This blather, day in and day out, gets rather tiresome, I'm afraid.

To know that the "responsible" leaders of the west can't use a fraction of such rhetoric must be comforting, I guess, if you are Atiyallah or whatever that thing was shooting its mouth off there above.

The day will come, sooner or later (just as long as it is not too late!) when western leaders too shall catchup in the propaganda/rhetoric phase of the game (but that's only after the war drums have started rolling). Once that happens, it'll be too late for islamopologists to cry racism or discrimination coz sympathy for such claims will not be found in the halls of govt or in city streets for that matter.

Beware.

Posted by: voletti at July 8, 2005 7:51 AM

The sympathy is quickly drying up on the streets. For some reason our muddleheaded leaders can't bring themselves to take the appropriate steps to cut off the head of this dragon.

Posted by: epg at July 8, 2005 8:04 AM

Lewis Attiyatullah (if that's who it was) is known to be a genuine Qaeda member and ideologue. He is mentioned in the US/UN declaration of Sa'ad al-Faqih (of London) as a terrorist enabler, but Lewis has been in touch with some people on our side as well. He praises the original head of Saudi Qaeda, Abdulaziz al-Muqrin, who introduced the practice of beheading hostages and filming the atrocity for the internet. It's a fair bet that Lewis personally knew al-Muqrin. The latter "fought" in Algeria at one time and Lewis is thought by some profilers to be Algerian. Mannerisms in his writing vaguely suggest that he is a French speaker with a Western education. It's a reach, but he could be now in contact with two Francophone ex-Tunisians on the FBI hotsheet: Faker Boussora and Abderraouf Jdey, both of whom are naturalized Canadians.

I'll be interested to see any reaction within London against Omar Bakri and his rabble, which I call "Jihad on the Dole".

Posted by: Vancouver at July 8, 2005 8:26 AM

We should leave Iraq, but not for the reasons Moveon.org suggest -- we should leave Iraq, to conduct a more effective, widespread, relentless, and ruthless effort to demoralize, disrupt, dismantle, dissect, dismember, and as this entirely fungible Atiyallah seems to think when he threatens mass-murdeer to Berlusconi, a flim-flam man who nonetheless managed to state a home truth about Islam and the superior --- in every way - civiliation of the West, "you dissin' me, man, you dissin' Islam?")-- to diss it, as it deserves to be dissed, by Infidels all over the world. And even by those few Muslims who through no fault of their own born into it, and among the most intellectually and morally aware, trying to get out wherever and however they can.

Posted by: Hugh at July 8, 2005 9:11 AM

These Imperialist Islamic numbskulls just don't understand that you are NOT supposed to yell at the frog you are trying to boil. It might leap out of the pot, turn into a Navy Seal, and fry your jihadist butt from Fez to Jakarta.

So far the 'head frogs' are either politically hard of hearing (listening to the siren call of poll numbers from the 'moderate' Muslim community), or have p.c. Egyptian cotton wads jammed in their ears (courtesy of C.A.I.R., et al).

But, the next shock wave might knock the stultifying swabs loose, -or be felt through other senses.

A pity so many civilians have to die to shake the leaders HARD enough for them to start saying: "Religion of Peace, my ass!"

The enemy is goddamned clear enough.

Let loose the predator drones!

Posted by: BigSleep at July 8, 2005 10:24 AM

I must agree completely with Berlusconi - Western civilization, by any yardstick at all, is far, far superior to islamic "civilization". And as an imam, I ought to know. Tally them, shall we? Rights (albeit grudingly in some cases) for homosexuals, for women; no public executions; fair and equitable laws for the protection of women, religious minorities, and children from abuse, assault, intimidation and murder; freedom of religion, or freedom from religion; freedom of speech; the permission of existence for rational, scientific inquiry; the permission of existence for art; greater support for charity and humanitarian measures, both domestic and external (the poor contribution of the islamic world to charitable association is particularly ironic given that this is one of islam's pillars of "faith"); freedom of education and association for women; taxation systems, based not on the punishment of non-islamic religion but on wealth; fair distribution of wealth among the sexes...

