Christian extremists claim Russian train bombing -- no, wait...

Radical Islam is destroying the planet with petroleum and poisoning society with their religion.

undaunted, thanks, that made me laugh.

More hilarity bought to you courtesy of JW Forum stutter.

Russia and America cooperating against Islamic nutjobs would indeed be a good thing, ethoman, but Putin and his ilk are so xenophobic, so cynical and so ignorant about America and the West that it's a given the Russians will once again miss an opportunity to fully become part of the Western world. In the Russian mindset, anything the West, especially the Anglo-Saxon sphere of mankind, proposes must be a ruse to harm Russia. It's pathetic, of course, but it's also a dismal reality.

Until Russia ceases looking upon its Western neighbors as either vassals or enemies (just a month ago Russia played war games with Poland as the imaginary enemy), expect no help from the Kremlin boys. Indeed, they'll aid the detritus of mankind (e.g., the present Iranian regime) before they align with those they should have aligned with long ago. No better example exists that I know of of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face than Russia's foreign policy.

Evidence of Putin's xenophobia? Glad to oblige. How's this for starters: 1) NATO, the greatest military alliance in history for the protection and promotion of freedom, is looked upon by Putin as a threat to Russian interests (funny that NATO isn't seen that way by Poles, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenians and .....). 2) The war games with Poland as the imaginary enemy which I already mentioned. 3) The ridiculous claim by Putin that a handful of defensive missile shields in the Czech Republic and Poland threaten Russia. 4) The deliberate screwing up of Estonia's computer based systems a few years ago. 5) The absence of any approbation by Putin of American and Western idealism respecting the importance of real freedom. 6) The convenient "disappearance" of sundry reporters and critics in Russia who dared to question most any of Putin's initiatives and who (the deceased reporters and critics) sought the kind of freedom of the press that exists in one Western country after another (can't have that kind of freedom in Russia, now can we?).

As for your claim that America "single-handedly destroyed Russia's economy" in the 1990s, your charge is absurd on its face. We gave billions of dollars to Russia in the 1990s with virtually no conditions and they massively and stupidly misused it and you blame the giver. Nor did America demand any concessions or territory or anything from Russia for losing the Cold War. Greater generosity by a victorious power in a struggle to the death would be hard to find; claiming otherwise is idiotic, but typical of those who seek any reason to exculpate bad and stupid Russian behavior.

Putin is realistic? The man is one of the great tragedies in Russian history and you're clueless about this. He's pulling Russia down in his attempt (pathetic as it is) to make Russia great, but all he is doing is making Russians small. Done here.

Hugh

I don't know and can't read Russian, so I don't know whose poem you have just quoted.

Translation, please?

But in this context it occurs to me to wonder whether those powerfully Islamosavvy essays by John Quincy Adams, recently unearthed by Andrew Bostom -

“Unsigned essays dealing with the Russo-Turkish War, and on Greece, written while JQA was in retirement, before his election to Congress in 1830” [Chapters X-XIV (pp. 267-402) in The American Annual Register for 1827-28-29. New York, 1830.]

have ever been translated into Russian? Are Russian scholars and political analysts, in Russia or beyond it, aware of them?

Because Adams expresses a good deal of intelligent sympathy for the then-Tsarist Russians, assailed perpetually by a jihad that Adams sees quite clearly as issuing from the ideology of Islam not from anything Russia had done or not done; and Adams also supports and barracks for the Greeks, and for other non-Muslims of the Balkans crushed beneath the Muslim boot.

It strikes me that Adams' essays on the Russo-Turkish war, laced with ruthlessly realistic and correct analyses of the nature of Islam (fresh from America's earliest bruising experiences with Muslim duplicity and treaty-breaking, he empathises with the Russians who, he can see, encountered exactly the same garbage when negotiating with Muslims) might be quite helpful if translated into Russian as pamphlets in their entirety, perhaps with suitable editorial/ introductory comment, and circulated on paper or in digital form.

His essays on Greece could also be translated and placed online, in Greek.

A typical passage from Adams, as cited in Bostom's article which I now link:

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F3F5C99B-338A-4BC1-A4B2-585EFE643619

here reproduced for the benefit of newbies to this forum:

“As the essential principle of his [Mohamed's] faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated.

"They [The Russians] have been from time immemorial, in a state of almost perpetual war with the Tatars, and with their successors, the Ottoman conquerors of Constantinople.

"It were an idle waste of time to trace the causes of each renewal of hostilities, during a succession of several centuries.

"The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.

"Of Mahometan good faith, we have had memorable examples ourselves....".

Hugh, your erudition is on display front and center like with this post of yours but it serves no purpose for those of us who can't read Russian (which I suspect is the vast majority of those who post here at JW). Descend to the plebeian level for a moment, if you will, and provide your own translation.

