What could possibly go wrong? Karzai sets up council for peace talks with the Taliban

Yeah! But isn't Karzai a muslem too? So, he could be just as devious, towards the West as well as to other muslems?
Wouldn't that be so? Anyway, I don't trust him.

You negotiate with them, you are acknowledging them as peers, as acceptable. And given what the Taliban are, that can only lead to further trouble. What benefit can a deal with the Taliban possibly bring, they are free to dissolve their vows as they see fit in the interest of the Cause.

*** 66:2 ***

A deal with a Moslem, for that reason, isn't worth the paper it's written on.

*** 9:3 ***

Our new friends the Taliban aren't in it for the Afgan nation, they're in it for the Cause, the Global Cause. They'll sign the accord, take the concessions, and cash the checks the American gubmint will surely give them, and then forget about it.

All national populations are responsible for their actions. The right thing to have done after 9/11 would have been to hold the Afgan people responsible for allowing Al Qaeda to operate in their midst.

The fair thing would have been to carpet bomb Kabul and Kandahar, and fill the South Asian skies with drones spewing Hellcat missiles at adult Moslem Males wherever they found them.

It's hard to tell which will be the bigger fiasco: Iraq or Afghanistan. So far, in men, money, and materiel, Iraq is way ahead. But Afghanistan is coming up on the outside, Petraeus up, and glued to Iraq's right flank and in the stretch, it's...

Why is that?

Because in neither Iraq nor Afghanistan have any of the important questions even been asked, much less answered?

What is the proper definition of victory?

And would, then, lead to such a victory?

The answer to the first question is:

An outcome that weakens the Camp of Islam, both in the immediate vicinity and ideally, world-wide.

The answer to the second question is:

An American withdrawal from Iraq will inevitably lead to hostilities, possibly only low-level, possibly something more widespread, between Sunni Arabs, and Shi'a Arabs. The former will never accept their new and diminished status; the latter will never give up the power they have finally acquired with the downfall of Saddam Hussein, and of his Sunni-despotism-in-disguise. The world that Islam naturally creates is one of mistrust, even of Muslim for fellow Muslim, of hatred of Muslims who are not of the same sect, and who then can be treated as Infidels, and with aggression and violence an accepted part of that world. That is not something the Americans, or the bringing of "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads," can change. Since the Americans cannot constrain Islam -- only Muslims can do that in the lands of Dar al-Islam, as Ataturk did, or on a lesser level, Bourguiba -- they must stop their insensate belief that they can change societies and peoples so very different from ours or from any non-Muslims. And instead of working to bring unity and prosperity to such places, the Americans by withdrawing will allow them to sink to their natural level, which from the point of view of Infidels is not a bad thing. As long as Muslims are kept bottled up, as much as possible, to fight among themselves, why should we care?

And the fresh news, brought daily, of suicide bombings, or other attacks, by this sect or tribe or family, against that sect or tribe or family, will simply indelibly connect Islam with non-stop violence in the minds of non-Muslims, and help to open their minds fully to the dangers they have created for themselves by failing to grasp the nature of Islam, and letting into their countries large numbers of Muslims.

In Denmark, in France, in Italy, in the Netherlands, in Germany, in Great Britain, in Belgium people are waking up. And they will continue to do so, undeterred by the bien-pensants of the press and politics, the very people who for decades permitted the immigration policies vis-a-vis Muslims that have led to the disastrous situation we see all about us. And they will not take kindly to the American government telling them what it should or should not do, including that business of backing Turkey's entry to the E.U. (it will never happen, even if Erdgoan loses the next election - and it shouldn't).

The mounting evidence is simply too great, too mounting, too irrefutable, for people to keep worshipping at the altar of those diseased Idols of the Age, Tolerance and Diversity. Those who are cocooned in their great wealth, or their immutable and pious certainties (Mayor Bloomberg, the editorial board of the New York Times) look sillier and sillier every day.

