| 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 discusses the Shi'a and their role in American policymaking toward the Middle East:
The only surprise -- and this is only a surprise to those who have not been paying attention -- about the attempted attack in Saudi Arabia is that it is being claimed by, and promptly attributed to, Al-Qaeda.One would not have been surprised had the attack come from Shi'a living in al-Hasa province. For it is they, several hundred thousand of them, who for a very long time have had to endure Wahhabi malevolence, Wahhabi discrimination, Wahhabi contumely. They might have been inspired by the Shi'a ascendancy in Iraq, which they can hardly have remained unaware of, and the Shi'a ability to now fight back. Nor will the Shi'a in Bahrain, who make up 70% or more of the population, and are now chafing under Sunni rulers, fail to be inspired. Nor will the nearly half of the population in Yemen that is Shi'a, nor the Shi'a in Afghanistan, the Mongol-descended Hazaras, who were killed, or if women taken as sex slaves by the Sunnis of the Taliban. Nor will the Shi'a in Pakistan, whose professional class has long been a target of Sunni attacks, especially by members of two groups, Sipha-e-Sahaba and Lashkar-e-Jangvi, somehow remain immune to news of the Sunni-Shi'a conflict in Iraq. Even without fighting, these groups will be inspired by the endless hostility between Sunni and Shi’a, which phone calls from George Bush, and calls for "peace," will not have the slightest effect in diminishing, save temporarily, and only among some of the leaders, not the less malleable populace.
One would love to know when Bush, when Rice, when all the rest of them first began to realize that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein meant, inevitably, that the Shi'a would take power, either over all of Iraq or over the southern part with the major oil resources and the only port. When did it occur to them that perhaps the sectarian split would not be overcome in the general "joy at liberation" (the joy in Baghdad will make the celebrations in Kabul seem like a "funeral procession" -- Bernard Lewis, 2002)? When did they figure out that the Shi'a resentment of the Sunnis, and Sunni contempt for the Shi'a, long preceded the regime of Saddam Hussein and that those who kept assuring them otherwise had their own fish to fry -- especially all those thoroughly-westernized Shi’a exiles who either ignored, or simply forgot, what the real Iraq, and the real Iraqis, were really like? And while Allawi, Chalabi, and Kanan Makiya were secular Shi'a, who themselves may have wanted to downplay, for the Americans, the real nature of Iraq. And, in their long Western exiles, where some of them became, centaur-like, half-Western men, they may have forgotten as well the craziness and violence of their own countrymen, with the centuries-old resentments reinforced by the last few decades of Sunni despotism, and with that widespread susceptibility to rumor and conspiracy theories which come naturally to those raised up in a belief-system that discourages free and skeptical inquiry. And even that survivor, the Baghdadian Vicar of Bray, the Sunni manipulator described formulaically and much too charitably as an "elder stateman," the famously louche Adnan Pachachi (a member of the Sunni elite and member of even a pre-1958 government), who claimed the other day, in an interview in the Corriere della Sera, that there is not, and never will be, a "civil war" because the Sunnis and the Shi'a have always gotten along famously, and in fact Shi'a were prominent in Saddam Hussein's regime.
Now the Administration is said to be "worried" about "civil war." The thing to worry about, if you are not in the Administration, but simply an intelligent Infidel, is why anyone in the government of the United States expresses "worry" about sectarian violence between different sects of mujahedin, who otherwise would be devoting their energies to our destruction.And still worse, why do they "worry" about this sectarian violence "spreading" elsewhere in the Middle East and in Muslim lands further away?
I understand why the Al-Saud family should be worried. I understand why the Ruler of Bahrain (oh, did he promote himself to king yet? I can't remember) should be worried. I understand why the government of Yemen should be worried. I understand why the Sunnis and Shi'a in Lebanon might be worried. I understand why some Shi'a and Sunnis in Pakistan and Afghanistan might be worried.
But why, exactly -- please explain so I can get it through my thick skull -- should the Infidels in charge of the non-Muslim government of the non-Muslim (in everything which made America America) United States "worry" over the "threat" of Sunni-Shi'a civil war?
