Okay it might not be lost but every day without a widespread concerted and general western antiIslam effort will cost lives, perhaps in the hundreds or thousands in the not too distant future.

It is not just cessation of migration and trivia like the head scarf law and watching assimilation movies that will do the trick (although the former might slow the flood to a trickle). None of these solve the problem of homegrown jihadists who will continue to breed like cockroaches until deportation becomes automatic for anyone who threatens violence. Even then it will only push it underground and the jihad will contine.

The only thing which will stop the problem is so radical that western goverments will be too gutless to do it and that is to give up the notion of a "moderate" islam and to assume that evey Muslim is a risk and to act accordingly.

I wonder just how long this post will last? :)

Posted by: Zathras at March 17, 2006 8:44 AM

Spot on.

The figures look even better if one looks at greater Europe - 25 million mohammedans in almost half-a-billion natives.

However, how do we wake people up to the risk that Turkey will pose to Europe if it is allowed into the EU. We can't just rely on the promised referendum in France to deliver the veto that is needed - after all, look what happened to the poor Austrians when they tried to resist. Goodness only knows what pressures will be brought to bear on the French electorate over the next few years.

Posted by: Certiorari at March 17, 2006 8:49 AM

I cant pass what Im hoarding

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at March 17, 2006 8:56 AM

"Everything is reversible. The bad press of the Americans is reversible. The disgusting treatment and misreporting about what jihadists perpetrate daily in Israel is reversible, and so is the invention of the "Palestinian" people."

Appreciate the pep-talk. God knows we need it sometimes.

"Everything is reversible" may be plausible in the abstract, but in real-world conditions, the only thing that will reverse the pathologies described above is a sea-change in the thinking of Europe (and the non-Muslim world in general). This will happen only in response to a tragedy of catastrophic proportions. Madrid, London, the French intifada, Theo Van Gogh...none of these were of sufficient magnitude to galvanize public opinion en mass.

In essence, it's left to the most fanatical component of Muslims to awaken the West from its slumber...and to do so in such spectacular fashion that even the most stubborn somnambulist will be compelled to open his eyes.

Something tells me they won't disappoint. Stay tuned.

Posted by: Cornelius at March 17, 2006 8:58 AM

Bigdog I agree with you but have you ever asked why we seem to lack the guts or the will to do this?

No one likes violence but if you have a gangreous limb you must amputate it if you wish to survive.

Western society is the only way the world as we know it, will survive, through its technology and because some of its creations are worth keeping. If we lose western technology the world population will reduce to that amount that can be fed by the backward farming techniques practised by Muslims (about 5% of the current population...see the hilarious gaza strip attempts to get the former israeli greenhouses to work).

Islam in the west is equivalent to gas gangrene. Why does no one in power in the west wish to recognise this? That is the crucial question.

Posted by: Zathras at March 17, 2006 9:04 AM

Luddite-Jihad is reacation to an unstopable Communications Revolution that has been invented by "the peoples of the Lands of the Infidels." And the Communications Revolution is a two lane information highway. Ordinary people in the Lands of the Infidels are begining to question why there is no tolerance of other religions (preaching or practice) in places such as Saudi Arabi, etc. Why??? Is Islam a religion of intolerance?

JW is helping people to think, to question.

Posted by: Frank at March 17, 2006 9:10 AM

Great piece Hugh. Many thanks.

If we can analyze and name the evil, we can be on the way to defeating it.

As for the 'army of hireling apologists'- the West must take up psychic spitting when it hears of whores like Clinton or Dole or Albright or Carter walking the halls of Congress with petrodollars stuffed in their back pockets, and forked tongues in their mouths.

Posted by: dgene at March 17, 2006 9:17 AM

Thanks Hugh for a ray of hope in your writing. It is important to keep at
least a component of hope alive. It's easy to only point out what's wrong
with things, but this tends to color everything we see with a fatalistic
slant. I recommend people go to

http://www.israelnationalradio.com

and listen to the March 10 clip where Wafa Sultan is interviewed by Tovia Singer.
Let's hope that her message has as much acceptance as she seems to think.

Posted by: NoMo at March 17, 2006 9:23 AM

The first thing is to get over political correctness. I know it's disheartening to hear on the news every night about war and such. But, they need to tell us everything. And not sugar coat the destructive and barbarian acts of this cult.

Newscasters need to read from the koran each of the verses that condone the violence muslims do. Not only to infidels, but to each other also. Read the hadiths and sura's on the air and tell people that this is what they preach. Don't let them spin it to calm the masses.

People need to know that M.E. countries don't allow Jews, churches or even teddy bears in, but yet they keep building more and more mosques everywhere else. It's their right!!!!

Everyone needs to know they call us infidels, dhimmi's and kufurs. Don't allow journalists to say youth gangs or asian gangs when in actuality, it's muslim gangs. That's sugarcoating.

Talk about honor killings,(like the four year old child who was raped by a 20 something man and left on the sidewalk to die, because she dishonored her family ) women who are raped and are hung for adultery, children who are taught to hate anyone who isn't muslim.

We need to hear about this idiocy called islam.

Posted by: freewoman at March 17, 2006 9:30 AM

Why?????????
To any Moslem:

I would like this question answered, and I will be specific, and ask it of any Moslem on this site: Why is it that in Saudi Arabia there is no tolerance of the preaching and practice of other religions? Why? I really would like to know the answer to this question. Why?????

Why is it that in Saudi Arabia there is no tolerance of the preaching and practice of other religions?

Posted by: Frank at March 17, 2006 9:51 AM

This is an important subject. But an odd one, too.

People inform themselves, look around at the continuing and expanding pattern, and feel despair. Count me in that crew.

But, much of the despair stems from the pollyanna lack of despair on the part of 99% of us infidels. Ignorance is bliss, for now at least.

So, what we have here is despair about the lack of despair, fishing for a ray of hope to save us from an awful people who aspire to end all hope.

And they're hotter than Mickey Mantle in late July. One laser line drive after the next.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 17, 2006 9:56 AM

On this Saint Patrick's Day, when the famous saint of Ireland and all the good that the Irish have contribute, have this in mind, posters today. That the Irish sent missioniares not only to Europe way back in what is now called the " Dark Ages ", but also over the centuries, to the rest of the world to bring both the Gospel and the Christian Faith. Now in the 21st Century, the Global South with booming Christian communites, Africa in a special way, will in turn, send missioniares to Europe and North America to bring about a rivival of the Christian faith and even bring those who are Muslim both the Gospel and the Christian faith.

Hugh, once again, you write an outstanding commetary, spot on, and I thank you for your excellent presentation. Happy St. Patrick's Day to you and to all who are Irish/Irish heritage who post here.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 17, 2006 10:02 AM

OT, but a bit of sunshine too. Blue Scarf meeting Ocala Florida:

Paddock Mall inside in front of SEARS / 12 noon to 12:30 / Friday March 17

Posted by: Rebecca JW at March 17, 2006 10:06 AM

Thanks to Hugh for yet another well reasoned and spot on post. At times I look around and almost despair when I see the still prevalent ignorance of the menace. But he makes a very salient point, eyes are being opened. The increasing numbers of people with a negative opinion or perception of Islam is increasing as the Jihad grows beyond what can be successfully explained by the apologists, both of the Right and Left, as I have been educated on here.

I have a question for Hugh and Robert, or anyone who wishes to respond, what more can we do, those of us who visit JW/DW to get our daily dose of news on the Jihad? I know many of us here are doing our part by talking to people about it and writing our politicians and media on the subject. What else can we do? Any suggestions? I think nothing will help deal with despair as much as doing something constructive.

And thanks once again for what you do.