The important thing is not to be put off, on the subject of Islam, by the antics and attitudes of some of those who are exercised about Islam, but too easily pigeonholed as belonging to a kind of reflexive right. You can be perfectly easygoing, bemused, dismayed by the shouters on Fox News, and still be relentlessly anti-Islam. The most powerful opponents of Islam so far have been identified with what might be called, wrongly, the left: Oriana Fallaci and Pim Fortuyn come to mind.

What Islam is as a Total Belief-System, and what mosques are for beyond being, as Mayor Bloomberg puts it, "housese of worship," and what the large-scale presence of Muslims means for the non-Muslim indigenes and non-Muslim immigrants in Western Europe -- a situation far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous than would be the case without such a large-scale Muslim presence -- should worry you, whatever your other views on a dozen or a hundred matters.

You don't have to accept any package of opinions or attitudes along with your worry over Islam, a worry that only increases the more you find out about the doctrine of Islam, and about the recorded behavior of Muslims, acting on that doctrine, when over the past 1350 yewars they conquered many non-Muslim lands and subjugated many non-Muslim peoples. You need not deny global warming, applaud grotesque levels of economic inequality, or denounce "lefties" at every turn, in order to make common cause with others who are worried about Islam. You need only find out about, and consequently worry about, Islam and what its votaries in the West want to do, and might be able to do, unless they are dealt with in a way that makes clear to them the days of ignorance, distraction, and consequent confusion about Islam are over. You need only keep a cool head, one from which all pre-fabricated pieties and fashionable attitudinizing have been banned.

Fitzgerald: The terminal naivete of Westerners

U.S. forces are building madrassas in Afghanistan.

"We are saying that we respect their culture and religion," said naval commander Eduardo Fernandez, the man in charge of American aid efforts in the Sharana district of Paktika. "We have to give the religious leaders the respect they feel they deserve." -- from this article

Get that naval commander out of the Sharana district, out of Afghanistan, and possibly out of the navy, fast. Start educating the members of the armed forces on the tenets of Islam. Make them read, and reread, and reread, Qur'an, Hadith, and sira. Teach them about naskh, or abrogation. Teach them to distinguish the "authoritative" muhaddithin from the less authoritative ones, and the "authentic" Hadith from the kind that Karen Armstrong likes to quote. Expose every single one of the tricks of Muslim apologists and undercut them, including these:

1) That only someone who knows Arabic can comment on what is in the Qur'an, Hadith, and sira. Answer: If that were really true, then how can 80% of the world's Muslims be regarded as Muslims, since they cannot understand Arabic?

2) That only Muslims can possibly understand Islam. Answer: Then no one who converts ("reverts") to Islam has any idea what he is converting to?

3) That Islam says "there is no compulsion in religion." Answer: To this one can offer up not only Muslim glosses on this line, but also 1350 years of the onerous burden placed on non-Muslims that, of course, led many to avoid such a burden (economic, social, political) by converting to Islam.

4) That Islam is a "religion of peace." Answer: In fact, Islam is a Total Belief-System, and central to that Belief System is the uncompromising division of the world between Believer and Infidel. And between the two, Believer and Infidel, there exists a state of permanent war (though not always of active warfare -- certainly not wherever other instruments of Jihad are more effective, or where it is impossible, because of Muslim weakness, to conduct Jihad to spread Islam at all).

And so on.

If this is the policy in Afghanistan, it is the wrong policy.

Bat Ye'or long ago said it would be fatal for the West to try to get involved in the Muslim lands. The terminal naivete of Westerners manifests itself in the way in which they never allow themselves to see, fully, the Muslim menace. And furthermore, the sentimentalism of the West hinders that insight, and instead imagines hardbitten troops aiding this or that hardscrabble wizened farmer, or that girl over there, and that group of young boys grabbing at proffered candy. Those boys, of course, are not yet of an age where they have sufficiently learned anti-Infidel teachings or thoroughly assimilated anti-Infidel attitudes. That will come only later.

