Rumsfeld is refreshingly candid. It is nice to know some people at the top understand the problem.

Rumsfeld has always been more direct in his speech than is President Bush. Of course he is understating the problem. The solution he offers is not realistic: education and opportunity are Western concepts that are of no value to Islam because Islam only values that which is Islamic.
Overspreading non-Muslim lands and feeding off the spoils of conquest has been and continues to be the modus operendi. Once the land becomes totally Islamized, a type of slothful malaise creeps in, and only a few continue to become usefully educated to rise and prosper, but only if their activities are duly regulated by clerics that must proclaim them to be officialy and legally Muslim.
No freethinkers, nothing creative - no inventors, artists, musicians. The West is built on freethinking and creativity which Islam hates and stifles. Thus, "zealots and despots" will continue to churn out more and more jihadists that are bent on our destruction.
What will happen to the world if they are successful? A plunge into darkness.

Perhaps shutting down the madrassas is too much work. Maybe there should be an informer in each school. A list of names of zealous "students" turned over to the authorities. Sow distrust among the jihadis and you could have better effect than simply killing a few and driving the rest underground. Food for thought.

How does one dissuade a child from doing harmful negative things to themselves or others? You have to make sure there is a meaningful immediately negative consequence for the action. You have to make sure that for whatever positive reward they assumed the action would bring, that instead they get a really profoundly negative reward.

If a suicide bomber knew that when he blew himself up in an attempt to kill innocents, that his parents would be immediately arrested and jailed. That all of his families belongings would be confiscated and sold for money to give to his victims, and any underage siblings would be sent to orphanages. If the bomber knew that to support and finance the jails, orphanages and reparations to the victims, the general population of his country would pay a tax. The terrorists might think twice about strapping on the bomb.

If the bomber knew that the world would close down whatever school he attended and all the Real Estate and furnishings would be sold to pay the victims. If the bomber knew the leader of his country and the country itself will suffer the consequence of his actions, He might just think twice about becoming a bomb.

If Arafat was convinced the next time a suicide bomber crossed into Israel to kill Jews, He would be dead in 24 hours, you better believe the bombings would stop. No question about it. For all his brave talk about being a martyr he is a coward and a clown.

If these terrorists knew, for a fact, the pain and terror they were attempting to bring to others, would come their HOME, MOSQUE OR COUNTRY after they died then he/she might not be so prepared for martyrdom.

You fight fire with fire. The result of terror is terror. The way to stop terror is greater terror. If a religion or culture does not place any negatives on killing others and yourself, then the world will have to. This might take a few months to sink in, but after a point the most hardened Muslim will not even consider sacrificing his entire family, school/ mosque and country to such an outcome. (What if the bomber does not have a family? Then randomly pick a family from a past terrorists. They are listed on Trading Cards the Muslim kids trade and revere, they will be easy to find.)

This would either change hearts and minds or just end the reign of terror one person or school/ mosque or country at a time. It would also put the future generations on notice. There are LOWS to which we will not allow you to sink for any cause!

We, as a civilization, can not allow barbarians to think they are free to terrorize others for ANY REASON. Religious, territorial, or personal reasons will be no justification for terror.

Instead of terror bringing eternal rewards in heaven and monetary rewards for the family they leave behind, let their “ticket” to heaven get way too expensive for them to buy.

Susanc:

What I fear is that the only solution to the terror is not a moderated response, an eye for an eye, but a completely disproportionate response. They are willing to expend their human capital as cannon fodder in a war of attrition. This is playing their game. We will not will their game, so we need to change it.

The problem that I fear is that the only way I see to change the game is to make the loss on their side disproportionate to the damage that they do.

This is not pleasent to think about. It is not something a civilized society can well deal with. However, I do believe that radical islam represents an existential threat to the civilized portion of the planet. It is time we took off the kid-gloves and started treating it as such.

While we are at it, stop buying all Saudi products. The Russian oil is just as good as the Saudi's, and frankly, there are far fewer radicals there. Cutoff completely the source of the terrorists funds. Stop buying Saudi oil. Buy it from Russia, Argentina, ... Develop alternatives (not give lip service to this like we did in the 70s).

These folks represent a clear and present danger to civilized society. It is time we stepped up and handled this, though the solutions are going to be quite distasteful. Very non-PC.

SusanC - Actually, unlike Kafir, I rather like your solution - except for its fatal flaw. Obviously, the Muslim governments which export suicide bombers would be appalled at the thought. The suicide bombers are handy heroes to get those women ululating and pump up that drama. They're certainly not going to discourage it!

What Isreal is doing with the targeted killings of terrorist leaders is working.Experience shows that once a suicide attacker is dispatched it's very hard to stop him. However killing terrorist leaders makes it harder for terrorist groups to plan and coordinate attacks, as the threat of certain death drives terrorist leaders underground. Also imagine the psychological effect on terrorist leaders if everytime there is successful attack either they or someone in their family dies.Keep in mind that Isreal has killed two Hamas leaders and despite threats of retaliation palestinians have not been able to respond in Isreal.The most recent palestinian attack was at a checkpoint and it injured three times more palestinians then Isrealis.

The "coherent approach" has to begin with a proper definition of the problem. It is clear that the Western leaders are fearful of identifying Islam, its tenets, its manichaeism, its aggressive hostility to all Infidels, so deeply rooted in Qur'an and hadith and sira (the life of Muhammad), as the problem.

So be it. But there are ways of discussing "Islam" without using the word "Islam" so directly -- or at least, to let that word be used not at the very top, but by commentators.

How to do it? The word "Jihad" comes swimmingly to mind. Talk not about "terrorism," a mere tactic, but about the "Jihad." Let Rumsfeld go first, and then Powell. And then Bush. And then all those under them, making clear that McCain must do his bit, and Zell Miller, and Birch Bayh, and all those Democrats who -- including Kerry -- might realize that this problem is not solvable, has no end, can only be contained, requires attention as well to the non-violent instruments of Jihad (such as the use of OPEC wealth to fund madrasas and mosques, and buy arms, or the demographic conquest, from within, of Western Europe), and should not be linked to any one party. It is the entire Infidel world, from Buddhist monks chanting in southern Thailandd, to Trappist monks in western Massachusetts, and the Orthodox Serbian church in Kosovo, and the Catholic churches of Assisi, and the churches attended by Korean Presbyterians on Northern Boulevard in Queens, and the A.M.E. Zion Damascus Church, outside Columbia, South Carolina (where Fort Jackson trains our troops, and "Victory Begins"), on the winding road to the Congaree Swamp -- and hundreds of thousands of churches, synagogues, Buddhist temples, Hindu temples, and cathedrals, and chapels, and storefront houses of prayer, and every sort of religious institution, from a Shinto temple hidden deep in the woods, under the cold night sky, on the island of Sado ("Amanogawa" as Basho exclaimed in that last line), that are all under equal assault.

Here's how to do it:

"We are fighting a war, on all fronts, and with every instrument that is used by the enemy -- open warfare, though of course we do not use terrorism, and economic warfare, and propaganda, though our propaganda consists not of nonsense and lies but simply the truth, which eventually will get through if we state it often enough, and lucidly enough, and winningly enough, about what it is we seek, and through demographic conquest that we must be aware of, and do what we can to undo in every way we can.

And what is that enemy? That enemy is not the religion of Islam, that is, the religion that offers people a structure for individual worship [forget the fact that the basis of Islam is the collective, not the individual -- untruths here are in the service of a larger Truth that we cannot speak directly]. No, it is only the geopolitical cult, that also uses the name of Islam, and that in a sense has hijacked the word "Islam" for its own purposes [this is ahistorical nonsense, but again useful for the purposes of smuggling in the truth, in circumstances where inhibition and forked tongues are called-for). We are fighting only those who believe in, and conduct Jihad {never mind that that includes almost all Muslims; just pretend it doesn't]. We are fighting it in the MIddle East, and in Pakistan, and in northern Nigeria, and in the southern Sudan, and in the Moluccas, and in Thailand, and in Madrid, and in New York and Washington -- wherever the instruments of JIhad are used to terrorize non-Muslims and those many Muslims [nonsense, but keep it up, keep it up, in order to get the message out] who do not believe in Jihad, who are content simply to worship their god in their way and do not for one minute wish to impose their views on others [endless nonsense, but keep it up, it is very useful].

And let it be said, a thousand different ways. Let the word "Jihad" be discussed openly. Let the word "dhimmitude" emerge onto the pages of the New York Times. Even the Friedmans and Kristofs will have to cease, for a minute, telling us about the dinners they have had on their complacent globe-trotting ventures, and about their "theories" ("I have a theory. I call it the...." is how Friedman/Kristof, Friedhof, Kirstman, whatever their names, like to impose their simpleminded observations on the rest of us, their long-suffering readers), and actually begin to investigate the tenets of Islam.

Rumsfeld, you are smarter than Wolfowitz the arms-analyst. You have your doubts about this absurd "light-unto-the-Muslim-nations project." Maybe you should start the ball rolling. Start talking about the Jihad. Make sure the word goes out everywhere. And make sure it is not limited to Republicans. There are many people waiting eagerly for coherent articulation of the problem that is keenly sensed, and for which the proper words are not being said. They need to be said, however slyly. Let the word "Jihad" substitute for the word "Islam." We'll get to that last word later.

Mr. Hugh,

Thank You Very Much for exposing your tricks and tactics against Holy Islam (The Good ol' Devide and Rule) so openly.

By The Way, Augusto Pinochet is on Line 1, asking If You have any open Job for him when you and your ilk attack another country. "I'm not less than Chalabi", he said.

mahmoud,
i see you are always running away from the truth. why not answer or refute what was said yesterday. your muslim pig brother tried to save face but in the end he only fooled himself. i guess that is the norm for muslims. you believe your lies so much that you feel you are fooling the world. well guess what, one jewish baby has the equavalent brainpower of a whole islamic nation. yes i am rude, but my civility is more then you muslim pigs deserve.

A best-selling novel, a film-script (and of course, a film), a "history of Islam" broadcast series (the equivalent of Alistair Cook's American history series?), are just a short list of possiblities that could all get the attention needed.
It's a big market, and will grow. But who's going to be the first to put money into it? It's a risky business, in every possible way.
If anyone's got ideas about a film, put me down for a spear-carrier.

Mr.Twinkie, we've made it abundantly clear that our aim is to do exactly what we're doing, killing terrorist babarians all over the globe.

We aren't hiding in caves, like your cowardly terror heroes. Alot of this problem, or excuse the Islamists use is the Israel/Rock throwing Palestine conflict.

Palestinians should go to Jordan, where they're supposed to go anyway. Israel will never be Islamic, and will never be surrendered. How dumb are you people to think that your primitive, 7th century tactics are going to be sucessful?

How long did it take Israel to win that war again? 6 days. 144 hours, that's it. You century impaired goons are spinning your stone wheels. No one in the West wants Sharia law, for it's barbaric and uncivilized.