I think I could spend about an hour on this, but the short list will have to suffice. I might add: no brainwashing in Western society, but I think Charles over at LGF has that end wrapped up pretty well. I invite you all to view the photo series he has there. Illuminating.

On a side issue: after the disgusting islamic attacks on London, I'm afraid I'm out of tolerance for the Religion of Death, and so it is with clear conscience that I adopt another's moniker:

No islam.
Know peace.

Imam Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at July 8, 2005 10:30 AM

If Berlusconi is threatened for making an obvious remark, what will happen to Pope Benedict -- will he have to refrain from the kind of comments he has made, quite measured remarks but also quite telling, about Islam in such books as "Senza Radici"?

Posted by: Hugh at July 8, 2005 7:32 PM

I wasn't aware that Islam had any civilization.

At least not after 610 A.D. or so, when Mohammad (pb&j) won his first military victories, felt his megalomaniacal delusions were justified by earthly success (succumbing to the demonic temptation offered to, and rejected by Jesus 600 years earlier), and it has been all downhill ever since.

Unless, by "civilization" they mean a state of well-contructed Hell.

The Devil's Utopia.

A Latin note to Mr. Berlusconi:

"Veritas odium parit."

(Truth engenders hatred.)

Posted by: BigSleep at July 8, 2005 8:22 PM

I wasn't aware that Islam had any civilization.

At least not after 610 A.D. or so, when Mohammad (pb&j) won his first military victories, felt his megalomaniacal delusions were justified by earthly success (succumbing to the demonic temptation offered to, and rejected by Jesus 600 years earlier), and it has been all downhill ever since.

Unless, by "civilization" they mean a state of well-contructed Hell.

The Devil's Utopia.

A Latin note to Mr. Berlusconi:

"Veritas odium parit."

(Truth engenders hatred.)

Posted by: BigSleep at July 8, 2005 8:23 PM

TYPE KEY gives me a two-for-one.

Clearly the "comments" site is still not back to normal working order from the (my guess) hacker (Super_Garp?) constipating it all day.

Posted by: BigSleep at July 8, 2005 8:25 PM

I'm happy to see that O'Reilly agrees with me. Here's a snip:

Every sane person knows if the USA pulls out of Iraq, Al Zarqawi and his terror killers take over setting up yet another terror state to go along with Iran and Syria. Obviously, that can't be allowed to happen, no matter what has happened in the past.

Even German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder (search), no friend of ours, understands that. So let's stop the nonsense. Let's stop undermining the war. American must defeat terror in Iraq. And if that takes more troops, send more troops.

I would say that from what I've heard and read from the majority of Military analysts (experts who know best how to conduct military operations), they would also concur with this view.

Posted by: dead_shot at July 8, 2005 8:25 PM

Then we who think that it is unwise to put so much money, so many men, so much desert-degraded materiel, into Iraq, and men and officers who come back and agree with that view are also insane, when some of them are the most thoughtful, best educated, most unwilling to simply parrot some party line about "staying the course" or the need not to "cut and run" and who have actually come to understand not some ectoplasmic shape known as "Iraq" but the 3-vilayet non-nation-state known as Iraq -- all these people, who have realized that Islam is a world-wide threat, that the islamization of Europe certainly takes precedence over the absurd idea of using American power to hold Iraq together, American power to prevent a free Kurdistan therefore, American money to pay for yet one more fabulously rich Arab country (which could borrow against future earnings, even as a designated heir may borrow against what he will inherit, or even sell his interest outright).

There are plenty of skeptics all over the American army, and the attempt to convince us -- and me, when I have talked directly to some of them -- that they do not exist, and that everyone is gung-ho for this "staying the course" nonsenes -- well, it won't wash.

And while we are at it, what does the American government make of a known assassin at the head of soon-to-be-nuclear Iran? Does it not think that is just a bit more important than bringing this goddamn "democracy" to Iraq? And does it really think it will be able to attack nuclear installations in Iran from Iraq? Really? Well, that should come to some news to the Iraqi Defense Minister, who has just been in Tehran, signing all sorts of mutual defense and training agreements with the hideous Islamic Republic of Iran -- hmm, does that worry anyone in Washington, this business of making the Middle East safe for a splendid rapprochement between Iraq and Iran? Was that they planned? This is not the Iran of the Shah. This is the most murderous version of the Islamic Republic yet -- the Iran of Rafsanjani, Mr. Big, and the puppet Ahmadinejan, Revolutionary Guard and Basij.

