| 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 George W. Bush is doing, and what he should be doing:
On May 27 George W. Bush gave a half-hour speech at West Point's Commencement. He spoke of Truman, and Truman's acting against the "fanatic faith" of Communism. But Communism was seldom as "fanatic" a faith as Islam so often has been, and Truman, unlike Bush, knew the importance of using all the instruments of warfare, and not merely combat, in the initial years of the Cold War.And the other thing that Truman, and successive governments did, was to use propaganda to undercut the appeal of Communism, both to those in the West (in the late 1940s, the largest political parties in Western Europe were the Communist parties of Italy and France) and to those in the Communist bloc nations. Truman and others knew that defectors from Communism would be the surest guides as to what the Soviet government was up to, and also how to counter its appeal, its schemes, its plans. What use does the Bush Administration make of defectors from Islam -- that is, ex-Muslims, who know exactly the tricks and wiles of taqiyya, know exactly what Muslims say behind the backs of Infidels, or what appeals can be made to encourage division within the camp of Jihad?
None of this has come from Bush, whose only response appears to be to hallucinate about the nature of Islam, to insist as a matter of belief, unfounded, that Islam is merely being "perverted" by those who are using terror as an instrument of Jihad, and that the Infidel world will be roused to do all the things it must by being told, endlessly, that this is a "war on terror" -- a confusing, vague, and misleading phrase, for it leaves out, with criminal negligence, all the most important instruments of Jihad.And Truman and those who followed him were not Messianic. They were not out to bring Paradise on Earth to everyone. They were determined to protect, in the first place, the United States, and then those countries in Western Europe that with the United States formed the West. They were not about to invade Russia, or China, or anywhere else. They were out to contain Communism.
What does Bush want? Bush tells us that this is what he wants:
"The message has spread from Damascus to Tehran that the future belongs to freedom, and we will not rest until the promise of liberty reaches every people in every nation."
Look at those lines above. Think about the quality of mind of someone who could utter such lines. He wants, this would-be Truman, to bring the "promise of liberty" to "every people in every nation." Good God. I don't. I want to rescue my own country, and Western Europe, and Israel, Australia and a few other places. And if the rest of the Infidel world can also be saved, fine. Did Churchill and FDR stop, during World War II, to bring the "promise of liberty" to "every people in every nation" -- or were they perfectly willing to aid, to the hilt, the Red Army, in order to stop Hitler? During the Cold War, were we determined to bring the "promise of liberty" to "every people in every nation," or were we simply trying to prevent the further spread of Communism and the power of the Soviet Union?
Bush here again demonstrates his naivete, his obstinate inability to admit that he has been wrong all along about Islam, and thus wrong about the usefulness of propping up a nation-state in Iraq (or Afghanistan) at such great cost to Infidels, rather than doing what he should be doing: using the sectarian and ethnic fissures in Iraq, and Afghanistan, to divide and demoralize the camp of Jihad. He can't even think in those terms. They would disturb him. They are cruel. They imply a willingness not to bring toys and good things to eat to all the children on the other side of the mountain.
But I think we can't, I think we can't, I think we can't. Not when Europeans are cowed in Malmo and Rotterdam, threatened in Paris and London and Berlin, unable to stop the mosques and madrasas from being built, unable to deal with the exploitation of Western technology, especially the Internet, to spread hatred of Infidels among all the Believers, unable to keep their own psychically and economically marginal populations, including prisoners, from taking up Islam as a belief-system that justifies sociopathic behavior, as long as the victims of that behavior are Infidels.
And here is Bush, claiming that we Americans have a duty to bring "the promise of liberty" to "every people in every nation."
He is Captain Queeg at the Ship of State. But that Ship of State has turned out to be a Ship of Fools. No one is able to correctly identify what is so crazy about this (so far, all the criticisms have been for the wrong, not the right, reasons) or to force him to change his catastrophic course. We need cunning, high and low, and clever policies that will husband, not squander, the lives of those West Point graduates who received him with such unthinking hurrahs, the money, the materiel, the morale of military and civilians alike.
We all know now what a mistake has been made in Iraq -- or should. Why can't those in Washington state, simply, what has been stated here for more than two years -- and which, as the evidence piles up, appears more and more to have been exactly the correct view of the situation?
What are they waiting for?
Posted by Robert at May 29, 2006 9:43 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Great rant - and the truth! - I am afraid there are NO leaders on the horizon at the moment - we can only hope and pray for a "Churchhill" or a "Truman" incarnate to appear - we seem to be at the will of providence at the moment! - are there no real leaders out there ? Where are they all?
Posted by: johnmac![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 29, 2006 9:52 AM
This is what disturbs me the most. The complete lack of study of Islam and how Islam is the problem. If our leaders and most of our society did not suffer from political correctness and multiculturalism, the US would ban Islam. Muslims would be forced to leave Islam or leave the US. Problem solved. But we can't do that, oh no.
Posted by: John Sobieski at May 29, 2006 10:17 AM
all of us have had beliefs that we later decided were wrong. and now I believe this: that major chords within islam are the cause of much horror and will continue to be; and that the government should protect us against islamic immigration, which has the practical effect of introducing a fifth column.
these beliefs are far from those held by so many, from my neighbors to the ruling elite.
it is a bit maddening.
Posted by: StillBreathing at May 29, 2006 10:33 AM
What Bush does not have, and what JW has attempted to provide, is a way of dealing with the fact that Islam is a political movement as well as a religion. We didn't have that problem with Communism. In fact, denouncing Communism was made much easier by its atheistic philosophy; reminding Americans (who are a religious people) of Communism's atheism was an easy way to demonize it in the minds of religious Americans.
Thus, John Sobieski is just flat wrong when he says that it's only political correctness from keeping America from banning Islam. It's the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and a 200 year body of Supreme Court case law that says that the U.S. Government doesn't advocate for or ban individual religions.