Radical Muslims have hidden behind Islam to carry out a cultural and political agenda, and will rot in hell for it.

By The Way, Augusto Pinochet is on Line 1, asking If You have any open Job for him when you and your ilk attack another country. "I'm not less than Chalabi", he said.

###################################

total lie !!!!!!!!!

To Kafir:
In the matter of disproportional response, I am in complete agreement with your positon! Being an extremist, I will carry it to its ultimate peak:
We need a miracle; a divine testicular & spinal supplement for President Bush. He needs to erect his middle finger and declare to the world "We will live in peace & prosperity, with or without you. We prefer to live with you; the choice is yours. Those who chose Jihad chose not to continue living. We will live in peace and prosperity without them!"

The bottom line is this: Jihad is a mandatory Islamic Sacrament and can not be separated from Islam. The path to peace leads through the Islamic Cemetary; it is the only path to peace, there is no other!!

To Hugh:

I disagree! I am firmly convinced that honesty is a prerequisite. President Bush is misleading; his lies are tantamount to treason. He will not get my vote again! In my youth, I swore a profane oath that I would never vote twice for a Gd'd Liar, knowing him to be such. I have never violated that
oath, and I will not make an exception next November. Let our leaders tell us, and the world the direct truth, no matter how unpalatable!! Political Correctness be blasted to perdition!!

To Sam Roony:

May God bless you and give you victory!! We share a common idea: using historical truth as propaganda.

While, on the concrete level of reality, I favor the immediate death of all Muslims as the only path to peace, I would prefer to reduce the magnitude of that task by maximizing apostastacy & conversion of the Ummah.

If there are any genuine men of good will in the Ummah, surely some of them would apostasize if they became fully aware of Islam's true purpose & practices. I recently suggested to Mr. Spencer that I would like to see the Qur`an & Hadith dramatized and broadcast. Let the whole world, including the Muslims, see, in their bloody detail, the venomous words and horrific actions of their Profit & his companions.

My concept was a feature length movie hitting the highlights... Muhammad reciting the verse of the sword and swinging it. Dividing the spoils, etc.

My guess is that only Mel Gibson would have the requisite ambition & courage to undertake such a project. The books writen by experts such as Spencer & Winn provide plenty of material for a serialization. Satelite t.v. provides an excellent way to make it available to the world. If they jam it, we could make parachute drops of CDs!!

I like the concept of a propaganda crusade. It has the potential to save many lives and many souls!!

Mr. Watson,

Although you adopted Hugh's new desperate tactic (To Make Yourself and others Fool, After You couldn't attack Holy Islam directly now you want to use old tactics of decieving and causing divisions) very fast in the tone of your post, But becuase the source of this sorcery is paradoxial and based about the Lies, the product of that idea can't be less rediculous and false:

Radical Muslims have hidden behind Islam to carry out a cultural and political agenda, and will rot in hell for it.

IF as you always claim The Radicalism is in The Holy Koran, How someone is suposed to believe you that a radicalism thing can hide himself behind another radicalism? So you are deep in a paradox from begining with this kind of desperate accusations and The Final Thing I realized was That The Mutiny Of Captain Kirk from your gang, Does make sense. Who is Imposer here and Who is spreading Lies about Another religion.

But Your tricks are exposed, They are All Old, you adopted them over and over again with no any use and sense. All you want is destruction of Holy Islam and using any tricks to achieve that is revealed from the beginings.

All Of The Sudden, The "Muslim Radicals" ARE Hiding Themselves Behind Holy Islam! You use it just to make divisions. Do you think someone believes your lies? Unless you go and delete all your hatered expressed against Muslims, Our Holy Prophet (pbuh) and our Holy Religion in your previous posts.

That is why I reject to waste my time to respond to ignorant minds, But believe me this one was so old and spoiled and it seems only You can't see how rediculous you look like when changing tactics like this. Nothing is new in your gang, You use the same ol' tricks, It's all Known by us. Almighty Allah (swt) Protects Us Against Your Witchery.

Replace the madrassas with Western schools, cut off funding for the madrassas.

Yeah I know. Easier said than done. :P

Jebelum,

I like you idea of being direct and honest. I'm one American that would support it 100% and does not need it sugar coated. I just hope that others in the U.S. would support it as well.

As for Bush being a liar, can you give me an example? I want to know exactly where you're coming from.

Hugh is dead right that the war on terror is actually
a war on Jihadi ideology and Jihad. Terror is just a tactic of the Jihadis. Jihad is the
ideology. The word 'terror' allows 'moderate' muslims to say that they are for self defense and against terror (ofcourse, their self defense
definition is a lot different. ). But are they really going to say that they are against Jihad ? I doubt it and if it sparks a debate on the word jihad, all the better. Isnt reforms that denounce jihad all that we want ?

Americans on this board call them variously as
Islamist, Islamofascist, fascist, Islamic radicals. West trying to understand the Jihadi problem through the lens of its own history smells of arrogance as well as stupidity. Jihadi ideology is not exactly fascism and is in fact more virulent at times. You have to understand this ideology for what it is rather draw a parallel. Also, even the Islamic republics call these people as Jihadis. So, there cannot be a
controversy as is in the case of the word terrorist.

Also, I hope the 'war on terror' is called 'war on Jihadis' rather than 'war on jihadists'.
The word jihadist again smells like drawing a parallel between fascist and Jihadis. The word
jihadi is an appropriate word.

Invest in Canadian oilsands, guaranteed jihad free!

I like the idea of a mini series on Islam in alllll its g(l)ory, I think bringing it to the light will do more for our cause than a 1000 letters to the editor.

“Your grandchildren will be educated in public schools.”

Mahmoud you are a liar, how can be holy a religion whose founder is a pedophile who had sexual relations with a 9 years old girl?
How can be Holy a faith that has forced people to convert or die?
How can be holy a fait that is deceiving young people to kill kafirs to get sexual pleasure in paradise?
You are a bastard religion that worship demons, but we are more and more discovering it. When everybody know it how do you think you will scape?

Exactly jose maria....what other religion promises its followers a romp through an x-rated paradise with 72 virigns waiting to do their bidding..(and oddly enough also promises 28 handsome pre pubescent boys...guess the boys are for when the dirty old man gets tired of the female virgins??) They are also promised riches...virgins lounging on jeweled couches...this is the "reward" for being a good muslim...

Riches and sex romps are things of the flesh...our souls do not need sex or jewels...imagine the surprise of muslims when there are no riches or sexy virgins or little boys to use for their sexual pleasure...these are the promises that mohammud made to his followers...promise the dirty old men an eternity in sin city and they will follow what he wanted...and it obviously worked.

Webb Calls Conservative News Readers Members of the Ku Klux Klan
Talon News
Posted: Wed 06.02.04 -- 03:33:51
SEATTLE, WA (Talon News) -- Although he vowed to ignore charges of making death threats against President George W. Bush, liberal radio show host Mike Webb continues to berate "odd web sites publishing their gossip" for members of the "Klan."

Talon News recently reported that a listener to The Mike Webb Show, which airs from 10:00 p.m.-1:00 a.m. on 710 AM KIRO in Seattle, Washington, said that Webb had "called for the death of President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld for 'war crimes'" during his program on Tuesday, May 18.

the full article is posted at
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/june/0601_webb_klan.shtml

The Liberals are at it again
Seem to think the prison abuse means Bush & Rumsfeld should be put to death... Way out of proportion here. Just my 2cents worth.

Hugh is correct. Proclaiming the war to be against jihad is about as non-threatening a response as can be made, yet it also zeroes in on the problem because Jihad is a central tenet of Islam.

Mahmoud - We've got you figured out. You are full of hate and have swallowed the Muslim line so completely that you are unable to see the immorality of your own thought process. You continue to call and ideology that murders a religion. Another sin is that you call that ideology "holy," which it definitely can not be because it's based on hatred and MURDER. Using violence in the name of religion is the greatest sin of alll.

Go ahead, expose us for condemning jihad. Other Muslims have proclaimed that radical jihadists have "hijacked the religion." Thus, Islam "is not responsible." The refuse to admit that jihad is Islam, but no matter. That is their problem. At least we are being forthright and not using your tactics, taqiyya and kitman.

I, too, strongly agree with Hugh. I sense pressure building in various corners on the need to define the enemy in the war on terror. The polis is riping...Perhaps it is the kind of thing that needs to be 'nudged' along gradually until the dam breaks. Speakers out there, writers, a word or two on 'Jihad' and the need to define the enemy we face everytime words are said and written? And, in the most public of forums, TV...let it fly!

Twinkie, does the word Wahabi mean anything to you? It should, as it's what comes of your fingertips every time you post.

Call us ignorant all you like, it doesn't change the fact that by all of your previous posts on this site, you support barbaric cut-throats. These barbaric cut-throats are bound by faith, ie the Islamic machete blood cult.

The ignorance and blindness is all in YOUR mind, not ours. Get with the times. Many Islamists that are confronted for their constant lies and deception try to use the defense that the ones that confront them are "ignorant." It doesn't work on us. You kooks should've done more research about us before you decided to play insects and infest us. You're not respected, nor are you feared.

Most want you out of the U.S., and so one day it shall be. We are free, we'll stay free, even if that means sending every last one of you to meet your moon God Allah, sporting leaks all over your little bodies. You don't mind dying, and we don't mind you dying. Think hard about this, as it is fact, not fiction......

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml
"Gen. Zinni: 'They've Screwed Up'"

"“There has been poor strategic thinking in this,” says Zinni. “There has been poor operational planning and execution on the ground. And to think that we are going to ‘stay the course,’ the course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change course a little bit, or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course. Because it's been a failure.” "

Zinni was someone who advocated more troops in the run up to the war in Iraq.Turns out he was wrong and Saddam was toppled in three weeks with the troops strength recommended by Secretary Rumsfeld and General Franks. Zinni also proved ineffective as an envoy to mediate the Isreali Palestinian conflict. He spent most of his time laying wreaths at the spot of the latest palestinian suicide bombing and did very little negotiation. Zinni was eventually replaced as an envoy by secretary of state Colin Powell. Zinni is entitled to his opinion but as the administration has pointed out they look to current not retired generals for advice.Zinni was not involved in the war planning for Iraq.

General Zinni is a devoted promoter of the Saudis, with whom he got along so swimmingly when he was in the Middle East. He does not understand, and sees no need to understand, the tenets of Islam. He does not connect the dots, or even see the dots that need connecting. The murders of Christians in East Timor, the Moluccas, Sulawesi, the Moro Islands, Pakistan, northern Nigeria, southern Sudan, the murders of Hindus in Pakistan, Kashmir, Bangladesh, and even within India itself, the murders of Buddhists in Thailand, the murders of Confucian and Christian Chinese in Indonesia, none of this swims into General Zinni's ken.

