Bingo! The transformation can appear at anytime becausethe mindset is already there bolstered by Koranic mandates.

Posted by: epg at November 25, 2005 10:16 AM

Steven Emerson on FNC

Should Iraqi Government Negotiate with Terrorists? Video

Posted by: Intelligence Summit at November 25, 2005 11:34 AM

Don't think we can trust any Muslims! Google 'Mission Islam' and under guise of being a site for 'innocent' stories for kids etc it comes up with poisonous indoctrination promoting
hatred of Jews& Infidels - Bush,Blair AND KOFI ANNAN ALSO UNITED NATIONS referred to as THE BEAST...Think this site is operating from Australia.

Posted by: Morgane at November 25, 2005 12:05 PM

Although the Coalition was much maligned by "those who know better" removing Baathists from positions of authority, this is pretty much what they wanted to avoid.

As far as I can see, if there are only a few covert operatives like this who have burrowed into the Iraqi government/policing apparatus, as say compared to Lebanon's (mis)governance, that's quite a positive achievement.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 25, 2005 12:40 PM

I'm not positive Hugh's right, but it's looking more and more like the Iraqs would rather be fighting each other than building a nation, despite decades of Saddam's brutality and neglect. There are many decent Iraqis. But I fear I may have .01% of them on my blogroll.

Posted by: Beagle at November 25, 2005 12:49 PM

Beagle, this is because underneath it all, there really is no Iraq. There's just the feuding Kurdistanis, Tikriti-stanis, and Shia-stanis. They don't really want to be with each other, and never came together as a voluntary union in the first place. Saddam bound them all together with a rough Baathist sack-cloth, and now that it's been ripped open, their inner natures are pouring out.

This fight is a lost cause, time to move on to Iran. A successful Iranian regime-change will redeem any misjudgements made on Iraq intervention, giving Republicans the best face-saver for the 2008 elections. Multiple important problems will be solved with the removal of the Ayatollahs.

Posted by: sanman at November 25, 2005 2:55 PM

I believe there are those of us, educated and the not-so-educated that have compromised with evil. It is one's act of consuming camel dung, the dogma of a so-called sanctified philosophy, an agenda of terror and balkanization.
This "creation/nightmare" is a choreography that gives life a thrilling dance, a race, a certain death wish with an exotic purpose, much like playing with an all purpose bomb every day fo the week.
Islam is a one way agenda with no compromises and the very first words Muslims hear at birth, created by a psychopath that said "he, the messenger alone talks for
God" and that He blessed an agenda of terrorism and with the ultimate high for the growing masses of illiterate Muslims, The Power of Sanctified Hate. How do you want to make peace with this evil?

Posted by: thoughts_4u at November 25, 2005 3:17 PM

How many others have burrowed within the government? And the army, now being trained by the Americans, who are also in the course of the training allowing these "Iraqis" whom the Americans can scarcely distinguish from one another, or detect any of the tell-tale signs that should arouse suspicions, which even the other "Iraqis" -- i.i. Shi'a Arabs or Kurds -- might not always be able to detect, either, nor those among their own groups whose chief loyalty is to Islam. The Kurds, for example, have not been free from Ansar al-Islam (a group of Kurds more Muslim than Kurd in their desire to do in the Americans and all who collaborate with them). And no doubt there are Shi'a who, sharing the general Shi'a distaste for the American Infidels, cannot quite swallow that distaste in order to endure their presence, so that the Americans wlll kill (and be killed) by Sunnis, and also continue to train, and no doubt arm, what the Americans keep referring to as the "Iraqi" army , but the Shi'a know better.

The American military has not merely been asked to help a country. It has been asked to create a country where none exists, and none has existed since its creation by Percy Cox andGertrude Bell. Ever since the betrayal of promises made to the Kurds after World War I, they have smarted and yearned to be free of the
Arabs. Sometimes the Arab mistreatment has been endurable, sometimes not. More recently, with the massacre of 182,000 Kurds by Arabs -- not. And the Shi'a, under whose southern lands the major oil deposits lie (now that the oil in Kurdish areas has been so long exploited), have suffered from povert (they are on the whole shorter, scrawnier, and always poorer than the self-assured Sunnis, who believe that they as the better Muslims, the real Muslims, have a perfect right to continue to rule over all non-Arabs (those Kurds) and non-Sunni Arabs as well.

