| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald deftly and clearly explains how we can win the war:
The problem continues as long as the idea that this is a "war" that "can be won" continues. This is a war, a continuous war. It has no end. "Winning" does not exist. Islam will not disappear. What one can do is to make it less attractive, both to those likely pockets -- as easily identifiable by Infidels as they have been identified by the Da'wa bearers of Islam -- of psychically and economically marginal populations in the Infidel lands, and to those born into Islam itself.We need not send more troops -- in fact, it would be altogether more useful to remove our troops from Iraq, which is a colossal misallocation (not before, not in 2003, not in 2004, but NOW) of resources, of men, of materiel, of money, of military morale. The long-term damage being done to the citizen-soldiers and to the professional army is considerable, and this at a time when we need to keep morale high for a much longer and more sustained effort. That damage is increased by the obstinacy with which some continue to identify with the original plan: their "intelligence failure" is over not WMD but of the nature and menace of Islam. That menace is rooted in its texts. Has anyone in the Pentagon other than Bernard Lewis's acolytes read those texts, or considered that Lewis himself, a supporter first of Oslo, and now someone who cannot admit how wrong he was about the nature of Iraq, Iraqi society, and even about Islam? Lewis’ under-appreciation, to put it mildly, of Bat Ye'or and Ibn Warraq, and his susceptibility to Turkish flattery, has helped to prevent him from seeing that the vaunted Kemalism is temporary, while Islam is permanent, and Islam is not something that "went wrong" but that has always been wrong, and has been held in check in recent centuries only through the fact of its own weakness.
Still more disturbing is this:
"Another change being discussed in an ongoing interagency review by the Pentagon, State Department, CIA and White House National Security Council is a strategy that emphasizes this is a war that targets Islamic extremism, not Islam itself."
But it is "Islam itself" that is a threat, in Europe as well as in Asia, indeed everywhere -- if you are an Infidel. It cannot be said by those in government, though it can, with increasing force, by others: think of what Oriana Fallaci has accomplished by giving voice to what so many think in Italy. But the fact that we need not say that this is a war in which Islam is the menace does not mean that we need not take note of harsh realities. For nobody knows when and under what circumstances any "moderate" Muslim may metamorphose into an "extremist." Nobody, in any case, can provide a definition of "mainstream" or supposedly "moderate" Islam that would allay our fears. There is no such definition, or rather, in the end that definition amounts to a Muslim who does not believe in what is written in the Qur'an, the Hadith, and Sira. That is to say -- a non-Muslim Muslim. The refusal to analyze to the bottom of things is astonishing. The laziness, the fear of what might be discovered, is killing us.
Everything must start with words, with the way in which the conflict is presented. For obvious reasons, government officials cannot talk about "Islam" tout court. They need to find a way to discuss it -- a way that will express much, if not all, of what needs to be stated both to the Western populations. Those populations are partly ignorant, partly confused, and certainly full of unease as to how things are confusedly being presented. Officials need to find a way to signal to Muslims that we understand the problem is not a "handful of extremists" and not "Wahhabists." And we need as well to use a language that will give heart to those in Europe -- and there are tens of millions -- who are disgusted with the foreign policies of their own countries and of the E.U., and who feel -- far more keenly than we do -- the menace of Islam. The American presence in Iraq is seen by such people not as a crime, but as a blunder. They are wrong in part: the initial invasion was not a crime nor a blunder. But remaining in Iraq is a blunder born of criminal negligence of Islam, its theory and practice.
What language should be employed by our rulers, whose duty it is to protect and instruct us? Begin with the word "Jihad." Talk about the "ideology of Jihad." Talk about a "war of self-defense against the Jihad." Talk about "the Jihad" -- the struggle to spread Islam throughout the world, and to conquer lands for Islam -- is not central to Islam. Pretend, if you will, that Islam is not what it is, in order to say, better than has been said to date, what it is.
Assure everyone that "of course most Muslims do not believe in Jihad." Of course they do. But what will those smiling and plausible people do? Some will tell the truth: Bin Laden tells far more of the truth about Islam, and so does Al-Qaradawi. Khomeini was a truth-teller about Islam. His spirit informed more of Islamic history in Iran than did that sport, the short-lived father-and-son Pahlevi dynasty, though even "nice" Iranians of the "Reading-Lolita-in-Tehran" sort will not admit it to themselves -- or may not even know it, so uninformed are they about the mistreatment of non-Muslims in Iran over the past thousand years. They might begin by studying Mary Boyce on Zoroastrians, or Lawrence Loeb on modern Iranian Jews, or going back to the Armenian chronicle of Arakel of Tabriz under Shah Abbas.