Bush gets on his high horse about those who would question his policy on the U.A.E. Ports deal ("bigotry" and so on). He still tells us, even now, that there are those who "would pervert" a "noble" religion. He still talks, incessantly, driving us all batty, about a "war on terror" and our "allies" --- Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, the U.A.E., Morocco, Algeria -- in that "war on terror." But about the real war, the war of self-defense against the Jihad and all of its instruments -- silence. Silence about Europe, except to push for Turkey's admission to the European Community. Silence about the islamization of Western Europe. Lukewarm defense of freedom of speech, with time for equal deploring of those who do not responsibly exercise that "freedom" (i.e. dare to offend Muslims). Continued belief in the "two-state solution" which shows continued incomprehension of the nature of the Arab and Muslim opposition to Israel, where not further surrender by the Israelis, but only overwhelming power on their side (not merely possessed, but seen to be possessed), can prevent the Lesser Jihad from being pursued by military means. Only the doctrine of necessity, Darura, invoked when the Infidel enemy is simply too strong, can prevent that, and keep the peace.
He's on his high horse about the U.A.E. business. He's still talking, or rather, hallucinating, about Iraq -- and American soldiers will continue to pay with their lives for his, and his advisers, hallucinations. He still can't talk about Islam or the Jihad; it's still the "war on terror."
That's why none of us can stand him. That's the real explanation for our fury over the U.A.E. business. The U.A.E. has not earned our trust. But Bush and Company have also not earned our trust. There is nothing Machiavellian about them. Nothing cunning. Just a messianic wish to bring "democracy" which then becomes confused when the "democracy" doesn't quite work out that way. Look at the twin farces of the "elections" held in Egypt, where when allowed to present a candidate the Muslim Brotherhood swept the board, and in Saudi Arabia, where the teeny tiny municipal elections always produced winners from among the most fanatically Muslim. Look also, for that matter, at the non-existent "Palestinian people," with their elevation of Hamas to be their representatives.
Yet here is the American army, still smack in the middle of Iraq. It is still there, with money and materiel and men's lives being put on hold, and risked, and sometimes ended altogether. Meanwhile the pretense continues that a "united" army -- an "Iraqi" army, an army of "Iraqis" -- can be trained and produced beyond more than the handful that are now so carefully being nurtured and given endless amounts of care by the American soldiers who are their nurses. They are the premature babies who have to be tended to at every step. At this rate, we will be in Iraq, and spend another half-trillion, before there are even 20,000 "Iraqi" soldiers. They will be the only 20,000 Sunni and Shi'a Arabs, and Kurds, who will be found willing, at this point, to fight together -- which means, to trust their lives to each other.
It can't be done. Facts, history, that sort of thing - stubborn things. Remember?
Not Bush. Not Bush who is now getting up on his high horse. All Hat, and No Cattle.
Posted by Robert at February 26, 2006 7:13 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
"But why, exactly -- please explain so I can get it through my thick skull -- should the Infidels in charge of the non-Muslim government of the non-Muslim (in everything which made America America) United States "worry" over the "threat" of Sunni-Shi'a civil war?"
Might it be because we, in the sense of the US and much of the rest of the civilized world, need the oil which is mainly concentrated pretty much along the Shia-Sunni divide.
I agree that this is a pity, and also that we should (and could) do something about it. But not immediately.
As to Bush et al's view of the Shia, I doubt they have one, or even know much about the Sunni-Shi'a divide. I thought I had a reasonable, if superficial, knowledge of the region and its history but I did not even realise until quite recently that there were any significant number of Shi'ites outside Iran. Bush probably does not read about or reflect on current affairs as much as readers of this site do
Posted by: philiph35![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 26, 2006 7:38 AM
"But why, exactly -- please explain so I can get it through my thick skull -- should the Infidels in charge of the non-Muslim government of the non-Muslim (in everything which made America America) United States "worry" over the "threat" of Sunni-Shi'a civil war?"
Might it be because we, in the sense of the US and much of the rest of the civilized world, need the oil which is mainly concentrated pretty much along the Shia-Sunni divide.
I agree that this is a pity, and also that we should (and could) do something about it. But not immediately.