It is right to criticize the failure to analyze what it is that ails Iraq. Hint: it is not the absence of democracy. From the Infidel point of view, all the most important developments to tame or constrain or limit the effect of Islam have come from despots -- the Shah of Iran, Habib Bourguiba of Tunisia, Mohammad V of Morocco, and especially Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk), of Turkey.

But Zinni's criticism is coming from the wrong direction. He criticizes because he wishes to appease the world of Arab Islam. Like Wolfowitz, he does not understand, and cannot factor in, the main problem: Islam itself. It is a problem for Muslims. And it is a problem for Infidels. And nothing can be done until its failures are seen, by Muslims themselves, as failures, and the Muslim world ceases to be held up by Western aid and OPEC money. Zinni is not, in other words, a critic who sees the need to let Iraqis, from within, learn in their own wallowing in failure about the failures of Islam as an answer (as the Iranians have been learning, over the past 25 years from those Masters of Misrule, the Shi'a Mullahs and Grand Ayatollahs who have, thankfully, done more to drag Islam into disrepute than could a hundred years of Infidel attempts, from the outside, to suggest as much. No intelligent Iranian can -- it must be said -- think of Islam in the same way as might once, some thirty or forty years ago, have been possible.

Citoyen suedois, take note. And were I you, I might consider changing your email name. Let me explain. The words "curious" and "Sweden" in the same sentence evoke, for all Americans above the age of, say, 35, the truly awful and tepidly erotic movie "I Am Curious (Yellow)" that, some decades ago, naturally attracted a certain undeserved audience. "Curious Citizen From Sweden" makes us all -- I blush to admit it for the rest of us, but some picador or banderillero must take this bull by the horns -- unwillingly recall that film's title, and we hate to be reminded. So pick another name, for god's sake and ours. "Enquiring Swedish mind"; "Linnaeus" or "Karl von Linne." Or "Bruzelius" or some similar latinized Swedish names from that 17th and 18th century fad, the kind of name to evoke an earlier, more tolerable Sweden, with gentle naturalists, and disinterested philosophers wearing wire-rimmed spectacles, and gorging on raspberries in Uppsala in August. Choose any damn internet name you want, but not, please not, "Curious Citizen From Sweden." It's driving us mad.

AL qaeda = Islamic Jihad
Hesbollah = islamic Jihad
Hammas = Islamic Jihad
Terrorism = Islamic Jihad
AT least, calling it that will simplify having to remember hundreds of arabic names

Using euphemisms is the malaise of appeasers and academics.
Mel Brooks the Producers
Oh well ! i never realised that the Nazis were Germans ! How interesting.
Rumsfeld has almost spat in out in Singapore.
Mr Bush -please spit it out in France.
President Reagan would have done it .

Curious Swede
Try Raoul Wallenburg .
Or if you are german
Pastor Niemuller.
These are great redeemers of the nations.

http://www.leaderu.com/focus/islamandjihad.html

I would be interested in your comments on the overall sense of the articles here...which point out many of the same things that are discussed on JW but seem to advocate a less confrontational answer.

I had posted earlier some question regarding the motivations of the host and some of those posting on this site.

There is no shortage of Islamic extremists...and there are also plenty of Jews and Christians that are gleeful over the apocalyptic possibilities presented by a massive confrontation with Islam....which the West will unquestionably "win" if it comes to it.

The same idiots are paying a fortune to breed a "perfect" red cow, so they can torch it, and later, torch the al aqsa mosque.

One hardly knows what to do with the ill-concealed venom of the suggestion that those alarmed about Islam because of many recent events and, prompted by that alarm, having engaged in serious study of Islam, its tenets and its history, and begun as well to visit Islamic websites, to discover what is being fed to, and believed by, Muslim minds around the world, are looking forward, and with "glee" yet, to an apocalyptic clash. Nonsense. If anything, those posting at Jihadwatch want quite the reverse: the heading-off of such a clash, through the intelligent, and timely, application of such instruments of counter-Jihad as are available,including depriving would-be Jihadis of wealth and power, so as not to have to rely, later on, purely on military means to subdue them. And most of all, one wishes for a constraint on Islam coming from within Islam itself -- in the creation of local Ataturks everywhere in the dar al-Islam.

Does the desire to lessen the threat of a potential Islamic takeover of Western Europe, through alerting Europeans to the demographic weapon and the expressed intention of using it, strike anyone as apocalyptic? Would not the truly apocalyptic wish to do nothing, and to wait until the only way out will be all-out civil war, between non-Muslims and Muslims, within Europe itself? It may come to that, but one wishes to avoid it.

Would not those of an apocalyptic frame of mind wish to bring on a great cataclysm, when the whole point to Jihadwatch, and the effort bythose who support it, is to inform, to instruct -- in order, precisely, that the "big wars" (in Othello's phrase) may be avoided?

As for the sneer about the "red cow" and torching the "al aqsa mosque" -- what is that all about, and from what psychic subdepths does it emerge? A few people in Israel, mainly Jews but also some Christians, apparently waiting for the Messiah, and taking the most extreme "literalist" approach that, it might be noted, while not shared by 99% of the world's Christians and Jews, but is shared, most emphatically, by all Muslims who claim to be Believers -- who believe that the appearance of a certain kind of "red cow" will herald the Messiah's appearance, and who also hope that destroying the Al-Aksa Mosque will spark a conflagration that will lead to the establishment of Justice on Earth. If the poster does not know it, and I suspect he knows it perfedctly, the people who think this way can be numbered, at most, in the 100s. The Muslims who think that all Infidels need to be subjugated, that Jihad is necessary and cannot be foresworn, number in the hundreds of millions. That matters.

Nor are those involved in the breeding of red cows, or planning to destroy the Al-Aksa Mosque (and every so often, some demented soul tries to suggest this, and is promptly arrested by the Israeli police whenever they deem it appropriate), in any way to be associated with the supremely rational, often well-informed, and therefore alarmed people, from many countries, and with varying backgrounds, who post here. Many of them have had to be autodidacts, for the simple reason that the official teaching of Islam is more and more in the hands of Muslim propagandists and their non-Muslim allies; it is becoming impossible, in the West, to "tell the truth about Islam," as Jacques Ellul complained of France back in 1989. Those who have come to comprehend the full horror not only of Jihad, but of the institution of dhimmitude that follows upon it, and who have little by little begun to realize the great similarity in the treatment, through time and space, of Christians and Jews, Zoroastrians and Hindus, by the Muslims who have conquered their lands and subjugated them, are naturally the most alarmed -- and like people in the 1930s who recognized the threat from Hitler (for Churchill was not alone) -- feel an urgent need to communicate what they know, to let others become acquainted with the same material, to learn to see through taqiyya and kitman, to dismiss the irreducible brigade of antisemites who will, it seems, take the side of Islam even if it means cutting their own throats (like the antisemites of the 1930s, who kept dismissing worries about HItler, because in their view, in his hatred of the Jews, he was performing yeoman's service, and they hardly wished to interrupt his activities), and to help others reach the melancholy conclusions that they have come to -- which is to say, to use all the artfulness and cunning we possess, throughout the Infidel world, to defeat Islam, to let Muslims themselves see its failures, without having to engage in an "apocalyptic" war.

Nor are those who recognize this problem by any means limited to non-Muslims. Ex-Muslims are perhaps the keenest-eyed and most uncompromising. Many intelligent people, born into Islam, have come to recognize its intellectual and moral failings, and dared, despite the punishment for apostasy, to leave it (see, for examples, the collection of testimonies in "Leaving Islam"). Neither Ibn Warraq, nor Ali Sina, nor many like them, are waiting for someone to breed a "perfect red cow" (whatever that is; could it be a Bolshevik relation to Gelett Burgess' "purple cow" -- you know, the one he never saw, but he could tell you anyhow, he'd rather see than be one?), or to destroy the Al-Aksa Mosque (ca en dit long, that charge, for here I detect the note either of a Muslim, or the usual antisemite who enjoys taking a thinly-veiled swipe at those "typical" Israelis -- you know, those millions who are trying to destroy the Al-Aksa Mosque by warning that if the Arabs keep up their dangerous subterranean excavations on the Temple Mount, they may cause tha mosque, and the Western Wall, to collapse).

While on the subject of the Al-Aksa Mosque, and the Dome of the Rock (actually a non-Islamic, Byzantine maryrium, with inscriptions in Arabic, but not canonical Qur'anic inscriptions -- as almost no one has bothered to point out), it should be remembered that the Al-Aksa Mosque was placed precisely on the Temple Mount for a nonreligious and geopolitical purpose: to lay claim to a city holy to both Judaism and Christianity (the competing faiths whose believers had to be won over to Islam), and to put a kind of marker of Islamic power (like the American flag at Iwo Jima) right smack on top of the holiest site where the Temple of the Jews had stood. Indeed, the identification of "the farthest mosque" -- "al-masjid al-aksa" in the Qur'an -- from which Muhammad was said to have taken off on his miraj, or Night Journey, flying heavenwards on his fabulous winged steed al-Buraq, was deliberately identified with Jerusalem only after some time, and discussion had gone on, and most likely it took place as a way to allow the Umayyad caliphates to lay claim, from Damascus, to Jerusalem. Abdel Malik may, incidentally, have been one of the original concocters of Islam, given its non-Hijazi origins (note to doctoral candidates in the history of early Islam: look into this, if you want to make a splash, but don't expect tenure from too many MESA members). Abdel Malik was doing what La Salle did in the woods near the Mississippi, when he laid claim to all of North America, back in 1682, for his prince lointain, Louis of France.

Islamic extremism cannot be defeated. It is the will of an entire religion. Christians successfully destroying Islamic extremism is about as possible as Buddhists successfully destroying Christian evangalism (Lousy crackers).

TO fight Islam, we must strart in the schools of the west.
Unless we are prepared to document the history of islam and teach the reality of the koran , our young pepole will never realise its nefarious aims and its horrific history.
Instead we allow our Academic institutions to paint islam as a religion of peace and whitewash its history of ravage amongst the non islamic communities.
Our Churches have become dhimmified and refuse to even mention the savagery imposed on thousands of Christians throughout the world.
Islamic propaganda saturates our media and is echoed by the left in an uunholy alliance to further disinform the general public.
Is this a new phenomenon ?
ONly in the sense that the huge oil revenues have enabled propaganda to permeate our society to a far greater extent that ever before.
Whilst we were busy looking for reds under the bed we were unaware of the poison which was already being spread.
People say than ISlam is trying to dhimmify us.
GEt real? they have already done it to a huge extent.
We need a Reagan to say "Islam, tear down this wall of hate or suffer the consequences."

When the Secretary of the Army replaced the Secretary of War in 1947 the cabinet position of
Secretary of Defense became the new cabinet position
merging Army, Navy and the new Air Force under said Defense of Secretary.