Stop talking altogether about "handfuls of extremists." Indeed, stop the misleading and dangerous use of such terms as "extremist" and "moderate." Cease to transfer any Infidel wealth to Muslim nations and polities -- Egypt, Jordan, the "Palestinian" Authority. Let them find their support from rich Arabs, or not find such support. If the former, then some of that discretionary income that the rich Arabs use to fund mosques and madrasas around the world will be soaked up -- and soaking up that money, until it can be significantly diminished by an intelligent energy policy, is what Infidels need to do. And if the latter, if the rich Arabs refuse to pay Egypt, Jordan, the "Palestine" Authority and so on, the result will also be salutary -- a growing resentment among the poor Arabs against the rich Arabs, with all that might result from that. Have we forgotten that before there was the highly desirable (from the Infidel point of view) Iran-Iraq War, there was, in the Yemen, in the early 1960s, a war between two Yemeni factions, the so-called "Royalists" backed by Saudi Arabia (I once roomed briefly in Madrid with a louche Belgian who had run guns to those Royalists; a most amoral and disgusting person) and the leftists backed by Egyptian troops supplied by Nasser. That bloodletting between leftist Egypt and rightist Saudi Arabia should, from the Infidel point of view, have gone on forever.
It is said that this Administration is "tough" and "calculating." Nonsense. It is not nearly tough or calculating or realpolitik enough. It may begin to be only when its leaders have taken the full measure of Islam and its theory. It is not hard to read Qur'an, Hadith and Sira -- what is hard is to understand just how these texts pervade the lives of Muslims, and color attitudes even of those who never go to mosques and are scarcely observant; there is a failure to understand just how unusually penetrating Islam can be, how it supplies not just a religious faith, but a complete and coherent and, for Infidels, threatening system. A failure of imaginative sympathy, that is a failure to understand how this operates, can be remedied if only, instead of apologists or semi-apologists of Islam, one listens to the "defectors" from Islam as one once would have listened to defectors from the Soviet Union. It is really no different.
When Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina have their private meetings with Bush and Rumsfeld, we will know that we are getting somewhere.
Posted by Robert at June 8, 2005 11:55 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Mr. Bush, meet Mr. Spencer and Mr. Fitzgerald.
Posted by: blue![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 8, 2005 12:37 PM
Excellent article Hugh. Straight to the point. Forget Bush, you can be the President.
at June 8, 2005 3:15 PM
Great commentary, but the notion that a presence in Iraq in 2005 is a "colossal misallocation" is flat wrong. In war, as in real estate, three top considerations are location, location, and location. And Iraq is a far more strategic platform than Saudi was. With an enduring presence in Iraq, we are geographically well-situated for whatever the next chapter will be, both from a staging and from an intel standpoint.
Posted by: ScottJordan at June 8, 2005 4:19 PM
Amazingly good article, Hugh, as always. I partly agree with the previous comment---Iraq is not a mistake so long as it is the means to disarm Iran, not the end. Forget about "democracy"---it's a lost cause for these savages. The only strategy is to keep Muslims in check.
Posted by: angry_kafir at June 8, 2005 4:55 PM
Greetings Hugh:
I diagree on your characterisation of Dr Ali Sina, while I strongly support Ibn Waraq. Ibn Waraq is undoubtedly the most articulate and persuasive "apostate". To my view though he is relevant because he actually works with dissident Muslims. The Executive Director of the Institue of Secular Islam is Hassan Mahmud, a true "moderate", who has written extensively on Shariah and has expounded on the principles of Abdullahi Na'iam and other like minded scholars.
While I support the goals of both scholars, in my view, Ibn Waraq is more effective and strategic.
Yours sincerely
Thomas
Posted by: Thomas at June 8, 2005 5:26 PM
"Iraq is not a mistake so long as it is the means to disarm Iran, not the end."
--- from a posting above
But Iran's nuclear project is less likely to be attacked with American soldiers in Iraq, where they are seen as more likely targets of Iranian retaliation -- as indeed they would be. For that matter, it is entirely possible that at least some of the Shi'a in Iraq would also turn on us, not because they necessarily identify with the Iranian regime (though some clearly do, including members of the Dawa party of Jaabari), but because no matter how much they want the Americans to fight (and die) to make Iraq safe for the Shi'a, they will react with furty to Americans if the Great Man-Made Nuclear Project in Iran is disrupted or destroyed, as it simply must be, whatever the consequences to idiotoic nation-building and democracy in Iraq.
Get out of Iraq so as to better deal with Iran.