One cannot even ban Islam solely on the grounds of its "soft Jihad" attempts to proselytize and convert non-Muslims, or how Muslims may outbreed non-Muslims. Such activities are entirely permissible under our Constitution. The only thing that makes a ban on Muslim activity Constitutionally permissible is if they actively work for overthrow of the U.S. Constitution. And it is the inherent conflict between elements of Islamic philosophy (Quran, sharia, etc.) and the U.S. Constitution (especially our Bill of Rights) that the Bush Administration has not addressed, but that JW has addressed.
at May 29, 2006 10:46 AM
Great rant - and the truth! - I am afraid there are NO leaders on the horizon at the moment -
I'm afraid that all we have on the horizon is Captain Bligh who will be elected to take the helm by an eager crew weary of Captain Queeg and his nervous fingers.
Unfortunately still is that niether Captain that awaits us will have the charm of either Charles Laughton or Bogart.
Which island near Tahiti was it that Fletcher Cristian landed on before he tourched the HMS Bounty?
Is it still available?
Posted by: witness at May 29, 2006 10:50 AM
"Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald" is a brilliant individual - so much so that I believed he was a group, a think tank of highly paid researchers working hard to diseminate a truth concerning the perils of Islam.
I say 'a truth' because I also believe he (they) have completely missed the point!
Bush isn't in charge in as much as an actor playing a part is in charge of the scenario he plays for his audience. He plays a role which is handed to him by strategists and planners who have researched what will play best to the American public irrespective of what the true agenda is. Because, like a play or TV action/drama show, those 44 minutes are brought to you by 15 minutes of advertising and promotion within that 60 minute segment. The actors have almost zero say on what happens in the show and contribute almost nothing to the continuing storyline. Such as it is with Bush - just a lumpen pawn for the masses.
The only mistake that I can detetct is that it has taken TWO invasions of Iraq rather than the original invasion cooked up by the CIA, US State Department and PTB (Powers That Be) that originally thought Iran would have the ability to overthrough a suddenly weakened Saddam - but it wasn't to be. It took yet another US Military offensive (attack) to sufficiently weaken Iraq for the eventual takeover by Iran - mark my words, again.
Once Iran/Iraq becomes consolidated and allied with some permanent UN powers (China? Russia?) and begins it's wholesale campaign of terror in the Gulf states (primarily) and Europe/India (secondarily), we will see the fullfillment of a 20 year plot to bring back the salad days of a fierce and costly Cold War that will have the half the world running to the biggest offence and defence contrators in the world - the US Military Industrial Complex.
Mark my words.
Bar
Posted by: blazar-jet at May 29, 2006 10:58 AM
Bar - you flatter the PTB with having much more insight, powers of manipulation and intelligence than they have in reality - in the real world - nothing is planned more than a few days ahead - and no plans ever work out - thats why I dont subscribe to conspiracy theories - the real world is just too complex and chaotic to control
Posted by: johnmac at May 29, 2006 11:18 AM
Hugh, good rant, as always, and it's appropriate today. One of the things that bother me about certain conservatives who bash the mainstream media about the Iraqi coverage is 1. it's all bad 2. we're not covering the 'good news' story's. I note today that another group of journalists were killed--the CBS camaraman, sound engineer and the reporter lady was seriously maimed, but may live. So, two major networks have sustained major hits in their covering teams--both of which occured while embedded in military units. Forget, freelancing on your own, gum shoe reporting ect, no these deaths are occuring while embedding within the military. The rest like FOX or CNN or the NYT ect . . . they exist in forteress like compounds, rarely venture out in the light of day, stay hemmed in at night(no lights on as they attract attention), have security teams that earn top dollar, and pay brave Iraqi civilians with a background of English to venture out to cover the storys. But it turns out these Iraqi journalists(whose names you will see on the bylines of the NYT(the American one, then a few foreign sounding names)are not safe either, so you need to hire a Shia to cover Shia storys, Sunni's to cover Sunni story's ect. So when Rush Limbaugh(whom I generally agree with) states the mainstream media is not covering the real story, I've got to laugh. Just how does one cover the real story? One could argue, and I would argue, that we are not getting the real scope of just how bad it is since a lot of these killings are not covered, the morgues piles up daily, and the journalists are limited in what they can actually discover. Next time you pick up a major newspaper, check out the bylines of the Iraqi storys. Many of these Iraqi 'stringers' have been killed as well. Some are Western inclined, want to move to the US, want the money and the fame of having your name in the gray lady. That is not the point. The point is this is getting to be an impossible story to cover because of the security situation.
It is a civil war that is worsening. Everyone, excluding the impotent secular crowd and Kurds for the most part, are enemies. There are no good guys. This is not the liberation of Europe from the Nazis. The only comparison would be to Viet Nam where we didn't understand the culture, language, history ect; where everyone looked the same; where the rebels infiltrated all aspects of South Vietnam. This is a solid comparison, but incomplete, since Vietnam was a French Colony; an actual country with a history, while Iraq has never been a real country. Also, there were not 1.2 billion Viet Cong spread around the world. But their are many solid comparisons. Also, like Viet Nam, we will no doubt one day find out that even our "leaders" never really believed in the cause so many of our finest are dying for daily(see the LBJ tapes). At least Johnson(a great man)expressed regret and horror of what Viet Nam had become. Just look at how he looked at the end, when he wouldn't run again. He was finished. I doubt he worked out for an hour every day. I think he was truly suffering for what was happening to his country. Quite a difference from our current President who still can see no wrong in the Iraq adventure. No, we broke it, we own it. Forever. No unique thought allowed; and none welcomed.
Posted by: biorabbi at May 29, 2006 12:03 PM
Hugh: I'm surprised at your failure to recognize
that Europe is not limited to Western Europe.
Not all Europeans are politically correct
useful idiots for Islam.
Eastern, Central and Southern Europeans have fought
the Ottomans for many hundred of years.
Today's Russia is fighting Chechen terrorism.
Greece and Cyprus have well-known problems
with Turkey. Need I mention the Serbian people?
Eastern Europeans take a much dimmer view
of Islam than their Western counterparts.
Western European leaders are exercising heavy pressure (has to do with the EU admission criteria) on the politically incorrect Eastern Europeans to change their ways and become more accomodating to Islam's demands.
Posted by: george_rem at May 29, 2006 12:23 PM
James L. your post was the most insightful post on this thread.