We can only engage in enormous and wasteful activities by trying to shore up Islamic lands, or to make things nice for Muslims, or to bring prosperity to them. It will not make them like us. It will not lessen the fervor of Islam. The biggest and best-outfitted mosque in the world will, whatever happens, naturally have to have khutbas based on the texts of Islam. And just as water seeks its own level, unless every single minute of every day, and every single word of every single sermon (khutba) is monitored, there will be, in that mosque, necessarily, the introduction of the real teachings of Islam, and the holding up as a model of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil.

Look at Turkey. Eighty full years of careful Kemalist constraints. Eighty years of the central government's secularists monitoring, or even writing themselves, the khutbas to be delivered. Eighty years of systematic constraints put on Islam. Yet Islam is still there, and resurgent. The fright among Turkey's secularists (some of whom may call themselves Muslims, as in "cultural Muslims" or "Muslims-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims, and some of whom will, outside of Turkey, tell one that in truth they are not Muslims at all) is palpable.

The policy of building madrassas and refurbishing mosques in Afghanistan is madness. It is also unconstitutional. American taxes are being used to favor, abroad, a religion, and far worse, one religion over others.

Where is the Constitutional challenge to this? There is a case to be brought. Bring it, you pro-bono-seeking lawyers you. Enter the casebooks. Enter history.

Fitzgerald: Smooth Karzai's Sharia state and ignorance of Islam

Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the Sharia regime of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, and the myopia that brought it about:

Smooth Karzai, oleaginous Karzai, Our Man In Kabul Karzai, forever blotted his copybook when he emerged from the anti-Infidel antisemitic rant of Mahathir Muhammad at a meeting of the O.I.C., and declared the speech "splendid." That was it. He could have remained silent. He could have said, with studied ambiguity, "a speech about Muslim weakness that provokes thought." He could have said "it is a speech that is certainly controversial." He could have said "No comment." He could have had an aide say "Mr. Karzai is currently unavailable" or "Mr. Karzai will not be able to speak to you now, for he has a pressing meeting."

But no. Karzai praised that awful speech. And the most attractive purple-and-green robe, the most sincere smile, the outrage at the Taliban, will simply not do enough to offset the hint of his "sorry-just-can't-go-the-whole-distance" and "I-have-to-remain-in-the-end-true-to-Islam-and-to-the-Mahathir-Mohameds-of-this-world" attitude.

Sorry, that's no longer acceptable. The West, the Infidels, can't accept that. And we wouldn’t be accepting it if this present conflict were properly defined as a counter-Jihad, a war to prevent the spread of a totalitarian and supremacist belief-system, and to counter the aggressive proponents of that belief-system in their threats to the laws, customs, manners, and understandings of all Infidels. After 9/11, before 9/11, our politicians should have learned as much as they could about the tenets of Islam and the history of Islamic jihad conquest. Even now, they should be reading the books of Spencer, Bat Ye'or, and others. The rank-and-file should read them and educate others. The generals apparently are too old to learn new tricks, and are too much, some of them, careerists --for who gets to rise in the ranks, if not those who parrot the party line? Too many of them are stuck in the esposito-michael sells-armstrong mud of apologetics. But the ordinary soldiers may turn out to be wiser and better informed.

The "war on terror" is nonsense that comes not from Muslims, but from Infidels. Ask yourself if, had you been alive in World War II, you would have been satisfied to hear a Fireside Chat in which FDR said "our war against the blitzkrieg" proceeds in France and Italy. No, you wouldn't. And you would know why.

Lack of knowledge may possibly be excused up to 9/11, but is not excusable now in any government officials. Their first duty after 9/11 was to remedy their own considerable ignorance, and in this they failed spectacularly. Because the Administration initially failed to learn enough about Islam, it never understood that the only argument that made sense in invading Iraq was not that there was a necessary connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Al Qaeda was and is merely one among many similar groups, and not even now the most important or necessarily the most dangerous. Saddam Hussein was most interested in Saddam Hussein. He was interested in his friends and relatives from Tikrit. Then in the Sunnis of Iraq. Then in being King of the Sunni Arabs. The idea of Islam conducting a worldwide Jihad was simply beyond his ken, not that he wouldn't have minded it, just so long as he could be King of the Caliph's Castle -- in order words, Mr. Big.