Posted by: Proud Infidel at March 17, 2006 10:06 AM

Frank~
Haven't you read Mr. Spencer's books? The messenger said 'Two religions cannot coexist in the Arabian Peninsula'.
And Bukhari V5B59N727 'Expel disbelievers from the Arabian Peninsula'.

Posted by: Borg at March 17, 2006 10:08 AM

Pinpointing why we feel despair is important: It will help us all individually work out what we can do.

I feel it over the breeding rates of Islam, others feel it over the Western Politically Correct nest Islam thrives off and others feel it from the governments who seemingly aren’t quiet getting it.

The governments probably know more than it seems but are tied in with finances over oil and so forth, but where they go wrong is pandering to Islam in the name of PC (when it’s really for oil) and in doing so strengthen the PC.

Muslims in most modern countries have the freedom to be gay or change drop religion etc. The PC game of playing pretend sharia’s with the “oppressed victims of the West” should be instead (via government and grants) guided into helping gay Muslims or Muslim victims of domestic violence.

There is movement to re-educate Islam, but the various programs set up are always politely put in the hands of the “willing to try” muslims, instead we need to be in control of these programs, they are probably not the best, but will be better once we get our hands on them.

We need to keep them off any council or multicult advisory boards etc, these are our countries /societies/standards and our territories.

There is a push amongst us to ban our own freedoms which Islam can claim rights with in the west, knowing Islam’s skill in twisting any rights or freedoms we offer, I think it’s a dangerous move, we may well ban any variations we have on our traditional marriage to halt Islam using our freedom for its poly agenda, but on this track we’d ban our own selves back to the dark ages. What if we want to ban the Koran, would we also end up having to ban the bible etc? … We should stick to our guns, People from wacky lifestyles through to Christian conservatives are all under fire from Islam.

At first I thought, cripple Islam the religion by luring the Islamists into Modernities luxuries and freedoms (boobs ‘n’ beer, and rights as humans) and to some degree still do.

But more so think that there should be Western controlled protection/policing agencies set up for people leaving Islam.

If the PC won’t do it, we should and shame PC into it along the way.

Everyone’s going on about us breeding in competition with Islam in modern civilisation, we should and can only try, but more so we need to claim our standards back and insist they curtail to our lower breeding rates. This should simply be part of the integration we insist on.

I think we need to be so strict on them, I notice until now they have to rely on tolerance (well in Australia anyway), they will start pushing our legislation next, this is why we need to get strong and stand together.

We’re getting tougher everyday, but it’s in our hands as well as our politicians. With the breeding we gotta hurry.

Osama let the cat out of the bag to soon with 9/11, they weren’t established enough population wise in our homelands to deal with the reaction.

Posted by: meredith at March 17, 2006 10:22 AM

Our enemies are the Saudi funded propaganda, and were keeping up kinda, their violence and the PC. Sorry to babble :P

Posted by: meredith at March 17, 2006 10:26 AM

"what we have here is despair about the lack of despair..."
-- from a poster above, commenting on some of the expressions of worry by other posters

One's response to the scope and duration of the menace can be likened to the three bowls of fairy-tale porridge. The first is too hot, the second too cold, and only the third is just right. Learn from the tale of Goldilocks.

Or, if you prefer, take tuition from Franz Kafka, in one of his letters to Milena:

"Do not despair, not even over the fact that you don't despair."

Posted by: Hugh at March 17, 2006 10:39 AM

Big dog,

Remember Winston Churchill, no one would listen, it was only 20 years after WW1, Peace in our time or what ever Chaimberlain said, but then bam Churchill was fighting for us all... and won...

Think about it, a few years ago your friends wrote you off as a loon cuz you said Islam was gonna get us, now they don't hey, they think it to.

We got to be firm like Winston, and hurry
and not squabble amongst ourselves.

Posted by: meredith at March 17, 2006 10:40 AM

Borg-

No I have not read his book. I will. I am sure the answer is in his book and elsewhere, but I want Moslems to tell me why Islam is intolerant of of the preaching and practice of other religions in Saudi Arabia.

I want a Muslim to instruct me on the matter.

Why is it that in Saudi Arabia there is no tolerance of the preaching and practice of other religions?

Maybe there should be a question of the week on JW that only practicing Muslims may answer. We are a species that will not rest until every question raised to us is answered.

Posted by: Frank at March 17, 2006 10:47 AM

Frank, if you want to ask that question, you should go to The Religious Policeman's site.
Alhmedi is a Saudi, and will very likely answer your questions if asked politely.

Posted by: treehugger at March 17, 2006 10:57 AM

Hugh,

I am one of the people on this forum who sees hope, particularly vis a vis the status of women in Islam, something that comes from the simple comparison of what women enjoy in the west and what they fail to enjoy in the Islamic world and its colonies in our midst. Women, much more than men, create the character of children, and those children become the adults who decide what direction a people, society or nation will move. It is indeed terrible that Muslim mothers are being enjoined to raise children for Jihad, but there is a counter-revolution going on as well. It is certainly easier to raise children for life than death. We have that on our side at least.

I do not think Islam can survive a real feminist movement. The proto-feminist "Islam respects the rights of women" ideas that are bubbling up in many places are good signs, even if they miss the mark. Women have to start somewhere; it is not like they are going to blow themselves up for their cause, or apostasize right out the gate. It will take time, but it is moving at lightspeed, maybe faster than the growth of Islam in infidel lands, and it travels the other way, infecting the Islamic world. Even in Saudi Arabia there is a womens' movement. This would not exist without the example of the Dar ul Harb.

I do not agree that the Palestinian people can be undone. A nation is an idea, a shared identity, and Palestinians have that in spades. They are not going away. Even when they travel the world, they consider themselves refugees and maintain their national consciousness. You have made many valid points about the falsification of their history before 1967. This will not convince anyone who considers themselves Palestinian, however. They may be bestial, Islam-addled and cling to victimhood like an alcoholic does the bottle, but the only way to deal with them is to find a way to tame them. I do not have an answer to this problem, but to deny their existence as a people pointless, despite the historical revisionism upon which they base their past.

Quijybo

Posted by: Quijybo at March 17, 2006 10:58 AM

Well we have the Danes and I buy my ME food in the jewish area of Sydney, Bondi.

Dump our cars, I have only had a car 4 years our of the 20 or so of my adult life.

Anything we can, just don't give up.

Posted by: meredith at March 17, 2006 11:09 AM

Islam is like a festering growing sore. It can be ignored at first, but eventually radical action has to be taken to heal the infection.
Knowledge of Islam is growing among those at risk from it. Soon the infection will be self evident to most everyone and action will be called for. Most people by now know the riotous side of Islam. Cartoon riots ext. What they dont yet understand is the Islamic hegemoney that goes kit and caboodle (cant resist that...haha) with the rest of it. World takeover by Islam. They will continue ther world of war untill the world of Islam (and its version of peace) prevail. Jihad is fighting in Allahs cause using all weaponry...everything can be a weapon, oil, terrorism, breeding like crazy, lying a lot, theft, murder, threats, political power, whining and crying, psychological tricks of all kinds, and most of all, the knowledge that Allah approves of this behavior, wants this behavior, and will reward those exhibiting these behaviors.
Islam is here to dominate...no thanks, I checked out the Islamic kit and caboodle...the kit looks ok but the caboodle is rotten to the core...composting from the inside out...it needs to be thrown on the scrapheap of bad ideas...thats where most caboodles end up...

Posted by: duh_swami at March 17, 2006 11:16 AM

One outrage more -meaning a sufficiently shocking death toll- in the West, and the will for imposing an 'oath of allegiance' to the secular laws of the lands involved will seem common sense.