Posted by: Hugh at June 8, 2005 5:27 PM
Thomas,
I also agree with Hugh on this and I wonder why you take exception to Ali Sina.
What's the rest of the story?
Best, Rebecca
Posted by: rb at June 8, 2005 5:32 PM
"I diagree on your characterisation of Dr Ali Sina, while I strongly support Ibn Waraq."
-- from a poster above
Exactly what was my "characterisation" of Ali Sina? I think of him as a forceful, tireless, and articulate defector from Islam. Ibn Warraq is also a forceful, tireless, and articulate defector from Islam. The first supplies all sorts of articles on Islam, and engages in heated on-line debate with Muslims. He has not been bested. The second continues his scholarly research on the early Qur'an and writes essays that one hopes will be collected -- on Edward Said, on the similarities between Islam and Fascism, and so on. Their personalities and interests and talents in this or that area differ. They are not enantiomorphs. Why should they be?
Perhaps you object to Ali Sina because you have a soft spot for Islam, having been a convert and being unwilling to relinquish it, for some unaccountable reason, though you see through so much of the nonsense and lies, even of your erstwhile Bright Young Reformers. Beats me why you cling to it. Without any filial piety, nor having residual feeling of defensiveness about Islam which apparently even a disaffected convert may feel (god knows why), I am unoffended by Ali Sina's remarks. Those who wish to judge his enterprise may go to www.faithfreedom.org. Ibn Warraq's website is www.secularislam.org. They do not overlap, but rather complement one another. Both are worth visiting.
Posted by: Hugh at June 8, 2005 5:35 PM
Hugh,
Permit me to note that Ibn Warraq's superb evisceration of the late poseur Dr. Edward Said can be found in my essay collection "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance."
Yrs
Richard Spencer ash-Shaytaani, as I have lately been styled, or, more familiarly:
Robert Spencer
at June 8, 2005 5:56 PM
Greetings Hugh and Rebecca:
I support what Ali Sina does. And I must and do recognise that I have never seen a Muslim able to counter his arguments. And I respect Ali Sina and the fact that he has helped many leave Islam. I am a regular visitor to both websites. And www.faithfreedom.org is an excellent resource.
Again, however, I have a bit more time for Ibn Waraq because he has actually worked with and supported dissident Muslims. At the end of the day however, I think Ibn Waraq is more effective because of his presentation and professionalism.
Perhaps the statistics prove me wrong. I do no of several Muslims who were repulsed by reading Dr Sina's works because, he is brutally frank. However, these Muslims kept coming back. Two Muslims and friends of mine, are now ex-Muslims, partially because of what they read from Dr Sina.
Yours sincerely
Thomas
Posted by: Thomas at June 8, 2005 6:15 PM
Hugh posted: This is a war, a continuous war. It has no end. "Winning" does not exist. Islam will not disappear.
I'm not sure I can agree with this. All wars can either be won or lost. All it requires to win, is to apply the correct force at the appropriate weak spot.
Islam is a religion which has to grow. That is its main function and it measures its success by that criteria. In the distant past, islam grew by conquest and conversions by coercion of one sort or another. In the period after WWII, the opportunity for islamic expansion by conquest was virtually impossible. It is through the fifties to the seventies, that islam was being abandoned by many in the islamic world. The Arab/muslim nations had even started to install socialism and Marxism in their countries. It is hard to imagine such a development happening at present.
The islamic world was trapped geographically and unable to grow, and as consequence was dying. Then we let the genie out of the bottle by allowing muslims to stream into the West. Islam was now growing again, conquering new pastures and becoming increasingly arrogant, as the flag burning demonstration in NY and London quite clearly show.
We can win this war very easily, if we are prepared to swallow the idea that our civilisation, though tolerant, cannot be tolerant to an infinite extent. Some cultures are just not digestible, no matter how corrosive the enzymes of the American melting pot. A culture such as islam is of that type, and will have to ejected, or it will poison America, the West, and the rest of the world, as well as condemn muslims.
If ever the US or Europe, decide to eject muslims, siting threat to life, freedom and civilisation, this Jihad will come to an end faster then you can imagine. Most muslims in the West will abandon islam rather then go back to their cultural homes, and in so doing will free themselves as well.
at June 8, 2005 6:46 PM
This comment will evoke a reaction. Unavoidable.
For the last two years I've been trying to assemble the pieces of a puzzle.
The puzzle is not complete, but the picture I'm seeing is not at all what we, both Kaffirs, and Muslims believe it to be.