The failure to understand Islam meant that all sorts of goofy or messianic ideas were proposed and, in being proposed, believed. One is the belief that "democracy" is a plant easy to transplant to stony soil. This was and is believed although there was never any thorough investigation of why Islam appears to favor despotism, or of why only Lebanon (with a large and powerful Christian presence) and Turkey (with 80 years of Kemalism, i.e. systematic constraints put on the political power and influence of Islam) have shown signs of tolerating, to some degree, a version of democracy. And even that is not the full-fledged Western version, but at least the head-counting and to some degree, some legal protections against the force of Islam and the Sharia.

The failure to understand Islam meant that we would try to help Iraq, rather than to simply remove the dictator, and leave Iraq to do what it inevitably was going to do no matter what the Americans did. This was perfectly foreseeable in 2004. It had nothing to do with what American policy was, or how long its presence lasted. Civil war became inevitable when the Sunni despotism was removed over the 60-65% of the population that is Shi'a and deeply resentful, justifiably, with its previous treatment, and by the 20% of the population that is Kurd, not ethnic Arab, and which is also deeply resentful, justifiably, with ditto.

And the failure to understand Islam was accompanied by a failure to recognize, fully, the depth of that Shi'a resentment, and the depth of the Sunni rage at the perceived loss of power, and the depth of Kurdish desire to move from local autonomy to independence.

Very few intelligent people are employing their intelligence in Washington. The Administration was wrong, and so -- horribly -- have been almost all of its critics.

Except here at Jihad Watch where some of the most consistent and unrebuttable criticisms have been offered. These criticisms of American military policy are based not on a desire to appease or ignore the menace of Islam, but to take it, and the instruments of Jihad, fully into account -- and to figure out the thousand ways, little and big, to resist that Jihad. These may range from threatening Iran not only with destruction of its nuclear facilities but, as a delayed result, with national dissolution. The Azeris, the Baluchis, the Kurds, the Arabs could all rise up, possibly inspired both by a free Kurdistan, and by an obvious humiliation inflicted by the Americans on the regime should its weapons project be destroyed or heavily damaged.

Another path of resistance would be to support those European leaders who are both respectable (no Le Pens or Griffins need apply) and well-informed about the nature of Islam, and who have finally comprehended the scope and permanence of the menace that the large-scale presence of Muslims poses to all European Infidels. That presence has already created in each Infidel country a situation that is far more unpleasant, unstable, expensive, and physically dangerous for the Infidels than it would have been without that large-scale Muslim presence. And these leaders or potential leaders are only now beginning to understand the kind of things that will need to be done in order to halt the growth in that Muslim presence, and even reverse it. But they need help; they need signs of shared comprehension and alarm, that such phrases as the "war on terror" are hollow. There needs to be an end to the messianic belief that what is wrong with the Muslim world is poverty, or lords of misrule, or absence of democracy, or all kinds of things -- but never, ever, Islam itself. But it is Islam itself that explains the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of Muslim societies, and it is Islam itself that explaiins the behavior and attitudes of Muslims that threaten all Infidels, whether those Muslims live in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or in London or Madrid or Amsterdam or Falls Church, Virginia.

Those leaders need an American government that understands the threat and has figured out clever ways to instruct the public, even if it still feels the need to avoid using the word "Islam" straight up, but needs to dilute or modify that word somehow.

Above all, American or other Infidel support for Sharia-Lite regimes such as that of Karzai, which may require ignoring the persecution of non-Muslims and women in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere, should be seen for the hollow, internally contradictory policy it is. It is one more example of stumbling all over, in a state of permanent confusion, as one must as long as one views Islam itself as a plausible and even indispensable part of some "solution" to a problem -- that problem being the threat of Islam itself.