As to Bush et al's view of the Shia, I doubt they have one, or even know much about the Sunni-Shi'a divide. I thought I had a reasonable, if superficial, knowledge of the region and its history but I did not even realise until quite recently that there were any significant number of Shi'ites outside Iran. Bush probably does not read about or reflect on current affairs as much as readers of this site do
Posted by: philiph35 at February 26, 2006 7:44 AM
Sorry for double post
Posted by: philiph35 at February 26, 2006 7:45 AM
Hugh, outstanding synopsis of the whole Iraq omlette, kind of like a wet, greasy cheeeseburger, falling apart at the seams before it hits your mouth(Iraq, not your writing). Finished with your post, I directed my energies to the civil war within Islam as reported in the NYT's Week In Review which takes a more somber tone than you do . . . to say the least!
Seems to me, we once had a civil war once here in America with thousands of deaths--sometimes in a day. I don't recall any Mufti or Turkish wise man writing to Lincoln or Jefferson Davis, pleading with them to stop. Come to think of it, I don't recall an outpouring of Islamic sympathy for the starving in Somalia a few years back, the victims of the tidal wave, the victims of the Turkish earthquake several years ago, or the Pakistan earthquake, but a few cartoons . . . well that's another story.
Having finished my mocha, my morning reading, my Sunday cigar, I will investigate the precise meaning of the word louche.
Posted by: biorabbi at February 26, 2006 8:15 AM
There is a great article written by Victor Hansen in the National Review who has a different take on this, perhaps a positive one at that. pop culture causes us Westerners to have everything done in a very short time frame. history shows us quite the contrary.
Posted by: Lulu at February 26, 2006 8:21 AM
When did it occur to them that perhaps the sectarian split would not be overcome in the general "joy at liberation" (the joy in Baghdad will make the celebrations in Kabul seem like a "funeral procession" -- Bernard Lewis, 2002)?
Wow! If 'top experts' can get it so wrong, you might as well listen to the experts you want to listen to. Oh wait, that is what the powers that be are already doing...
at February 26, 2006 8:22 AM
Another thought. Maybe Bush is inadvertedly bringing about the Shia-Sunni conflict you long for Hugh. Perhaps it's a case of the Good Lord working in mysterious ways!
Speaking of the UAE port deal, the Ex-inspector of DHS weighs in against, and his voice counts:
Here's an excerpt:
Most terrorism experts agree that the likeliest way for a weapon of mass destruction to be smuggled into our country would be through a port. After all, some 95 percent of all goods from abroad arrive in the United States by sea, and yet only about 6 percent of incoming cargo containers are inspected for security threats.
It is true that at the ports run by the Dubai company, Customs officers would continue to do any inspection of cargo containers and the Coast Guard would remain "in charge" of port security. But, again, very few cargo inspections are conducted. And the Coast Guard merely sets standards that ports are to follow and reviews their security plans. Meeting those standards each day is the job of the port operators: they are responsible for hiring security officers, guarding the cargo and overseeing its unloading.
Also, the issue has been raised that sensitive security information might leak to the wrong hands. It's not just a case of having good old American longshoremen punching the timecards.
Now here's something hilarious I heard on TV: If we offend our 'ally' Dubai, we might also offend our 'allies' Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
Posted by: Benjamin at February 26, 2006 8:33 AM
Rest assured that this "civil war" is being nurtured by Iran.
For some excellant facts about Iraq read:
Saddam's Secrets: How An Iraqi General Defied
and Survived Saddam Hussein.
An Insider Exposes Plans To Destroy Israel,
Hide WMDs, AND CONTROL THE ARAB WORLD.
Written by Georges Sada with Jim Nelson Black
Posted by: learjet0450 at February 26, 2006 9:03 AM
The world's gas stations are in a bad neighborhood..
Hugh,
James Baker once said that there is only one reason to be involved in the Middle East: Oil. Oil, not just for U.S. needs, but for a global economy (Japan, China, etc.) that could descend into chaos if the oil supply is interrupted. Like it or not (and I don't like it), there are sound geopolitical reasons to be in Iraq, Afghanastan-the region.
The U.S. is desperately attempting (probably failing)to stabilize the region, to prevent chaos of the kind that brought the world to war (as in the period from Japan's invasion of China (seeking resources-1937) to Hiroshima (1945).
If the problem of Jihad was the only issue, you would be right, and the U.S. would not be in Iraq and Afghanistan, and no one would care if the region descended into chaos. But it is not so simple.
The world's gas stations are in a very bad neighborhood. That's reality.