Biorabbi,your post was good as well save for one item. Limpballs is an opportunistic, self serving, divisive, hypocrite.. a drug addict, and the only people who pay attention to him are brain dead morons.
And George Rem you are quite wrong in your assessment of Eastern Europe.. An analyst has said that Russia in 30 years will be majority Muslim (google it), despite Chechnya Putin is allying himself with Syria, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. The Greeks despite the persecution and horrors inflicted on them by the Muslims, are the second worst antisemites in Europe and favor the Muslims over their own culture, Poland has such a small Muslim population, that it doesn't perceive an Islamic threat, and is still very anti Zionist and antisemitic, as well as "traditional" Catholic (perhaps the two go hand in hand, seems that they do).
The Serb's alone know the problem, but our own government, including the Zionist Joe Lieberman, has cast it's lots with the Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo and still put pressure on the Serbs to make concessions to the Muslims. Kosovo is now essentially ethnically cleansed of Serbs.
A part of the problem for the antipathy towards Serbs is the age old hostilities between the Catholic and Orthodox rite of Christianity.
England, despite the erstwhile contributions of our English Jihad Watchers, has rolled over for Islam, as has France, as has all of Western Europe..it is just a matter of time before Muslims reach a critical mass (about 13% of the population) before they take over the governments, they already at (5 to 10%) flex their muscles and inflict their will.
A united, cohesive minority can inflict it's will on a divided and unorganized majority, and the non muslim world is divided by self righteous, greedy and stupid dividers. Insisting that the west bow down to Christianity is a divisive tactic that will only profit the Muslms, insisting on profits before people is a divisive tactic that will only profit the Muslims.
The disaster of the last Italian election should serve as a lesson learned, but it hasn't, as Berlusconi divided and alienated the people, by being a rigid Catholic, who used his power to try and advance a rigid Catholic social agenda, not only in Italy but in the European parliament and an authoritarian capitalist (who owned most of the Italian press and used his power and money to censor opposition).
Christians and capitalists are not going to win friends and gain allies amongst secularists and progressives in Europe or America by continuing the employment of their present self righteous, unrelenting and divisive tactics.. and unless they come to terms with that reality, they are only faciliating the Islamic conquest.
You don't win friends and secure allies by shooting bullets at them, you only start fights when you are sure of final victory.
Take for example the plans to erect a "Miracle Cross" at the WTC memorial, this is a stupid move that will and is alienating secularists and non Christian Americans, as well as reinforcing the belief amongst Muslims that this is indeed nothing more than a religious war between Christianity and Islam.
For many of your "conservatives" it most certainly is, evident from your posts, but for this secular liberal it is a war to save western culture (which is secular not religious)from the barbarism of Islam.
People like me don't want to live under a theocratic or quasi theocratic state where "religious values" determine law and judicial outcome..be that quasi theocracy or full blown theocracy be Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Taoist or Buddhist.
Posted by: Nariz at May 29, 2006 1:02 PM
The defectors from the Eastern bloc who sought refuge in the West years ago had the good sense to realise that the repression they had escaped from was due to communism itself. They did not move to capatalist societies and then immediately turn them into communist hell-holes with threats of violence, endless seething, whining and total ingratitude and no loyalty to their host countries.
If only those Muslims who have been granted a better life in Western Europe then they could have ever dreamed of in Pakistan, the middle east and assorted African countries were so well behaved.
Why can't these morons see the link between appalling human rights and in Islamic countries and Islam itself??????????
Posted by: Celsius at May 29, 2006 1:07 PM
blazar-jet,
Regarding your military-industrial conspiracy theories, I offer some advice that I found useful during many years in the U.S. military (Unfortunately, I do not know the original source of this quotation): "Never attribute to malice that which can just as easily be explained by stupidity." People everywhere make stupid mistakes all the time, but the devious grand-scale behind-the-scenes manipulative collaboration, which you imagine is controlling the Pentagon and all of world events, is just not possible.
Posted by: Stendec
at May 29, 2006 1:32 PM
Profitsbeard, Captain Queeg had his steel balls in his hands, detached from his crotch.
Posted by: Vigilante at May 29, 2006 1:44 PM
Why not split the difference between those who suggest conspiracies (Bar) and those who favor stupidity (Stendec)? What about agreeing that the explanation for the failure to construct a policy that will divide and demoralize the camp of Jihad, and not merely be a "war on terror," falsely promising a "victory" and requiring the squandering, rather than the husbanding, of resources, amounts to a conspiracy -- a conspiracy not of evil, but of, by, and for the stupid.
That should satisfy everyone. And it has another point in its favor.
It's true.
Posted by: Hugh at May 29, 2006 1:58 PM
Nariz: forget about Putin. He's just playing a chess game against US interests.
The people count. And they hate 'Arabs' with a passion.
Eastern Europeans' opinions of Muslims would utterly horrify a 'normal', politically correct American or Western European.
Posted by: george_rem at May 29, 2006 2:01 PM
I'm with Hugh Fitzgerald:
when Europeans are cowed in Malmo and Rotterdam, threatened in Paris and London and Berlin, unable to stop the mosques and madrasas from being built, unable to deal with the exploitation of Western technology, especially the Internet, to spread hatred of Infidels among all the Believers, unable to keep their own psychically and economically marginal populations, including prisoners, from taking up Islam as a belief-system that justifies sociopathic behavior, as long as the victims of that behavior are Infidels.and with Nariz,
People like me don't want to live under a theocratic or quasi theocratic state where "religious values" determine law and judicial outcome..be that quasi theocracy or full blown theocracy be Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Taoist or Buddhist.What of
at May 29, 2006 2:12 PM
When lies collide:
The death of lies is painful. We have been betrayed by Muslims and their lie of Islam. We have had our belief in humanity, and our belief in the nobility of the human spirit, and our belief in our Nation and a hopeful future for mankind trampled to death under Islam's hooves. Muslims sully our hopes and aspirations, and reveal those things for the lies they are. They sully the hope of mankind.
All people are NOT the same -- all hearts don't yearn for peace and understanding. Muslims clearly don't "want" what we "want" - they aren't like us at all.
