xenophobia, racism, bigotry -- at least on a systemic scale; and so forth), while the "Lite" part of the equation is a way to denote the phenomenon of its state of dilution sufficient to affect the hearts and minds even of so many Centrists and Conservatives. Yes, Leftism is a singular problem: but many of its values -- specifically concerning how we respond to the problem of Islam -- would not enjoy the mainstream traction and influence, were it merely a Leftist/Liberal problem and had it not already insinuated itself into the hearts and minds of so many Centrists and Conservatives over the past few decades.
With these four sociological characteristics, we cannot locate all or even most blame on the Leftist/Liberals. We then reach a fork in the road of our analysis to explain the phenomenon:
1) Either PC MC is a broader sociopolitical problem for which the Left-Right terminology is inadequate, irrelevant, even counter-productive
or
2) There is some sinister conspiracy going on to explain the data of Conservatives doing money deals in Dubai or of the Wall Street Journal uncritically touting the new partnership of General Electric (hardly a Leftist corporation, eh?) with Islamic banking, for example; or of ordinary people showing signs of reckless naivete about Islam, etc.
#2 is clearly an impermissible explanation for defenders of the West, and rather betrays a Gnostic alienation that is, in fact, anti-Western.
To get back to wally's point now: It is reasonable to give up hope on the "Kos Kids" (i.e., the pie-throwing type Leftists); it is not reasonable to give up hope on all those millions of PC MC people out there who are neither necessarily "Elites" nor "Leftists/Liberals" -- but who nevertheless have the tendency to whitewash Islam and defend Muslims and in the process to indulge in Tu Quoque (or rather Ego Quoque), even if to a blander, more banal and casual degree than the more passionate self-hatred of the Leftist. I'm not say it will be easy to persuade a sufficient number of PC MCs; more often than not I have been reduced to an infuriated seething enraged heap of defeat in the face of a pleasantly obtuse PC MC person on the subject of Islam. But nevertheless, we must persevere. There is no other choice.
Wellington wrote:
[i]... an additional problem with modern liberalism and that is that, unlike modern conservatism, it has become a substitute, secular religion for many. That's why when one disagrees with a liberal on sundry topics (e.g., gay marriage, man-made climate change or affirmative action) it's not enough ordinarily for the liberal to tell you that you are wrong but also that you are a bad human being. There are those seven or eight words they use to shut down the exchange of ideas. They include "bigot," "fascist," "hater," "sexist" and, of course, "Islamophobe." And whenever a speaker is pied or shouted down or in some manner prevented from speaking in a public forum it is virtually ALWAYS those on the Left who are responsible for this infringement of free speech.[/i]
As a former progressive this one of the best summations of the liberal mentality I've seen in some time and why its so hard to even talk to them about Islam.
And also the reason I walked away from the progressive movement.
The sad fact you can't bring up the threat of Islam among liberals without them labeling you as some sort of racist and then equating Christianity with the Taliban and terrorism.
Liberals don't want a discussion on this and many others topics period and the only way to win many liberal readers over to this site would be to muzzle Mr.Spencer and Hugh.
Lastly the reason so many here slam liberals is rather obvious - Liberals are generally the biggest apologists and propagandists for Islam there is.
What's that supposed to mean?
"I calls 'em as I see's 'em...If that bumps into your 'point' I'm sorry for you, that must hurt a lot...
As Wellington points out..." Don't forget that modern liberalism has given us the twin idiocies of political correctness and multiculturalism, which have done grave damage to Western Civilization..." - duh swami
Bravo, swami. As usual.
And even then, really, PC/MC is basically just humane, old-liberal concepts _taken too far_ in a mindless fashion.
It's basically like sheep bleating "We're all the saaame! We're all the saaame!" --- The sheep simply can't see the wolf amongst them, because it's furry and four-legged, like them. And the wolf is intelligent, and knows how to exploit this; he knows what to do with a bunch of barely sentient sheep that have had almost all their instincts and intelligence bred from them.
Spirit Wolf -
This will be a bit of an offtopic, so other posters please ignore.
re. attitudes to creation, in the Biblical and Christian tradition.
It hasn't been articulated thoroughly, but the foundation is there, for an understanding of the nonhuman world, nonliving and living, that certainly does not lead to a 'if it moves shoot it, if it doesn't chop it down' attitude, nor to a ruthless utilitarianism.
Reread Genesis 9: the Noah story. It doesn't have to be taken literally - I myself am quite happy to go with an interesting modern reading that argues it reflects a deep region-wide memory of the utterly catastrophic infilling of the Black Sea basin, from the Mediterranean - but what matters is verses 8-17, which are the very first time that the word 'covenant' appears in the Bible.
No less than seven times - the holy number - as if to make the statement as strong as possible, for maximum reassurance, YHWH states that He has made a covenant...not only with Noah and his sons (pars pro toto: all humanity) but...with 'the earth', with *every* living creature. In verse 13 in the King James He uses the beautiful phrase, "a covenant between me and the earth". A covenant *with the earth*. And if you look at the text, it's totally unconditional.
So there, in Genesis, is the idea that the Creator binds Himself, unconditionally, to the Creation. Not just to the human part of it; but to all of it. And in the end the logic of the Biblical doctrine of creation is that the creature, all that is, from the stars down to the snails, exists in its own right, independent from us; its primary function, like ours, is not to be 'useful', but to declare and reflect the Glory. One of the Psalms says the whales are created...what for? To be oil? To be meat? No: 'to play in the sea'. That's all. *To play in the sea*. There is a dialogue: God looks at Creation and says: It is Good. '*You* are good'. Creation looks back at God and replies, '*You* are good' (see 'Song of the Three Young Men').