And by such a one sentence rule change, any true believing Muslims could be told to repatriate to Mecca, etc., as 'unwilling to adapt'.

They have rules in Saudi Arabia, and every other Muslim land, that restrict all ideas but their own.

We can pay them the compliment of imitation.

And stand for our Idea.

Brains, not chains.

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 17, 2006 11:22 AM

"A nation is an idea, a shared identity, and Palestinians have that in spades. They are not going away. Even when they travel the world, they consider themselves refugees and maintain their national consciousness."
-- from a posting above

I menat that the politically-motivated construct, out of local Arabs (those in Gaza and the area renamed by the Jordanians in 1948 as "the West Bank") can be undone by non-Arabs and non-Muslims. Simply expose the idea for what it is. Refuse to write the phrase without quotation marks: "Palestinian people." Quote endlessly from all the Arabs who made quite explicit why this phrase, and this idea, was developed. It has been foisted on the West. So was, in 1938, great sympathy, and understanding, for the campaign of Henlein, and his master Hitler, to achieve "the legitimate rights" of the "Sudeteners."

Once the understanding spreads that the war against Israel is a classic Jihad, and is not, and never has been, a "clash of two tiny peoples" etc., this will bring a greater clarity not only to the confused Israeli public (and its largely unimpressive political leaders), but also to the larger Infidel world, that needs to comprehend how that Lesser Jihad is only a subset of the more general, world-wide effort (expressed locally, and using different instruments depending on what is possible, and effective, taking into account those local conditions and Infidels) of a Greater Jihad.

Here's a sample of what should be better known:

1. Before the Six-Day War, not a single Arab spokesman, at the U.N. or anywhere else, and not a single Arab document, referred to the local Arabs as the "Palestnian people." They appeared, as if by magic -- summoned by the public-relations advisors to Arafat -- only after that war made clear that the Arab dream of going in for the kill had been dashed, and that a different, long-term effort at persuading former supporters of Israel in the Western world that Israel had won territory to which it had no legal, moral, or historic claim, and that since the area had been known in the West as "Palestine" then the local Arabs would become the "Palestinian people" and, as the older and better-educated generations died out, the young, the naive, the uninformed, would come to think something along the simple-minded lines of "well, there's a place called Palestine, and there's these people who are the Palestinian people, so of course they must be the ones whose land it is." It was at that level, a level that required an absence of any historic sense, any real and detailed knowledge of the history of that area, and of the Middle East, not merely in the 20th century, but during the 1300 years before, and also a sense of symmetry, or asymmetry, in power, in demands. The men who served on the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations, none of them Zionists, had a much better sense of why the Mandate's aims -- the establishment of a Jewish National Hoome -- were justified, but also admirable, which is why those who had a wider sense of history, and were untainted by that widespread mental pathology that takes different forms in different people (even the form fruste can be deadly), such as Churchill, or Smuts, were Zionist sympathizers to a man.

While the Shukairy "drive them into the sea" line was muted, for the Western world, and the "Palestinian people" theme drummed into Western minds, in black Africa, where the Israelis had had a very effective foreign-aid program before 1967, things went more quickly. All that was needed was bribery of key government officials and diplomats; and overnight most African states cut relations with Israel, and those agricultural projects, those irrigation projects, that had been so useful, were forced to end. There was, of course, no real Arab aid ever given; it was only bribes to particular officials, and then, of course, money to extend the reach, and power, of Islam in sub-Saharan Africa (and one result was the revolt of Nigeria's Christians against the new Muslim militancy, the Jihad -- as Col. Ojukwu called it -- against those Christians).

If Western leaders, if Israeli leaders, ceased to use the phrase "Palestinian people" and started to use such carefully-constructed phrases as "the autonomy for local Arabs will of course depend on to the extent that such autonomy is commensurate with Israeli security, since there are already twenty-two Arab states, and we cannot remain unaware of the doctrine of Jihad as a permanent duty, so that opposition to Israel as an Infidel state should not be expected to diminish no matter what its borders. Indeed, we have every reason to believe that further territorial concessions that cause Arab Muslims to perceive Israel as more vulnerable will only increase the likelihood of open warfare, will whet rather than sate the desire for combat to further the aims of Jihad."

Who writes or says anything like that? It's all true, and necessary, but no one does. But perhaps they will start, as they realize that they, the entire West, the entire Infidel world, are in the same boat with Israel, and this is no time for that boat to become a ship of fools.

Posted by: Hugh at March 17, 2006 11:28 AM

Here is an idea I've heard no one talk about:

Why don't fellow Infidels who understand the jihadi threat help each other to obtain positions of power in the media, in law, in politics?

Then we can spend less time complaining, and more time doing something proactive.

This kind of strategy has nothing sinister about it--it's about working to make sure that the good guys (the Infidels) win.

Posted by: thirstyscribe at March 17, 2006 11:30 AM

We're a long way from all is lost; as long as we can remember that this is about culture rather than color. We Westerners have taken in not only lots of Muslims, but also a lot of people whose exit from Islam was facilitated by their sojourns or relocation to the West. A fledgling Evangelical movement in Turkey arose because God turned the German Gastarbeiter program to His own gracious purposes. I've met French people of Maghrabi origin drawn to the USA for both its lack of racism (a 180% turnaround about what I was taught about "tolerant" France when I was a kid) and its religious freedom.

I remain in prayer that God would continue to aid people as they exit both vicious, sinful habits and false religion.

Posted by: Kepha at March 17, 2006 11:32 AM

"Why don't fellow Infidels who understand the jihadi threat help each other to obtain positions of power in the media, in law, in politics?"
-- from a posting above

The best thing is to identify respectable politicians who have offered some previous display of mind, and to help them to educate themselves further, and colleagues who may be open to the evidence of the texts and of history.

Posted by: Hugh at March 17, 2006 11:43 AM

The way I see it, the jihadis will try to use the large illegal population and the black community against the US. That is why the NOI is a real danger. For black Christians to embrace Farakkan as some sort of leader is the worst failure of the black church.
The idea that Christians and muslims worship the same God should be struck down in every pulpit.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at March 17, 2006 11:56 AM

"the jihadis will try to use the large illegal population and the black community against the US"
-- from a posting above

Muslims conducting Da'wa in the West have carefully identified both groups. Those who wish to check or stymie these efforts, efforts not designed to save individual souls but rather to sign up recruits for the army of Islam (every Infidel who becomes a Believer means there is also one less Infidel to oppose Believers) are not fools, and should take measures to spread as widely as possible knowledge of both the extent and duration and cruelty of the Arab slave trade in black Africa, and the present-day existence of black slaves in Sudan, Mali, Mauritania, and the fact that slavery in the Arab Muslim lands was abolished or suppressed only by outsiders, by Westerners. There neve was a Muslim Anti-Slavery Society and there never could be, because in Islam slavery is recognized as part of the lives of Muhammad and his Companions, and even if he is defended by Muslims as having been a "kind" slave-owner (a most peculiar defense), that is not the same thing as denouncing slavery, or insisting that the practice, accepted in 7th century Arabia, must be ended. Slavery is recognized in the canonical texts of Islam, and in the practice of Muhammad. It cannot ever be denounced as a moral outrage -- for if it was good enough for Muhammad, then it is good enough for all mankind. He was, after all, the Perfect Man, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil.