And yes, on July 12 it will be none other than Ahmadinajad himself who will be greeting Mr. Jaafari, who now runs the Shiite group that essentially runs Iraq. The same Jaafari who, not two weeks ago, sat like the cat that swallowed the canary in the Oval Office (my god, did you see the expression on his face -- he couldn't believe it, a humble Shi'a like himself, and what's more, able to twist Mr. Bush around his finger, or so it certainly must have seemed to him, for why else would he have publicly called for that "Marshall Plan" for Iraq, to be paid for and presumably administered by Americans -- what cheek he had. Who let him even think in such terms, even dare to make such an absurd suggestion -- if not all those who keep prating about how we are "doing what has to be done in Iraq 'cause that's the place to take our stand and you know, once those fascist states are gone that have so oppressed their peoples well then.. etc.) Is there no end to this refusal to look clearly at what Islam is all about, and what Iraq is all about, and why we are not merely failing to exploit, but doing everything to deprive ourselves of the chance of exploiting, the two fissures that Iraq offers us on a plate:

1) the Kurd-Arab split, which if exploited correctly could lead to a free Kurdistan, and to raising issues that will resonate with other non-Arab Muslims, such as the Berbers

2) the Sunni-Shi'a split, which should be allowed not to narrow, which is apparently the idiotic "strategy" of the American government at present (is this the same country whose presidents used to read Alfred Thayer Mahan and Sir Halford Mackinder, and now are content with the all=knowing NGO-ish busybodies who have either gone to Yale Law School, and then become hournalists or Fellows or even that appetizing thing Senior Fellows at this or that think-tank with little to think, or just as bad, those people who never bother to study history, but get degrees in what is essentially glorified current events and newspaper-reading, and then tart it all up at some Johns Hopkins School of "Advanced" -- I like that "Advanced" -- International Studies.

Spare us, please.

Posted by: Hugh at July 8, 2005 9:23 PM

The new agreement between Iran and Iraq should be carefully considered by all those so quick to insist that O'Reilly's business about "all sane people" necessarily believe the best way to deal with world-wide Jihad (with, of course, local manifestations of the same impulse) is to keep pouring resources, and doing such great harm to the regular and the citizen army and to military equpment.

Here is some food for thought:

"IRAN PLEDGES $1 BILLION IN AID TO IRAQ. Iraqi Defense Minister Sa'dun al-Dulaymi said during a 7 July press conference in Tehran that Iran
has pledged to provide Iraq with a $1 billion aid package, Radio Farda and other news agencies reported. Iranian Defense Minister Ali
Shamkhani told reporters that the two sides would sign agreements on military cooperation -- including training -- soon. Asked about the
status of the Mujahedin Khalq Organization, an armed Iranian opposition organization that is based in Iraq and currently enjoys "protected status" under the Geneva Conventions, al-Dulaymi pledged that it will not be allowed to launch operations from Iraqiterritory. Al-Dulaymi met with President Hojatoleslam Mohammad Khatami on 7 July. Khatami expressed optimism on the continuation of political development in Iraq, called for the country's reconstruction, stressed ethnic unity, and offered Iranian
cooperation. According to anonymous sources cited by "Al-Hayat" on 6 July, al-Dulaymi is close to the United States and therefore the
visit is meant to strengthen Iran-Iraq ties (presumably by reassuring Iran about U.S. intentions)."

Do you, if you ae an American citizen, find that little item pleasant to contemplate? If Iran is along with Saudi Arabia the greatest threat to Infidels, and more of a direct military threat than any other Muslim country, and Iran is now not merely persona grata in formerly arch-enemy Iraq -- well, how do you think our Grand Strategists are doing? And what course is it that we are staying, anyway? Oh, I see -- we will establish "democracy" (in truth, this means Shi'a rule, for they win the head-count, hands down), and this "democracy" will in no way be directed by Iran, or be allowed to emulate Iran (hmm, see what is happening to daily life in Basra right now -- looks pretty khomeinish to me).