As for the Genesis text about 'dominion' or rule, it *must* be understood in the light of what Jesus showed us of the meaning of the proper exercise of authority: the servant king, the one who is 'servant of all'. A scientist who lovingly and patiently spends his or her life trying to understand some small obscure creature that nobody else cares about and that has no perceivable economic value, is exercising 'dominion' in a thoroughly biblical and indeed Christ-like manner.
You might like to check out these people; they are doing some good work to develop a Christian ethos and practice of earthcare.
http://www.arocha.org/int-en/index.html
They have a Canadian branch.
Dumbledore - Thank you VERY much, that's the best and most intelligent analysis of that story I've ever seen; I'm going to digest it and commit to my intellectual arsenal.
Though I have tried to use the "servant" angle before, it just doesn't seem to wash with some people.
(One might be a former pope, who refused a bunch of nuns from opening up an animal shelter on the grounds that it would imply that humans owed "duties" to animals. Another one would be the crappy Sunday school teacher who handled that one VERY badly. My question, as a small child, was "If god can do anything, why did he need to kill EVERYTHING on the planet? Why couldn't he just get rid of the people who were bad?" The reply was something along the lines that the other creatures "didn't matter". I had asked that because I was appalled by the illustration in the Children's Bible they had there - it showed the ark, with animals drowning with terror in their eyes all around. Yes, now that I understand it as a myth, the question is moot; it reflects a real-life local flood - either the one you mentioned, or a flooding of the tigris-euphrates at the same time, which would have resulted in many people and animals drowned if they didn't have a raft (like the fellow in the Gilgamesh story did) or a boat (like Noah). I also understand that myths often have some sort of basis, either in real people or events; they've just been twisted out of recognition or connection with these events because of the weird way the human mind can filter such events, and subsequent garbling of oral traditions. Personally, I lean towards the Tigris-Euphrates view, because the Sumerians had a similar story, alluded to in the Epic of Gilgamesh, about a major "worldwide" flood and a dude who built a raft and saved his family and livestock. Abraham (or the group of people he represents) came from Ur, so that's where the story would have been learned; the Hebrews .. embellished it, and inserted meaning to it.
Of course, there are those who DO want the utilitarian angle - remember James Watt? "God'll be angry if we don't use up everything by the time he gets back!" Or the Jehovah's Witness whose door I knocked on when working for greenpeace on their great lakes project in the late 80s (only job I could get). Or many of the twisted "Christians" that used to haunt Holysmoke; I would represent my question above to THEM, since they wanted to take it so literally. Their answers would pretty much be the same as that Sunday school teacher, when they deigned to answer.)
"Now that I have shared my amateur psychologist veiws on various phobias, I would be curious to know what my use of
"political Islam" reveals."
The use of "political Islam" belies an attempt to separate the bad parts of Islam from the supoposed good parts. It lends itself to the continued obfuscation of the central tenets of plain ol' Islam, not political, militant, radical, or extremist Islam. Those qualifiers are apologist terms and when used are a disservice to those who try to provide the vital education of what Islam really is. Just because some aspects of Islam are innocuous, that fact is irrelevant and they should not be credited at all.
The terms "moderate Muslims" and "moderate Islam" are absurd on their face. No other religious ideology needs to employ such distinctions, because in reality, they don't exist.
Believe me, I know all about the central tenets of Islam, and don't want to obfuscate from them at all. But it is the political manifestations of Islam ( ie. Sharia, Jihad, Dhimmitude etc..) that we are primarily addressing at Jihad Watch.
So there is no intent on being an apologist that is for sure.
It looks like I have caused a bit of a stir here, and that is probably good. We could debate the pros and cons of liberal vs conservative for ever, and it would inevitably digress into name calling ( Liberals - "your a this ist or a that phobe" and Conservatives- your a socialist/Marxist etc..) but that is not what this site is about.
At this point there is no sense in further beating a dead horse. I will just say this in passing
Keep in mind how powerful a site this can be. If it is identified as a right or left wing site there will be a lot of people who will never give it a chance. ( and they are not all "hopeless lefties") Their loss? yes. The rest of the infidel worlds loss? yes again.
And in passing, I would like to note that this is actually one of the _less_ politically divisive anti-jihad sites.
I like Pam Geller, but Atlas Shrugs tends to have a lot of Obama, and Palin (personally, I dislike both of them) and stuff about American health care, which isn't of much interest to the non-American (particularly those of us from countries that do have socialized health care, and like to keep it that way.) It's a fully politically right-wing site, and not one for bringing in the doubting centrist/near left Thomas.
I like Lionheart as well, but he comes off as a bit of a bible-thumper, which turned a few people off that followed a link there. I check in there once in a while only to see what's going on with his being arrested and stuff.
Gates of Vienna seems to stick to it's subject better than these two; a couple other sites I visited were on-topic as well, but I have come across at least one or two other sites with irrelevant side-issues to Jihad (can't remember what, I hop around when I'm bored to see what different sites have to say.)
If Obama (or anyone else) is acting the dhimmi, or acting in ways that promote or protect jihadists and the muslim philosphy that backs them, it's fully on-topic here, however.