Posted by: Hugh at March 17, 2006 12:55 PM

Islam is an infectious spiritual disease. It must be addressed as a pandemic. The following steps could be entertained, without violation of simple humanitarian principles

1) Quarantine the carriers. This translates into restriction of Moslem immigration and immediate repatriation to Moslem-infected countries of carriers that become a threat to the general population
2) Vaccinate non-infected populations. This means that the non-Moslem populations must know and appreciate their own culture and values.
4) Treatment of the infected. This means outreach to the Moslem community. Moslems have traditionally been difficult to reach out to, but I wonder if it's because it is Moslem men who are most often approached. Outreach to the Moslem population might be more effective and most effectively made by non-Moslem women to Moslem women. Moslem women have the most to gain by ridding themselves of Islam and embracing one of any number of life-giving faith traditions.
5) Support for convalescing ex-Moslems. This means protecting those who successfully rid themselves of this affliction.
6) Public education. This means action, writing letters to editor and to government representatives as well as otherwise raising one's voice to warn of the danger of this pandemic.

Blogs such as this site are all very well and fine, but they sometimes amount to preaching to the choir. It's the governments and the media that don't get it. But a grass roots movement to stem the tide of this malaise will help reset the course.

Moslems in the West must be held accountable for their statements and actions according to Western law, not by any other standard. Those Moslem individuals who cooperate and contribute to the greater society are welcome to stay. Those who are engaged in jihad or spreading it are a threat to the health of Western society.

Posted by: Chatillon at March 17, 2006 12:58 PM

Praise the Lord (if you wish) but pass the ammunition.

I'm doing both. I had a nice call-in to Brian Sussman's show on KSFO in San Francisco the other day, basically questioning the concept of "moderate Islam." Generally speaking, the hosts at KSFO seem to get it, but I think there is some pressure being exerted. When anything comes in like what I said, they have a tendency to agree with it, but then do the "But we know that most Muslims are peaceful..." thing.

Posted by: Open Eyes at March 17, 2006 1:08 PM

I am sure you are all aware of the experiment wherein a frog is kept in a kettle that is filled with water that is cool and pleasant, and that you gradually heat the kettle until it starts boiling. Rather than jumping out of the kettle the frog, I've been told, remains unaware of the threat until it is too late. The frog's survival instincts are apparently geared towards detecting sudden changes and not gradual changes. Unfortunately, I'm afraid human society is quite similar. We have all become so desensitized to what we see daily on the news that even if the jehadists keep ramping their terrorist actions, we will still see folks muttering the same old mantra of Islam being a 'religion of peace'. If the 9-11 terrorist attacks, the Beslan school massacres, the almost daily kidnappings and beheadings, the daily suicide bombings.... the list just goes on and on... are not enough to convince people that there is a serious problem with Islam, I'm afraid nothing more can or will convince folks who refuse to wake up to this threat.

Posted by: Razdan at March 17, 2006 1:14 PM

"I am sure you are all aware of the experiment wherein a frog is kept in a kettle that is filled with water that is cool and pleasant, and that you gradually heat the kettle until it starts boiling. Rather than jumping out of the kettle the frog, I've been told, remains unaware of the threat until it is too late."
-- from a posting above

There is also the lobster variant. Michel Gurfinkiel's book on the Arab siege of Israel (the Lesser Jihad) is entitled "La Cuisson du Homard." This has been englished as "How to Cook a Lobster."

And then of course, our goose (i.e. we ourselves) can be cooked.

But even if a three-starred toque concocts a fantastic sauce for each of the dishes at this, not Barmecide but Occidenticide, Feast, that is no consolation, to that frog, that lobster, that goose.

Posted by: Hugh at March 17, 2006 1:28 PM

Meredith said

Remember Winston Churchill, no one would listen, it was only 20 years after WW1, Peace in our time or what ever Chaimberlain said, but then bam Churchill was fighting for us all... and won...

I agree with you, the Allies' entry into WWII was not as quick and simple as the John Wayne movies would lead one to believe, 60 years later.

They (the Allies) had the same failure to recognize, the same fear of confrontation, the same eagerness to placate and capitulate.

Maybe that desire for peace, even in the face of cold reality, is one of our strong points, even though sometimes it appears that it's our weak point.

The good news: the jihadists do not have even a fraction of the military strength of the Axis powers in WWII or the Soviet Union in the Cold War.

The bad news: the jihadists have much more clever methods to achieve their goals, methods that our military strength will not help us defeat.

Posted by: special_guest at March 17, 2006 1:54 PM

It often take times to recognize what is staring you in the face, if that recognition implies unpleasantness, difficulties, extreme hardship. One wishes to postpone the moment of recognition. That is one of the factors that contributed to the denials about Hitler's words, deeds, and express intentions, throughout the 1930s.

After World War II, again it was hard for the Allies to turn on a dime, and see the Soviet Union, a wartime ally, as now an enemy to be checked.

It is the same today.

Posted by: Hugh at March 17, 2006 2:14 PM

If Western leaders, if Israeli leaders, ceased to use the phrase "Palestinian people" and started to use such carefully-constructed phrases...

The Moslems have been remarkably adept at language manipulation from the outset, when the cunning Allah redefined "persecution" as he rolled out his justification of murder.

MORE KORANS MORE HADITHS MORE SIRATS MORE MOSLEMS MORE ISLAM MO MO

Why don't fellow Infidels who understand the jihadi threat help each other to obtain positions of power in the media, in law, in politics?

Reveal thyself openly as one who would defend freedom, and you could get killed by a local Moslem college student. Or maybe a welfare recipient cab driver.

Let us never underestimate the power of personal murder for the Religion of Peace to keep the lid on us uppity Infidels. It's either keep your disgraceful Infidel mouth shut or move your family to Undisclosed Locationville.

MORE KORANS MORE HADITHS MORE SIRATS MORE MOSLEMS MORE ISLAM MO MO

Dial M for Murder.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 17, 2006 2:18 PM

As much as I hate to say it. The west will not wake up untill such an act of total barbarity shocks the population out of it's dumb stupor.

Posted by: lauti at March 17, 2006 2:37 PM

The Danes are setting a huge example and doing it legally. They will be long remembered for this.

Posted by: meredith at March 17, 2006 2:48 PM

You talking atom bomb? After levelling, say, New York City, isn't it just as likely that we would sent forth Tim Russert to negotiate a formal surrender?

Say, that's what Islam means in 7th century Arabic, surrender.

A "religion" named Surrender. Imagine that.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 17, 2006 2:49 PM

Don't you think as well the Danes are waking us up ??

Posted by: meredith at March 17, 2006 2:51 PM

"Don't you think as well the Danes are waking us up ??"

And also the French. I say continue to allow immigration unchecked in France. After the cartoon riots, increase public spending to unemployed and humiliated Muslims. Give us a clear and indisputable example of the future that awaits us if we follow France's example. And give it to us as soon as possible, merci beaucoup.

Which is also the role that France played in WWII.

Posted by: special_guest at March 17, 2006 3:04 PM

"Outreach to the Moslem population might be more effective and most effectively made by non-Moslem women to Moslem women"

exactly. Criticizing hijabi women for their headscarves is not that effective. actually talking to them about their rights in a positive manner might be.

Posted by: jehana at March 17, 2006 3:19 PM

i knew a few very wild muslim girls, well 2 lol ...i don't know if they would leave their religion but they will mess with it.

Posted by: meredith at March 17, 2006 3:28 PM

No.. certainly got your message loud and clear Hugh. Things can't and won't get any better until a Democrat is in the White House. Then, all we'll hear on the news 24/7 is how well everything is going. And, you'll of course be writing all about how we're winning the war on terror. Loud and clear, Hugh. Loud and clear.

Posted by: Mahdi Al-Dajjal at March 17, 2006 3:36 PM

Because in Europe, they are in the midst of us all, the only thing I see as inevitable is conflict.