I can detail yet again the anomalies, like the US Dealings with Iran, Iran's support for Chalibi, Saudi Arabias benefit from the invasion of Iraq, Kuwatis, and the Gulf states benefit from the invasion.
The support of this and past administration for mujtahideen (Jihadis) in Bosnia and Kosovo, Cheney's membership on the (Muslim) Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce, the Saudi Bush connection, including the bin Ladens and the Caryle Group.
Bush chastizing Putin over his handling of those pyschopathic Muslims in Chechnya, Bush supporting Yasunko in the Ukraine, who in turn had the support of the ll Million Muslims.
It goes on.
We live in a world of geometrically expanding populations and a geometrically diminish supply of natural resources (like oil and ore).
Population pressure is leading to desertification, loss of rainforests, less clean air, clean water, coral reefs and fish stocks are dying out.
When the oil and gas run out, as they will, the planet will not even be able to feed itself, for fertilizers are made from gas, pesticides from petroleum and the vehicles that plow,plant, reap and transport food are fueled by petroleum.
The cornucopia will run dry. it must, infinite growth is not possible, the tree will outgrow it's roots, and must be pruned or uprooted and planted in a new location.
What is the most successful, all encompassing social control ideology the world has ever seen?
An ideology that covers all aspects of a persons life, from cradle to grave, the economic, political,social and "spiritual".
Communism failed, it had no religious justification and didn't fill that void in the human mind.
Islam however does, it is even more insiduous and more effective a social control ideology than Communism, Capitalism or Christianity.
And it is essentially self policing and decentralized, no need for laws of men, legislatures, lobbying groups. There are volunteer moral police (mutawain) and local jurists, to hand down edicts of stoning and beheading.
And it is anti consumerism, as so much of the west is haram in Islam, the emphasis in Islam is on "purity" and submission (to clerics) not on keeping up with the Joneses and consumption.
Look at Islamic countries, the people accept their misery and economic destitution, oh yes some migrate but only because there is someplace to migrate to, or they migrate for Jihad and Da'wa, but most stay at home.
Can this be why, our "leaders" don't take on Islam head on, and discuss it frankly? Surely they all aren't ignorant, there has to be many with their education, degrees and information sources that are at least as informed as the least educated Jihad Watcher.
Is Islam, actually trying to be tamed (purged of it's radical elements, the Jihadis and mujtahideen), because it is the preferred social control device for the latter half of this century when the wells and ores and farmers fields run dry?
Is maybe that is what is going on between the Bush and the Saudis, why the Saudis ARE PERMITTED to import subversive literature while the administration looks the other way.
As I said the puzzle pieces form a different picture than that picture held in the mind of the public, the Muslims and Jihad Watchers.
You figure it out.
Posted by: Giaour at June 8, 2005 6:52 PM
Your wrong Giaour. Christianity 'was' basically the same as Islam for a long time. However, it was confronted with literacy, knowledge and an undeniable contradiction between its actions and the reality of what brought prosperity and peace. There are still crazy people, Bush included, that believe forcing religious 'fixes' to social problems cures them. They where wrong, are wrong and will continue to be wrong forever. The difference here is that in the ME the rulers chose to impose methods and ideals on people that had nothing to do with prosperity or freedom. Instead of being confronted with differences, emphazising literacy an expanding knowledge, these things where supressed in any and all cases where it was determined inconvenient for the state.
The reaction to this, for some of the religious, was to do what the same sort of nuts do in all the rest of the world and fall back on religious solutions for something that has 'never' had anything to do with superstitious BS and snake oil solutions. The worse things got, the more extreme the actions they proposed. It was practically inevitable for those radicals to find their way into the governments and become them, just as the Catholics imposed themselves on Europe and virtually ruled parts of North and South america for a time. Had they met significant opposition from people able to prevent their taking over, the tactics would have degenerated even more than they did, but by then 'they' where the ones with overwhelming force. But there are home grown Christian religious fundimentalists willing to use such tactics, if they but had the means, in the US. For that matter, ask Ireland how unlike Jihadi Christians are...
Nope, Islam will lose for the same reason that the radicals in the US are now screaming about all the evil non-religious secularists trying to destroy them now, because it cannot stand in the face of contradiction. Its only able to survive when the entire world it exists in is wrapped in an endless night black cloth and imposed ignorance. Given the chance to see daylight, it will dissolve into the shadows the same way that flat earthers did. And unlike Christianity, which castrated itself by actually recognizing that success comes from peace, not murder, radical Islam will cut its own throat every time is raises a knife to fight. The rest of us won't abide it past the initial slash.