However, you are absolutely right that "democracy" will not stabilize the region, and I believe the Bush Administration is delusional on that matter. The only road out of "the Eurasian Balkans" is for the world to go to alternative energy. That's reality.
at February 26, 2006 9:30 AM
Spot on, Hugh. Bush is terrible. Our options are Kerry, Gore, Dean, Edwards, or Clinton.
I'm convinced we can lose this war if we keep up the strong effort we've made so far. Given those options, I have every reason to remain deeply pessimistic.
Posted by: Beagle at February 26, 2006 9:48 AM
The attempt to bring "democracy" to the "Eurasian Balkans" is similar to this:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005J6UR.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&imgrefurl=http://obscurehorror.com/gremlins.html&h=475&w=331&sz=24&tbnid=kGBrV8eK453cIM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=87&hl=en&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgremlins,%2Bmovie%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG
Alternitive energy-now! When that happens, we and the rest of mankind, will not have to be a part of this movie and can bid farewell to Gremlins and all that...
Posted by: Frank at February 26, 2006 10:19 AM
RE: Frank's Post;
You are right on Frank and what many people don't realize is that Saddam believed it was his destiny to unite and rule the Arab world.
He was a real threat that had to be eliminted.
That being done, now how do we extricate ourselves from Iraq.
at February 26, 2006 10:21 AM
Try this. Maybe this will work.
http://obscurehorror.com/gremlins.html
at February 26, 2006 10:24 AM
learjet0450-
When we say we live in a "democracy" we mean that we are in a society where public opinion matters. That's why polticians-at every level-poll, poll, poll and pander to the public-LOL. When enough people in the USA demand alternative energy, the road out of this madness (involvement in the "Eurasian Balkans) will be found.
"Democracy" in that region is water thrown on Gizmo. We are in a bad place, pal.
Posted by: Frank at February 26, 2006 10:51 AM
What about the option of taking over the oil fields? Multiple countries have a vested interest in keeping the oil flowing...would we really allow the worldwide economy to crash and burn over a little matter of sovereignty?
If the oil card is played too harshly, do you think China, for instance, would hesitate to use military force to keep their economy on track?
Because of their sheer numbers, they could roll over a ME country like a tidal wave.
at February 26, 2006 11:46 AM
"Our options are Kerry, Gore, Dean, Edwards, or Clinton."
-- from a poster, presumably being sarcastic about my dismissal of Bush, above
There are many others. In the Republican Party one should not give up on Giuliani, McCain, Tancredo, Ward Connerly, and a hundred others. Not all Republicans are immune to finding out about Islam, not all are cheerleaders for the Administration, and not all are in the Scowcroft-Baker line of appeasement as realism, the kind that may attract, for example, those who have always been cool to Israel, which often ends up being warm to Islam (see Hagel).
And not every Democrat can remain permanently immune to the menace of Islam. And here's why: the islamization of Europe, and the fears expressed by Europeans, are coming home to those Americans who have bought property in Europe, or who like to visit there, and who, unlikely to believe anything offered by dismissable "right-wing Christian blah-blah Republicans" will listen to the worried neighbor or landlady, in Provence or Paris or Tuscany. Reality about the menace of Islam, especially through demographic conquest in Europe, will finally break into the Democratic Party as well, even if it has to arrive, one professor in Tuscany or Provence, at a time, from across the Atlantic.
What now matters is to determine the velocity of that new understanding's arrival, and the readiness with which it is accepted.
Posted by: Hugh at February 26, 2006 11:59 AM
It isn't just Bush and Co. who don't know squat about Islamic sectarian geography: it's the whole US government, and the public from which it is recruited. And I can't say the learned have helped much, either.
Anywhere there are Iraqi, Iranian, Azerbaijani, and Southe Lebenese-descended people, there will be Ithna'ashariyya Shi'ites. They've been all over Detroit and Dearborn (to say nothing of Brooklyn) for decades. While there's a noticeable Los vom Islam going on in the Little Teherans of America, the majority of Iranian-Americans are still Shi'ite Muslim (and many are on the bad side of the mullahs in Iran--which is why they're here). I would even be willing to bet that the folks who teach our dips, military officers, and unmnetionables Arabic and Farsi include a number of Shi'ite Muslims, too.
