It seems that even the much hailed "moderates" are misunderstanders of Islam. The true Islam. The true Islam-Muhammedanism that's all about peace and human brotherhood </barf>

Posted by: dennisw at July 9, 2005 9:23 AM

It is time to stop confusing ourselves and call the enemy by its name. And nail it.

After 9/11 Bush messed up our response to the Act of War Islam threw at our faces.
He called the enemy a "Religion of Peace", and confused our troops, all riled up to inflict hell, who now didn't know where to point their guns. Instead of bringing the full force of our retailiation on our enemy we bent backwards to pander to them, like in a Kafka nightmare where the predators who eat the sheep are treated like VIPs by the sheep, even making it unlawful to profile them, slapping fines on airlines who acted to protect themselves from potential terrorists. And we go chasing after individuals in the mountains.

It's like trying to cure a cold by removing the snoot. You wipe up the symptoms of the disease but do nothing to attack its source. The snoot will keep on coming, endlessly.

The individuals in the mountains are the snoot of this virulent disease we call Islamic Terrorism. They are all over the world now, and they will keep on adding to our pile of innocent human carnage - in London, Thailand, India, Africa, Madrid, Bali, America, the Middle East. You can't wipe these muslim terrorists up fast enough. You don't have the resources to run down the clues from each atrocity, each beheading, each bombing, to trace them to the individuals who committed them.

But you know their source - Islam.

Islam is a disease in the body of mankind. A criminal ideology that sanctions the murder, rape, and pillage of any non-muslim whose "blood, property, and land" are free for a muslim to take. And whose agenda is to subjugate every man, woman, and child on Earth to its hellish domination.

Islam is criminal. And seditious. We should criminalise it.

Criminalise Islam.

That is striking at the source of this evil we call Islamic Terrorism. Chasing after individuals is fine. But if we are brain-using sentient beings, we will realise that it is like swatting mosquitoes in a swamp. We will spend the next 1000 years, devastating national treasuries, fighting and tracking down terrorist individuals. We need to drain the swamp. That means simply - criminalise Islam.

It is not uncivilised to call the enemy by its real name. It is the only way civilizations stay alive. Because if you don't name your enemy, you can't fight him. And instead of striking your enemy, you go off chasing his countless, endless shadows. Killing its shadows, bringing its shadows to justice, only to be utterly flummoxed by how ineffective that is, with hundreds of them in jail, how come we are still getting 7/7s, 3/11s, 9/11s, why does it feel like we are swatting individual mosquitoes in a swamp?

Islam is a criminal ideology. We criminalise it. It is a natural thing to do. Call it self-preservation of society, any civilised society would do that.

We don't kill people, we don't lynch people. People who wish to practice it should be free to leave for an Islamic country of their choice. Call it asylum. The West has been on the receiving end, to its detriment. Now it is the Islamic countries' turn, to receive their own ummah.

I hope London 7/7 would not be a repeat of New York 9/11, where ours leaders send us off chasing mosquitoes while the swamp remains in our midst, endlessly spewing forth these muslim vermins who would continue to add to our pile of human carnage, while we look on helplessly and hopelessly, at each round of atrocity... and the media worries about protecting their rights.

Enough already.

Drain. The. Swamp.

Posted by: skidd at July 9, 2005 9:26 AM

Muslim condemnations. Worthless. A bunch of polite blah blah blah. Forced, insincere words said just to curry favour, a facade. Some condemned 9/11. Did it prevent the Bali bombing the next year? Nope. They condemned the Bali bombings. Did it prevent Madrid? Nope. Now after London, more of this official, canned, predictable blah blah blah. Why are people continuing to be impressed by these so-called condemnations? Until they start grabbing the hate-spewing creeps and throwing them out, turning them in, and stop making excuses, I will view these condemnations as of no use or value whatsoever.

Personally, I don't believe in any moderate, radical differentiation either. The radicals are the ones getting down and dirty, taking action. The "moderate" ones just like to sit back and give tacit approval and provide background support, knowing that they'll vicariously benefit from whatever the radical ones achieve. I think the so-called moderates are far more dangerous too. They may not be blowing people up, but they're swarming into Western countries, burdening our social welfare systems, subverting our societies, providing financial support, and hiding the murderous ones.