Rumsfeld's words make me think that it's now time to re-instate the old moniker. Maybe the continuous reference to the Secretay of War might burst the bubble of fog surrounding the majority of bubble-heads in this country. This is WAR in a nuclear-biological-chemical age.
To paraphase Jack Weatherford, biographer for one G. Kahn...victory goes to he who makes the rules and imposes them on his enemies, not the one
who plays by the rules. We know who's playing by the rules (and p.c. rules at that), afterall the
French might hate us.

While I'm still dreaming, Patten believed in
re-incarnation. Is it too much to hope that
he's back, about to step forward to do what must
be done?

p.s. I hope I'm not following the idiot anonymous
posted at 11:17. He/she/it sure has a way with
words, huh?

Hugh:

(from another thread)

Yeah, there’s cause for anxiety about the Strangelovian scenario of Paris’ force de frappe falling into the hands of some renegade, French-Moslem officer, but, thankfully, not in the near term.

More worrying are several prospects that could well be a lot closer: Jihadis taking over volatile Pakistan, with its 40 to 60 nukes, Iran’s deranged Grand Council of Islamic Guardians finishing construction of their atomic arsenal, or el-Qaeda obtaining one (or some) of the ex-Soviet devices which went “missing” during the mid-1990s, pilfering one (or some) of Pakistan’s warheads and/or purchasing one (or some) from the rogue state of North Korea.

If the full volume of the French force de frappe or Pakistan’s flights of nukes were loosed on the West, the devastation would be enormous. Otherwise, it’d be horrendous, but somewhat more limited. What’d be the sensible response to such an attack? If a régime in Pakistan or Iran is found culpable, there’s a solid argument to be made for smiting those countries in reprisal. If it’s established that the responsibility lay with an individual “Général Jacques de Ripper”, alone, should all of France cop nuclear retribution forthwith? What targets for retaliation ought to be selected for a counter-strike if an atomic explosion’s set off by el-Qaeda or its confederates?

In the latter case, it depends how tough you want to play. Ultimately, there’d be no excluding Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia from the list of sites (while simultaneously demolishing el-Aqsa in Jerusalem with armoured bulldozers). Visualize it - a cruise missile entering the Grand Mosque, penetrating the Kaaba and detonating on impact with the Holy Black Stone in its corner, vapourizing it. Accompanying this, a further handful of missiles, bearing “dirty” payloads, peppering the environs of Mecca (and Medina) for miles around, rendering them lethally unapproachable for the next 22,000 years.

Following the Arab defeat by Israel in 1967, reputedly there arose in the dar el-Islam a previously unimaginable question (identical to that of the Christians when the Barbarians sacked Imperial Rome, or of the Jews when the Babylonians and then the Romans destroyed the First and Second Temples): Has our God abandoned our Religion, letting such things take place?

This questioning was urgently suppressed by a concerted campaign throughout the Arab/Moslem sphere, which soon transmogrified it into an unshakeable conviction in the existence an immense and complex, global Conspiracy, arrayed specifically to assault “poor, innocent” Islam.

Christianity managed to live through the fall of Rome (and later of Byzantium), Judaism got through the destruction of the Temples - but does Islam possess the inner resources and flexibility to survive the permanent loss of Mecca, Medina and el-Aqsa? Or would the shock prove terminal, exposing the religion’s shortcomings and causing its dissolution?

In putting this to the test, there can be no doubt whatever that the immediate reaction to such a stroke by the West would be ultra-violent and hyper-terroristic on the part of the Islamic world. But once this is severely put down (including the application of nukes, where requisite), the remnant of Moslems will be unavoidably confronted with the inescapable necessity of either drastically reforming their beliefs or irrationally sticking to them and perishing.

Sorry to sound so callous, but this is WAR (whether people like it or not) - which, remember, the Islamo-fascists ignited, not the West - against a mortal enemy that openly, daily vows that its primary aim is to totally eradicate the West, plus every trace and any memory of it, root and branch, forever. - Nobody goes into War with the goal of losing!

Our options are narrow - either to fight back or to surrender. The scant alternatives before us are PEACE THROUGH VICTORY (at whatever expense) or death in the endeavour, or else to be butchered, or to submit to dhimmitude and enslavement, or to conversion and slavery - should our new masters deign to spare us in our defeat (which they’re nowhere obliged to do).

ITA with HG. This is what Muslims do to Christians:

http://www.compassdirect.org/en/breaking.php?idelement=163

The people in America need to wake up.

I was at a party for a friend of my son. The neighbors, Muslims, were invited. Only the children came: 2 boys about 7 and 5 and a little girl about 3 or 4. The boys would not let her eat at the table. Then we sat her at the table with all the other children and those boys made sure she did not eat by intimidation. I encouraged her, but then when I moved away she stopped eating. So when the children were done we moved the food outside and the little girl sat and ate at the picnic table alone. Then when it was time to line up for the pinata, we put the little girl first after the birthday girl since she was the youngest, and the boys followed in order of age youngest to oldest. While the birthday girl was hitting the pinata, the boys rearranged and all of a sudden the little girl was off to the side--out of the line and the boys were in line with the oldest first. She was the quietest, non-smiling, saddest little girl I have ever seen and the boys were arrogant and difficult.

Already the children were indoctrinated into the cult. There was no attempt at assimilation and nor will there be--probably until the little girl gets to school and is away from those boys. The mother could not leave the house. This is a belief system that is 100 percent incompatible with American values, and the Americans will not accept this.

I was having a beer with a good buddy down by the ocean in a public park about four years ago. The sun was setting in the distance, nice evening. A Muslim man was bent over praying about 50 yards or so away with a friend. And I thought, how nice.they are paying homage to their God.

After he was done he walked by us. He was built like an NFL linebacker (but fat) and he truly looked at us with the cold eyes of death. I have never seen such hatred in human eyes. I watched him carefully; the way he looked told me that he would like nothing else than to kill me right there, and mind you, I knew nothing about Islam and the Koran in those days. I was just reading him. I didn’t care one way or the other about his religion. In fact, I was happy he was praying. Then, out of the blue, he just scared the ever livin' shit outta me, and I don't scare that easy.

Now tell me, what does the good lord love more, a couple of old friends enjoying this beautiful creation, reminiscing about good times, and life well lived, thinking good thoughts about a couple of fellows of a different religion praying in the park, or, a self righteous man who obviously thought he knew the iron law of God and who supposed that that law included dispatching yours truly to hell for defiling his place of purity (a public park according to the laws of our state)? I suspect God is on my side on this one. And, as I have now educated myself somewhat about the Koran and Islam after 9/11, I understand why he hated me so and I understand that one of his aims in life is to change my society so he could dispatch me in just the way he wanted on that fine day four years ago. Now I would like to return to his ‘place of worship’ and tell him that I have every right to drink in that park (City law permitted it) and to toast his departure to hell or to the nearest crappy Islamic country of his choosing.

The "solution" that I posted is not really an eye for an eye response. It is an across the board response, taken by sane nations, against the actual individuals acting out hatred by the random killing of civilians. But it is not limited to Islamic Jihad, and it is not tit for tat murders. When we sink to their level we have lost.

This solution would work for any "cause" that slipped beneath the Lowest limits of acceptable human behavior. Right now it is Islam. Tomorrow it might be another fanatic group.

Further this solution does not and does not need to address Islam or Muslim doctrines or policies. Address the individual actions, they will adjust the polices as time goes on. Who really cares what goes on in the Mosque? Who cares if these folks think they are the only viable religion? As long as they do not act out violently, let them have their delusions.

I do not think the Non Muslim world quite "gets it" yet. No amount of Reason, No Sane dialogue, No appealing to the rational heart of Islam is going to make one bit of difference to the Muslims, if it comes from Non Muslims. We are less than farm animals in the eyes of the Muslims. We are a group "lower life forms" to be manipulated or bribed until we can be conquered and either made slaves or killed.

This is why I did not suggest any type of interference with the Muslims Powers that be. The solution I propose strikes at the hearts and minds of the people. I do not suggest murdering the Mother and Father of the bombers...I do not suggest the destruction of their homes and belongings. I suggest making the payment for the insanity of Suicide bombers just too high to afford.

Actually I was inspired in part by Israelis actions toward leaders of the terror movements. But the way they are doing it, is a bit too bloody for me. I understand they act alone and have to be simple and brutal in their policies. My Plan would take our actions from preemptive ( We can’t kill them all) to a sane premeditated reaction to actual violence.

If the world united on this one and backed the non violent solution I proposed. It would take the spotlight off Israel and the centuries of enmity between the Arabs and Jews and place it on the Civilized world, and what we will accept in the way of actions from other human beings.

And again, please note, this solution would apply to ANY GROUP, no matter the cause, that allowed its members to target innocents through suicide attacks. If your cause is righteous, then take the civilized roads to getting the problem fixed.

To respond violently to the attacks is exactly what the Islamists want. They are a cult of death. Killing them is not going to work. Capturing them and keeping them alive to be reminded of what caused the loss of their freedom is the answer. Driving the teachers out of the main stream, dissolving their "power" will make a difference.

We can not stop the Islamists. We can only make the price they pay for their terror so high no human being will be willing to pay it.

Civilization is what is being attacked. We all share the responsibility to respond. We have to address it collectively. We have to make the reason to NOT do it very clear and penalty very dear to the ones that would consider it a viable action.

Rumsfeld said thwarting terrorists isn't enough. He said ways must be found to persuade young Muslims that "the way of the future is through education and opportunity, not through suicide and terrorism."

Amazing. I remember saying this in a public forum on about 9/12, and was denounced as a leftist appeaser. And now Rumsfeld is saying the same thing!

The fact is that to defeat this menace we have to work in numerous field, on numerous fronts. Of course military threats must be opposed militarily. But we need to provide alternative routes for disaffected young people, an alternative world view and a perspective for the future which is appealing and exciting, and which can address legitimate grievances - and who could say that a young person growing up in Saudi Arabia, for example, doesn't have legitimate grievances? We have to show and prove that what we have to offer will actually make things better, will actually give young people a purpose in life, while demonstrating at the same time that jihad will fail. Only this way can we start to dry up the roots of terrorism.

A good start is this "we love death" stuff. "We love death" is treason, treason to the human race. It's no accident that the last people I can think of who made "Viva la muerte!" a political slogan were Franco's fascists. People who love death have surrendered themselves not to God, but to chaos.

Hugh-

Magnificently pedantic answer as expected...and in the tone and tenor expected as well.

First, I am neither muslim nor anti-semite. That is the first accusation I should expect though. Others did the same. No, I suspect my picture is there in the dictionary beside "infidel".

Ill-concealed venom? That is most of what I see in postings on this website. I posted some of it myself.

I don't need any more convincing on Islam. But it is one thing to point at your neighbor and say "your way of life is completely fucked up". and so it looks like it is...and then the only solution that you offer is tell all your other neighbors how fucked up he is, and discuss dropping the big one on him.