If the governments of our countries begin to talk against Islam, we will begin to see what will make these cartoon protests a Sunday School picnic in comparison. It will be gloom and doom.

I know I sound very negative, but I see nothing but that my children will grow up in a country like Ireland having to engage in violence and if people thought this country shed a lot of blood in times past, they ain't seen nothing yet.

PJ

Posted by: PJ at March 17, 2006 4:07 PM

Hey Mahdi,
I don't think you've read enough of Hugh to understand where he's
coming from. When there's a Democrat in the White House and Hugh is writing
about us winning the war on terror, we'll either be in an alternate
universe, or I'll be digging my compound in a remote undisclosed location.

Posted by: NoMo at March 17, 2006 4:08 PM

Last Saturday I crashed a kumbaya fest with some fellow blue-scarfers. The Muslim speaker attacked the Buddist speaker after he had had the temerity to mention the destruction of Bamiyan Buddhas. (He also had a great metaphor about who words mean different things to different people, but he stopped short of being specific about the word, "religion." He also said he wasn't certain in his own mind whether or not "we worship the same God.")

Anyway, this Muslim mouthpiece got up and went on and on about how the Taliban were justified in destroying the 1500 year old statues, "because people cared more about them than the poor starving Muslims" and then went on about how Buddists are oppressing Muslims all over the world. One of our number piped up with an objection and during the ensuing pause, another of us said, "I hear tell that when somebody tries to leave your religion, you kill 'em."

Well the mouthpiece stammered and stumbled and tried to ignore the question, but I pressed it to the point where he said, "There is no punishment for apostacy in Islam."

The others jumped up. "That's a lie!!! Everything you've said about Islam tonight is a lie!"

Things degenerated and most of us walked out at that point, but it was great!

So I say to everyone: Go to your local "interfaith" meetings. Speak out. Stand your ground. Turn up the heat and hope and pray the word gets back to their leadership that Americans are reading and educating themselves about Islam. Let them know this country will fight their ideas tooth and claw.

Stand for your home, your town, your country, your history and your name. Keep pressing.

Never Surrender.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at March 17, 2006 4:27 PM

Rebecca:

right on!

Posted by: jehana at March 17, 2006 4:56 PM

Mahdi Al-Dajjal said

until a Democrat is in the White House. Then, all we'll hear on the news 24/7 is how well everything is going

NoMo is right, you are obviously unfamiliar with Hugh's writings. Either that, or you are amazingly stubborn and resilient in your ability to change user names. Repeat after me: jihad is not a right-left issue, it is an Islam-infidel issue. The Democrats have got it wrong, the Republicans have got it wrong. Both parties have been corrupted by Saudi financing. Both parties are hesitant to learn the truth, let alone speak the truth.

Both parties will be required to change their preconceptions about the Religion of Peace.

Posted by: special_guest at March 17, 2006 5:14 PM

Islam is the true darkness, a black hole of human spirit and enlightenment.

While, agreed, we have not reached the event horizon, we are fast, exponentially fast, approaching it. Yet, many of us, as, Ray Kurzweil would point out, live in an illusory linear reality. In the face of the obvious threat starring us in the face, most won't start thrashing about until too late.
For, the event horizon is not an event but a silent, invisible point of no return.

Posted by: raven_ at March 17, 2006 5:31 PM

"the Infidel Party..."
-- from a posting above

Well, as the Infidel Party's strategist, wishing to give the thing a sheen, I know there's at least one line of Shakespeare we can tweak and then use:

"While summer lasts, and I live in-fidel..."

And James Russell Lowell's "Once to Every Man and Nation/Comes the moment to decide" could be one of the party convention rousers.

But for an Official Party Song, I'm trying to decide between three possiblities. Possibly here at JW others could cast a vote.

The contenders are:

"Ain't Misbehavin'" and "I Must See Annie Tonight" and one entry from England, "And Her Mother Came Too."

So choose and vote. The future of the Infidel Party -- or at least this Infidel with his party-- depends on it.

Posted by: Hugh at March 17, 2006 5:45 PM

"Ain't Misbehavin'" is the best known of the three, but in order to be an informed voter, you must first listen to the respective candidates. I'm sure "I Must See Annie Tonight" can be found on-line. Not sure about the Jack Buchanan song, but give it a whirl. Then cast that vote again. Vote early, and often.

Posted by: Hugh at March 17, 2006 6:03 PM

how about Tobey Keith"The Angry American"

The best 9/11 song, period. I get punchy every time I hear it. That CD is in my Bose Wave at home as I type, just for that song. I log into Jihadwatch.org, cue up The Angry American, and proceed to put myself at risk of heart attack and stroke, but it feels so righteously good.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 17, 2006 6:05 PM

NoMo,

It's not that I haven't been here long enough to have yet read enough of Hugh to know the difference. It's that I have! I've been here as long if not longer than Hugh has. I've probably read too much. I've witness his metamorphisis.

Although the mantra here is that the war on islam isn't a Left/Right issue (and I agree it shouldn't be), there's an ever increasingly noticeable leftwing slant to Hugh's writing to the point that he's now appears unable or unwilling to even try to hide it. He makes it a Left/Right issue then complains when people call him on it. If I wanted to see a leftist spin on the War on Islam then I'd watch the news on TV and not be visiting sites like this.

And with Robert's recent ban on the use of the "M" word (rhymes with 'fuzzy') for fear of offending muslims, after returning from the Pim Fortuyn conference on free speech no less, then you can't help but wonder what's going on here.

Btw, I've already got my bunker dug and stocked. Perhaps you should consider doing the same.

Mahdi

Posted by: Mahdi Al-Dajjal at March 17, 2006 6:42 PM

"All is not lost -- yet"

"Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald makes an appeal against despair":

Hmmm... Do be sure to let us know when the "yet" has crossed the rubicon..

Posted by: Caroline at March 17, 2006 6:46 PM

Re: Infidel Party song

I can only find short clips of "I Must See Annie Tonight", too short to do it justice.

For a suggestion, everyone will agree that this is a horrible song, but I nominate SPK's Wars of Islam. SPK is an industrial/punk group, and this song is from the late 1970's. With it's borg-like-machine sounds and bestial screaming sounds, it evokes life under sharia.

Posted by: special_guest at March 17, 2006 6:48 PM

Really Hugh, I don't know the other two, but "Ain't Misbehavin'" isn't exactly "Smoke on the Water" - the 1940's version, not the Deep Purple version - is it? But it is one of my favorite songs, I must say. "Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition" could probably be resurrected too.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at March 17, 2006 6:55 PM

Mahdi,

I agree men do not normally change their minds, but thinking men do. Hugh is a thinking man. He is rare. He should be cherished, not derided for it.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at March 17, 2006 7:14 PM

Rebecca: "...and then went on about how Buddists are oppressing Muslims all over the world."

Buddhists? Wow. That sounds pretty crazy-desperate. Your anecdote should serve to remind us that Muslims ARE already half insane as it is to believe the lies about their "ROP", along with clinging to their delusions that their prophet - a mass murdering, pedophilic liar and thief, was the most perfect human being ever. It shouldn't really take all that much to push them over the edge, as divorced from reality as they are to begin with, should it?. (Of course there is always that little "violence" problem - the one that is shared by cornered pit-bulls). Nevertheless, your post gives one hope that a concerted, very local, counter da'wa/jihad campaign would probably be pretty effective. Your description of crashing the "interfaith" dialogue will hopefully give a whole lot of folks encouragement to do the same. It would be helpful to first arm oneself with some choice quotes from the Koran, hadith and sira - namely the same ones that Muslim apologists keep quoting - but with the effective counterarguments on hand. After all, Muslims have certainly learned to exploit the most local community forums (the ones that are SO local that noone actually ever bothers to attend, except them) to spread their poisonous da'wa. How hard would it be for infidels to show up at every such local meeting armed with the truth? There was a time when very small town American civic society was quite alive and well. That was before the TV and the internet admittedly. But it was vibrant and important to the functioning of our democracy. Obviously Muslims are VERY well aware of that fact, even as average Americans have forgotten it. Well now is clearly the time for American infidels to rediscover their most fundamental political roots, if such a time was ever needed.