[Posted by Hugh on March 20, 2006]

A Few More Questions For General Petraeus:

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/10475

Excellent piece, Marisol—you have already covered virtually every point I was going to bring up.

From above:

Our correspondent says most Afghans will be hoping that the council will be a success.
............................

What would "success" even look like here? If you mix a somewhat more "moderate" Shari'ah state with the practices of the most viciously "pure" Shari'ah states in modern history, all you can conceivably end up with is more Shari'ah, and a push—which would include both pressure and the threat of further violence—for *yet more* Shari'ah.

What we have learned from history is that you can only "reintegrate" people from a vile ideology back into society on a single set of terms—the forces of the vile ideology need to have been thoroughly defeated, and the new society cannot contain any expressed vestiges of that ideology in its functioning.

The perfect examples of this were in Germany and Japan after WWII. Firstly, the Fascists had been absolutely and unequivocally defeated. All the leaders of the Fascist movements of the Axis were completely removed.

The one exception to this was allowing the Japanese emperor to remain in power, since he represented such a potent symbol to his subjects, *but only* on the terms that he renounce his status as a God. He had been a rather equivocal figure in the actual waging of the war, in any case.

Fascist leaders or high-ranking figures were tried—their crimes exposed at tribunals like the famed Nuremburg Trials—and sentenced accordingly.

Secondly. while many rank and file Nazis, Fascists, and Shinto supremacists did return to society without punishment, it was strictly on the terms that they do so on the basis that they not attempt to impose their ideology on society.

The third point is that the societies were entirely remade as free democracies—Italy, for example, did not enshrine Fascism in its new laws. If Germany's laws had constituted some form of "National Socialism light", what are the chances that the still strong Nazi sympathies of so many could have been suppressed? Slim to none, most likely.

So—what would "success" look like, in Afghanistan? Success, for the "purest" Afghans, would involve nothing less than the imposition of full Shari'ah law.

What would it mean for the Hazara and other Afghan minorities? While the Hazara are as wedded to Shari'ah as any Afghans—the recent ruling allowing Shi'ite husbands to beat and even starve their wives was pushed by the Hazara—the Pashtun Taliban treated them at best as second-class citizens, and at worst murdered them outright. Perhaps a modified dhimmi status is what those on the "Peace Jirga" have in mind?

I imagine "success", for Karzai, would be sucking up to the Taliban enough that he is able to stay in power after the Americans pull out. Personally, I believe he will be lucky to escape with his life. No matter how much he concedes to the Taliban, his involvement with Infidels and blunting—no matter how slightly—the imposition of full Shari'ah law will damn him in the eyes of the Taliban.

Even if were not the situation, I imagine the Taliban would want to seize power again, in any case. The "Peace Jirga" will simply ensure that they are in a better position to do so when the inevitable pull-out of US forces come.

Then, there will be an orgy of "revenge" in Afghanistan, as is so often the case under the baleful influence of Islam.

I for one don't think it's that bad that our troops are building madrasas in Afghan, or that our gubmint is paying to restore antique mosques several places around the world, the most ironic of which are Yemen, Egypt, the Sudan and Afghan.

This is ok, cuz we have unlimited funds and it makes sense to help maintain one of the world's great religions.

*** Bukhari Vol 9 Bk 88 Nbr 174 ***

But it galls me is that Tim Pawlenty, govenor of Minnesota, has that state's taxpayers underwriting the operation of two madrasas. Now, insane expenditures of blood and treasure is just fine thousands of miles away, but that's too close to home.

But we must pay, we must tolerate, cuz this is important work, for as Mohammed said, "Islam cannot change" and that includes letting old mosques crumble or forcing Moslem Youth to attend public schools.

*** 33:36 ***

But, if Islam is above criticism, and it is, we must humbly accept the superiority of Moslems in that they represent the most merciful Allah and the holy Prophet Mohammed. These are two most important dudes, so naturally we have no choice in these matters, nor do our poor Moslem friends.