It is wrong, it is cruel, to continue to have the American military take on a task that neither they, nor anyone else from the outside, can conceivably perform. Sooner or later the Shi'a and the Sunni will have to come to terms, and the Arabs and the Kurds will have to come to terms -- or not. It can be done after another year of fantastic expense and worry have passed for Americans, It can come after another year when, because of the perceived folly and expense, and worry, of continuing to remain in Iraq, Americans will fall away from the idea that anything much should be done about not "terror" but about the larger menace of Islam, as that menace derives from an ideology, and that ideology is borne by carriers who, right now, have settled deep within what they themselves, those carriers, describe as the lands still unsubmissive to Islam, and hence the Dar al-Harb, the Domain of War. And there, deep behiind what they regard as enemy lines, through Da'wa, and demographic conquest, and a mass campaign of disinformation about what Islam teaches, and what Muslims if they are good Muslims must believe, and about the history of Muslim conquest of non-Muslim lands and the subjugation of non-Muslim peoples. This has been quite a feat, for it requires hiding from billions of Infidels what is really in plain site, and cannot be hid --- the precise passages, of which there are over a hundred, in the Qur'an, or the stories in the Hadith, or the details from the life of Muhammad (the Sira), that siimply are there, in most cases just a click away. And it requires inveigling people, journalists and politicians, into never looking into, or never referring, to these passages and these clear doctrines, that are so central to Islam, whereby the world is divided between Believer and Infidel, and the duty of the Believer is not to be friendly with, not ever to accept as an equal, the Infidel, but to wage constant war on him, by whatever means prove effective and are available ("wealth," "pen, speech" and demography are all weapons in that war), in order that Islam spreads across the globe, until Islam dominates and Muslims rule everywhere.

Meanwhile, we dither, and spend a fortune,and become preoccupied with the task of creating "Iraq" and making it into a functioning, "democratic" nation-state, and the soldiers in Iraq who parrot, and may believe, the party line, all talk of how they are there to "make a difference" but there is no real "difference " they can conceivably make, except to weaken by their continued presence America's own commitment to fighting the world-wide Jihad, and to strengthen, presumably, the Shi'a by continuing to use their own lives and weaponry to suppress the Sunnis, who no matter how they may calm down temporarily, will never accept the loss of rule in Iraq. Not this year, not next, not ever.

One has to ask, yet again, not about who knew what and who mislead whom, but the real questions that now matter:

1. Just how does "democracy" in Iraq necessarily weaken the role of Islam in Iraq?

2. How does Iraq, if Shi'a-ruled, become a Model for all the Sunni-Arab-ruled countries, that are enraged to see the loss of Sunni power?

3. How will the continued attempt to build this Iraq -- more schoolrooms, hospitals, electricity grids, water-treatment plans, soccer balls, candy, and so on -- how does all this help the United States to limit or reverse, in collaboration with those in Europe who are awakening to their home-grown menace, the islamization of Europe -- for the longer the Americans stay in Iraq, they cannnot of course dare to even asymptotically approach the truth about Islam, for fear of offending someone among their "allies" in Iraq.

4. Why would the Sunni-Shi'a fissure, if it were to develop and grow into open hostility, and perhaps to attract men, materiel, and the attention of outside powers, chiefly those two main beneficiaries of the downfall of Saddam Hussein, Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran, not be to the advantage of the United States and all other Infidels? Was the Iran-Iraq War a good thing from our point of view, or a bad thing?

5. Why would the attempt of the Kurds to establish an independent state not be a good thing, if it serves to inspire other non-Arab Muslim peoples, such as the Berbers in North Africa, to begin to sense that the maniuplation or exploitation of Islam as a vehicle for an Arab supremacist ideology, will not be tolerated in quite the same way as before? Why should not the world's attention, the attention of Muslims and Infidels alike, not be focussed by such a development -- finally, a group of non-Arab Muslims throwing off the Arab yoke -- so that the entire question of Islam as an ideology of Arab supremacism is put permanently in front of everyone?

Posted by: Hugh at November 25, 2005 3:32 PM

Whenever Hugh mentions the Kurds I feel particularly persuaded by his arguments. Throw in other non-Arab victims and the case is stronger. What stops this sort of forward thinking is my least favorite word in geo-political thinking "stability." Worst of all, it's usually applied to brutal regimes or situations where the "stability" is marginal at best. Change is inevitable. We can shape the change to benefit ourselves and other free people, or we can pretend a mere word of questionable value ends the argument.

On the other hand, an all-out slugfest in the Middle East is probably more instability than the world can handle.