Back in the 1950's, an edition of the hoary _Encylcopedia Britannica_ included a chestnut that Iran's Shi'ism was another example of the "Aryan" mind choosing to be free [of presumably slavish, "Semitic" Sunnism]. In the wake of the Iranian revolution, Islamic "fundamentalism" was supposedly a disease of Shi'ism, to which our good Sunni allies in Sa'udi Arabia were immune (and, of course, kinder and gentler Sufi-inspired "Monsoon Islam" from B'desh eastwards wan just Islamic Quakerism). What's happening now is that the US government is getting an unwilling crash course in the complexity of a religious culture with over a billion adherents, dozens of countries, hundred and thousands of minorities and badly-drawn borders, and a history that probably precludes its ever coalescing again into a serious challenger of Western hegemony.
In the immediate wake of the Iranian Revolution and Lebanese blow-up, scarcely anyone noticed the large number of Shi'ite Muslims living in the USA; and this was probably correct, since the majority of them were simply going about their businesses of selling cars, making hummus, collecting property rents, teaching Persan poetry, and decrying the excesses of the Khomeini-ites to the few who might have noticed.
Granted, Hassan, Hussein, and their father 'Ali make pretty poor substitutes for Jesus Christ. Yet it's still important to retain some sense of proportion.
Posted by: Kepha at February 26, 2006 1:27 PM
Islam Questions & Answers
www.islam-qa.com
Question Reference Number:: 1148
Title: Ruling on giving zakaah to a Raafidi
Home > Jurisprudence and Islamic Rulings > Acts of Worship > Poor-due or obligatory charity > Where Zakaah is to Be Spent >
Question:
What is the ruling on giving the zakaah of the Sunnis to the Raafidi (Shi’ah) poor? If a Muslim who is obliged to pay zakaah gives it to a poor Raafidi, has he discharged his responsibility or not?
Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.
In the chapters of their books which discuss who is entitled to receive zakaah funds, the scholars have stated that these funds are not to be given to a kaafir or an innovator (follower of bid’ah). The Raafidis are undoubtedly kuffaar for four reasons:
They cast aspersions on the Qur’aan, claiming that two-thirds of it has been omitted, as is stated in their book by al-Noori which is called Fasl al-Khitaab fi Ithbaat Tahreef Kitaab Rabb al-Arbaab, and in Al-Kaafi, and other books. Whoever casts aspersions on the Qur’aan is a kaafir who disbelieves in the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning): “and surely, We will guard it (from corruption)” [al-Hijr 15:9]
They cast aspersions upon the Sunnah and the saheeh ahaadeeth. They do not follow them, because they were narrated from the Sahaabah who, according to them, are kuffaar. They believe that the Sahaabah became kaafirs after the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died, apart from ‘Ali and his descendents, Salmaan, ‘Ammaar and a few others. But with regard to the first three khaleefahs and the majority of the Sahaabah who gave their bay’ah (oath of allegiance) to them, they think that they all apostatized and became kaafirs, so their ahaadeeth cannot be accepted. This is stated in al-Kaafi and other books of theirs.
They regard the Sunnis (Ahl al-Sunnah) as kaafirs, so they do not pray with you. Whoever prays behind a Sunni will repeat his prayer. Indeed, they think that we are naajis (impure), and when they shake hands with us they go and wash their hands. Whoever regards the Muslims as kaafirs is himself a kaafir, so we regard them as kaafirs just as they regard us as kaafirs, and more so.