And we have had another of our blunders thrown in our face. When we attempted to 'fix' the Islamic world -- when we attempted to engender the qualities that made us free and great among those unfortunates born under the sickle (and hammer) of Islam -- "They" have rejected our efforts and said resoundingly "NO!".
Our shattered hopes and dreams have been shown to be lies.
We were wrong in our assumptions about "them". And the things we must do to protect ourselves from "them" will shatter other lies we have about ourselves.
It has always been so.
But were we wrong to try? I think the answer to that is well worth pondering today. The answer might change the tone of the author above. Probably not.
Posted by: jsla at May 29, 2006 2:50 PM
Well, quite frankly that's garbage. There hasn't been anything like a Buddhist theocratic state since Tibet fell (and frankly, while Tibet at its worst could be very bad, what's replaced it - viz. the Red Chinese - is worse), anything remotely like a Christian theocracy since the Geneva Rousseau knew, and anything like a Jewish theocracy since biblical times.
As for Western culture, no it is not "secular" - like all culture it has grown from a religious base: in this case a Judaeo-Christian one. (Try walking around an art gallery or listening to some music across the past few centuries rather than pontificating to get an idea of that.) There are also important elements of Classical Civilization in there. Political life in the West (not the same thing as culture) is not dominated by religious bodies, and a good thing, too, but that is, in any case, an achievement of Christian civilization in itself. By the way, I am not a practising Christian but I do not care to have my whole civilization traduced and trashed by people who have no understanding of it.
Posted by: Yojimbo at May 29, 2006 2:52 PM
Well, quite frankly that's garbage. There hasn't been anything like a Buddhist theocratic state since Tibet fell (and frankly, while Tibet at its worst could be very bad, what's replaced it - viz. the Red Chinese - is worse), anything remotely like a Christian theocracy since the Geneva Rousseau knew, and anything like a Jewish theocracy since biblical times.
As for Western culture, no it is not "secular" - like all culture it has grown from a religious base: in this case a Judaeo-Christian one. (Try walking around an art gallery or listening to some music across the past few centuries rather than pontificating to get an idea of that.) There are also important elements of Classical Civilization in there. Political life in the West (not the same thing as culture) is not dominated by religious bodies, and a good thing, too, but that is, in any case, an achievement of Christian civilization in itself. By the way, I am not a practising Christian but I do not care to have my whole civilization traduced and trashed by people who have axes to grind and lack any understanding of it.
Posted by: Yojimbo at May 29, 2006 2:53 PM
Hugh,
A "conspiracy of, by, and for the stupid." As a description of our current strategy, that satisfies me. We have been told we are at war, but no-one on the political side (is there any other side?) of Washington is acting like it. The general approach seems to be "keep the lid on things." That's not as bad as "kick the can down the road" from the Clinton years, but it is still pretty feeble.
I concur with your proposed new strategy of containment and dividing the enemy (sort of an aggressive quarantine), but believe it will take a new leader to bring such a strategy about. And such a leader has to have that strategy firmly in mind before the game starts; Washington inertia does not facilitate quick adaptation to new circumstances, excepting after a major overt act of violence by the enemy, like 9/11.
Sadly, I see no such bold and far sighted leaders on the horizon. While I would like to see President Bush gone from the political scene because of, among other things, his failure to define the enemy and his ludicrous public statements about Islam, I don't see anyone in either party that inspires confidence that anything will be different any time soon. In contrast, I see plenty of manipulators who merely see a "career opportunity" and lots of neato perks in the Office of the President. How about defending the country? Are we at war or not?
at May 29, 2006 2:56 PM
The problem that Hugh seems to be highlighting again and again is that we are not operating from a position of perfect power, and that a certain messianic cast of mind, perhaps having convinced itself that the resources of America are coincident with the resources of God, makes one impervious to this truth: our resources are constrained.
One of the less obvious of these resources is the will and cohesion of the citizenry--what Tolstoy would have called "the spirit of the army." He (tolstoy) maintained that it was the quality of this esprit, much more than generalship or overarching tactics, that most decisively determined the outcome of battles.
And it is on this register, I think, that many jihad watchers are most concerned. One might reasonably worry that there are an insufficient number of westerners who can say to themselves, "the west is an entity that is good, that is singular, that is worth defending, and that is mine."
Thus, Fallaci often seems a booster for Christianity, not because she is a believer (she is, of course, an avowed atheist and secularist), but because she recognizes that religion is a powerful generator of cultural esprit. She recognizes that the argument over whether the enlightenment could have been possible without a christian milieu is soon to be (may have become already) moot. The two are historically roped together on the same cliffside. Secularists have long noted, disdainfully, that religions lend themselves to tribal animosity. A true critique, indeed. But the clarity of that identity and mission isn't such a terrible quality when the village is under attack.
So Fallaci says, in effect, don't bother convincing yourself that there is a God, because there isn't one. Just convince yourself that He is catholic.
Secularists and Christians alike should rediscover the fundamental American concept of "non-sectarian" government. The negative aspects of Christian political assertion in the past twenty years have--at least in part--been induced by a tendency of secularists to promote their own ideology as an official state doctrine, which it is not. America does not promote, nor has it ever, the abnegation of religion. It promotes neutrality. It sets government as a minimally invasive arbitrator between the many civic points of view. Secularism and christianity are merely two big ones.
In any event, as long as this war rages internally--as long as the cease-fire brokered in 1789 is obrogated--can we really go on pretending that we can save the world? We don't even have a common definition of salvation, but here we go, passing it out with m-16s and billion dollar checks.
Why are we doing this? Division makes one vulnerable to unity. Geopolitically, our divisions make us vulnerable to the unity of Islam. Internally, our divisions make us vulnerable to the one this everyone comes together on: money. Thus, our policy is driven (if it can be said to be piloted at all) by mammon: an every growing economy whose appetites must be fed. We will follow that beast off of any political or military precipice, without regard for cost or consequences. Christians and secularists ougth to be cooperating to put that beast back in the pit.