Until Islam is declared a hostile political ideology, we're going nowhere.

Posted by: feralee at July 9, 2005 10:15 AM

Check out this report of the Axisglobe:

London Attacks and Uzbekistan Riots Backed by the Same Forces
http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=223

Posted by: AM at July 9, 2005 10:46 AM

While reading Ann McFeatter's column this morning I nearly got excited that she was going to actually tell the readers the truth about islam. Well, as usual there comes the dhimmitude...As once again the dreariness of increased security, bomb-sniffing dogs and lives less free sets in, we must combat the sad reality that far too many people will see this as a war of Islam against everyone else. That is not true - a few thousand extremists who live by spewing chaos and death do not speak for a billion others. There is nothing in Islam that condones such evil
I did email her, although I doubt it will do any good. There seems to be a "circling of the wagons" among journalists. I don't know if it is fear or ignorance. Is it too much to expect the truth? Can you imagine if during WWII the press continued to say that not all Nazis are bad, or there is nothing in Mein Kampf to cause all this death?

Posted by: Carolyn2 at July 9, 2005 11:13 AM

The radio in the US and elsewhere is full of dhimmi responses to Islamic terror. No one, repeat, no one, in positions of authority or influence, will admit the truth of Islam..."Just a few radicals in an otherwise religion of peace". These people, including Bush and Blair, are personally responsible for a lot of the carnage being perpetrated, because of their refusal to come to grips with reality. You do not hear sound bites blaming Islam for anything. All you hear is dhimmi responses of support for Islam. Aid and comfort to the enemy, comming from people who claim a war against them...inconsistency is not the right word...schizophrenia is better...

Posted by: duh_swami at July 9, 2005 11:29 AM

It only goes to show how yet another Muslim comes crawling out of the woodwork to declare himself either a "moderate" or an "apostate." When are the governments of the United States and Great Britain going to learn from the Russians in that these radical Muslims simply cannot be trusted? This is why I have a difficult time believing any of the hype that Muslims lay out on us.

Simply put - I can never trust Muslims. Period. It's time our governments start waking up and stop this ridiculous pandering. It makes completely no sense to me why we're not cracking down on all Muslims.

Posted by: uskafir at July 9, 2005 11:56 AM

okay here we go. This is for the Englishmen. The next time someone asks you, "So what was the responce like" dont automatically assume they are talking about how quickly the first abulance got to the terror attack. Do not .... i repeat do not respond, " It took only one minute for the first ambulence to arrive one the scene see how great we are at being attacked". Im tired of hearing that defeatest responce instead respond as such, " Heck it has only been 24 hours since the attack you have not seen our responce yet". It sounds less lillylivered chickens*it. Your friend and ally just trying to help. By the way i am really liking the constructive ideas being put forth on this thread seems we are beginning to wake up to the reality of today. Like crossing a high mountain stream in the afternoon of a warm spring day. Everything seemes nice untill your sack hits the stream swollen by fresh snow melt. Wake up call.

Posted by: ethoman at July 9, 2005 12:10 PM

One is not impressed by the variou s Muslim responses to this latest bombing. The first is that of those Muslims who call in to talk shows to express their "deep sorrow" -- a sorrow that I do not for one minute believe is true, for there have been many occasions, including that "Free-Muslim-Coalition" March Against Terrorism that managed to get only a few dozen people, in all of the United States, to show up to denounce only terrorism, and not, as it should have, the Jihad as a concept, as an impulse, as a duty. That expression of "deep sorrow" always seems to be accompanied by more -- "we Muslims are as outraged by anybody" (nonsense) or "we musn't let this divide us" (double nonsense: Islam, the tenets of Islam, divide quite clearly Believers from Infidels, and anyone who subscribes to Islam has already subscribed to that manichaean division of the world)-- meant to protect Muslims.