Posted by: Kagehi at June 8, 2005 7:22 PM
If ever the US or Europe, decide to eject muslims, siting threat to life, freedom and civilisation, this Jihad will come to an end faster then you can imagine. Most muslims in the West will abandon islam rather then go back to their cultural homes, and in so doing will free themselves as well.
Posted by: DP111 at June 8, 2005 06:46 PM
Gold Star for you today!!
http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/fremmedsprog/English/article.jhtml?articleID=257735
7. juni 2005 09:13
Muslims convert to Christianity to become more Danish
At least 660 people have converted to Christianity in the past five years.
Almost half of them have converted from Islam in the hope of improving their chances of being granted asylum or getting a job and becoming better integrated into Danish society, according to a new book that will be published today.
One of the authors of the book told Danish media this morning that it is a major problem that church ministers and Danes in general often give the impression that being a Muslim is incompatible with being Danish.
The words Muslim and Islam have got negative connotations in the public debate, and so it is understandable that many Muslims convert to Christianity in the hope of becoming better integrated, he added
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength, Wisdom, Sight, and Courage to stay the course to Destroy ALL islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Open the Worlds Eyes to their Threat give the Worlds Strength to Stand and Fight Let Not the World be Deceived by them Amen
PS
Hugh
Good to have you back!!
at June 8, 2005 7:35 PM
Posted by: Giaour at June 8, 2005 06:52 PM
But you left out the money from the Saudis to Clinton and his libiary??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO STAY THE COURSE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEN
PS
It must have really hurt to find out that Bush's grades were better than Kerry's??
at June 8, 2005 7:40 PM
Giaour:
There is much in what you say. Islam will be able to control the masses when resources start to run dry, and famine stalks the world. Note the equanimity of muslims nations to famine in Somalia, Darfur, or the tsunami disaster. Despite all the depredations of islamic society and the havoc it has caused in Somalia and Darfur, neither the Somalis or the people of Darfur, have any thoughts that islam should be jettisoned.
As for muslim moderates. It occurs to me that the reason they are not so apparant is because they know which side is winning. Here is the challenge that Bakri made.
Bakri: "As long as my words do not become actions, they do no harm! Here, the law does not punish you for words, as long as there is no proof you have carried out actions. In such a case you are still on the margins of the law, and they cannot punish you. If they want to punish you, they must present evidence against you, otherwise their laws will be in a state of internal contradiction. Then this will serve Islam, because we will be able to claim that the capitalist camp has failed in the face of the Islamic camp in actualizing the things in which it believes, like freedom of expression."
The last sentence is the real challenge; the exploitation of our cherished freedoms to hang us with. I believe he is right when he thinks that islam will win. It is no wonder that moderates in islam are unwilling to stand up and be counted.
Posted by: DP111 at June 8, 2005 7:44 PM
Kagehi posted: Your wrong Giaour. Christianity 'was' basically the same as Islam for a long time.
I must have missed the similarity between Christianity and islam, the New Testament and the koran, or the similar characters of Jesus and mohammed.
Time for moral and cultural equivalence, atleast on this forum, is well past.
Posted by: DP111 at June 8, 2005 7:54 PM
For your attention Robert, ie if you are not too bored with stuff of this sort.
Al Qaeda probe reported -- Lodi father, son arrested
Federal complaint says 22-year-old trained in Pakistan on 'how to kill Americans'
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/08/MNGVND590M1.DTL
Father and son eh? A family thing - just the sort that elicits dhimmii responses from Fox.
Posted by: DP111 at June 8, 2005 8:01 PM
Dear Hugh and Rebecca:
There is a key difference between Ibn Waraq and Dr Sina. Ibn Waraq has never called for the elimination of Islam per se, as I am sure you are aware. He has however called for the marginalisation of Islam; the relegation of Islam to the "person". This is consistent with your argument of "containment" Hugh and Rebecca that you both have postulated.
Dr Sina's approach is less sophisticated (although his analysis in his debates is not necessarily at a lower level than Ibn Waraq's. His solution is the elimination of Islam, undoubtedly this may be a viable solution. However it is not a realistic one, and it is not a battle we are likely to fight. The battle to eliminate Islam must not only be done with a gun, it must also be done with strategy and reasoning with Muslims. And I think Ibn Waraq does a better job at this.
Yours sincerely
Thomas
at June 8, 2005 8:05 PM
From Catherine's post:Muslims convert to Christianity to become more Danish
At least 660 people have converted to Christianity in the past five years.