Frankly, the idea of grass roots counter da'wa efforts, carried out on the local battlefields of "interfaith dialogues" give a whole new meaning to Texican's rallying cry, "Be armed, Be ready!".

Posted by: Caroline at March 17, 2006 7:35 PM

Such is the coincidence that I read Hugh's inspiring essay after watching my newly arrived copy of the movie In the Face of Evil, Reagan's War in Word and Deed2004, (recommended by frequent poster "Catherine" Part of the American Tribe, Squirrel Hunter, Spider Killer) back in February. This film is based on Peter Schweizer’s acclaimed bestseller, Reagan’s War in a feature-length documentary film chronicling the brutal conflict between totalitarianism and freedom as seen through Ronald Reagan’s forty-year confrontation with Communism.

Déjà Vu all over again. The peaceniks and apologists were as vocal and challenging to Reagan's focused committment then as today. The film ends by clearly juxtaposing the enemy of the 21st century (Islamism) with that of the 20th (communism/fascism).

Big dog . . . you need to watch this film.

Rebecca (4:27) . . .I was at an appointment with my son today and the conversation between the Dr. and his assistant surprisingly rolled along from Iraq to the murder of Theo Van Gogh in Demark to demographics in EU. People are beginning to talk openly - in this case,most unexpectedly.

The blue scarf society effort is laudable!

Posted by: justamomof4 at March 17, 2006 8:06 PM

On the current course we are doomed for the simple reason that our will (the West) is weaker than the will of the Islamists.
Posted by: bigdog at March 17, 2006 08:51 AM
-------------

Afer the next Muslim attack on Ameria, who will stand in front of the Mosques to protect them???

The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.

Posted by: Texican at March 17, 2006 8:25 PM

i like "stangers on my flight"

Posted by: meredith at March 17, 2006 8:44 PM

"increasingly noticeable leftwing slant to Hugh's writing to the point that he's now appears unable or unwilling to even try to hide it. He makes it a Left/Right issue then complains when people call him on it."
-- from a posting above

The last sentence makes no sense; the point here was to avoid having constant mention of some supposed perfidy on the part of this or that segment of the Infidel population, which could only have the effect of using up time, attracting unnecessary commentary, and driving away all sorts of potential visitors, depending on whose ox was currently being gored.

Quaere: please list supporting evidence for the notion that there is "noticeable leftwing slant to Hugh's writing." Do not, of course, include criticism of the pie-in-the-sky-in-the-sweet-bye-and-bye policy in Iraq. The desire to see Sunnis and Shi'a go at it, and what's more, to use up men, money, and materiel that will be sucked in from both Iran and the Sunni Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, would not, I think, normally be described as "leftwing."

List those examples which demonstrate my left-wing-ness below. Perhaps I've been a secret Communist all these years and never realized it. Could have fooled me.

I'll wait at this thread for your answer.

Posted by: Hugh at March 17, 2006 9:28 PM

Afer the next Muslim attack on Ameria, who will stand in front of the Mosques to protect them???

The Texican.
Texican, I fully expect that the tanks will be facing out from the mosques, not in. This thing is so convoluted...read the book Infiltration http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1595550038/sr=8-1/qid=1142650029/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-2719642-9474563?%5Fencoding=UTF8
by Paul Sperry.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at March 17, 2006 9:48 PM

Hugh,

And in typical Leftist fashion you seek to take control of the debate by dictating the terms and conditions by which you'll deign to particpate and over which you alone will sit in judgment. Sorry but I don't dance. Why don't you get one of your minions here who fawningly worship at your "Church of the Longest Contiguous Sentence" to jump through the hoops or play roll-over for your amusement instead. My point stands.

Mahdi

Posted by: Mahdi Al-Dajjal at March 17, 2006 10:16 PM

Hugh,

Good rallying call - but what is our ammunition?

I heard recently of an aquaintenance's teenage daughter, who is quite besotted with a young Moslem man, is considering adapting that particular belief system / ideology. Her parents (secular Ozzies) can't understand why anyone should find that prospect alarming.

Islam can only succeed in a vacuum of ignorance, and there's plenty of that around. Fight ignorance, Islam falls.

Could I make a suggestion for your website?, could you please supply the ammunition for the war against ignorance.

I would like to see a series of one or two page concise, well argued articles which we the "Infidel Army" could download and distribute to the ignorant. Suggested titles:

"So what's wrong with becoming a Moslem?"
"But what about the moderate Moslems"
"But we all worship the same God don't we?"
"But isn't Islam a religion of peace?"
"Don't Moslems add to our multi-cultural society?"
etc. etc.

We could then download and print these articles for the unaware, send them to talk-back radio show hosts (heard a ridiculous one a few weeks ago, defending the concept of "moderate Moslems", he defined them as "those Moslems who follow the teachings in the Koran"

Makes you want to scream "IMBECILE!!".

How about it Hugh?, I know the challenge to keep it concise will be difficult for you, but I'm sure you can rise to the challenge.

Posted by: Ozi_bloke at March 17, 2006 10:32 PM

I think lauti is closest to the truth of our situation.

Posted by: Television at March 17, 2006 10:41 PM

"in typical Leftist fashion you seek to take control of the debate by dictating the terms and conditions by which you'll deign to particpate...my point stands"
-- from a posting above

This is nonsense. You made a charge. I asked you to post evidence to support that charge. Go ahead. Put up. You know the alternative.

And if you cannot do so, then in what way does your charge remain somehow magically proven, or as you blandly assert, "my point stands"? Why does it "stand" and how does it "stand"? You have thousands of my postings and hundreds of articles in which to find only three things that will serve as evidence to support your charge. Too tired to find those three things? Or unable to find even one? Do you think you have no need to meet even the most minimal standards of proof? Do you think you have proven a charge if you repeat it a second time, with the same baseless assurance?

Posted by: Hugh at March 17, 2006 11:29 PM

Sorry, I don't have anything substantial to say. I just wanted to offer my services to jump through hoops or play rollover for your entertainment.

One of your fawning minion.

PS - I'm considering changing my login name. Maybe "Sprite", or "Sasparilla", or "Dr. Brown's Cream Soda". I don't think those have been used yet.

Posted by: special_guest at March 17, 2006 11:53 PM

Mahdi, I am a conservative, an American nationalist and have voted Republican all my life, twice for President Bush.

I am very involved in conservative Republican politics as well I serve my country in the so-called war on terror.

This is not a left or right thing in that neither party gets it.

Political correctness impares most on the left and Neo Con global enterprise myopia infects a lot of the right.

I would vote for Bush again as the alternative Democrats are far worse. But in the "War on Terror" department I part ways with many voices in the right.

I can't stand to listen to O'Reilly when he attacks those who speak the truth about Islam and spouts on about Moderate Muslims and our need of their help in the WOT.

O'Reilly is an Idiot, it's the war with Islam, not with the Muslim people but with the tennets of a religious political movement that dominates the average Muslim and has enslaved their societies.

O'Reilly lost all my respect with the port issue. I guess the no-spin zone has been spun, into ta twilight zone and made no attempt to look at who the people and culture of Emirates are. All I got from O'Reilly was a puf peace about what great capitalist they are an what a great ally.