Constantly surprised, are those strategists. Can't figure out why the American soldiers wewre not permanently greated with deep appreciation. Can't figure out what it might be about Islam that makes Muslims so deeply and permanently hostile, or hostile even though they are quite prepared to put on an act to keep obtaining whatever money and equipment and diplomatic support might be extracted from the hopelessly-naive Infidels, especially that generous, far too generous, Infidel government in Washington.

And will this new Iran-Iraq rapprochement, which begins with an admission by the Iraqis that they were "wrong" in the Iran-Iraq War, and even an apology -- will that just possibly get in the way of American attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities? Or might that new friendliness mean that Shi'a in Iraq would, should such an attack take place, simply turn on the Americans and attack them directly -- as seems quite likely?

What a mess. What gobbledygook. What substitute of silly slogans for thought. This cannot go on. Someone, some group of young officers, has got to sit down, read and study Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, and then read the history of Muslim conquest -- and not from Esposito or his epigones and supporters and emulators with their eye on various well-funded main chances -- and then educate those who outrank them, but do not know as much about what they now need to know.

And perhaps the intelligent generals in Iraq should tell the truth to their obstinate policy-overseers in the Pentagon, who have their own reputations and amour-propre to worry about, and insist on "staying this course" that makes no sense, that makes the opposite of sense.

Put a lid on it, as the Squirrel Nut Zippers like to say. Yes, put a lid on it.

Posted by: Hugh at July 8, 2005 9:44 PM

More than half of Africa is Muslim. Let's forgive their debt so they may laugh at us all the way to the bank!

Posted by: ZAK at July 9, 2005 12:24 PM

that the islamization of Europe certainly takes precedence over the absurd idea of using American power to hold Iraq together

The EU, comprised of functioning governments (albeit socialist), are certainly capable of addressing the threat posed by out-of-control Third World immigration, if they would only wake up and smell the jihad. It's in their backyard, let them deal with it. Removing the troops from Iraq to address Europe's muslim problem is beyond rediculous, although I'm sure you have another word salad waiting in the wings to better "explain" your position :-)

There are plenty of skeptics all over the American army, and the attempt to convince us -- and me, when I have talked directly to some of them -- that they do not exist...

Name them.

Posted by: dead_shot at July 9, 2005 12:53 PM

Sorry, I meant to edit the quote this way:

There are plenty of skeptics all over the American army...I have talked directly to some of them....

Again, name them.

Posted by: dead_shot at July 9, 2005 12:58 PM

The request above to "name them" is absurd, and the person making the request knows exactly why it is absurd. Or should.

But if he wants some evidence for lack of enthusiasm, he has only to read those who have been quoted, from Iraq, in the press -- such phrases as "we may have to be here for decades" or "I don't think it can possibly work" or "the Iraqis are not really trying" or "no one here [among the Iraqis]really thinks about much beyond himself." Is it your contention that all of these people, and those who have come home, and those who have not come, but whose families have in the press quoted from the letters home that expressed great anguish over how the Iraqis failed to show gratitude, how difficult life was, how strange -- after the initial justified invasion -- the notion that one could simply bring "democracy" to a place.

What does explain the drop -- 20% in the Naval and Air Force Academies, 9% for West Point -- in applications in one year? What does explain the necessity for lowering the quotas, and for all the stories about the lowering as well of standards, and the hellishly difficult job that recruiters now have? What does explain the loss of young officres, not all of whom are staying it?

There is one explanation, that your views would seem to favor. You would appear to believe that these people, those who are in the Army, or the National Guard, or the Reserves, are cowards. They don't want to fight. And those who would otherwise apply to the service acadmies are, or at least some of them are, cowards.