The red cow "sneer" is this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher041102.asp

I want people to be informed. But I don't want to see them get worked into a fury and not look for peaceful solutions, first. Rather than try and write a dissertation on a post, I will let others do the talking for me. See
http://www.mille.org/people/rlpages/Bin_Laden.html

and also the articles on http://www.leaderu.com/focus/islamandjihad.html

The point in the red cow sneer is that there are some well moneyed lunatics who will see their dream come true if the war with the Islamic world escalates. And while the information about Islam needs to go out, how about some non nuclear solutions as well as part of the discussion?

And since, in addition to calling me a muslim, you also accused me of being an ant-semite (c'mon, isn't ant-jew more accurate language for a pseudo-scholar of the Arab/Islamic world?)

In a word, not so. Though I did try to dig into that mystery (at least its a mystery to me)...why in the hell do so many people seem to hate the Jews? Are there "evil verses" in the Talmud that prompted this? All I found was this:
http://stormfront.org/jewish/talmud.html
and what a piece of shit organization it is that posted that stuff...

You have accused me of being a muslim and anti-semite. You do seem to know an awful lot about the Middle East; you even know the nature of some Arab scribblings on the Al-Aqsa mosque. This begs the question - are you a Jew? Maybe you are one of those 100 or so who want that sucker blown up...again, I have not seen much in the way of non-catastrophic solutions suggested on this website.

By the way, I went into the democratic underground website to check out their objections to Robert Spencer and this website. The reply I got was this: he is an adjunct fellow of the Free Congress Foundation. Here is their mission statement:http://www.freecongress.org/about/index.asp

I don't know if its true or not...but I know that I don't want any religious zealots - Muslim, Christian, Jew, whatever, driving us all down a path of destruction.

Kirk

Islam is incorrect, but the next question that comes to mind is, "What is?" I doubt that fighting (in whatever fashion) for the Nothing or the Emptiness or a vague uncertain feeling that God may or may not exist will do the trick, but that's just me. The soul's a power vaccum -- it does not long stay empty.

Kirk, what answers do you propose? There are many non-violent responses that I've seen here. One is the creation of a bunch of local Atturks. Another is to introduce something besides Islam. One person suggested Zoasterianism; I suggest Christianity. Some have suggested education (although what you teach then becomes the issue). It may come to violence; it fact, it probably will. Muslims are notoriously thin-skinned and from what I've seen will much more likely fight and die than listen (at least the men). What do you expect from a culture that says "Humiliation is worse than death."? What you're seeing is the acknowledgement in many posts that nothing works besides violence with a large majority of Muslims. That's tragic, but it nonetheless seems to be true.

I am charged with seeming "to know an awful lot about the Middle East." I should hope so, else it would be silly for me to make pronouncements, and to offer mini-essays which are intended to have pedagogic value, on Islam, at this very website. Perhaps some posters will have noted that there are also some other matters, far from the MIddle East, and not always about Islam, about which I seem to have something, en passant, to say, not all of it idiotic. So what would that make me? A Martian, taking the long view of the entire earth from outer space? Or one of those celebrity frauds (you know, like Thomas Friedman or Jeffrey Sachs) who pontificate about everything under the sun -- except they haven't bothered to study those thinigs? Perhaps I am a gentleman of leisure, and have educated myself in all sorts of matters. Kirk wonders aloud, nastily, if I am "a Jew" (an argumentum ad hominem offered not neutrally but accusingly, as if this would both explain, and fatally vitiate, the logic and content and coherence of my remarks -- why would it, exactly?). To which I must reply: Yes, my real name is Fitzgoldberg, and I raise red cows in a settlement in Gaza, where I spend my evenings plotting to destroy the Al-Aksa Mosque, davening over the table (oops, I revealed it -- I used the word "davening") and to bring about an apocalyptic conflagration which, of course, could not possibly happen otherwise, because nowhere in the world are Muslims attacking anyone else (relax, you Christians in the Sudan, Pakistan, Indonesia (where 2,300 churches were destroyed in 2003 alone), the Philippines, northern Nigeria; relax, you Hindus in Bangladesh, Pakistan,Kashmir; relax, you Buddhists in Thailand and Bali; relax, you metro-takers in Madrid, you office-workers in New York and Washington, you Swiss tourists at Luxor, you German visitors to Djerba, you Infidel businessmen and oilworkers in Saudi Arabia; relax, you American soldiers being attacked even as you risk your lives trying only to reconstruct a country constisting of ungrateful and, in places, fanatical Muslim haters of Infidels, whatever the good works and intentions of those Infidels. Relax, because Muslims are trying just as hard as they can (look at those soothing sermons in Saudi Arabia -- don't they remind you of the Congregationalist sermon in a small white besteepled church, on a New England green, in fall, with the maples changing color and a nip in the air?) Christians in Indonesia, but being their usual peaceful and rational selves, as they have been for 1350 years.

My comment on your posting was rational, pointed, complete, and in places, I allow myself to believe, funny. Perhaps you are not as fond of Purple Cows as I am. And I simply noted that for someone to raise the issue of a handful of people (what? 10? 200?)raising red cows and wanting to destroy the Muslim structures placed on Temple Mount, is as suspect a rhetorical diversion, as would be that of some Muslim spokesman who, under pressure in a debate to admit to the reality, and centrality, of Jihad, and to the role of Islamic texts in fomenting violent (and other kinds of) Jihad, were to invoke the Lord's Army in northern Uganda, that utterly bizarre, and utterly un-Christian movement, whatever its claimed basis in Biblical teachings, and to say -- "look, you Christians have your crazies, too, who hijack you religion." You know perfectly well that would be a transparent attempt at diversion, and at establishing a false symmetry. So why do it with this "red-cow-Al-Aksa" trivial pursuit? If you are not, as you claim, a "Muslim or an antisemite," then perhaps it is simply a failure to adequately measure the relative significance of tens of millions of Jihadis worldwide, and the infinitesimal handful of people in other religions who exhibit signs of similar, extraordinary religious dementia.

Come off it. Use your head.

Billy Graham needs to have a crusade in Baghdad.

Nomore Jihad-
I don't have any good answers. I'd like to see some discussed. There has got to be some alternative besides, they suck, they are all misguided death cult followers, let's kill 'em all, and let god sort them out.

Hugh-
You're going to have the last word, I have to worship mammon, and don't have time to duel with a man of leisure. Bin Laden and company want to force the final battle. They and others like him are clearly suicidal maniacs. Islam provides him an ideology to recruit an awful lot of otherwise ignorant people into his plan.

Likewise, while I won't argue that there are about 10 orders of magnitude more muslim fanatics than the judeo-christian variety, it does not take many clever demagogues to work up the sort of venom that kills millions. Ask the jews that survived the extermination attemp imposed by a "christian" country.

Why is it that, on an open internet forum, people get so angry about a personal question? I want to know some background about who I am talking to...this is pretty much anonymous; I guess you could track me down if you wanted. Is being asked if you are a jew automatically a racial slur? Maybe I am insensitive...but I have seen plenty of outright meanness on this website. So when I ask you if you are a jew, or if Dina has a clitoris...and when there are harsh accusations about evil cultures and conspiracies flying around, I really don't expect to hurt your's or anyone else's feelings.

I don't want to see us obliterate muslims. As much as they really seem to hate us, and a lot of them are trying their damneddest to try and kill us, I feel sorry for them. Their world sucks. Their vision of God is of an unforgiving being. Forgiveness is not an option.

I'd like to see a glimmer of hope. I think all this apocalypse crap is purely manmade. I don't want to see it become a self fulfilled prophecy.

Kirk

Kindly read my first post, and you will see that I was noting that the whole purpose, in alerting people to the problem and danger of the tenets of Islam (a problem, and dangers, made evident in the long history of the conquest, and subsequent subjugation, of many different peoples of many different religions, in many different places, and in many different times -- all of them having experiences remarkably similar, with mass murder, the imposition of a system of humiliation, degradation, and permanent insecurity, and the slow asphyxiation of those original religions as more and more people either were killed, or -- out of perfectly understandable reasons, given the grim lives they would otherwise have to continue living -- converted) is precisely to AVOID an apocalypse, not to create one. It is possible to use more intelligence, not merely military force, to limit and constrain the power of Islam. For example, my suggestion that the southern Sudan be seized, with a minimum of military force, and its independence as a free, non-Muslim state be nurtured. My suggestion that if Al-Jazeera cannot be shut down (can that satellite be put out of commission? Its transmission signals be interfered with? You tell me, someone), then at the very least make sure that those working for that station will not be allowed to send their children, as one of the Al-Jazeera high muckamucks delcared it was his intention, to give them instead of the "Arab nightmare the American dream" (then what the hell is he doing promoting the Arab nightmare, and helping to raise American casualties in Iraq, eh?), by sending them to America for their education. Let him know, and others know, that that just won't be possible. Sorry. You work for an Arab propaganda network that traffics in nostop lies -- we may not be able to punish you, but we'll be damned if you, or any member of your family, is going to get a visa to study, or get medical care, here. Tough.

And then there were other suggestions, far from apocalyptic. I suggested that there were ways to encourage a revival of Zoroastrianism; that the American government could supply the works of Ibn Warraq and other ex-Muslims just as it once supplied the literary works of Russian emigres, to Soviet tourists passing through in Paris, Rome, Amsterdam, and elsewhere. I suggested that a tax, ever-increasing, should long ago have been put on gasoline, and that even now it should be done, to make sure that all economic planning can take place in the assurance that certain energy prices will not go down -- so that the Saudis cannot jerk the price up and down, in order to kill alternative sources of energy. It is important to take away their money. I suggested that, where any mosque has been found to contain weaponry, or fake passportrs, or videocassettes preaching murder, or where the khutbas (Friday Prayer sermons) are shown to have preached hatred and murder for Infidels, that mosque should be permanently closed. I suggested that we could work, in Western Europe, to rally those forces that, feeling abandoned by their corrupt EU elites, so deeply involved in the appeasement which is turning Europe into "Eurabia," need to have money, moral support, and a center to which to rally -- in other words, the Americans should behave, in confronting the world-wide Jihad, and the use of the demographic weapon within Western Europe (where every third birth in France is now a Muslim baby -- can you figure out what that means in 20 years? in 40?), exactly as they did in the early years of the Cold War, paying for Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe, supporting the Congress for Cultural Freedom, paying for meetings and symposia where ex-Communists could testify as the reality of Communism (where is the support for ex-Muslims such as Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina? Why are they not on Sixty Minutes? On radio and TV foreign policy shows? Why are they not called as Congressional witnesses to testify as to the belief-system known as Islam? Why -- fear of offending someone?).

My constant theme has been to create the conditions in which 1) the non-Muslim world can have articulated for it either the truth, or a close simulacrum of it ("Jihad" instead of "Islam"); 2) the various parts of that non-Muslim world can realize that they have an identity of interest, and need to support one another 3) create the conditions, within the world of Islam, which will allow -- from within -- the recognition by at least the thinking members of those countries and societies, to recognize the failures, political, economic, moral, and intellecutal, of Islam, so that they will work to do what Ataturk did -- to constrain and limit Islam (for its doctrines, its sacred texts, cannot be changed, and are immutable).