Others claim that this has "nothing to do with Islam." Really? Nothing? The people who commit these acts all believe they are good Muslims. They quote, quite appositely by the way, relevant and major passages from Qur'an, Hadith, and they offer up repeatedly the example of Muhammad, an example whose life is described in the Sira, or biography. Are they wrong?

No Muslim has yet seen fit to do other than attempt to defend the position of Muslims. No Muslim has seen fit to say that "this is intolerable, our beliefs are intolerable and we must change them somehow." No Muslim has suggested that "perhpas we should leave the Lands of the Infidels, because we are making their lives hell, and too many among us are secret supporters and those of us who are not realize, fully, that the Infidels themselves cannot separate out the genuine few who are 'moderate' from the many who are 'immoderate," nor can they, or we, figure out even among those so-called 'moderates' which will be so forever, and which can undergo a remarkable transformation to the 'immoderate' version of Islam that is, of course, the one which corresponds to, and is explained by, the unadulterated tenets of Islam."

Unless these truths are going to be uttered, all Muslims should be assumed to be a classic Fifth Column. We lack the ability, as noted just above, to distinguish those "moderates" from those "immoderates" (i.e., Muslims who fully subscribe to the tenets of Islam). Nor can we spend the next twenty years perfecdting this ability, or devoting all our efforts, and money, to making life so wonderful for Muslims that they will never ever have anything to complain out (and we will constantly rush about fulfilling their every need, while ignoring those of the poorer non-Muslim immigrants, who do not represent a civilizational threat). Yes, and meanwhile the Da'wa within oursocietes will continue. The threat of terror will remain, for individuals such as Geert Wilders and other political or media figures, to shut them up, or at least quiet them down. And demographic conquest will proceed, inexorabaly, unchecked, unremarked, seemingly unstoppable, because the inheritors of the Western world, confused, stupid, spoiled, and incapable of understanding or appreciating their own civilizational legacy, will do nothing about this, believing that, as so many of them will wimper, "Well, what can we do? There is nothing we can do."

Of course there is. But it requires not hardness, not coldness of some indescribable kind, but simply the kind of attitude that the Americans and British had during World War II. We would take what allies we needed. We would do whatever we had to do. Did the Nazis bomb Londno? Very well, then, Bomber Harris would bomb Berlin, Dresden, Cologne. And the Americans firebombed Tokyo, and did what had to be done to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if what one cared about was, in the end, saving more lives -- and of course it made sense to think first of the lives of one's own people, not of the enemy. The men who did these things were not monsters. The men who exppelled the Sudeten Germans from Czechoslovakia by the Benes Decree were not monsters but wise, tolerant, utterly sympathetic people, who had taken the measure of the securit threat and had decided to end it once and for all.

In the end, it will be us -- or them. Why beat around various bushes, why continue the misstatements and denial and nonsense and gobbledygook? What good does it do, to keep avoiding the truths that, in the texts and in the histories, are in some cases merely a click away from your brain, if you only took the time to read, to study, and to think?

Posted by: Hugh at July 9, 2005 12:41 PM

Did the Nazis bomb Londno? Very well, then, Bomber Harris would bomb Berlin, Dresden, Cologne. And the Americans firebombed Tokyo, and did what had to be done to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if what one cared about was, in the end, saving more lives....

You may be on to something here, but unfortunately you are not following your line of thinking to its logical end. If bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima served the purpose of ending WWII and saving countless lives, then what exactly are you suggesting we do in our current situation, as per the muslim problem?

Posted by: dead_shot at July 9, 2005 1:31 PM

spokesman Mohammed Kozbar said mosque leaders urged followers, "to show their anger and their concern about what has happened and, that this has nothing to do with Islam as a religion. We're pretty sure that some of (those who carried out the attacks) will be Muslims. We hope that these people will be caught and brought to justice. Our advice to the community is to keep quiet and calm and live their lives as usual."

That reminds me of another infamous Muslim.

“We have some planes. Just stay quite, and you’ll be okay...”

“Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you’ll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quite.”