They commit clear shirk in their exaggerations about ‘Ali and his descendents and in their calling upon them alongside Allaah. This is stated clearly in their books, where they exaggerate about them and describe them in terms that are befitting only for the Lord of the Worlds. We have heard this in their tapes. They do not participate in the charity work of the Ahl al-Sunnah, or give charity to the Sunni poor; if they do these things, it is with deeply rooted and hidden hatred, and they do that as a form of taqiyyah (dissimulation, calculated deception). On these grounds, anyone who has given zakaah to them must pay his zakaah again, because he has given it to someone who will be helped in his kufr and to wage war against the Sunnah thereby. Whoever is obliged to pay zakaah is forbidden to give it to a Raafidi; if he does this, he has not discharged his obligation and he has to pay it again because he did not give the money with which he had been entrusted to the people who were entitled to receive it. Whoever doubts this, let him read the books that have been written in refutation of them, such as the book by al-Qifaari which refutes their way, and al-Khutoot al-‘Areedah by al-Khateeb, and the books of Ehsan Ilahi Zaheer, and others. And Allaah is the Source of Strength. [Note: al-Khutoot al’Areedah and the books of Ehsan Ilahi Zaheer are availabe in English Translation. – Translator]
From Al-Lu’lu’ al-Makeen min Fataawa Fadeelat al-Shaykh Ibn Jibreen, p. 39. (www.islam-qa.com)
at February 26, 2006 1:28 PM
RE: What about the option of taking over the oil fields? Multiple countries have a vested interest in keeping the oil flowing...would we really allow the worldwide economy to crash and burn over a little matter of sovereignty?
The Arabs countries were terrified of Saddam and none protested too much when we invaded Iraq to remove him.
Israel is drilling for oil and the day will come when they will discover a "mother-lode", then the whole geopolitics of the region will change (and not for the better). Russia and Iran will invade Israel. Has anyone noticed whom is helping Iran with their nuclear quest?
at February 26, 2006 1:57 PM
Kepha-
I get a headache when I try and get to the bottom of the problem in the "Eurasian Balkans." It reminds me of one of those Russian dolls where one doll is inside another-inside another-inside another-but it's the same doll (Gorby, e.g.)in every case, but not exactly the same.
Alternative energy is the road out of this Loonytoon chaos. If enough people in the U.S. can be made to focus on that as the ansewer to the problem-I am optimistic that we can leave there-and as soon as it is possible to leave there.
As Reagan said, "We are Americans, we can make the impossible come true, if we put our minds to it. Nothing is impossible." (The quote is from memory-but it's close.)
Alternative energy-nothing is impossible.
Posted by: Frank at February 26, 2006 1:58 PM
While alternative energy will ease our burdens,
keep in mind that more oil is used in the manufacturing process than for gas for autos.
Also, France is 70% nuclear powered but the environmentalists and Democrats killed the nuclear industry in this Country.
I have met the enemy and he is us (well, not all of us, but there are a lot of misguided souls in this Country).
It has to be made a national priority, but politics and special interest groups make it difficult.
Posted by: learjet0450 at February 26, 2006 2:09 PM
"Might it be because we, in the sense of the US and much of the rest of the civilized world, need the oil which is mainly concentrated pretty much along the Shia-Sunni divide."
-- from a posting above
If the oilfields are working, the oil will be sold. It was sold, by both Iran and Iraq, all through the eight years of the Iran-Iraq War. It will be sold not as a favor, but because oil revenues are all our Muslim enemies possess.
Remaining in Iraq to prevent a Sunni-Shi'a split would require American troops, American war materiel, and tens of billions more in American money, to be spent on the hope -- the vain hope -- that somehow the deep (and perfectly justified) resentments of the Shi'a against the Sunni, will somehow go away, and that the Sunni view of the Shi'a as inferiors, even -- for some Sunnis -- as Rafidite dogs, is not something that American soldiers can conceivably deal with.
Or are the Americans to remain forever in Iraq, in order to "guard the oil"? Better to get out, buy whatever can be bought, and work and spend furiously to diminish not so much "American reliance on Middle Eastern oil" as the revenues that Muslim states receive from everywhere and that, inevitably, will be used, in part, to promote Islam throughout the world. And that promotion, whether it is by bombing or by buying stocks, by Da'wa conducted in prisons, or by taqiyya practiced by apologists for Islam well-placed in the universities of the Western world, is a menace to us, the Infidels, to our laws, customs, understandings.
A permanent menace. A containable menace, a menace that hardly requires all those damned "boots on the ground" but does require much more cunning than any official in Washington has yet given signs of possessing. Beginning, of course, with the exploitation of the divisions in the enemy camp that are waiting for proper exploitation by Infidels. Just waiting.
Posted by: Hugh at February 26, 2006 2:49 PM
"I have met the enemy and he is us (well, not all of us, but there are a lot of misguided souls in this Country).
It has to be made a national priority, but politics and special interest groups make it difficult."
Agree. But public opinion is powerful in America. Look at what happened with this port deal after the public mind was made to focus on the problem.