I remember in my day, the same thing was said about the Shaw of Iram, what a great ally they were in the cold war, what a modern society poised to be the equal of Europe. We all know what a great ally Iran is today. And to think that in my day, there was talk about giving them Nuclear technology.

Many writers on the Right have the threat of Islam all wrong, Fox is hopeless or influenced by Saudi money. Hannity is still in the fog only

Savage, Maulkin and some others are the true conservatives.

Me, I'm a conservatives patriot first and a Republican second.

We don't have to compromise our conservative beliefs to accept all those who will help us fight this monster. Islam makes no difference between left or right it uses both side of the infidel spectrum to advance this goal.

When it comes to fighting Jihad, Da'wa and Sharia domination of the world, I am neither Republican nor Democrate, I AM AN AMERICAN AND A GLOBAL INFIDEL

If we save our civilisation their will be plenty of time to push political ideas, till then work with us not against us, I;m not saying you must agree with everything Hugh says, just agree on the one thing that is more important then anything else, TO MUSLIMS WE ARE ALL INFIDELS.

I only hope that I live long enough to leave a world free of this scourge for my grandchildren!

Posted by: El Cid at March 18, 2006 1:38 AM

"in typical Leftist fashion you seek to take control of the debate by dictating the terms and conditions by which you'll deign to particpate...my point stands"
-- from a posting above

Hugh says the above posting by Mahdi is nonsense. I have criticized Hugh on a number of occasions, and am no minion, but I have to agree with Hugh on this. In reading Hugh I detect no obvious left or right skew -- on the one hand he seems like he could be a sort of old-style Scoop Jackson Democrat (the kind who was a little leftish on domestic policy but hawkish toward totalitarian enemies of the West) or Hugh could be some sort of Republican (if Republican, I would guess him to be more on the libertarian than traditional values side). Quite possibly he is doesn't fit well into either left or right categories, or is something in between. Point is, the only thing obvious about Hugh's politics (leaving aside his stance on Islam) is that he's close enough to the broad center that his politics shouldn't become a partisan issue here. One who makes it an issue is incorrigibly partisan himself, or is deluded, or seeks to distract from our main purpose here, which is to learn about and warn about the worldwide jihad and the new totalitarianism.

Posted by: traeh at March 18, 2006 1:51 AM

The Western governments will gather some spine and think of taking some stern measures, but alas, then it will be too late. It may be some years from now and things will be out of their control by then totally. Remember Chamberlain? History repeats, but this time it is a far bigger evil. Looks as if it is a lost cause.

Posted by: satya at March 18, 2006 2:06 AM

PJ -

The problem is not as complex as some would have us believe. It is tractable. What we must recognize is that the enemy is islam - and rip it out of the West - root and branch.

We cannot co-exist with islam.

Posted by: Havoc at March 18, 2006 2:52 AM

What can the West do, if the Muslims already stationed in these countries grow in large numbers with time, as is happening in India at the moment, and use their numbers to bring in Shariat and Islamic rule via democratic means? Only a dictatorship can give a solution to the crisis that will be prevailing then. Can anyone think of the West abandoning democracy?

Posted by: satya at March 18, 2006 3:04 AM

Satya

Everyone’s going on about us breeding in competition with Islam in modern civilisation, we should and can only try, but more so we need to claim our standards back and insist they curtail to our lower breeding rates.

This should simply be part of the integration we insist on.

Posted by: meredith at March 18, 2006 3:41 AM

meredith!

You can talk about things like integration into the mainstream society, curtailing birth rates etc. to people who are willing to listen.

Unfortunately, the position of women in the islamic society is very pathetic. The women do not realize their unfortunate situation. Even educated muslim women do not acknowledge this fact. In India, we had a peculiar case of a popular Malayalam writer called Kamala Das, who converted to Islam at the age of 65 years. She started wearing burqha etc. but she did not stop with that. She started abusing the Hindu religion, to which she belonged until then. Such is the power of Islam over women.

Whenever reform in Islam happens, if at all it happens, it must start with women's liberation.

Posted by: satya at March 18, 2006 4:05 AM

Satya,

A few people have touched on womens rights in this string and yes i totally agree...

I think we have already "started" our defence stances here in modern civilisation, for now it seems a multi pronged attack back from us on all fronts, which is cool as well as islam attacks from all angles it can.

when i said "we need to claim our standards back and insist they curtail to our lower breeding rates.

This should simply be part of the integration we insist on."

I was meaning within our legislations, i guess immigration laws, outlawing islamic poly, and (here in Australia we have social security pretty freely) so child welfare laws, or immigration social security laws... etc etc.

I do think we have to pinpoint and define islam as the problem we are actully talking about so we don't also have to outlaw ourselves back to the darkages.

One defining point can be it is unsecular with in secular societies and all its wants are religious.

Also along with other approches introducing real feminist concepts to islamic women, taking any islamic intergration programs into secular or civilized modern hands etc

Basically anything and everything we can do from all angles is good.

Our christians through to our gay lobby groups all are under attack, no matter what angle we are coming from were all up against it and all have freedoms to protect.

Posted by: meredith at March 18, 2006 4:55 AM

Meredith!

I agree with you but there is a limit to the extent you can go with making laws in a democracy. You may be able to ban polygamy but you can't make a law prohibiting families from producing more than a certain number of children, unless you want to be autocratic as in China. I asked, therefore, in my earlier posting whether one can countenance the Western countries going the China way.

Posted by: satya at March 18, 2006 6:15 AM

In the woods and great forests of England,thier used to be a very beautiful and gentle creature that danced in the treetops and brought pleasure to anyone who was lucky enough to catch a glimpse as it jumped surefootedly from branch to branch.
The red squirrel,native to Great Britain and Northern Europe used to be a relatively common sight if you took the time to sit quietly and wait
a while, now its is confined to remote places and and becoming ever more rare.
The reason is obvious for anyone with a reasonable knowledge of the countryside,the North American grey squirrel. an illegal immigrant and prolific breeder that has stolen the habitat of the native and much smaller red squirrel. this furry insurgent is greedy,fearless and can be quite viscious if cornered. It has crept into the towns and cities where it is quite happy to live alongside man on a diet of discarded big macs and kfc"s. At last,though,the goverment in its wisdom has proposed a nationwide cull of this grey tide to try and stop the decline of our native species.
Of course,the ignorant tree hugging animal rights activists are aghast at this,"Its cruel and barbaric!"they cry,"surely thier must be another way?" they ask,in ignorant bliss.
Maybe we could get the red and greys around the table and sort out some sort of pact,partition maybe,a seperate homeland for the greedy fat grey squirrels and a signed treaty that they will keep within thier borders!!!!!

Posted by: anglosaxoncrusader at March 18, 2006 6:17 AM

Hey Satya,
yeh i know what you mean about going as harsh as China, thats what i was meaning a bit when i was talking about banning ourselves into the darkages ourselves, and why, we should pinpoint it as Islam the religion and call our secular system to halt any religious justification.

We need to point out breeding for domination and so forth, its harsh as i know.

Posted by: meredith at March 18, 2006 7:48 AM

Hugh,

Thank you so much fot the insightful (can your writings be anything different?) article.

One of these days, you should pen your thoughts on how a common-women & man can counter Jihad. Things like.. boycott muslim businesses, hiring no-muslims, social rejection of muslims, driving fuel-efficient cars, booting out apologist politicians, writing to congress & president, asking Condi when she is taking Shahada? asking Karen Hughes what color head-scarf did she wear to iftar? asking Dubya where is he opening the next Saudi mosque? or why he did not kiss the wahabi prince? etc...