One of the bonehead hijackers of American Airlines Flight 11, who inadvertently broadcast their message over the air traffic control channel instead of the cabin public-address channel.

Apparently, the infidel keeping quite is of high importance to Muslims?

Posted by: Bar at July 9, 2005 1:44 PM

"Bill in Viginia," thanks for the morning laugh track!

I've heard some dumb sh*t in my time, but that post really takes the cake.

Posted by: dead_shot at July 9, 2005 1:46 PM

Hugh wrote...the Americans firebombed Tokyo, and did what had to be done to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if what one cared about was, in the end, saving more lives -- and of course it made sense to think first of the lives of one's own people, not of the enemy...

This is an excellent point. There has been a growing leftist phenomena of placing guilt on America for nuking Japan to end the war. Was it really necesary to kill so many? We shouldn't have used the 'bomb.'. Yada Yada Yada. Their argument is along the lines "We killed an extra 1/2 million with nukes so that only a few thousand of us would not have died. The war was essentially won, and we could have used conventional attacks (which risks our soldiers lives) to bring it to a conclusion. It is absurd. Don't think one moment that Japan or Germany would have hesitated in using a nuke on us, and would not have been concerned whatsoever about whether it was 'really necessary.' Sadly, the way we saw an enemy then and the way our government and media see the enemy today are worlds apart. Why? Because Islam is a religion, and therefore cannot be a radical and dangerous ideology.

Posted by: reset at July 9, 2005 2:13 PM

HOORAY for Christopher Hitchens!
http://www.radioblogger.com/#000816

Posted by: Carolyn2 at July 9, 2005 2:15 PM

Bill in Virginia...what in the world have you been smoking?

Posted by: ivehadenuff at July 9, 2005 2:24 PM

Cannot wait for this man to be signed up by the BBC as a spokesman for the religion of peace!

Posted by: chevalier de st george at July 9, 2005 2:48 PM

Cannot wait for this man to be signed up by the BBC as a spokesman for the religion of peace!

Posted by: chevalier de st george at July 9, 2005 3:03 PM

You people need to provide a reference to what you're talking about....Are you talking about the one from the cutting edge. org?

Good Lord. If you have to ask...

Posted by: dead_shot at July 9, 2005 5:15 PM

Due to vacation and internet troubles, I wasn't able to post after the bombings but my thoughts and prayers have been with the Brits and their pain.

This poem was posted here on December 2, 2004. I've added some lines.

Britain under seige: jihadis recruit in Britain

Land of the mystic Merlin,
land of the magic groves,
it is only a matter to time
before they commit mayhem and murder.
Land of music and poetry,
land of ancient ancestors,
it's too late to close the doors,
you are under attack.
Will you fight back,
lock the gates and arm the men,
sound the alarm, let the musters begin?
You know where they are,
if your're determined, they can't go far.
Your freedoms are worth fighting for . . .

Rouse the sleeping king from his cave
to lead your army of the Free and Brave,
call for his sword from the lake so deep
to cut through the ignorance of those who sleep
and open their eyes to the company they keep.

Posted by: the poetess at July 9, 2005 6:57 PM

The fight against Jihad, children and the Movies:

The weirdest thoughts just crossed my mind. With todays grown ups mired in political correctness, purposefully ignorant about Islam, and totally spineless, I wondered, what about the children. In Hollywood movies mall rats rise up after an invasion to give the invaders hell. Muslim children continuo to do more than their fair share of jihad to help out the cause of Allah, acting with total disregard for their own lives. In Islamic lands they were used as human bombs in Afghanistan against the Russians, to attack Israeli soldiers and civilians, as human shields in Somalia, and in other Islamic lands with non-Muslim minorities to attack and harass the infidel population. For example, in Iraq, we were belted with rocks thrown by small children encouraged by their parents who knew full well that we are not going do anything, and if we did, it will make great press... Israeli soldiers are truly blameless when they are forced to shoot at Palestinian children.