Posted by: Beagle at November 25, 2005 5:52 PM

"...and the soldiers in Iraq who parrot, and may believe, the party line, all talk of how they are there to "make a difference" but there is no real "difference " they can conceivably make..."

--from a posting above.

You should have seen what I wrote in response to this. A real doozy. Choice bombast. I'm going to refrain, in the name of reasoned debate and a fluid exchange of ideas.

But here's this:

That looks like a slap. It looks like a slap at men who throw on sixty pounds of armor and ammunition and patrol deadly streets with rifles and machine guns in 120-degree heat, spitting Mesopotamian dust for months on end.

[There's a group that throws the dupe-victim backhander (it looks a lot like the bit above) at warriors overseas. They gave us postmodernism, multiculturalism, and political correctitude, the diseases that lay us low before the jihad. Name escapes me, though. Southpaw, maybe?]

Anyway, here's the question: what do you call a warrior--paratrooper, Marine, Ranger--who fully understands the nature of the jihad, but still volunteers, goes to Iraq, fights? (I imagine Robert Spencer met several of this variety at an event a few weeks back...)

Posted by: Mad_Jack at November 25, 2005 7:59 PM

"Mine is not to question why, mine is but to do or die" -- Charge of the Light Brigade.

Soldiers' sense of duty shouldn't be put up for mockery -- it's not their nature to turn down the mission they've been ordered to do, even if it was an ill-conceived order.

But here it's time for popular debate to expose the hollow futility of this quest, and then find a way to move on from it.

Kurdistan, Shia-stan, Tikriti-stan. Onward to Tehran.

Posted by: sanman at November 25, 2005 10:39 PM

Alright, Hugh. Suppose that I ( and others) accept your premise that trying to truly democratize Iraq (or any Arab/Muslim people) is futile.

I accept that premise and understand the irreconcilable conflict between the brainwashed-from-birth Moslem and the concept of free, logical thought.

What are we to do next?

It will be rather impossible, given the sheer numbers, to exterminate Islam in a sort of "final solution" mode like the Germans attempted to do to the Jews in the 1940s. I'm not sorry to say that, based upon my understanding of the unrelenting, unchanging mindset of Islam, I am not adverse to the idea. But it's just not possible.

Is it any more feasible an idea to quarantine Islam? How are we going to to do that when we have some 11,000,000 Moslems living in the United States?

I'm not very optimistic here. Am I smelling the fires of Armageddon? I've believed for decades that WWIII would pit Islam against the Western World and now we're at that terrible place.

If we bring the troops home, what is our next move to survive?

Posted by: JohnnyDub at November 26, 2005 12:23 AM

1. Bomb or otherwise destroy Iran's nuclear project, no matter what regime may come to power in that country.

2. Plow hundreds of billions of dollars into energy and conservation projects -- at least as much as has been spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.

3. end all Musliim immigaation to the United States, and work with Europepan allies to heighten understanding of the various instruments of Jihad.

]4. Cut off all Saudi or other foreign funding of mosques or madrasas in this country.

5. Talk endlessly about "all those who believe in Jihad" but let others, outside the Executive Branch, point out that "Jihad" is not tangential to Islam, but central.

6. Identify vulnerable populations -- of prisoners, say, or certain immigrant or other groups, -- and deliberately work to make information about Islam that is true, and that has been given insufficcient or no attention, much greater attention. Example: the Arab slave trade began earlier and ended later (or rather, never really ended at all) than the European slave trade. It was particularly brutal because so many of the black children seized in Africa were casrated, with only 10%, according to Jan Hogedoorn, surviving the operation and the trip to the slave markets. Make sure that such information, and informatioon about the uninhibited racism of Arab societies, is well-publicized. Make sure that the Muslim attitude toward sculpture, painiting, music, and sport other than the kind that is associated with training for Jihad, is well known to everyone. The texts are right there -- simply look, for example, at what is contained in Al-Qaradawi's well-known guide to what is Haram and Halal. Never let up in immunizing the Infidels, through information about Islam, from Da'wa. And never let up on attempts to convince those who were through no fault of their own born into Islam to consider why, especially if they are non-Arab Muslims who have been inveigled into forgetting the circumstances of their ancestors' own acceptance of Islam -- either because of conquest and immediate forcible conversion, or through the desire to end the sometimes unendurable condition of dhimmi. And always and everywhere emphasize, to Iranians, Kurds, Berbers, and others, the Arab supremacist ideology within Islam,so as to work to undo it, to lessen its numbers, from within.

That's a start.

Posted by: Hugh at November 26, 2005 10:26 AM