Almost half of them have converted from Islam in the hope of improving their chances of being granted asylum or getting a job and becoming better integrated
Exactly my point. The Danes have tightened up their immigration rules, making it difficult for any whose cultural disposition is at variance with that of Denmark. And hence the conversions to Christianity. It is as easy as that. We can win this war with virtually no effort and loss of lives, and at the same time free muslims from slavery. Instead, we are being asked by the political elite to put up with a never ending fear of being bombed, the indignities of securty checks at airports - the confiscation of nail clippers, lighters etc. All such minor but irritating humiliations, are being forced on us, forever and a day, by an elite that does not have to put up with it themselves. Why?
Why should we have to put with this war forever? A war that is being waged in our home. The only reason that their is a jihad is because we have been stupid to let muslims in.
at June 8, 2005 8:22 PM
Thanks Catherine for digging up the Danish information.
Its getting late, so goodnight. I have to see the blasted dentist tomorrow.
Posted by: DP111
at June 8, 2005 8:24 PM
DP111: "If ever the US or Europe, decide to eject muslims, siting threat to life, freedom and civilisation, this Jihad will come to an end faster then you can imagine. Most muslims in the West will abandon islam rather then go back to their cultural homes, and in so doing will free themselves as well."
Interesting factoid (via Christopher Hitchens) posted at Laurence Auster's site today:
Auster: "Christopher Hitchens writes: “The time elapsed between Sept. 11, 2001, and today’s writing (1,364 days) is only slightly less than the time between Pearl Harbor and the unconditional surrender of Japan (1,365 days). And airport security is still a silly farce that subjects the law-abiding to collective punishment while presenting almost no deterrent to a determined suicide-killer.” Hitchens’s math is slightly off. Based on a Word macro I have that calculates the number of days elapsed between any two dates, the time from September 11, 2001 to today is 1,335 days, and the time from December 7, 1941 to August 14, 1945 is 1,346 days. So we’re 11 days short of the entire time we spent fighting World War II. Yet Hitchens’s substantive point about our failure to deal effectively with airport security issues is certainly correct. The situation is beyond outrageous. And my complaint goes well beyond Hitchens’s. What we ought to do is remove from America the people who put us at risk. Instead, we patiently submit ourselves to demeaning treatment in airports, as though we were the guilty ones. Under Bush’s leadership, we’re a nation of sheep—sheep boasting about how tough we are."
We all know the answer to this dilemma. It wouldn't be pretty, but then neither is the alternative. Re Ali Sina - he's the very very best. Totally uncompromising in shouting that the Emperor has no clothes. Totally committed to the truth. The influence of Krishnamurti on his thinking is obvious.
at June 8, 2005 8:35 PM
Thomas:
"The battle to eliminate Islam must not only be done with a gun, it must also be done with strategy and reasoning with Muslims."
My Dear Thomas: 'Reasoning' with unreasonable people does not eliminate them. It backfires! Recent debates here on JW/DW with Islamics, deniers and apologists have clearly demonstrated that 'reson' is not in their vocabulary and common sense not common.
Even though they describe themselves 'moderates'- they are anything but: They are from another planet! Take zman or shirki or even the confused kid 1a786, it is inconceivable that we should have to put up with millions of them, it is impossible to educate them, we are not 'allowed' to re-educate them (which should be the minimum requirement) they make no attempt to integrate into our society. Instead we are allowing them to build mosques and madrassahs and to import the vitriol, the poison and the clerics that preach the same or worse sermons than they would in their Islamic hell holes at home.
Lets deal with them radically: They did not come with good intentions, their hatred doesn't contribute to make our society better. They contribute nothing and the cost for security, surveillance and welfare is impossible to bear.Desperate times require desparate measures: Intern them and let the deportations begin. No mosques, no madrassahs, no Islamic clerics!
Koran yes: As an educational tool, to warn everyone about the demonic blood-cult of terror, horror and destruction of Islam!
Posted by: Terminator at June 8, 2005 10:27 PM
Christianity is the total opposite of islam. (And always was)
Posted by: Carolyn2 at June 8, 2005 11:17 PM
Carolyn2-
"Christianity" was used by nominal 'christians' to perform horrors equal to Islam's traditional and current monstrosities- from the time of the killings of the first heretics (monophysites, Arrians, gnostics, Pelagians, to Hypatia of Alexandria), as well as witches by the thousands, Jan Huss, The Cathars, Giordano Bruno, recurrent Jewish pogroms, the rise and fall of Savonarola, ad nauseam.
Saying they weren't 'christian' (they sure as hell claimed they were, from the Popes and anti-Popes on down) avoids the sorry record of about 1700 years of human intolerance.