So get the shovels and hammers out and let's get digging, let's get pounding.

Afghanistan is not worth a single marine.

Hindus..Lets face it ........we hindus like our Israeli Brothers ..our Jew brothers ...are and will always be hated ...by these bunch of Muslims ......let the WEST ....keep blabbering about logic.....watever ....afterall ....their theory results in our ..dead bodies ......Jews and Hindus .....LETS UNITE ..in our persecution ....and believe me .......we should steal "Christ" from these people .....we need the blessing of every god ...................what are you doing WEST ..............wat are doing ???

Karzai is shrewd. He probably figures that things haven't changed much since the Cold War, when the US was at best a very fickle ally to anyone whose country lay below 35 degrees north and did not touch the North Atlantic.

Some cultures are simply not ready to evolve and nothing can make them. They should be left to their own devices and they should not be allowed to emigrate.

There should be zero tolerance for any interference from them and penalties should be harsh & final.

These are tribesmen still living in a 7th century culture, the only thing they understand is strength & violence, and that is how they should be dealt with.

Just my 2 cents .

One, two, three, four, what are we fighting for?...Darned if I know...

I actually see nothing wrong with Karzai's stance. The Taliban are hardly going to negotiate with the corrupt American are they?

Regardless of how many Taliban causalties there are, - there will come a time when Nato feels that the price of staying there in terms of expenditure and political pressure due to losses/new leaders/new moods will be too much to bear - and they will move out. That much is a certainty - as certain as the American pull out in Iraq.

Ofcourse there will be the rhetoric that "we will be back if required" - but you won't - not for a long looong long time.

Karzai knows this - he is getting what he can from you - and then when the time comes - he will spit you out - and live like a muslim and the taliban - they are brothers - he is just keeping the seat warm for them.

Afghanistan is poor already - so nothing changing much there but how do you folks feel about your dollars? You people are suffering - they are bankrupting America - they are bankrupting YOU - and you just sit there and take it - shame on you.

The only REAL way to help Afghanistan is to get thousands of American soldiers to convert to Islam and volunteer to stay & making it a better and safer society on the terms of Islam. Send the message out please!

Invite the Taliban to the meeting, then do what they would do: kill them all.

But spread the story that they asked for asylum and were moved to a secret location.

Repeat.

Repeat.

Repeat.

During the Vietnam war, there were people at the high levels of the South Vietnam government that worked for the Vietcong.

I wonder if Karzai is secretly associated with the Taliban.

Think about it, the guy came out of nowhere, a pashtun with some exposure to the west.

Things that make me go hmmmm...

nah, i'm just paranoid....

Did anyone else notice the following quote in Hugh's 12.51 post above? Regarding the US forces building madrassas in Afghanistan - "We are saying that we respect their culture and religion," said naval commander Eduardo Fernandez, the man in charge of American aid efforts in the Sharana district of Paktika. "We have to give the religious leaders the respect they feel they deserve."

Excuse me???? "We HAVE to give the religious leaders the respect THEY feel they deserve"

I'm sorry, naval commander Eduardo Fernandez, but I don't HAVE to give respect, it HAS to be earned. And how much respect will you give them???? ".... the respect THEY feel they deserve."

NO, No, no and no! I only give the amount of respect that I (yes - I, myself and me alone) consider (not 'feel') that "they" deserve.

With people like this acting,and minds like this thinking, on our behalf - what hope is there????

Well, can you blame Karzai - given his Oval Office partner. And that partner's demonstrated fondness for politically motivated withdrawal dates. Only 11 months to the next one.

http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"

funny thing is that karzai thinks he is getting protection with making up to the taliban, but soon enough they will have his head on a platter!

Karzai is such a turd.

Karzai doesn't want to fight his fellow people (Taliban) for the sake of Uncle Sam or Western ideals. This is the same thing that can be expected of any Muslim, including that "major" nut Nidal Hassan who went on a shooting spree at Fort Hood in Texas.