I don't agree. I believe that there are plenty of people who are happy to fight. But some of those now fighting, or some of those who have come back, and some of those who might otherwise be applying to the service academies but are not, are prompted not by fear of risking their lives, but fear of risking their lives FOR A STUPID POLICY THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. A policy that is a huge misallocation of resources, that substitutes a dreamy idealism, or at least the pretense of it -- you know, all that stuff about "everyone wants freedom" and "democracies don't fight democracies" (well, Muslim democracies do not exist, save for Turkey, and that has only been a quasi-democracy for the past half-century, but all the evidence suggests that in Muslim countries, democratic or despotic, the desire to spread Islam, the impulse for Jihad, will not diminish, as it has not diminished, just because some people are also arranging to build sewers and subways -- loook at Ahmadinejad, the tireless big-city mayor now the murderous president of Iran), and the rest of it, all a form of denial, a way of escaping from, the need to construct a policy tath will make use of every insrument of warfare -- including denying the enemy money, and using all the arts of propaganda and a good deal more, but which some people, who think "warfare" only means soldiers and tanks and planes, simply cannot comprehend. Well, such people have their uses, but grand strategy is not one of them.

As for Iraq -- it is the perfect place, the only place, where the two great schisms within Islam itself can be exploited. For the hundredth time, they are: the resentment of non-Arab Muslims for the supremacist attitudes and acts of Arab Muslims (Kurds vs. Arabs), and the hatred of Sunnis for Shi'a, and the hatred and resentment in turn offered by Shi'a for Sunni.

And what is the American policy now? It is not to permit those fissures to widen, but to spend money, and American lives, narrowing those fissures, making Iraq as wonderful a place, as going a concern, no matter "what it takes."

Well, "what it takes" at this point is wilful ignorance of Islam, of what divisions within Islam are there to be exploited, and what the real history of Iraq has been -- not the sanitized version of Bernard Lewis, nor all those who think that Saddam Hussein was simply a crazy aberration, who came out of nowhere, and represented nobody but himself.

Posted by: Hugh at July 9, 2005 3:26 PM

There is one explanation, that your views would seem to favor. You would appear to believe that these people, those who are in the Army, or the National Guard, or the Reserves, are cowards. They don't want to fight. And those who would otherwise apply to the service acadmies are, or at least some of them are, cowards.

Talk about willfully fabricating inanities! I would never dream of accusing these people of cowardice. I have rarely addressed the issue of troop morale or the problem of re-enlistment, other than to point toward the absurd rules of engagement placed upon our troops that have hamstrung their ability to win this war. Blunders such as the twice-cornered Muqtada al Sadre being allowed to escape from Fallujah, a decision that was made by spineless politicians, can only frustrate and demoralized our troops. Under these circumstances I can understand why our soldiers would choose not to re-enlist. I have spoken to a Marine who served in Iraq, and he assured me that not only he, but all of his fellow Marines, echoe my sentiments completely. This war has been fought by cringing politicians who, as many have noted on this site, are only too happy to appease the muslims.

I believe that there are plenty of people who are happy to fight. But some of those now fighting, or some of those who have come back, and some of those who might otherwise be applying to the service academies but are not, are prompted not by fear of risking their lives, but fear of risking their lives FOR A STUPID POLICY THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.

The "stupid policy" rests entirely with the politicians who are not allowing us to use the proper amount of FORCE necessary to make our point. I have posted about this before, and I believe this is the real source of frustration for our troops. They are NOT frustrated because they no longer have faith in their mission and wish to withdraw all troops from Iraq, which, without question, amounts to cowardly Surrender, which is what YOU propose.

I'm sure there are many opinions swirling around the Armed Forces regarding what we should and should not do about Iraq, but complete withdrawal of the troops is NOT one of them.

Once again, I challenge you to name ONE Military official who is on record sharing your opinion that we should completely withdraw from Iraq. The key word there is "withdraw." Just one. My guess is that you can't. Any Military planner, analyst, or advisor worth his salt would completely reject such nonsense.

Posted by: dead_shot at July 9, 2005 5:09 PM

To whom it may concern

Looking for an officer in the US military who would publicly contradict the official policy of the Commander in Chief is futile. No military officer who wants his job would do that because he would be a civilian in short order. The chain of command does not and should not tolerate public disagreement with policy. Privately,there would be lots of opinions.