In the West however, Muslim children form violent gangs to spread mayhem with the aid and encouragement of their communities, not that they need much coaching to emulate Islamic heroes, which they grow up with the tales of their bloodthirsty glory. When they are caught, their parents either defend them as innocent victims of bigotry or do a sopping act to draw the sympathy of foolish westerners.

On the other hand, western children are a generation with out a moral fiber, selfish, ungrateful, unpatriotic, ignorant, and they do not vote well for the survival of the west. Western girls, even here in America, many clamor for Muslim boyfriends who turn them into baby machines for Allah, and spineless wimps, taking in all forms of degradation, surrendering control of their own lives to their new Muslim masters. Infidel girls are ignorant of the fact that they are viewed as subhuman infidel whores and war “booty”. In the beginning they may sweet talk them, give them more attention than they have ever gotten, impress them with their seemingly stable and close knit family and community, or simply buy them out.

Also, there are many western boys who are lost, lonely, confined to playing fantasy war games that find in Islam all that have ever eluded them, a sense of belonging, a community, a mission in life, and an outlet for their rage against a society that relegated them to losers, outsiders, and loners.

I have met many magnificent young men and women in our armed forces, the relatively few that they are in our increasingly aging military, and although I was impressed with their courage and patriotism, I knew that there have not fully escaped the corrosive effects of a soulless materialistic society.

I truly wonder if western children have the inner strength to fight for their survival, giving their all for the liberty and safety of the West or will they act more as enablers to the Islamic conquest. Only time would tell.

Posted by: have_mercy at July 9, 2005 7:06 PM

Bill

Dude! slap yourself and try to snap out of it. You have been reading perhaps the DiVinci code or something? The problem is islam..muslims..remember? That Illuminati stuff is straight out kookie. You are too smart for that.

Posted by: pismopal at July 9, 2005 7:42 PM

"You may be on to something here, but unfortunately you are not following your line of thinking to its logical end. If bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima served the purpose of ending WWII and saving countless lives, then what exactly are you suggesting we do in our current situation, as per the muslim problem?"
-- from a posting above

I am for conducting warfare by all means, including but hardly limited to, the military. I am not for "building up Iraq" but for letting the Sunnis, now being supported financially and in other ways by the Saudis, go at it directly against the Shi'a, now being suported by the Iranians. And I am for the Americans supporting the Kurds should either or both brands of Arabs attack them, and to work to permit a free Kurdistan that will possess the oilfields around Kirkuk and Mosul -- hardly compensation for the 60 years of Kurdish oil taken by the Arab government in Baghdad and used to support the Arabs, and even to support the campaign of murder against the Kurds, but it is something.

The point about World War II was that there was far less holding-back in those days, and that attitude needs to be reacquired. Think of how, even in World War I, German-Americans were fearful of reactions. In many states the teaching of German was outlawed. Some people changed their names. One could not openly support the other side. That was it.

In World War II, the American government interned some of those whom it feared might be disloyal. A few Japanese-Americans turned out to be in contact with the other side (see MIchelle Malkin on this), and it did not seem irrational, or ridiculous, considering what the stakes were, to take certain populations and to put them where they could more easily be observed. As we all know, the 442nd Regiment consisting entirely of Japanese-Americans was the most, or second most, decorated regiment in the American army, fighting up and down Italy (in fact, at Fort Jackson, in Columbia, South Carolina, where I recently had occasion to visit, I saw in the touching museum there bound copies of old Stars & Stripes, and the front page of the one I turned to, from 1945, was all about that 442nd Regiment). After the fact, it is easier to see that the fears were largely unfounded.

I think fears about Muslim loyalty are not unfounded, but well justified, for they are based on Islam itself, which teaches loyalty, sole loyalty, to the umma of fellow-believers, and can not possibly be offered, instead, to Infidels or the Infidel nation-state. That cannot be done.

But the main thing is to analyze what has made the Jihad possible. For as an idea, it has and always will exist as long as Islam exists. But it was not until recent decades that the impulse was acted upon.