So nobody should be surprised at this, just as they shouldn't be surprised that Pakistan will bolt outright from the "coalition" once they find a better sugardaddy (eg. China)

roland wrote:

“The muslim men that I know are very honest, hard working, smoke/alchol/drug free scandal free…”

~~~~~

roland, you really are a pathetic excuse for a human being.

Although you may be educated, you are devoid of an effectively functioning intellect. You also fundamentally lack honesty and have no real heart. You are not a real man, roland, you are a pitiful slave.

You are the slave of Muhammad, roland. There is no ‘Allah’. Muhammad made that s**t up. Muhammad was a criminally insane narcissist. Don’t you get it yet, roland? Or are you simply another clueless cultist stuck in an evil cult? There is no need for you to answer that question, roland, for I know that you are currently the indoctrinated servant/slave of the lowest human being to have ever walked the face of the earth.

Roland, should you continue to practice and promote Islam, you will in effect be betraying yourself and ALL of your fellow men. Pull your head out of your ass, roland, it’s not too late. You are supporting and entrusting your life to a PERMANENTLY evil ideology, “roland”.

~~~~~

The ‘funny’ thing about Muslims, and I mean ALL Muslims, is that every single one of them is totally and completely ignorant of their own religion. They would not remain in Islam if it were otherwise. Unless of course they are what we commonly call ‘evil’ people.

I mean, who in their right mind could go on believing that these are the actual words of God himself/itself?:

From the Quran:

009.029 Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.

002.191 Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you out. Idolatry is more grievous than bloodshed. But do not fight them within the precincts of the Holy Mosque unless they attack you there; if they attack you put them to the sword. This shall the unbelievers be rewarded.

008.012 I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

008.060 Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

009.005 So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

009.123 O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

047.004 When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly. Then grant them their freedom or take a ransom from them, until war shall lay down her burdens. Thus shall you do. Had God willed, He could Himself have punished them; (but He has ordained it thus) that He might test you, the one by the other.

048.028 He it is Who sent His Messenger with the guidance and the true religion that He may make it prevail over all the religions; and Allah is enough for a witness.

009.023 O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong.

I am an ex-Muslim with a website:
http://www.considerationsofacanadianex-muslim.org

The West needs to get tough with Islam. Western democracies must ban Islam if they want a future. Those muslims who want to continue in Islam should be put on a plane. Those who refuse a plane ticket should be put in prison.
Anything less than a total ban won't work and is just playing games. At present the West is playing this game. There is a saying "If you play with fire you will get burned." The West is already getting burned. The more the West continues to play with Islam the more it will get burned.
Laws already exist to deal with Islam. The goal of Islam is to remove our democratic systems. That is illegal. These laws are not being used.
The Islamic world should be isolated. Maybe they also will come to see that they need to throw off Islam. But they are the ones who have to do this. We need to stop supporting Isalmic regimes. Who knows, maybe they will come to their senses when they really experience the bankrupcy of Islam.

The ideological difference between the Taliban and many members of the Karzai regime is probably only a matter of degree.Only naive Westerners think that the war in Afghanistan is an existential struggle between democracy and theocracy.

I've said it before...negotiating with the taliban or any disciple of mo is like negotiating with The Black Death or Leprosy.
Not only is it pointless and stupid, it's downright dangerous.

This Karzai fellah...isn't he one of the mopeople?

No islam...Know Peace.
Know islam...Throw Up!

@ Roland

Hi Roland! You're devotion to Islam means there's something you haven't understood at all. Answer the following question (honestly).

"Which is more likely -- that a man should be used as a transmitter by God to deliver some already existing revelations, or that he should utter some already existing revelations and believe himself to be, or claim to be, ordered by God to do so?"