"Let's see: in the 1990s we basically single-handedly destroyed Russia's economy, we completely ignored them during the wars of Yugoslav secession,..."

Wellington has already given one reply. Here's another.
The Russians had already pretty much destroyed their economy with 70 years of Bolshevism. As for ignoring them, when the Soviet Union was breaking up and the constituent "Republics" making their breaks for independence, the U.S. State Department did everything it could to discourage them and persuade them to remain part of a Russian federation. I don't quite see how the Yugoslav break-up enters into the question.

"Time for Russia and America to get together in a big bear hug, and realize we now have a serious common threat ... "

Russia and America, and China, and Europe, and India, and....

It not's the way I see it, ethoman. Go back to when Yugoslavia began to dissolve. It was 1991 or so and the Bush 41 Administration via Secretary of State Baker actually went on record saying that the dissolution of Yugoslavia was not something supported by the US (for which the elder Bush was criticized by many in the West). After events took over such a desire, Bush 41 and then Clinton said the the break-up of Yugoslavia was a European affair and the US was going to stay out of it.

Well, four wars occurred in eight years and by 1999 Western European nations like France and Germany were practically begging the US to intervene and do something about the acute situation in the Balkans (something conveniently forgotten by many today). Countries like Austria and Hungary were worried about spill over effects and Russian troops in the Balkans, just like the blue-helmeted useless UN soldiers, looked on as butchering went on from all sides. Once Clinton bombed Belgrade, the acute stage ended because the message went out to everyone to cut out the shit and the chronic stage began, which continues to this day. But the general panic that existed throughout Europe was ended precisely because of American intervention. If America had not intervened she would have been blamed. She did intervene and was blamed. Can't win for losing.

I know the Serbs were made to look the bad guys in all this, even though blame could be distributed all around, but the acute instability between 1991-1999 had to be brought to an end and the bombing of Belgrade did that, no thanks at all to the Russians or anyone else who couldn't or wouldn't shoulder the responsibility to end the nonsense. America had to do it and this is a fine lesson in the burdens of being the great power. Welcome to realpolitik. In closing and for the record, I didn't support the move towards an independent Kossovo. Serbia had suffered enough and it was not in the interest of the West or America to have such an independent Muslim state in the Balkans.

The problem is that it isn't over in Bosnia, Dayton was up several months ago, and had to be re-extended due to the fact that Serbians in R.S. don't want to be part of an Islamic Bosnia. They want independence, and after Izetbegovics Islamic declaration who can blame them? Now the corridor at Brcko which connects Eastern, and Western R.S. has been severed, according to what I've heard. This is the life blood that connects the two portions of R.S. It is my point of view that the Bosnian Muslims should have been allowed to offer full surrender, which they were about to do when Bill came in and gave them hope, thus actually extending the war for another 2 whole years. In addition we trained, equipped, fed satellite into to, bombed key Serbian anti air radar, and jammed radio coms in Krajina, which actually caused a huge humanitarian disaster as Serbian civilians fled Krajina only to be shelled by Bosnian Muslims during operation storm. This in exchange for a Croat/Muslim alliance in Bosnia of course. Right or wrong we did what we did, but R.S. should not be forced to integrate with Islamic Bosnia, the recent visa issues should tell the story, visa restrictions lifted on all non-Islamic areas in the former Yugo, not entirely lifted on Bosnian Croatians, and Serbs, but eased. All I'm saying is that there had to be another way other than to scapegoat just the Serbs, it made us look bad to the Russians, made us look bias, created the seeds for what we see today in our relations. I don't think this is over either, soon as Muslims gain enough power to wipe the Serbs out they will. I've talked to many of them, they dream of it, and we are empowering them. The Russians know it, the Serbs know it. That is what it boils down to, a clash of civilizations. We were top dog, had to make the tough choices, and we chose. I remember how there was a lot of pressure for us to just get in there at stop it, unfortunately the way we did it will require us to be mediators forever. When we can't or lose interest it will be on again, this is just how the history works over there, and we are empowering Muslims.

Well, your points are well taken, ethoman, and my indication above that I did not suport the creation of an independent Kossovo means I don't necessarily disagree with your take on the Krajina situation. But the larger issue of Russian xenophobia and unnecessary belligerence would still exist, I'm virtually certain, regardless of our actions in the breakup of Yugoslavia. The Russians don't understand freedom. Indeed they fear it and don't know what to do with it. As I alrady noted, Russia under the czars, under the Soviets and now under Putin look uon their neighbors as vassals or enemies. And they get upset over the most minor issues and read way too much into them.