Posted by: mountainecho at May 29, 2006 2:58 PM
johnmac: "you flatter the PTB with having much more insight, powers of manipulation and intelligence than they have in reality..."
Stendec: "Never attribute to malice that which can just as easily be explained by stupidity."
For the most part, I agree with your assessments. As a matter of fact, the logical progress of my theory defies reason for the very fact that it is TOO LOGICAL!
Here is some insight; I do not believe for a moment that anybody really has to know what is going on other than a handful of top players (Karl Rove...)and of course the true engineers of this project who will never be seen in the light of day.
We should all be aware that the ruling Republican party has been bought fee-simple by corporate America - that is what is behind the ridiculous amnesty program for cheap labour and the fact that Microsoft has totally escaped punishment after being found guilty of being a predatory monopoly. (many many other examples - see Tom Delay et al)
The Democrats are not without sin and have learned a bitter lesson since they lost through the crudest of cheats in Florida in 2000 - corruption at it's best in US politics.
Now let us look at what has been happening in the world these last 25 years. The Cold War wound down and pretty much crapped out long before the colapse of the Soviet Union. The US and Western oriented countries fought and won without ever invading either Red China or the Sovient Union.
PROBLEM: Peace didn't work out for an advanced military industrial economy like the US - the conversion to a peace economy was supposed to be completed by the mid-90s but it failed to appear. McDonald Douglas just couldn't survive on a competitive retail commercial diet. Thousands of bright technology engineers were released into the work market and many had to find new fields of endeavor. What is wrong with this scenareo is that all that extremely brilliant talent never got a chance to pass on their trade to a new generation and engineering workers started to appear in the East at cut rate prices.
Next was the moving offshore of millions of trade workers who built TVs, VCRs and stereo equipment. Then laundry irons and washing machines and automobiles. Even now most of the food grown in the US is harvested from farm collectives that are bought and operated by large German and Dutch corporations - the era of the family owned farm will eventually come to an end.
Corporate America doesn't want to pay union rates with benefits and paid holidays every year, they want cheap labour - now perhaps some of you may understand the amnesty program for illegal immigrants that Bush is trying to sell.
What will happen if there is a new world threat? What happens if there is a new Cold War? What happens if there is a new Evil Empire? Then the most lucrative business the US has ever know will swing back into activity. The biggest customer for US made defence/offence technology is Saudi Arabia followed closely by the rest of the Gulf states. Once the Saud's are terrorized that they will lose their phat lifestyle to a bunch of nuclear enabled hostile Islamic crazies, they are going to rearm like there is no tomorrow! They will spend until they bleed just to protect themselves from the reality of Islam as regards their lifestyles.
Just think what the next 25 years of spending on offensive/defensive technology will bring the US? Think about all those US dollars that have been captured offshore by America's lust for fossil fuels and cheap toys.
It will be a renaissance for the military industrial complex that will rain down to every level of US life. A repatriation of fossil fuel dollars! The recreation of a sustainable high technology work force that will endow universities, create 1000's of support companies that will have to be maintained within the US borders - no offshoring of defence/offence technology or manufacturing.
After the Gulf states have spent their last US fossil fuel dollar protecting themselves from their crazy nuclear and space enabled neighbours, the US economy should have shifted to an alternae form of centrally distributed fuels - like hydrogen (I don't believe it will be H2 but it may be H2 related) and/or electric storage.
I may be missing some points here (much more to this) but that is the gist of my theory.
Using my theory, I have been able to accurately predict US public statements and policy to date AND continue to predict how this will play out.
If my theory is wrong, then I am very very lucky with my predictions.
Can anybody here accurately predict what is coming next? I can.
Using the prevalent Chaos Theory of national governance that seems so popular these days prevents any accurate prediction of what will happen over the next 7 days, let alone the next 25 years.
Let us watch and see.
One last thought - none of my theories in any way mitigates the extreme danger presented by a well monied and supported Islam. I expect an event within the next 3 years that will allow the US government to radically change it's position on Islam and Muslim habitation of US soil.
Best regards to Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald!
Bar
Posted by: blazar-jet at May 29, 2006 3:17 PM
And what will this weakness and governmental idiocy lead to? For Islam may be forever, but the good captain is not. He's gone in '08. The democrats will prevail in '06, but will this represent a sea change? I doubt it. I can see a third party coming into the works; part Lou Dobbs, part Tom Tancredo, a sort of American First(dare I say)party coming into bloom that will guard our borders, protect our ports, and, hopefully, be on guard against Islam. I don't agree with Lou Dobbs on every issue, but I really liked how he took issue with this whole 'War on Terror' garbage. He called it a 'War against radical Islam.' I'm sick of this whole Orwellian double-speak, flying off the lips of democrats and republicans alike. Phrases include the following:
"War on Terror. Undocumented worker. Youths rioting in France. Our goal is victory. As they stand up, we'll stand down. Our friends the Saudis. There is no greater friend in our war on terror than Saudi Arabia. The peace process. Moderate Arabs. Moderate Islam. Islam means peace. Islam is a religion of peace. Militants. We will spread democracy and liberty to the arab world. Palestine. Palestinian. Palestinian militant. Palestinian moderate. Our friends the Turks. The Palestinaians are not being helpful. The Iranians are not being helpful."
Did I miss any?
Posted by: biorabbi at May 29, 2006 3:53 PM
I forgot some:
"Compassionite conservative. Freedom is on the march. Democracy's don't start wars."
There, I feel so much better. We live in the world of Orwell. I suggest we nominate Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry Calahan as the next Prez. What we seem to have here is a failure to communicate.
Posted by: biorabbi at May 29, 2006 3:56 PM
Good post Biorabbi...
I agree that our words seem to be failing us in this all important battle. Something new must emerge politically, strategically, (and though I'm an agnostic) spiritually -- if the West is going to survive the trevails of Muslim onslaught.
We are dealing with a dark loping beast here -- knuckles close to the ground -- fangs flashing -- eyes watching -- But he's a top predator -- he possesses the cunning of a human, the rage and hatred of a possessed soul, as well as an indifference towards of a virus. Islam is no normal foe.