Sorry.. I got carried away.

Posted by: Alert at March 18, 2006 10:55 AM

Mahdi has disappeared from this thread; perhaps he'll "reappear" on another (inside imam joke).

Mahdi may have been referring to something Hugh stated in his fourth paragraph: "Everything is reversible. The bad press of the American's is reversible."

He'll have to answer Hugh's question himself, but this is the only comment I found that may have set Mahdi off; as it (seems) to imply that we're only an election away from receiving 'good press', i.e., having a democrate for a president.

(notice I'm not claiming to be a democrate - I'm simply proposing an answer to Hugh's question)

Posted by: champ at March 18, 2006 12:56 PM

I disagree with the "Infidel Pary" proposal. If such a thing happens, enough anti-Islamists would rally around it - both (R) and (D), but the fact remains that there ain't enough for whom this is the #1 issue. As a result, both the (R) and the (D) would end up being dominated by pro-Islamic remnants of the party, and the ultimate winner of the White House and Congress would still be the pro-Islamic remants of either of those parties.

Instead, I suggest an "Infidel Religion". Essentially, this would be an umbrella religion under which Christians, Jews, Shinto, Sikh, Hindus, Buddhists, and other infidels would all continue to practice what they currently do religion-wise (e.g. Easter, Passover, Holi, Baisakhi, Buddha purnima, et al) and spiritually; however for identification purposes, we would be known not by our individual faiths, but as Infidels (like we still are, but more explicit about it). And by encapsulating all the religions out there, it would be more of a religion than Islam is.

The main requirement for belonging to this new religion called "Infidelism" is that we be anti-Islamic, and deliberately avoid practices that are sacred to Muslims. Also, Dhimmis cannot belong to this religion - they would have to convert to it, just as they would convert to Islam. This way, we give ourselves a religious identity that's exclusive from Dhimmis, and we can also start counting the number of adherents to face-off the worlds 1b+ Muslims.

Then let us see politicians appease Muslims. There are about 3m Muslims in the US. If we have 4m Infidels (caSE SenSitivity very important: Infidels would be anti-Islamic, as opposed to infidels who are infidels simply by not being Muslims, but who may happen to be Dhimmi), we can threaten to offset any political gain a politician may gain by pandering to the Muslim constituency. If what they are doing is actually pandering to their Arab paymasters, reading them the riot act should actually be easier, much like what happened on the Ports deal.

Start it here. Let it take hold in Europe, Australia, India, Israel, Russia, Thailand, Phillipines and other infidel countries. Once enough of a backlash constituency develops in each of these countries, Islamic political power will be on the wane. That is what is the backbone of their threat, and that is what is needed. In an actual military conflict, even without the US being involved, if all the Infidel countries broke ranks with the OIC and a war started, it wouldn't last very long, Pakistan's nukes nothwithstanding.

On a lighter note, I'd suggest that Hugh be worshipped. But while this may go down well with the polytheists, the monotheists may not like it. Not to mention that we need to know what he looks like ;->

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 18, 2006 3:01 PM

"as it (seems) to imply that we're only an election away from receiving 'good press', i.e., having a democrate for a president."
-- from a posting above

That was not what I meant, not what I meant at all (with thanks to the son of a St. Louis furrier). Nothing implied about election outcomes. I simply meant that the kind of sly or not-so-sly anti-Americanism, that one finds for example on the BBC, and in much -- but by no means all - of the major European press (Montanelli wasn't having a bit of it), is reversible.

There was not the hint in what I wrote of some kind of political leaning, except the need for the candidate to see more clearly than the current President the nature and scope of the present threat.

Posted by: Hugh at March 18, 2006 3:26 PM

Thanks for clearing that statement up, Hugh.

And by the way, your post was really encouraging. I'm learning SO much from this site, and I enjoy the varied insights from others.

Posted by: champ at March 18, 2006 3:50 PM

“To be right is to do right.”

All will not be lost until we become like them in our war against them, or become them, lowest of humanity, no morals, no empathy, no compassion…no heart. Islam’s heart is dead black, no angels sing.

Posted by: butterfly at March 18, 2006 11:56 PM

"Kamala Das, who converted to Islam at the age of 65 years. She started wearing burqha etc. " wow, I was hoping to keep my looks for a few years yet, but she must still be pretty hot to tempt men without the burqha!

Sorry, cheap shot, LOL...

Posted by: Lili at March 19, 2006 12:25 AM

To: AngloSaxonCrusader
Re: Red vs. Grey Squirrels

Feel free to blow the little fuzzy-tailed tree-rats away.

Re: ...and pass the ammunition.

I fear it will take something even more heinous (sp?) than 9/11 to wake the frog up to the fact that the pot of water is getting very hot.

I hope that it won't, but the probibility approaches unity.

p.s. to Hugh: props for the Lysenko reference. Let's go toss some wheat in the freezer.

Posted by: give me doughnuts at March 19, 2006 1:52 AM

Lili!

FYI more about Kamala Das, nay, Kamala Surayya, as she is known now.

http://202.54.124.133/news/1999/dec/14kamala.htm

Posted by: satya at March 19, 2006 3:29 AM

Due to the fact that I know a number of radical lesbians, I'm familiar with Kamala Das. Her vile autobiography is taught in many American schools as a poisonous example of feminism in the third world. She is lauded as a brave and unflinching hero.

In my opinion she has always been an incendiary anarchist. Although she is always celebrated by feminists as a towering figure, she never was about true "women's liberation." Islam is a perfect and suitable end for this poisonous personality. She's known and celebrated by feminists the world over for her rageful and hateful rantings against the paternalistic forces which she loathed, and wished to annihilate. Perhaps somewhere in her rageful hatred, in her desire to find her own personal salvation, she has a point... but her attitude always seemed to be bent on destroying out of hatred and selfishness, not building or reforming out of love or for the sake of progress. However, she always used the pretexts of building a better society for women and progressivism to enoble herself, and cast herself in the role of righteous warrior for good. Such radicals are extremely dangerous -- they cloak themselves in the guise of pious progressivism, and conceal and sugar coat their hatred based ethos of destruction. Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore are from the same mold. In the end, they offer nothing but hatred, destruction, and dissipation. How similar to Muhammad!? The destructive hatred based maniac -- the one who invented an entire "religion" to justify his heinous life of lechery, thievery, hatred, murder, and destruction.

From Das' book "My Story" we learned about a rich privileged woman who only had contempt for her culture of origin. She was a self indulgent voluptuary, dedicated to a life of sexual exploits and expressions of rageful loathing for her culture of origin. Her works are full of sexual exploits disguised as a noble search for humanity and love. She revelled in having lurid sexual affairs, and didn't seem to have any compuctions in harming families with her exploits. She ruthlessly exploited her religion of Hinduism, for which she seemed to have little but contempt, using bizarre interpretations to justify her perverse activities and to horrify the inhabitants of her village. She had a particular affinity for the Hindu god Kali, a deity who represents death, chaos, and destruction. In my opinion, she used religion as a shield to justify her hatred and her sybaritic ways.

She is an example of an unhinged radical, one determined to explode and exterminate her culture of origin. She refused to work constructively to bring about civilized change, preferring to slash and burn instead. Destruction and degradation is the promise of every such radical. Islam is perfect for such characters.

Posted by: jsla at March 19, 2006 11:07 AM

Correction -- her book is taught in schools as an excellent example of excellent feminism in the third world -- and to supposedly illustrate the heinousness of paternalism in human cultures. It's my assessment to call her book "My Story" poisonous.

Posted by: jsla at March 19, 2006 11:10 AM