They didn't follow Christ's precepts, because they grafted the "curse-loving" Old Testament to the "peace-loving" New (incomprehensibly, since the New negates the undercurrent of viciousness, narrowness and backwardness of the Old- ...whose truly traditional followers anathemized Jesus for saying: "It is not what goes into a person's mouth but what comes out of it that makes them unclean", etc.).
Christianity got 'civilized' -finally- around the middle of the 20th century, shamed by the hell on Earth it essentially allowed through the anti-semitic frenzy of the Holocaust.
Before the baptism of fire in the Civil Rights movement, it slept as the KKK marched on Washington, D.C. in hordes (in the 1920's), snoozed as "Churchgoers only" ads were normal in newpaper apartment rental and want ads (look at any pre-1950 newpaper microfilm classifieds section), and napped while education about sexually transmitted diseases was outlawed and thereby blinded and killed babies at birth and rendered men and women sterile for life (READ: "Devils, Drugs & Doctors").
I thank all the Gods that most 'Christians' finally became christian. (And gave the lie, at last, to Nietzsche's acerbic quip that "The last Christian died on the cross.")
The centuries of hypocrisy were getting a little thick.
Sadly, Islam has taken up this sordid mantle.
One it always has- and always MUST -bring forth from its warlord 'bible'. (Sura 9:5, etc.)
A bloody trait it will only relinquish when Islam understands that earthly power and divine decrees don't mix.
"My kingdom is not of this world." works.
(Even if it took the followers of Jesus almost two millenia to 'get it'.)
Islam, to its unending doom, declares: "This world IS my kingdom."
Turning Christ's message on its head.
("The devil is God flipped upside down.")
We DO have to acknowledge the sins of our forefathers and mothers.
And not repeat them.
Islam's sins (unlike those of most other faiths) are its pride.
Its dogma.
Its delight.
...And our disaster.
How long it takes for Muslims to see through their own form of world-historical un-compassionate-ness (as they proclaim Compassion) will be how long we all suffer their moral birth pangs.
If they kick too hard, we may have to put the patient out of our misery.
Posted by: BigSleep at June 9, 2005 12:26 AM
Bakri: "As long as my words do not become actions, they do no harm! Here, the law does not punish you for words, as long as there is no proof you have carried out actions. In such a case you are still on the margins of the law, and they cannot punish you. If they want to punish you, they must present evidence against you, otherwise their laws will be in a state of internal contradiction. Then this will serve Islam, because we will be able to claim that the capitalist camp has failed in the face of the Islamic camp in actualizing the things in which it believes, like freedom of expression."
Bakri's "insurmountible" challenge is no real challenge at all. It is the flawed, juvenile logic the the primitive absolutist. "I have a right to free speech, therefore I have an unlimited right to call for your destruction with total immunity. neener neener"
There is no absolute right to free speech. We have laws against such things as yelling fire in theaters. We have laws against hate crimes, treason, and sedition, all of which have at least a verbal component. As has been correctly said before, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. If it becomes necessary to regulate speech inside or outside of mosques, we shall do it. Joyfully. Without any "internal contradiction".
The "islamic camp" has been far too successful in actualizing the things in which it believes already. Things like misogyny, clitoridectomy, pedophilia, slavery, rape, murder, plunder. I find myself wondering again what exactly mohammedians think he brought from God?
Nope, sorry, I don't really care at all!
Posted by: Joseph of Carpentry at June 9, 2005 7:15 AM
I respect this point of view about Islam, but I'm afraid the writer has "no clue" as to why being in Iraq is essential to US foreign policy, US energy interests, and US military presence to keep Iran guessing as to what we will do next. WE have enough media, and folks in the US government who do know what is going on to "send the calvary" of the media if needed to melt away the Islamic tolerence of the US and it's general pupulation's knowledge of Islam.
We can't rant and rave about every Muslim as an enemy, and as much as I feel that is not too far off the beaten path, remember that not all Christians are bowing to Rome and the Holy See either. Yet, I agree that a fundamental definition of Islamic logic (or lack there of) and compare it to all other world religions is necessary, if we are ever going to figure out just how to explain it to everyone, when the average attention span is less than 5 minutes.
If Osama, is their truely honest speaker, then Islam, and the majority of it's people, will be pushed to extinction in mushroom clouds or other means around the globe, if it continues the path of trying to eliminate western civilization, "through any means possibe." Islam will return the days of mutually assured destruction for those nations that are religious states, and funding overt and covert support of the new Nazism that is the same old Nazism of intolerance, ignorance, and desenstized humanity, with no goals other than itself to propogate, and destroy all who challenge it.