And it is an enemy which seems unfathomable, even to some of our brightest minds. What makes their terror so bad? Perhaps it's the systemic shock -- the shock one must feel watching the shark's eyes as he chomps first your legs, then your torso, then...
'Is that my leg...!? Is that my blood...!? Are those my entrails hanging out...!?'
Disbelief. Terror.
I despair that we have but two choices with regards to Islam.
1. Hold onto our humanity and perish.
2. Become like them to embrace the utter destruction of them.
This last word is the hardest one, I think:
Terrorism...
Is there, in the end, any anisogamy between the terror they bring to bear against us to bring about their goals, and the terror we must bring to bear against them to stop them???
I say YES! But who among us even can speak about these things? They have even ripped away those tender self deceptions which have helped to make our lives delightful in the West. We are going to have to face up to some dark truths if we are to survive -- not least the meaning of words like "Terrorism", and "War" and "Peace" and "Freedom". I don't think most of us are really clear on any of it...
Posted by: jsla at May 29, 2006 4:41 PM
Hugh said
a conspiracy not of evil, but of, by, and for the stupid.
Are they stupid? I am not big on conspiracy theories, but quite coincidentally, Bush's Saudi and Emirati oil partners, and Cheney's Haliburton, have done quite well under the policies of the Administration. Cheney and company don't strike me as particularly stupid, but maybe they are and they just got extremely lucky.
What would it be like to have an Administration that was tied, not to Arab oil companies, but to American entrepreneurs who were developing alternative energy sources? What would be the result of that be for the nation? What would our foreign policy look like in that case?
Posted by: special_guest at May 29, 2006 4:48 PM
God grant us the strength and might to make it through the coming years due to damage that pres bush has done to America. Open borders since 9/11 and failure to declare war on islam the true enemy.
pres bush's blindness to the threat of islam and failure to declare that islam is the enemy has endangered America greater than Hitler and Nazi Germany.
pres bush ranks lower as president than carter and clinton combined for he knows better yets refuses to admit and correct his mistakes
Why has the federal government conctinued to monitor islamic sites and mosques for nukes?? This is a peaceful relegion... And do you think the feds would tell us if any were found???
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost and the cost will be immense.
at May 29, 2006 4:49 PM
Conspiracy theories of the "it's all about oil" variety strike me as both wrong and dangerous. Had the Administration the wit to articulate the matter correctly, even if it had to do so synecdochically ("Jihad" standing in for "Islam"), had it been able to see that the phrase "war on terror" does not inspire but confuses, not least because it overlooks, leaves out, appears to accept, the major instruments of Jihad -- Da'wa and demographic conquest -- that have nothing to do with "terror" or "terror, war on."
As we are all Marxists now, as even, or perhaps especially, the greatest capitalists appear to believe completely in economic determinism (certainly the builders of the monstrous E.U., prepared to jettison the national languages, literatures, histories of individual countries so as to create the Big Market that is the answer to all problems), it is tempting to say that Bush and Cheney are doing what they are doing because of their previous connections to oil and oil-services companies. I don't think so. I do think that their belief that making life "better" -- by building schools, hospitals, roads, power grids, etc. -- for the so-called "Iraqis" will turn Iraq into some kind of semi-friend of Infidels, shows that they, too, are economic determinists, who believe that prosperity, or its absence, is all that matters, is what explains everything.
But what do you expect in a country where education is defined purely as a means to making a living, or a "good living," so that it all comes down to the sheer inanity of vocational training?
This is the world in which Cheney (whose wife, while decrying the collapse of standards, etc. saw fit to write, decades ago, the cheapest of romance novels, in order to make money), Bush, and other quasi-captains and kings of oil industriettes survive, thrive, construct their universe, their schemes for the world whose peoples are exactly the same everywhere in their "desire for liberty." Nonsense.
Posted by: Hugh at May 29, 2006 5:01 PM
It is probably by design, that Islam is not correctly recognized. Since communism has phased out, the US administration found the new enemy in Islam. OBL is the bait, 9/11 the ignition and justification. Since Islam is a false and belligerent religion, they fell into the trap right away. Now you can be sure the dance will go on forever, because it creates income for secret services, military, oil companies etc. forever. I see two evil forces at work, in perfect collusion.
Posted by: Swissy at May 29, 2006 5:11 PM
The madness expressed in the posting immediately above is likely to be dampened, or at least chastened in its public expression, only through the correct statement of the case. As long as the teachings of Islam, and the attitudes that naturally would follow from those teachings, remain misleadingly described, or not described at all, those who pursue or accept or promote assorted conspiracy theories, and in particular that of the enantiomorphic evils, each deserving the other -- presumably, Amerikkka or Kapitalism or "The System" is one of those "evils" and the other is Islam -- when the completely sane know perfectly well that the mass democracies of the West, where education in history and literature (these two above all) limit knowledge, the exercise of the imaginative faculty, and the ability to express what thoughts one does have or even to follow a coherent expression by others of their thoughts, are simply not up to the task of defending their own legacy and superior civilization, because the essence of that civilization is not recognized nor appreciated. (Hint: it has more to do with Spinoza, Hume, and Jefferson, and less to do with Paris Hilton, and American Idol, than some may think).
Not the least of the problems is the inarticulateness of those in the assorted elites and ruling classes. Unlike some of the rulers in the past, they are unembarrassedly philistine and ill-educated. And that has consequences.
Posted by: Hugh at May 29, 2006 5:24 PM
Swissy -- now that's some chocolate covered crap you're doling out...
Posted by: jsla at May 29, 2006 5:32 PM
I agree that "it's all about oil" is a red-herring, it's bollocks. I'll even grant that GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al are filled with altruistic intent to selflessly bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East. I'll set aside the UAE ports deal, the UAE military part supply deal, the Haliburton no-bid contracts, energy deregulation, Ken Lay's Enron.
But conspiracy theories aside, was it ever possible, given their background and area of expertise, that things would turn out differently than the way they have: oil consumption at ever increasing levels at ever increasing prices? And that we would end up with such staunch allies as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? It would have required a difficult change of direction to avoid all this, and these were not the guides who could have gotten us there.