Those are just some of the suggestions. Others may offer others. Does this sound like someone who wants some goddam Apocalypse Now? You know nothing about me, but I will add one detail a close relative is now risking his life in Iraq, helping to "win hearts and minds" belonging to people who hate us because we are Infidels, no matter what we do for them. Why should he, why should any American soldiers risk their lives at this point (yes, the original war was justified -- it is this idiotic Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations project that is based on complete intattention both to Islam, and to the apposite example of Ataturk), when there are so many better ways to constrain and weaken Islam, and the threat it poses to all non-Muslims, including the undeniable fact that the presence of large numbers of Muslims make the lives of non-Muslims more expensive, unpleasant, difficult, and dangerous than they would otherwise be.

I wrote, Kirk, that perhaps I was a "gentleman of leisure," not that I was a gentleman of leisure. Perhaps, peut-etre, forse, tal vez, mozhet byt', keneng, kwa nasibu. The Great Mebbe. The reality, o self-described Mammon-worshipper (is that "Mammon" by any chance the same golden calf that certain red cows are said to produce?) is that I am quite far from being a gentleman of leisure in the rentier sense. I would like to make that clear, on the off-chance that some reader, somewhere, happens to possess deep pockets, or a nice family foundation, and instead of contributing to phony projects to save the world and bring eternal peace, or in lieu of flowers to some damn charity of his or her choice, will -- because that person shares my view of these matters, will decide in a fit of sheer generous genius to subsidize my so-far completely unremunerated efforts on offering a coherent strategy to limit the threat posed by the Jihad, efforts which I would like not to limit to these postings.

Had I the "leisure" of which I joked, and you took seriously, obviously such a brazen beseeching of scholarly baksheesh (Swinburnian hyperalliteration in moments of embarrassment, and not for the last time) would not be made. Pitiful, isn't it? Still, worth a shot.

Hugh:

I do believe I noticed the word "damn" in a couple of your posts. I believe that is the extent of Hugh getting "exercised" ... :-)

Keep up the FANTASTIC work. There is no one else here quite like you (although sometimes HG reminds me of you, and I once asked him if the two of you were related). I believe that I speak for a great number of us when I say that we have learned from you and felt humbled. Your contribution here is truly invaluable.

CGW

Hugh-

Holy dog shit. Somewhere in there, you actually answered some of my questions...thanks for that. Mammon, cow, whatever...$. This is excerpted from a Christian website, Leadership University. Mind you, I am no bible thumper myself, but what about this:

"So we do not need to publicly defame Islam and demean the Prophet of Islam as some American Christian leaders have done since September 11, 2001. This creates more cultural and social stumbling blocks than already exist before Muslims get to the stumbling block of the cross. To do so goes against the biblical injunction: “If it is possible … live at peace with everyone” (Romans 12:18) because it stirs up hatred, fosters mistrust and suspicion, and unnecessarily hurts Muslim sentiments.

And we can even be people of peace in the way we greet Muslims. Jesus commanded us to love our enemies and pray for them who persecute us. The greeting Jesus probably used, “Shalom aleichem” (Hebrew) is very similar to the universal Muslim greeting in Arabic of “Salaam Aleikum” (Peace to you). This is only a small thing, but blessing Muslims in the sense that we greet them with warmth, sincerity and goodwill, is faithfulness in that which is least.

Finally, waging peace on Islam means reaching out to the Muslim immigrants in our midst (nearly 60% of American Muslims are immigrants) and not hating them. Unfortunately, since 9-11, some in our midst who look Middle Eastern have been unnecessarily harassed and treated unfairly. It is instructive to see that the Bible commanded the Israelites to “love the aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt” (Deut. 10:18-19). It commanded them to gather the aliens in their towns so they would learn about the Lord and so that children of the aliens would hear it and learn to fear the Lord (Deut. 31:12-13).

In conclusion, Muslim militants have turned to hatred and violence because they perceive Islam is under attack and that perception is real and spreading all over the world. Since Islam does not teach love for enemies, bur rather hatred, some Muslims are tempted to fight America. The best way for Christians to respond is to look to the cross as the bridge to reconciliation. The battle will not be won by wrapping ourselves in the flag of patriotism and missiles won’t win the battle either. Esposito is right on that point. Most Muslims are true seekers after God as indicated by their prayer several times a day that God would lead them in a straight path (Qur’an 1:6). Christians must reach out to Muslims with the Gospel of Peace."

I am indeed glad to see some of your other suggestions, which I agree are absolutely non apocalyptic...and even make sense to cash cow worhipping country boy from NC.

I hope all is well for your family member in Iraq...and I also hope beyond hope that our experiment there works.

Finally, I also hope you get to be a man of leisure one day, if that's your wish. I believe I could live with that title.

Kirk

kirk:

I'm no Hugh, but I do know that the above statement is indicative of an attitude that demonstrates a complete and utter lack of knowledge of/understanding about the basic nature and tenets of Islam. It is nothing short of a proposed suicide pact.

Kirk -- my point, among others, is that either one's arguments cohere, make sense, are based on the available evidence, or they do not cohere, are illogical, and either ignore that evidence,or use it selectively. Discussions about one's putative background are absurd, and it is the kind of thing that so many Muslims, on the rhetorical ropes, do ("he/she must be a Jew" blah blah -- I assume someone is whispering such ideas in your ear, else why would you have stooped to the utter idiocy of what you posed a few days ago, on June 4, 2004, at 8:34 p.m., at the Fallujah thread: "That said: Spencer, Mentat, Hugh: are you Jews?/I need to know/I smell bullshit." Possibly you have a plausible Muslim friend, who has you in his power, and is feeding you this line of non-thought and non-argument. Think clearly: either arguments make sense, or they do not. The best arguments, in my view, are those made by ex-Muslims who have grown up with, and felt the full effects of, Islam.

And I repeat: I am trying to avoid all-out war, not cause it. What do you think is going to happen in Europe, if in 30-40 years there is a majority Muslim population in France? Anything? Nothing? What if something similar occurs, a decade later, in Italy? Do you care about the statues in Florence and Rome? The paintings in the Uffizi and the Vatican? I do. And of course, what about the Italians themselves? What about the very idea of Italy? Can Western civilization long exist without Italy? No, it can't. (Come to think of it, it can't exist without Israel either, and Muslim conquest of the Holy Land would deal a mortal blow to the idea of the West, and Western civilization).

As for the quote you adduce, it is so full of interfaith-racket simpering, so much treacly nonsense, that I can hardly stand to read it. Yuch. It is full of one sly untruth after another. Why should Christians be reaching out to Muslims? Why? The history of Islam is the history of conquest, first and possibly foremost, of Christian lands -- Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, North Africa (yes, and the Jews of Judea, a/k/a "Palestine" in Western Christendom), and then, later, all of the riches of the civilization of Byzantium. That Jihad conquest was followed by the mass destruction of Christian works of art, Christian churches, and the slow asphyxiation of Christian life. The same happened to Zoroastrians in Persia, Hindus and Buddhists in India (Buddhism was extirpated from India by the Muslim invaders), the Greco-Buddhist civilization of Afghanistan. And everywhere Islam went, it encouraged a complete indifference or hostility to whatever the non-Islamic past had been. Around the world today we see, of course, Muslim assaults on Christians wherever they live in Muslim lands, on Jews everywhere, on Buddhists wherever they happen to live near a Muslim population (Thailand and Bali), on Hindus wherever they can be found, and so on. The murders in East Timor (200,000 Christians killed), the murders in the Moluccas (tens of thousands killed), in the southern Sudan (1.8 million killed), not to mention the constant assaults, murders, attempts to impose Shari'a on Christians in northern Nigeria, murders in Pakistan, murders of Hindus and Christians (and Ahmadiyyas now) in Bangladesh, the persecution and murder of Copts in Egypt and Christians, especially Maronites, in Lebanon, on "Infidel" aid workers in Afghanistan and Iraq, on "infidel" journalists, businessmen, oil workers in Saudi Arabia, the huge popularity of Bin Laden (and others like him) all over the Arab and Muslim world -- what further evidence would it take to convince you that there is really a problem with the tenets of Islam? At this point, what? If you keep having to be re-persuaded, re-convinced, then there is something else going on, something irreducibly refractory, something in your own mental makeup that causes you to assent, briefly, and then to relapse into skepticism and an unwillingness to believe. Why?

How, at this point, knowing what you do, about Qur'an and hadith (for god's sake, just go to any of the Islamic websites or the www.usc.edu site, and look up the hadith of Bukhari or Muslim and start reading; it's all there; so are 3-4 different translations of the Qur'an, all laid out, side by side. It will take time. But it will be instructive.

I assure you that the American soldiers coming back, including many who had previously studied Arabic and often been subject to pro-Muslim propaganda, will not be fooled, and the families and friends to whom they will return, will not be foolable. Those soldiers have seen, up close and personal, large numbers of Muslims. They have had daily dealings with them. Some of those soldiers will rise in the ranks. Others will enter politics. Unlike the General Zinnis or chocolate soldiers like Scowcroft, they will not be fooled by the gobbledygook put out by apologists for Islam, including the non-Muslim apologists of the Esposito school (speaking of whom, do you not think it curious that on a Muslim website, John Esposito announced, in answer to a question about the numbers of "reverts" to Islam after 9/11, that he was "pleasantly surprised" that the number had not gone down but increased? Doesn't it strike you as strange that Esposito, having taught at two Jesuit colleges, Holy Cross and now that phony Georgetown "Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding," described himself as PLEASANTLY surprised? He is apparently delighted that more people, according to what news he has received, are converting -- sorry, reverting -- to Islam, even after 9/11? Why would that be?

It would take me too long to respond to every single idiocy in this gooey mass of pious goodwill, with its obvious line of taqiyya apologetics, and deliberate diversion from, both the teachings of Islam (Qur'an and hadith) about Infidels, and the history of Muslim treatment of the Infidels in the non-Muslim lands those Muslims conquered. The monstrous notion expressed in the excerpt you provide, to suggest that it is non-Muslims, Christians, who should be under some kind of obligation to understand, to reassure Muslims, to reach out to them, and all of that sentimental bosh, makes me sick. I won't quote any more than this little item: "Muslim militants have turned to violence and hatred because they have perceived that Islam is under attack" -- oh, so that explains the 1350-year record of Jihad-conquest and imposition of dhimimtude. That explains why those 1.8 million non-Muslims in the southern Sudan, the East Timorese, and so many others have been killed, including that Buddhist monk trimming his tree, and the Pakistani Christian beaten to death in his hospital bed by a Muslim guard; that explains the Hindu peasants who get their throats slit in Kashmir and Pakistan -- the Muslims, you see, were forced into it because they perceived that "Islam was under attack." Nothing at all to do with any passages all over the the Qur'an and hadith, calling for waging war against the Infidels, killing them, seizing their land, their wealth, their women. Why, when you know or should know better, do you persist in this? Why?