David Hume 1711 - 1776 (Philosopher)

C'mon, Roland. Why on earth would God 'reveal' again what He had already revealed? If a self-styled prophet appeared today and said he had a message sent by God for the world, and started telling us about Noah, Moses etc.. he would be told that he was a charlatan and more than 2,000 years too late.(Mohammed was more than 1,500 years too late.)

Islam is superfluous to religious requirements! It gives us nothing new. Nothing!

@Buraq
Yes. Only by negation does it have any relevence insomuch as it's foreboding specter is galvanizing a lot of previously-mollycoddled minds to seriously address the issue of scripture and truths. Only in that quarter could the living god ever have deemed it worthy of having existed. At a guess.

The Government refused to use the best weapon they had against the enemy. A Million Gallons of ROUND UP would have made a marked difference in who was leveraging who.

Karzai is obviously laying the groundwork to secure his future once the Americans are gone.

A reminder about who Hamid Karzai is:

http://middleeast.about.com/od/afghanistan/p/hamid-karzai-profile.htm

Read this profile very closely. Notice the long-standing links to the Taliban and the Pakistani ISI. Then ask yourself why the U.S. continues to expend blood and treasure in its quixotic quest to bestow the blessings of democracy and a better life for ordinary moms and dads in that god-forsaken place.

I am absorbing Hughs lessons. And I am thinking that a new strategy is needed concerning Islam & Democracy.

And I think good positive global goals should be formulated. We can utilize Islam for knowing what we do NOT want, then for what we DO want. And it will probably pan out that we are for a worldwide secular democratic system in the end.

And the new strategy with that goal would not need these Muslims like Karzai or all sorts of so-called moderate Muslims. But it might have good use of "Democratic Muslims", if such could be found.

But democratic Muslims must have chosen for all secular Democratic constitutional and legal essentials over their directly contradicting Islamic ones. And I do not know if Muslims can bring themselves and allow their co-religionists to do that comprehensively.

Yet the silent conviction of the overwhelming majority of politicians, journalists and citizens seems to be that Muslims just do that; choose democracy over Islamic theocracy even where the essential differences lie. And unconsciously or consciously Muslims indignantly demand that the Westerners and Indians ALL believe that.

Yet, outside of ominous surveys, no one Muslims in democratic nations, has asked to officially and unequivocally CHOOSE between the 2 in part mutually exclusive systems. And worldwide, not just national.

With a new strategy the democracy-loyalists could see where great advantages naturally for them lay when they have a goal and a low-violence-struggle; the fact that Islam leaves people poor and needy. And that it subjugates the female half, at least much more than the democratic system.

This means that many young men and especially women can be lured away from Islam to safe democratic areas, with secure democratic institutions and full democratic exposure. Places on now democratic SOIL can be turned into "New Iran", "New Syria", "New Pakistan", "New Egypt", "new all 56 Islamic states" perhaps.

The flow of immigration is already from Islam to Democracy, and in building "New" versions of Islamic countries under strict democratic circumstances, competition between the Democratic and Islamic societal system can get going and work itself out. Many immigrants into the Western world could go to these new versions of Islamic countries, many Westerners also could go. But always as declared democratic Muslims. and controlled and legally held to such an oath. With stiff penalties, if possible extradition.

Initially we could with great effort maintain strict and total democratic circumstances, but even if we loose some of these new states to Islamic societal system, the secular democratic system on its own would secure probably less interest in all Islamic states and more interest in enough democratic states to let the Democratic societal system in the end win over the Islamic one.

We just have to get over our desire to keep mere LAND. Land, in the 21st century, is so unimportant compared to societal system and the number of hearts and minds, especially young and female hearts and minds adhering to it.

It's the Muslims that cling stupidly to once Islamic lands inflexibly, we could have higher goals. And in the end, could well be able to reoccupy much of the land anyway, due to defeating the enemy really with the hearts and minds.

When will people wake up to the fact that one of the strategies of global jihad is to feign taking sides (and changing sides) for the establishment of Islamic kingdoms and to drain and pick off our troops until the political Mahdi unites all factions and seeks to enforce worldwide Sharia?