Three main things caused the Jihad to be the world-wide, and permanent threat, it now is:

1) OPEC oil revenues. Since 1973, the OPEC oil states (10 of the 11 are Muslim states) have received, for doing exactly nothing, about $10 trillion dollars. Much of that money has been squandered. Not a single oil state has managed to create a modern economy. They all rely on wage-slaves from the outside, some better treated and some worse. The rulers are notorious for being spendthrifts, decadent, great habitues of gambling-dens and Western call-girls. But they have plenty of money left over to buy the services of a small army of apologists, all over the Western world -- and they have been doing that, with great success, for the past 30 years. Diplomats, intelligence agents, businessmen, academics, political figures -- a few tens or hundreds of millions can buy a lot of friends, a lot of "consultants" who then tell everyone not to worry about wonderful Saudi Arabia, or equally wonderful and unthreatening "bulwark-against-Communism" Islam (wasn't that what the Nazis were said to be by Nazi propagandists working in the West in the 1930s - "bulwarks against Bolshevism"?)

2) the absolutely unconscionable and criminal admission, by Western governments and elites, of millions of Muslims into their own countries, where they have been overbreeding, living often on the Western welfare system, and their mere presence has created as we all know what is now, in much of Western Europe (see France, see England, see Holland) a nightmarish situation.

For the following proposition cannot be denied:

The existence of large numbers of Muslims within the countries of the non-Muslim West, essentially, as Muslims themselves have described it, "behind enemy lines," has created a situation that is far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous than would otherwise be the case if there were not such a Muslim presence. And that presence will grow, unless steps are taken by individuals (private economic boycotts) and by Infidel governments, to make their countries not "sensitive" to Muslim demands but quite the contrary -- absolutely unwilling to yield to these constnat Muslim efforts, from demands for prayer-rooms to the use of the Qur'an in courts to changes in school lunches, to employees given time off for the wudu and the canonical prayers. No, this cannot go on, because if it does, the islamization of Europe through mere demographic means will be accomplished -- and the primitive, inferior, completely unpleasant Total Reuglation of the Universe that is Islam will win -- just because Muslims had more children. That cannot be allowed to happen. If they cannot be limited in one way, then expulsions -- akin to the Benes Decree which expelled the Sudeten Germans -- will as a matter of civilizational self-defense have to take place. That's it.

3) the third development is that of technological advances that have permitted Muslims to more readily spread the full doctrine of Islam to those who, as illiterate villagers calling themselves Muslims, many would not otherwise be aware of. When the full propaganda of hysteria and hate can now be spread with audiocassettes (so valuable to Khomeini in inspiring his supporters from his French exile at Neauphle-le-chateau), videocassettes, the Internet, and now satellite channels such as the Der-Stuermer-like Al Jazeera (responsible through its lies for many American casualties in Iraq),that makes the task of whipping Muslims up -- for when they learn the full truth, they unfortunately do not abandon Islam, but stick with it, for the primitive faith is so strong that very few can withstand it.

All of these things have to be dealt with.

In Iraq the war part was fine. It is the damned peace I cannot bear -- the phony peace, the peace that will not bring a new, improved and presumably, so it is foolishly believed, "kinder" and "gentler" Iraq. Who cares? We want them to be deprived of weapons, and we should seek not to keep Iraq together, but as a kind of permanent Shia-Sunni fault line that will now and again draw in the Saudis and the Iranians to cause each other trouble.

And intra-Islamic divisions, and trouble, are what we want as one of the ways to protect ourselves.

Posted by: Hugh at July 9, 2005 7:49 PM

Hugh's list of 3 factors left out another crucial factor, bifurcated into two key elements:

a) the Western dismantling of its own Colonialist Empires

b) the sea change in Western Zeitgeist that not only led to that dismantling (in the late 1940s and 50s), but also in the decades after evolved and strengthened into an anti-Western PC multi-culturalist nebula that is now firmly dominant in Western society on all levels.

Had (a) not occurred, a continuation and progression of Western Colonialism would have helped enormously to hem in Islam throughout the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and now. But (a)'s continuation and progression could not have occurred under the sociopolitical domination of Leftist anti-Western PC multi-culturalism.