Here's a suggestion. Forget about this website for a while. Just don't go to it. Apparently, tt hasn't had the impact it might, or should, on your brain. So forget the earnest attempts to relate the 1350-year history of Jihad and dhimmitude to their up-to-date expressions. Assume we are all here secret agents, Mossad Badge #13476 (expiration date: 08/05).

Instead, just stick to what former Muslims have to say about Islam. They do it better than all the rest of us, anyway. Go to www.secularislam.org, and spend a week or so reading, after Mammon-serving for eight hours at work, the articles, and the testimonies of ex-Muslims, and especially Ibn Warraq's (yes, as a child he really did attend a madrassa, and lived to think coherently, and express himself beautifully, nonetheless) site, at www.secularislam.org. See if you learn anything. Check with any Muslim friends you have, to see how they explain away what you've been reading. Oh, and don't forget to also check out "kitman" and "taqiyya" in the Encyclopedia of Islam, or online. And then go to www.faithfreedom.org, and the contributions of Ali Sina and other former, chiefly Iranian, ex-Muslims.. Don't forget to read the articles of Azam Kamguian (especially on the treatment of women in Islam), and those of Irfan Khawaja (who is very good on the immediate relevance of the Qur'an, and takes issue with Daniel Pipes on this), and others whose names at the moment escape me. These people are real, not fake, not marionettes of the CIA. They exist, they write, they speak. They are well-versed in combatting the infinite slynesses of taqiyya and kitman, and every variety of apologetics (nicely displayed, I think, in the way Muslims explain away, using a thousand different tricks, Muhammad's sexual intercourse with Aisha when she was 9, and the relevance of that incident for Muslims today).

Then, when you have thoroughly read around at that site, and been directed to relevant articles by it, look at www.chiesa.com, and especially at the articles at that Vatican site by Sandro Magister. Finid out what Cardinal Biffi, once the Pope's man in Istanbul, writes about Islam, and what he warns about. See if you can discover why the Vatican, for so long putty in the hands of the "Arab" Christians who, to protect themselves, practiced the most craven appeasement, and even today promote the Muslim agenda behind clerical collars (Naim Ateek, Hilarion Cappucci, etc.-- they are all of a piece), is slowly coming to realize that the attempt to buy time by essentially throwing Israel to the wolves was not working, and that Islam cannot be appeased, and that the situation within Europe itself is perilous, and coming close to a tipping point.

And once that has been done, should you have the scales drop from your eyes, and feel like coming back here to Jihadwatch and actually taking seriously, and in good faith, what those posting -- yes, including people posting from Israel, posting even from whatever red-cow-raising Al-Aksa threatening Gaza settlement I made up for rhetorical purposes may exist -- have to say, as long as they are logical, as long as they make legitimate use of the evidence, and are not engaged in highly selective and distorted use of that evidence, then, as John Travolta used to say in his pre-scientology days, welcome back, Kotter.

But please spare us, or at least spare me (I am, after all, 98 years old) -- this pious interfaith-racket stuff; I just can't stand any more of it. Excerpts such as the one quoted by you in this latest posting, of the most obvious, most treacly, most phony blend of the "why-can't-we-all-get-along-just-as-soon-as-you-Christians-try-just-try-to-undestand-the-wonderfulness-of-Islam, a kind of Rodney-King-meets-Prince-Hassan's-Dialogue-of-Civilisations absurdity that, after all that has happened, after all that we know, after what happened in the world yesterday, is happening today in that same world, and will undoubtedly happen tomorrow in that same whirling world, really has got to be put out of its rhetorical misery. "Muslim militants have turned to

And if you want to demonstrate that bygones are bygones, here's an idea: Send cash, check, or money order to Robert Spencer's little electronic begging-bowl at the site, asking him to please forward your personal doremi to HF so as to assuage him, and so that HF may further his education by buying a few more of Patricia Crone's excellent books on early Islam (do look her up), and a bottle of Nuits St.-Georges to accompany his reading. Then we can both put our guns back in our respective holsters, podnuh. I don't know about you, but ah'm plumb tuckered out, so ah'm goin' in to set a spell.

Hugh - Pontificate away!

Although there are some that choose to bait you, allowing them to silence certainly their airm. I am certain that there are triumphantly cheering Islamists waiting in the wings, hoping the eloquent and erudite Hugh Fitzgerald will told his tent and quietly fade away.

Hugh-

I will check out these sites and sources you have referenced. I have learned an awful lot here, just as I did in my exchanges with Dina and Co.

You can call it irrational. Call insipid. Call it what you will. But my gut feel is that I will probably return to the general approach outlined at the Leadership University website.

I do appreciate your time.

Regards to all.
Kirk

There is none so blind ...

kirk,
if by any chance some muslim does mention the lord's army in uganda, please be so kind as to point out that the lord's army is in fact sponsored by the arab muslim regime currently murdering christian in sudan.

95% of all conflicts are directly and indirectly sponsored by muslims.

To Bill Carson:
Shrub has repeated 3 lies which immediately come to mind:

1. "Islam is a religion of peace."
   
2. "Islam is fully compatible with democracy."
   
3. "Islam is fully compatible with our liberties."
   

1. Read the Qur`an; Surahs 8, 9 & 48. They sanctify Jihad: wars of conquest for the purpose of enriching & empowering the Profit and mandate participation therein.
   
2. Democracy allows a diversity of routes toward truth & justice. It is government from the bottom up. Laws are formed by consensus, and in our case, measured against a scale of justice & wisdom codified in the Constitution. Islam considers that system to be Kufr. Allah revealed his Qur`an, which, exemplified by the Sunnah & interpreted by the Ulema, constitutes the Sharia; the only law Islam recognizes. Rational legislation is blasphemy.
   
3. Islam imposes Dhimmitude on conquered Jews & Christians. A Dhimmi has no testimentary capacity. A Dhimmi can own neither weapons nor horses. A Dhimmi can neither construct nor maintain a synagogue nor church. Nor can he pray aloud in public.
   

QED: G.W. Bush is a Gd'd Liar.
If you doubt me, check these resources and the hyperlinks to source materials therin contained:

• ">Introduction to the Koran; its status and acceptance among Muslims.
  
• ">The Authority of the Koran by self-referential ayats.
  
• ">Full text of Sura 8; sanctification & mandates of conquest highlighted.


• ">Whom do Muslims emulate?
  
• ">What do Muslims emulate?
  
• ">Full text of Sura 9; sanctification & mandates of conquest highlighted.


• ">Full text of Sura 48; sanctification & mandates of conquest highlighted.


• ">Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 53: One-fifth of Booty to the Cause of Allah (Khumus)


• ">Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 52: Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad)

Jubelum:

I absolutely agree that Islam is not compatible with American democracy and that it is not a religion of Peace.

I've tried to follow some of your links, but can't get them to work. If you can post the actual http address, I can copy and paste the address into my web browser.

I understand that Bush may be putting a nicer face on Islam than it deserves, but I also believe that for him to overtly call a spade a spade, as it were, in our current politically-correct, tail-wag-the-dog, double-Latte society, would only result in weakened support for the War on Terror. I just don’t believe enough people in America understand the situation well enough to take it strait up. That part has never bothered me because he’s been willing to take action.

In any case, the thought of Kerry leading a War on Terror scares the hell out of me. I can just see all of the appeasement and reconciliation speeches already. He’ll probably even start proposing special dole programs to get American Muslims on our side. What a fiasco that will be. God save us if it comes to that!!!

Hugh:

Please excuse my lack of knowledge, but that is why I am here--to increase my knowledge.

Why would Western civilization cease to exist without Israel? Didn't Western civilization exist before the creation of the State of Israel?

Imc~ Hugh and company can answer much better of course- but consider all the fence-sitters in the Middle-east right now. Remove Israel and that may be a huge psychological boost to push them into Jihad. I don't think it will kill Western civilization by itself, but it certainly is one of the biggest dominoes in the stack.

lmc --- for two reasons.

Prior to the existence of the State of Israel, there was, nonetheless, a significant non-Muslim presence in that area -- under the Mandate for Palestine, and even under nominal Turkish authority prior to the Mandate. Russian Orthodox, Copts (both Egyptian and Ethiopian), Lutherans, Franciscan monks, and so on had been there, as well as the Jewish presence, including a continuous Jewish population -- one that had never ceased to exist -- in Hebron (until the 1929 massacres), Jerusalem, and Safed.

Since the P.A. was foolishly given so much power by the Israelis (under duress, of course), the Christian Arab population has declined to about 2.5% of the total Arab population in P.A. areas. Some Christian Arabs have managed to obtain Isareli citizenship; most have not, and are emigrating as best they can. Though they may echo the anti-Israel sentiments of the Muslims, and even promote the Muslim agenda (think of Naim Ateek, Hanan Ashrawi -- for a while, the great and good friend of Peter Jennings, the gunrunning, icon-stealing Bishop Hilarion Cappucci, and others, exhibiting all the classic features of internalized dhimmitude and desire to curry favor with more powerful circumambient Muslims)--they are getting out.

If Israel goes under, whatever the fate of its people, it is clear that the Muslims will have no real need even to pretend to curry favor with the Christians left in the Holy Land, and Muslim triumphalism will be given such a boost by the victory over the Jews of Israel, that the Jihad that had, for a time, focussed on Israel can turn its full volume of hate and aggression against remaining Christians in the Middle East (Copts in Egypt, Christians in Iraq and Lebanon and some in Jordan), as well as continuing to prevent European resolve to do something about Muslim demographic conquest from within.

I think that without some non-Muslim Western presence in the Holy Land under the protectionof the State of Israel (unless the American government wants to send a few hundred thousand troops stationed say, permanently in the area -- perhaps in the Sinai, which could simply be demanded from Egypt, or seized without so much as a by-your-leave) the West will have to support Israel as the guarantor of free access to all non-Muslim holy sites (which is to say, to everything except the Byzantine martyrium of the Dome of the Rock, and the Al-Aqsa Mosque).
Perhaps you do not agree that a physical presence of the West is necessary, and non-Muslim control of the area, because you think we can relly on the present assurances of Muslims who have a 1350-year track record of destroying Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, and Hindu sites (the Bamiyan Buddhas were blown up just a few years ago; the Tomb of Joseph just a year or two ago; 2,300 churches destroyed in Indonesia in 2003; 86 Orthodox churches destroyed a few months ago in Kosovo; tens of thousands of Buddhist and Hindu temples destroyed all over India, over the centuries of Muslim rule). Just how much evidence does one need?

2) the greatest modern journalist, in the high sense, in modern Italy, Indro Montanelli (who died, at 91, four years ago at 91), wrote a few years before his death in his celebrated page, the "Stanza di Montanelli" in the Corriere della Sera, that the rebirth of the Jewish state was the best thing to happen in the 20th century -- and then Montanelli corrected himself, and said -- no, actually it was probably the only good thing to come out of the twentieth century. My sentiments come close.