Wake up world, Islam is an idealogy, not a religion, and it is a danger to humanity, far worse than anything existing in history. As for Americans, we haven't gotten mad enough or hit hard enough yet to get angry enough at Islamic nations, to cut their heads off so that the rest of the snake dies. That my freinds, is coming in the future, if we all live to see it.
Posted by: WOG at June 9, 2005 10:11 AM
WOG:
You are right. Ultimately, the jihaddist project is doomed to failure, but it is likely to claim many, many more lives before it does. That is the nature of totalitarian/utopian ideologies. They don't quite self-destruct so much as they, in their extreme belligerence, finally invite the rest of the world to strike back to ultimately preserve humankind.
I'm way too young to personally recall the tolerance/acceptance Hitler was met with in the early years of his rule until the danger of his totalitarian utopian views became so blatantly apparent as to no longer be ignored, but I think there may be some parallels to contemporary times, where people refuse to acknowledge that the jihaddists really do want to restore the Caliphate, and not just in their own environs, either.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at June 9, 2005 1:07 PM
Kagehi posted: Christianity 'was' basically the same as Islam for a long time. However, it was confronted with literacy, knowledge and an undeniable contradiction between its actions and the reality of what brought prosperity and peace. There are still crazy people, Bush included, that believe forcing religious 'fixes' to social problems cures them.
kagehi, as a bush & christian hater, you'd make a great muslim. ever thought of converting? ;o)
at June 10, 2005 2:06 AM
BigSleep posted: "Christianity" was used by nominal 'christians' to perform horrors equal to Islam's traditional and current monstrosities.
bigsleep, wow! thanks for proving what a wonderfully persuasive argument we can make if we only tell one side of the story! of course, you did fail to mention all of the good things those billions of christians did over all those centuries, but then that's understandable because the reader clearly would have come to a different conclusion, and you couldn't *tolerate* that, now could you? ;o)
also, great use of focusing on the presence of a dimension of an issue in order to obscure the degree or measurement of that dimension.
i.e., sure atrocities were committed by christians that may have been similar to those of the muslims, but you deliberately omitted any discussion of how many or how often or for how long ... i wonder why! ;o)
Posted by: fishboy at June 10, 2005 2:21 AM
I have read several books about islam in spanish, "Why am not I muslim" was one of the preferred, is a hard book because an muslim apostate has a difficult life. I recommend this book. It´s powerful.
Posted by: Franze at June 10, 2005 2:43 PM
Christianity is the total opposite of islam. (And always was)
Posted by: Carolyn2
DITTO!
Koran yes: As an educational tool, to warn everyone about the demonic blood-cult of terror, horror and destruction of Islam!
Posted by: Terminator
2 THUMBS UP Terminator!
The church in Rome has a king called 'pope'
Pope means 'papa' in Itilian.
The Vatican ignores this command [as they do many others]
Mat 23:9 And call no man your father UPON THE EARTH: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
And yet - they all call each other 'Father'
With that being said - the autrocities carried out by those claiming to be 'Christians' has absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with True Christianity.
Saying you are a Christian - and actually being one - are 2 completely different things.
Muslims on the other hand - can point to their Koran and say "SEE? I am to behead you - because you believe in the Son of God"
That's the difference between Christianity and Islam.
Islam's laws Violate not only American laws - but international laws also.
Until the leaders of this world admit to these truths - there will be bloodshed.
They already have the blood of MANY upon their hands.
That includes Am-Nasty International, The Council of Europe, the NY Human Rights Watch - the media giants - the self-professing 'Christian' leaders - ALL who have a voice in this world - because the Royal Command is:
Zec 8:16 These are the things that ye shall do; Speak ye every man the truth to his neighbour; execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates.
Eph 4:25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
The Koran preaches war.
The New Testament Preaches Peace.
Those who say different - either don't know what they're talking about - or - are liars.
It is SERIOUS! Especially when pondering what true Muslims did in Beslan.
Posted by: Beth at June 10, 2005 11:27 PM
The Works of Christ - The Son of God:
Mat 5:44 I [Jesus] say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.
1Th 5:15 See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good.
Rom 13:9 Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 5:44 Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.
Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
The works of Muhammad:
009.005 fight and slay the Pagans ''''wherever'''' ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war.
033.061 They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy). Cursed: wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a (horrible) murdering
009.123 O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you.
047.004 Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight [jihad], smite at their necks. [Behead them!]
005.033 THE PUNISHMENT of those who '''wage war''' against Allah and His Messenger IS: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet.
See the difference? between the two?
1Jo 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
Posted by: Beth at June 10, 2005 11:43 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)