Posted by: metaxy at July 9, 2005 8:54 PM

Hugh,

I think that you are referring to the Nisei, they were only in combat in the western zones, roles reduced to interpreters for the Pacific where the risks would be reduced.

Two comments about the Sudeten Germans:

Firstly, the Soviet Union expanded, Poles losing about 66,000 Sq. miles to the USSR (the curzon line was not followed), 44,000 German territory used as compensation. Czechoslovakia losing Uzhgorod and Mukachevo to USSR (undoubtedly in order for the USSR to share a common frontier with her client states) in both cases there was an understanding that the German populaces would be shifted westward.

Secoundly, nazism is not a pernament feature of German culture, it is transitory, islam is not. It may have been prudent for the Czech and Poles (in the case of Hungary they were allies!) to expel the Germans (having just said that though, when Kohl visited Poland after the fall of the Berlin wall some remaining Germans shouted "Herr Kohl, you will always be OUR Chancellor!") but its only worked because Germans do not lust after revenge and are far more philosophical. They know they can't start another war over this.

With muslims it will be different, they will always feel agrieved and never be able to stand in another persons shoes, only their own. Our peoples aren't ready to face the inevitable, only when Paris burns will people wake up and wonder why everything we have tried has failed.

This reminds me of Kosovo in the sixties, endless sums of scarce Yugoslav resources were thrown at Kosovo to alleviate poverty, all to no avail. You see the money was used to buy Serbs out and raise their numbers, all power to the ummah! Why will the same old bull work here in the UK, or France, Sweden or anywhere else baffles me.

You wrote "But it was not until recent decades that the impulse was acted upon." Thats arrant nonsense. I'll give you some examples: Africa throughout the millenium jihad has been waged, Sudan, Chad, etc. Balkans throughout history, creation of Pakistan, etc. If one analizes any interface between muslim and the infidel there is always invariably the same pattern if the muslims have the werewithal to wage jihad they wage it. The impulse is always there (in varing degrees admittedly, linked to the ability as you mentioned to 'spread the message'). Some leftist historians even blame Germany for the Armenian genocide (due to a German call for Jihad against Britain, its never islam itself)!

The muslim mind is a mindset (oh, but look at the diversity in islam, yes I can see the carcasses of many previous cultures rapidly fading into oblivion) it won't change that easily.

WMD was always a pretext for going into Iraq, for what you describe as the 'light unto muslim nations project' That it, this is and always was Bush's goal to avoid a clash of civilisations, nothing else.

You cannot compare the occupation of Germany and Japan with Iraq, with the former the dogma (nazi and bushido) were confronted and stamped out, nothing is being done about islam. The acid test of sucess or failure is not the body count (US or jihadist, but I take your point about our resources not being infinite), but the ability of picnicers going about their ordinary business without being beaten to a pulp, with the 'police' standing around watching and deep down approving. Thats an immpossible ask of any army, muslim or infidel in a predominately muslim country.

In short we know that the policy is nuts, but it needs to be shown to be a failure. When they pump endless sums of money at muslims in France the UK (Runnymede report) and get exactly what the Yugoslavs got in Kosovo (same unproductive society, just a hell of alot more of them) and worse the cultural sympathy enabling dawa to be conducted amongst muslims (their birth rates make dawa amongst non-muslims not an absolute necessity), then they might start to look a little bit deeper into this.

No eyes mullah Blunkett (we have all seen what one eyed mullah Omar did in Afghanistan) stated on the religious hatred bill that to say that most rapists were muslims and they should be driven out was unacceptable and punishable by law. Whe people realize (the stakes) that it's not the rape of their daughters and sisters or even the murder of themselves (or even their culture for that matter) but that our society would be replaced by one where our descendants become murderers, rapists, slavers, etc themselves and that they would rape, kill, enslave without mercy or pity(the inner jihad), with no hope of reformation, enlightenment, then we will not allow ourselves to be sold out by these 'cultural experts'.

JV

Posted by: jv at July 9, 2005 10:10 PM