If, after all we know now about the history of the treatment of the Jews, the most persecuted tribe in human history (and please see, for the European side of this, the Roman Catholic Scots historian Malcolm Hay, whose impassioned book "Europe and the Jews" has recently been reprinted, after years of being out-of-print), whose misfortune it has been to have been driven by the adherents of one monotheism, Islam, out of its own land, and forced to live, statelessly and helplessly, in both Christian and Muslim lands where both persecution of the well-known European variety, and dhimmitude in the Muslim lands, more or less guaranteed, in either domain, and for many centuries, degradation, humiliation, and permanent insecurity.

The Nazi murders, in which the populations of many countries participated, some of them substantially and enthusiastically, eliminated from Europe not only many Jews, but many of the very best (morally best, intellectually best) non-Jews who joined various Resistance movements, and whose families, whose backgrounds, were the kind that had offered traditional sympathy to the Jews.

I claim that the hidden, still largely uncomprehensible, aftereffects of World War II, did enormous damage -- subconscious, or subterranean, or subliminal, or sub-something -- to the psyche of European man. He could not even come to grips with, admit freely, examine fully, the full horror of what had taken place, until many decades past. It just couldn't be done. There had to be some kind of slow coming to terms. When one wonders why what we know about now, and write about, and teach in schools, took so long to come to the surface, no doubt the haste with which the Cold War arrived, and the unseemliness with which Nazis (always called "former Nazis") were doubtfully enrolled in that Cold War (for a study of just how few Nazi murderers were punished, and how many led successful lives in Germany, see the study by T. H. Tetens that deserves to be reprinted, and read: "The New Germany and the Old Nazis." Or try to find a used copy). Civilizations exist, and thrive, as long as their morale is kept up, as long as they understand their reason for being, as long as, if I may use an awkward metaphor, they can look at themselves in the mirror, in the morning. If Israel goes under, after the heroic efforts of those who settled there, who reclaimed the land (see the study of the fantastic efforts made at land reclamation by the Jewish pioneers, "Palestine: Land of Promise" by Walter Clay Lowdermilk, a Rhodes Scholar out of Liberty, North Carolina, and one of the greatest agronomists of his day), after all the efforts, all the suffering, all the tremendous achievements, if this happens because of the pusillanimity of the EU leaders, or of the slow stillicide of vilifcation that has come spewing forth from the BBC, Agence France Presse, and the assorted hirelings of the Arabs -- ex-ambassadors, ex-CIA agents, professors of Middle Eastern studies for hire to promote Islam and hide its real tenets -- if, as I say, this were to happen, a great many thinking people, and very few of them Jewish, could stand to look at themselves in the mirror, in the morning.

And those are the two main reasons (yes, there are others, including the fact that the loss of Israel will not sate but whet Muslim ambitions, and cause renewed efforts everywhere to expand the Jihad, and consolidate its gains) is why I say that if Israel goes under, after all that has happened and that every educated person knows has happened, in the death camps and in all that led up, in the Western psyche, to those death camps, if Israel is now put to death, it will not be recreated, resurrected, and Western civilization may be dealt a mortal blow from which it will not recover.

Next question.

I've erased my post. I'm going to read Hugh instead.

Sorry about that, Bill!!! There must be some incompatibility in the html. Here goes:

• http://boards.netscape.com/netscape/art_threaded.mbl?boardId=492255&artNum=282225&sort=r_date&unread=1 Introduction to the Koran; its status and acceptance among Muslims.
• http://boards.netscape.com/netscape/art_threaded.mbl?boardId=492255&artNum=306330&sort=r_date&unread=1 The Authority of the Koran by self-referential ayats.
• http://boards.netscape.com/netscape/art_threaded.mbl?boardId=492255&artNum=316254&sort=r_date&tsort=msgs&unread=1&nav=fwd&mb_utf8_tkn=_articleId:16:7813129626985036_threadId:16:7334842068902022 Full text of Sura 8; sanctification & mandates of conquest highlighted.
• http://boards.netscape.com/netscape/art_threaded.mbl?boardId=492255&artNum=317295&sort=r_date&unread=1 Whom do Muslims emulate?
• http://boards.netscape.com/netscape/art_threaded.mbl?boardId=492255&artNum=317303&sort=r_date&unread=1 What do Muslims emulate?
• http://boards.netscape.com/netscape/art_threaded.mbl?boardId=492255&artNum=316227&sort=r_date&tsort=msgs&unread=1&nav=fwd&mb_utf8_tkn=_articleId:16:7216094813102662_threadId:16:7334842068902022 Full text of Sura 9; sanctification & mandates of conquest highlighted.
• http://boards.netscape.com/netscape/art_threaded.mbl?boardId=492255&artNum=316237&sort=r_date&tsort=msgs&unread=1&nav=fwd&mb_utf8_tkn=_articleId:16:7216094813102662_threadId:16:7334842068902022 Full text of Sura 48; sanctification & mandates of conquest highlighted.
• http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/053.sbt.html Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 53: One-fifth of Booty to the Cause of Allah (Khumus)
• http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 52: Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad)

Good morning everyone! susanc, hugh, kirk, this quick note is especially for you...great site, great posts, good work everyone,but rather than make a bunch of statements and claim them as my own, I'll cut to the chase and recommend that everybody posting and arguing the following two books, which after a couple of years of searching,I'm going out on a limb and recommending...Carl Von Clausewitz, "On War" preferably in the Princeton edition (1984)written by a Prussian in the 19th century, it served (and remains)as the principle academic treatise on warfare throughout the 20th century.That having been said, it has been replaced by "Civilization and It's Enemies, the Next Stage in History" by Lee Harris. Harris has already designed the wheel that a lot of you are re-inventing on these pages. Susanc, your posting is brilliant except it is Clausewitzian, and those rules no longer apply.Harris shows how we are no longer fighting a war, we are fighting an opera, a very deadly opera...I never recommend anything to anyone, especially television, movies or books, but please take it from someone who loved literature so much he studied homeric greek just to read the "Odyssey" in the original, Harris' work will take it's place along side of Adams Smith's "Wealth of Nations" Clausewitz's "On War" Darwin's "Origin"...
It's the reason some of the posts are so long, and a few of you don't realize you agree on more than you disagree.If you can't lay hands on his book, put "Lee Harris" in your search engine and catch some of his articles. Let's all get on the same page, focus on commonality, and leave these internet pseudo-christians and make-believe moslems to their mutual violent fantasies. There's paysites for that...the internet forums need a new "Jefferson Brigade" to use truth to combat error.

Dear Phil,

Thank you for your post. Being a rather simple person I was surprised that you liked my proposed solution to suicide attacks as being "Clausewitzian".

Having never heard of Clausewitz I did what you suggested and "googled" Clausewitz and Lee Harris. The hits for Clausewitz were mainly military commentators talking about Clausewitz, and were way too “military” for me to comprehend (or perhaps I am just way to under educated to grasp the terminology and references).

The Harris results were more comprehensible.

To prefacewhere my suggestions came from: My source of the proposed plan to deal with suicide bombers was taken from my vast knowledge and experience in child rearing:) I likened the terrorists to children, as this is what they most resemble. They act and speak like nearsighted, selfish children wanting to impose their will on others with no thought of consequence.

On one of the sites that hosts Lee Harris' articles I read the following statement:

"Behind this shared assumption stands the figure of Clausewitz and his famous definition of war as politics carried out by other means. The whole point of war, on this reading, is to get other people to do what we want them to do: It is an effort to make others adopt our policies and/or to further our interests. Clausewitzian war, in short, is rational and instrumental. It is the attempt to bring about a new state of affairs through the artful combination of violence and the promise to cease violence if certain political objectives are met."

Now I am probably going to really Step in "it" but....What is wrong with Clausewitz' assessment??
It seems pretty "on target" to me. Except for the violence part. I do not condone becoming as barbaric as the enemy you seek to defeat. I see other non violent means as better options.

I propose we do not deal with the politics, religion or any “theme” behind the acts of war, but rather the individuals that “act out” for whatever reason. We need to substitute the perceived reward with a decidedly unrewarding, immediate penalty.

For Example: Johnny wants an ice cream cone and decides his best chance to get it is screaming, crying and throwing himself to the ground. Mom decides that instead of getting an ice cream cone, Johnny gets to be picked up, spanked and taken home to sit in his bedroom for a day or so, to think about what he wanted as opposed to what he got.

As I said I am a simple person but sometimes the simplest solutions are the best. You can try and defeat a religion...Or you can simply punish the adherents (Parents, Schools/Churches or Countries of that religion, that raise children that kill other people) until the policies of that religion are seen as failures or the religion itself is eradicated.

I know that my solution would require all civilized ( Read that as Grown-up)nations to unite and share a common goal, (and this is pretty nearsighted of me) But I can not see it working if only one or two nations decide to do it on their own.

What I am proposing will probably play to a more receptive audience once the Louvre' is burned to the Ground, or The London Bridge is in ruins...Or the Black Forest is torched. But, be it now or later, this particular enemy is too elusive and too powerful to be fought as we would fight a standing army.

Quoting Jose Maria,

“How can be holy a religion whose founder is a pedophile who had sexual relations with a 9 years old girl? How can be Holy a faith that has forced people to convert or die? How can be holy a faith that is deceiving young people to kill kafirs to get sexual pleasure in paradise? You are a bastard religion that worship demons, but we are more and more discovering it”

Jose, please go and read something about the Inquisition and then come back and tell the rest of the group what you learned. You will find that Christians forced people to convert or die. Even better is the idea that Christians questioned whether or not Native Americans even had a soul and let’s not forget about the Knights of Templar and all the business they did with the Church killing people in the name of Christ

I hear over and over again this argument about Muhammad having a sexual relationship with his wife who was 9 years old. First of all there is a great deal of debate as to what age Muhammad married Aisha and at what age did he have a sexual relationship with her, so my advise is that people should stop using that as an argument against Islam. Second even if he did have sex with his wife while she was 9 what’s the problem? Have you done any research on marriage customs around the world and or sexual behavior in the Holy Roman Empire? Western society is full of issues ranging from child abuse to child pornography to incest to teenage pregnancy out of wedlock. Instead of calling Muhammad a pedophile for having sex with his wife, you should look at what’s going on in your neighborhood and do something to change it. And while doing some research on marriage customs around the world you might want to check out the stories related to Abraham, King David and Joseph as told in the Bible. I’ll help you with King David, “Let us look for a young virgin to attend the king and take care of him. She can lie beside him so that our lord the king may keep warm.”

How can a faith deceive young people to kill others to get sexual pleasure? That’s a good question because that is not Islam however some people are sick and twisted and they will find a way to make something out of something that isn’t there and call it Islam. The Assassins were very good at that. They’d recruit young men to be killers get them high on hashish take them into “paradise” and then send them off to kill people. Speaking of Assassins the historical Dr