Posted by: pismopal at July 9, 2005 8:12 PM

Thank you, pismopal, for stating what should have been obvious, but apparently needed to be spelled out. "Pis'mo" as in Pismo Beach, and golfing, or "pis'mo" as in "Pis'ma ne o liubvi"?

Posted by: Hugh at July 9, 2005 8:34 PM

Looking for an officer in the US military who would publicly contradict the official policy of the Commander in Chief is futile. No military officer who wants his job would do that because he would be a civilian in short order.

Yes, how convenient for Hugh. His so-called "theories" would carry more weight if shared by someone whose opinion actually mattered. Maybe he could reference one of his distinguished collegues in the publishing world (other than Spencer), or perhaps the 24-hour News World. There are countless pundits, analysts and commentators with previous military experience who no longer labor under the threat of "early retirement" and who offer their perspective on the Iraq War on every network and cable channel on the dial. Then there are those who publish for prestigious journals such as Global Defense Review, FMSO, Army Magazine, Army Times, War Times Journal, and Parameters, among others. If he could cite a "talking head" or even an online article that supported his Policy of Retreat and Surrender, a policy that sacrifices Iraq to Civil War and ultimately the Forces of Evil, it might give him some much-needed credibility. As it stands, his theories languish on the fringe.

Speaking of which, here's a question for Hugh. Other than Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch, where else have you published?

Posted by: dead_shot at July 10, 2005 3:09 PM

For someone who "languishes on the fringe," someone whose opinions cannot possibly "be shared by anyone who matters," someone who presumably has no "distinguished colleagues in the publishing world," someone whom absolutely no one of any consequence or of any common sense, somone who is not taken seriously by those who "matter" (and in the universe of this poster, you see, we are all divided into two groups -- those who "matter" and those who "do not matter") nonetheless seems to matter very much to the poster above. And remarkably, all those who "matter" appear to agree with him, while those who "do not matter" -- well, do not matter. Quite a debating technique -- it saves time, for no evidence or logic is necessary. We get, simply, the Appeal to Authority -- the Big Authorities, the people who publish in service journals. Well, shut my mouth, but surely you know why, for the moment, most of those who are critical of remaining in Iraq are not going to be published quite soon in the kind of publications you list above).

Well, I may not "matter" to you, but I have reason to believe that the views set out, with careful attention to the specifics of the weaknesses that might be exploited within Islam and to the particular history and situation of Iraq (which you have ever bothered to rebut, or even to notice, as if you can substitute some Appeal to Authority and that is the end of the matter.) An argument that offers specific suggestions as to how to exploit various fissures within Iraq to our advantage, as part of a much larger, and more intelligent, and less naive, campaign that would jettison this "democracy" business and get on with the only thing that matters -- weakening Islam, weakening its appeal to potential converts, weakening its cohesion, weakening its military strength, weakening the very idea of the identity of interest between Arab supremacist Muslims and non-Arab Muslims, and weakening the link between Sunni and Shia -- has been presented. We have not taken advantage, not begun even to understand how to take advantage, of this. Warfare is much more than combat, especially when, as in the Cold War, the enemy here is an insidious and aggressive ideology, one that makes use of military power, but is hardly limited to that. Bush and Co. have begun to mention that word "Ideology" as a substitute for "Islam" but they still are much too vague.

Your constant recourse to name-calling, including this absurd business first of insisting that I "name my sources" and second, denying not only that they exist, but then assuring one and all that I cannot possibly matter to anyone who counts -- well, why then do I so infuriate you? Why do you try so hard, and so ineffectually, to answer me -- not with any arguments about the nature either of Islam or of Iraq, but with a kind of bullying bravado that is comical.

If you find my views utterly silly, views that clearly others here, beginning with Robert Spencer, not only do not find silly, but are in general agreement with me, why don't you take your views on the matter to a website where you will be welcomed with open arms, and not be so obviously tormented by this person who Does Not Matter.

Or, if you prefer, we can, if the level of your debating tactics remain as is, simply make that decision for you.

Posted by: Hugh at July 10, 2005 5:04 PM