Two examples will suffice. I spoke to a Russian whom I know well and he told me how outraged Russians were about our chicken tariffs and also because we had a military base in Albania. I mean for Russians this was like end of the world stuff and demonstrative of an American design to encircle them. Chicken tariffs mind you. Of course, with a country like Poland in NATO that seals the deal that America is out to pretty much destroy Russia. Yep, this is the way they think and I think it's pathetic. The Russians are a brave people with a superb intellectual and artistic heritage but they're deficient in the extreme when it comes to freedom and they see enemies everywhere. Pretty sad. And Putin just reinforces this worst element of the Russian character and that's why I think long term he's another tragedy in Russian history.

Thanks, lkeevy1.
I know it takes time to learn about islamic militancy and its terror-tactics over the centuries.
Much as the muslims would have us believe that they are only responding to western world's intrusion in islamic lands, history tells us it is not true.
Islam has always been violent and will remain so until all adherents realise that their book teaches only violence against their fellow-man.
Peace, love and justice find no place in islam.

jim,

You speak the truth, the only way foreward is honesty with ourselves. The way to change our policies is through education. I think many of us only see it now, because our immigration policies have been tied to this aspect of our foreign policy. It boils down to self preservation.

Khushi - don't be discouraged. And don't be too awestricken.

In the case of Hugh and Wellington, you are talking about people with a lifetime's broad and deep reading and study behind them; Wellington has alluded occasionally to the fact that he has taught for years at college level (law, I think).

In my case, I've been a devoted bookworm since age five, reading all kinds of things (my favorite reading at age 12 was a wonderful geographical encyclopedia called 'Lands and Peoples', a 1940s revised edition of a 1920s original; I still have it on my bookshelves today, for the un-PC articles on Islamic lands make *fascinating* and grimly entertaining reading today!) and although I don't have a job in academe, I do have a PhD (Arts) under my belt from a reputable Australian university.

Now, not everyone is like that. Nor should everyone be expected to be able to match that, playing 'catch up'.

Just keep posting. Keep reading. None of us can read everything, but all of us can read *something*. Better to read just one good book and understand it thoroughly, than twenty worthless ones.

I advise the following strategy, if time and budget are limited: pick just one book from among those many titles that Hugh has mentioned more than once, track it down and read it; that is always worth doing.

For example: as a result of Hugh's recommendations, I have read and/ or bought for myself C S Forester's 'the Barbary Pirates' (at least three great quotable quotes about Islam and the ruin it wreaks on the societies it afflicts), Walter Lowdermilk's 'Palestine: Land of Promise' (luckily it's in my city's university library, so I could read it there), and best of all, John Roy Carlson's 'Cairo to Damascus', which has three *brilliant* chapters on the Muslim Brotherhood. Currently, I am awaiting a copy, ordered from St Augustine's Press, U. of Chicago, of their amazing new compleat scholarly edition of the unbowdlerised version of Churchill's 'the River War'; now that new edition is NOT cheap, it's way too expensive for most people here, luckily for me my husband was prepared to grit his teeth and shell out the needful. As I see it: once it arrives (it's still in the press, expected out early next year, I pre-ordered) I get it; I read it; and then I keep it beside the computer so I can quote all the good bits, at length, properly referenced, for the people here. That way, everybody else benefits.

Then once we have absorbed what we've read, we share our knowledge and sharpen our wits off of each other. It's called 'distributed intelligence'.

Am I correct in assuming, from your nom de plume, that you are Indian or of Indian extraction? If so, you surely have first-hand information and insights to offer. The voice of experience counts for a lot.

One of the most powerful and instructive postings ever given here at jihadwatch was simply the personal testimony of an Indian contributor, vividly describing the Islamoforming of the Indian suburb in which he had grown up and in which his beloved family home had stood until his family were literally driven away from it by the encroaching miasma of Islam. The moment I read it, I copied it and saved it and tucked it away in a file all of its own. It was worth at least as much as a mountain of paragraphs from scholarly tomes.

Disagree, Hesperado. While I have already asserted that the Serbs alone were not to blame, some blame can be levelled against them in ways that would be unfair to level against the Israelis. This comparison of yours is not apt. Forget about Bosnian Muslims (who themselves committed atrocities), in the 1990s there were Serb aggressions against Croatians and vice versa. Enough blame to go around to all and then some and one group had to take the fall and the Serbs were chosen (Milosevic didn't help at all; he was a PR disaster).

Besides, my other point has never been proved incorrect and that is that most all of Europe was worried about spill over effects from the dissolutin of Yugoslavia and, of course, in typical ineffectual European fashion Europe couldn't handle the problem over many years and finally implored the US to do something. The "something" was the bombing of Belgrade which did indeed end the acute stage of the Yugoslavia breakdown. The US bombing was done in large part to placate countries like France, Germany, Italy, Britain, etc. and not just to punish the Serbs. If America hadn't done the bombing we would have been blamed for allowing the acute stage to continue. We had to shoulder the responsibility to end the jitters of our allies. A shame but that's the reality. Also, when you're the great power, often times you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, as here.