What seems impossible now may not be seen as impossible in a few years. After America entered WW2, FDR asked congress for funds to produce 50,000 aircraft a year. Hitler said, "Roosevelt is a cracked brain." No one had ever produced more than 5,000 (the Germans did it). We produced 60,000 fighters and bombers in the first year.
We have the ability to solve a problem when we focus on the problem, and if Americans see clearly that this is the road out of the "Eurasian Balkans," Democrats will come along. In fact, I believe that in 08, if a Democrat runs for president with this as #1 on the agenda, that candidate will win in a landslide. That issue (alternative energy) and control of our borders are two issues that will resonate with the public-and be a mandate for the new president. The Democrats can win on these two issues.
It's not impossible. As Reagan so often said, "Nothing is impossible." (Btw, from what I've read, that was his favorite phrase.)
Posted by: Frank at February 26, 2006 2:52 PM
RE: We have the ability to solve a problem when we focus on the problem, and if Americans see clearly that............
But Americans are divided on what is the "problem", when there is a war such as WWII, then the problems are well defined.
Our political parties and country are so divided that a consensus is almost impossible. It would take a "leader" and not a politician to move mountains.
Self interests come first for the masses whom most are assess.
Posted by: learjet0450 at February 26, 2006 6:48 PM
"Our political parties and country are so divided that a consensus is almost impossible. It would take a "leader" and not a politician to move mountains."
So true. But "God writes straight with crooked lines." I am not a religious man in any organized way-I am too independent for that-LOL. But I believe that God is with us. We are a deeply flawed people (this multi-ethnic USA)-but in the deepest part of my soul, I believe that Almighty God will guide us. I believe that. We will overcome this too...Trust Almighty God. I think He loves the flawed USA...
Posted by: Frank at February 26, 2006 8:00 PM
Hugh said:
What now matters is to determine the velocity of that new understanding's arrival, and the readiness with which it is accepted.
To speed recognition of Islam's threat to the West, we need more reporting of polls of Muslims in Europe and elsewhere, so we can show to bystanders and skeptics in a fairly scientific way what proportion of Muslims support the totalitarian aspects of Islam.
What holds back people from taking action to reform immigration laws is that most people have only the foggiest notion, for example, of what percentage of Muslims in the West want to establish laws discriminating against non-Muslims. Most people have no idea what percentage of Muslims want to end free speech, and so on.
Naturally then, most people are unwilling to change immigration laws to disfavor peoples on the basis of what might be rumor, misimpression, etc. So we need scientific polls.
In a way, what Islam "actually" is will be irrelevant to most people. What matters is what Muslims think it commands with regard to non-Muslims.
Arguing about theology has its place, but for too many people leaves uncertainty, since most have not read the voluminous relevant Islamic documents, and even if the documents had been read, drawing conclusions is not the easiest thing in the world, and many seemingly intelligent people disagree in their conclusions about these issues.
To overcome the uncertainty of the masses and the analysts, then, we need to seek out more of the empirical aspect -- polling -- e.g., what percentage of Muslims in the West believe the cartoonists should be killed. Theological arguments should perhaps be mostly context to polling Muslims and seeing what they think Islam is. On that basis, the West might be ready to reform immigration laws.
Posted by: eduardo odraude at February 26, 2006 9:33 PM
learjet0450-
Speaking of alternative energy and the problem with oil and Iran, here's a way to harness all three (at least temporarily):
We could start installing Danish wind turbine propellor generators / transformers all along Iran's borders, on both the Iraqi and Afghani sides, whether there is any local wind source or not, to the increasing bafflement of the Iranians just across the border.
Then slip the rumor into Iran that we are preparing to harness the hurricane force gales that will be created when we are forced to nuke Iran if they will not give up their plutonium enrichment/bomb-making program.
Let's f*ck with their minds.
We need to have some private comic relief from this cult's mind-numbing mud-common stupidity.
WW II's psy-ops campaigns (inflatable tank brigades moved around to snooker the Luftwaffe's snooping recon pilots), etc., etc. were good for allied morale, and screwed with the Nazis' heads (also notorious for having no sense of humor).
Operation Divine Wind, perhaps?
Banzai!
Posted by: profitsbeard at February 27, 2006 1:32 AM
(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.)