And if their real motivation is a missionary zeal to bring the Judeo-Christian values of the West to the poor backward (in their view) people of the Middle East, in the belief that they will discard their history and cultures and instead embrace "ours", isn't that even scarier, in a nothing-could-be-further-from-the-truth, disconnected-from-reality kind of way?
Posted by: special_guest at May 29, 2006 6:15 PM
Somebody has emailed me and asked that I state my predictions for the near future based on my theory.
(a) US and Western allies will be asked/forced to leave Iraq by the ruling 'democracy'. This may be proceeded by an obvious violation of human rights in Iraq very much like the apparent slaying of 25 citizns by US Marines. (6-16 months)
(b) Iran will covertly assume control of Iraq even as the western forces depart - expect a brief hellfire of assassinations and retributions and then the strained bloodthirsty peace of as yet another mullah/sharia rule assumes the reigns of power 'democratically' - (That is sarcasm). (1 year)
(c) The UN will be prevented from taking any substantive action against Iran because of the veto powers of Russia and/or China. The US is really not interested in stopping the growth of Iranian power since that is the ultimate goal. (now - 16 months)
(d) There will be no military action taken against Iran by either the US or Israel - the US may even covertly protect Iran against an Israeli strike. (now - 16 months)
(e) The sword rattling will continue on all sides and will become even more pointed when Iran/Iraq announce they are nuclear armed and missle ready - purely as a defensive action as a result of the threat from The Great Satan and it's allies. (12-16 months)
(f) The final play in the Gulf will be an overt attack of one of the many US allied kingdoms by Iran/Iraq - perhaps even Saudi Arabia. This will open the floodgates to US prosperity and the repatriation of US fossil fuel dollars and the explosive growth of US high tech research, manufacturing and support industries. (1-3 years)
(g) I also predict a turning point in US relations with Islam - something like a Pearl Harbour, that will galvanize the American people to assume a true war footing against all things Islam including Muslim residents. (3-5 years)
(h) I see Europe, China, Russia, Afganistan, Pakistan and India all being menaced by Islamic elements (centered from Iran/Iraq) that will attempt to change the sectarian rule and the rulers of those states. (18 months to 5 years)
(i) A new centralized energy delivery system will be developed in the US/West as fossil fuels decline but it won't ever be as cheap, safe or convenient as what we have enjoyed these past 50 years. I say centralized because the western energy industry is not interested in electric storage powered transportation because they can't bottle and sell electricity like they do with chemical fuels.
That is my 5 year prediction except the energy delivery system which will take almost 30 years to convert fully and 50 years to normalize.
Even with a change in rulers the US will continue to walk the path as I have described - apparently politically ambiguous yet militarily on the offensive.
Lets see how I do over the next year as regards (a) through (e).
Best regards,
Bar
Posted by: blazar-jet at May 29, 2006 6:25 PM
The Bush/Cheney-team may be infuriating in their naiveté' which can at best be described as criminal negligence.
One would hope that GWB places the well-being of the nation over and above his personal gains. I could be wrong, but I just can't imagine that there are such low creatures at the helm of the 'most powerful nation on earth'.
Equally infuriating is the borderline insanity expressed by poster 'swissy', which, in its shallowness, cannot be trumped:
"... Since communism has phased out, the US administration found the new enemy in Islam. OBL is the bait, 9/11 the ignition and justification..."
This is a typical example with what one is constantly confronted with by lefty-looneys, and not only in Europe.
It is incomprehensible that a majority of people in the west, who have all access to information unrestricted at a mouse-click, are so blissfully ignorant about our oldest enemy and the longest war in history.
We needed "a NEW" enemy???
Where were you during history lesson?
Learning how to wind up cuckoo-clocks?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 29, 2006 6:43 PM
I should emphasize a couple points:
I appoligize for my grammatical and spelling errors - were that I was as eloquent as Hugh or powerful as Robert at expressing myself.
I am pro-western civilization. I am more a melting pot person than a diversity person. Diversity yields division in my opinion.
I am ideologically against Islam. We should all understand that Islam is all about being a total slave to Allah and his prophet. I do not believe Islam is capable of reform and I despise the total submergence of humanity to a pitiless slaver (If Muslims are the slaves of Allah, then Allah is a slaver).
I still sort of believe Hugh is too smart and too quick to be a single person. (Take that as a compliment if I am wrong and no less a compliment if I am right)
Best regards,
Bar
Posted by: blazar-jet at May 29, 2006 6:56 PM
blazar-jet said
A new centralized energy delivery system will be developed in the US/West as fossil fuels decline but it won't ever be as cheap, safe or convenient as what we have enjoyed these past 50 years.
We're still in Fred Flintstone mode, burning decayed dinosaurs and vegetation to run our cars and factories. My own prediction is that within the 30-50 year timeframe you mentioned, that we will come up with a new source of energy. A decade or so ago Arthur C. Clarke proposed solar-energy collecting satellites that would beam their energy down to receiving stations on Earth in the form of microwaves. Or maybe fusion will be perfected, cold or otherwise. And dark energy is a more intriguing if less likey possibility.
Remember that it was 50 years from Orville Wright's flight to Neil Armstrong's. When you are unconstrained by religious prescriptions against education and innovation, alot can happen in that time.
But, to keep within the topic at hand, you need leaders who are willing to lead in that direction.
Posted by: special_guest at May 29, 2006 7:29 PM
"Or maybe fusion will be perfected" -special_guest
Never worry. We're gonna be alright. The Iranians have just announced that they're turning their great nuclear intellects towards the endeavor for "Nuclear Fusion."
I think they just figured out we got some bombs that use the kinds of stuff they're struggling with for triggers.
Gotta love them Mullahs! Jones'n for "technology" and keepin' up with the Joneses. Good world citizens.
Blazar-jet -- your grandiosity is stupendous!
Posted by: jsla at May 29, 2006 8:54 PM
I too wonder about the true identity of "Hugh". However I doubt it is more than one person, because the writing style is consistent. Writing style is like a fingerprint.
All I can say is that he doesn't work part-time anywhere.
Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 29, 2006 9:26 PM
Remember that it was 50 years from Orville Wright's flight to Neil Armstrong's. When you are unconstrained by religious prescriptions against education and innovation, alot can happen in that time.
We have the means right now to go to alternative energy sources, but the problem is that the oil industry nexus is too powerful. The world runs on petroleum. Many powerful people and corporations enjoy the status quo. They will not give up their power just to make the world a better place. Oil will continue to flow at higher and higher prices until we reach a price point where other people can become even richer by offering alternative energy. But that price point will not be reached for a long time. Maybe 25 more years.
at May 29, 2006 9:34 PM
"Writing style is like a fingerprint."
-- from a posting above
Tell that to Pessoa and all of his heteroynms.
at May 29, 2006 10:35 PM
As Steven L so cleverly points out (nice job, btw), our hands are tied by our highest ideals.
And that raises the following question. Why would our Islamic enemy want to adopt our way of life, as G.W. (whom I otherwise think is a fine person) expects them to when given the chance, if it deprives them of the ability to defend themselves against an enemy as evil as, well, themselves?
Posted by: yonason at May 29, 2006 11:37 PM
jsla: "Blazar-jet -- your grandiosity is stupendous!"
I had to look that one up...
You are saying that I am either bi-polar or outrageously pompous.
Well the voices in my head definately disagree with you on both counts.
Bar
Posted by: blazar-jet at May 29, 2006 11:44 PM
All in fun... no offense!
Posted by: jsla at May 29, 2006 11:47 PM
First, i am not leftist. I am very much in agreement with Ali Sina from faithfreedom.org, that Islam is a very dangerous religion and we must defeat it. How could we defeat it? By openly declaring it a false religion and bring on the evidence. By trying to help as many Muslims as possible to leave it. But what are the governments doing? Nothing or hunting terrorists, becoming an agent of death themselves.
I ask a few simple questions:
- Why is Islam not openly declared, what it is? Why can everybody here see it, but the government with its multi-billion budget can't?
- Why is OBL still on the run, despite all the hich-tech? Why does he always show up, when it helps GWB?
When we talk about 9/11, there is such an amount of damning evidence, it is breathtaking (check www.911review.org)
"We needed "a NEW" enemy???"
Of course. With no enemy in sight, you will have to dismantle the military apparatus, secret services etc. That is big business. Only over your dead body.
at May 30, 2006 3:28 AM
Swissy, what in the *$#@ are you on about?
"...When we talk about 9/11, there is such an amount of damning evidence, it is breathtaking (check www.911review.org)..."
'Evidence' of what? A lot of conspiracy BS, is that what you are trying to peddle?
" Why is Islam not openly declared, what it is? Why can everybody here see it, but the government with its multi-billion budget can't?"
???????
? Isn't that the billion dollar question that all of us are asking?
"- Why is OBL still on the run, despite all the hich-tech? Why does he always show up, when it helps GWB?"
'It helps GWB?'- How so? In which way?
The mind boggles!
We needed "a NEW" enemy???"
"...Of course. With no enemy in sight, you will have to dismantle the military apparatus, secret services etc. That is big business. Only over your dead body..."
Swissy, go back to tuning cuckoo clocks. You are saying: 'Because WE have a superior military apparatus and secret services and because that is 'big business' we have a NEW 'imaginary enemy'- which happens to be Islam. Full stop. And all of that simply because we can no longer 'pretend' its communism... (our previous favorite enemy)
Swissy, I can't believe I live on the same globe with lunatics like yourself. On the one hand you admit that Islamic jihad is 'dangerous' and on the other hand you claim it is because of 'US weaponry and secret service'- your theory has more holes in it than any swiss cheese I have ever seen!
One more thing: A billion dollar budget doesn't make ignorant, stupid US (or any other) polit-dildo's intelligent. The coin didn't drop, they just don't understand (yet) that Islam, not WoT, is the cause of our problem. Once they understand, Islam will be roasted. That's the message we are trying to get to you.
Then you come back with some garbage conspiracy BS!
Get stuffed!
at May 30, 2006 5:40 AM
Well, sheik may i suggest, that you stop ad hominem and start to come up with some evidence?
"conspiracy BS"
Really? How big is the chance, that some mercenaries from caves can pull this thing off? Guys who can barely fly a Cessna.
"Isn't that the billion dollar question that all of us are asking?"
Simple. They don't want to. Do you think, they can't read prophetofdoom, jihadwatch or faithfreedom? When i started my research about Islam, that were the first web sites i came upon.
"'It helps GWB?'- How so? In which way?"
I remember well when OBL sent a message 2 days before election. Our newspapers wrote: 'OBL as canvasser'. OBL is the joker to pull: Buh! Didn't you know, that OBL was at first a product of the CIA to fight the Russians? American created that monster themselves.
For starters you might read an interview with Andreas von Bülow, former member of German government. You can tranlate it by babelfish.
http://www.broeckers.com/buelow.htm
Posted by: Swissy at May 30, 2006 6:57 AM
Chocolate covered crap with cherry on top alert...
Why trust a "former member of German government" when, according to you, governments seem to beuntrustworthy?
It seems you're willing to believe those in government who reinforce your wild paranoic speculations, while disbelieving governments when they contradict your wild paranoic speculation.
Lunatic conspiracy theorists such as Swissy (doesn't this rubric sum it up nicely...?) suffer from a wierd quirk: They place a peculiar hyper-confidence in the nefarious capabilities of governments while expressing their wild paranoic lack of confidence in those same governments.
Such rantings are just projections by their disordered minds and their ungenerous black hearts.
at May 30, 2006 12:12 PM
Ad hominem ad nauseam.
I don't trust the Bush government, but i trust my government in Switerland at least.
To really understand what is going on you must read about Zbigniew Brezinski, former security adviser. He is the architect of the current mess.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1999/thompson_brzezinski_2615.html
"Consonant with the British imperial "Great Game," Brzezinski argues that skillful manipulation of this "global-zone of percolating violence" can be used to halt Russia from becoming an imperial power once again."
Also read
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html
"Afghanistan, the CIA, bin Laden,
and the Taliban"
Sorry, but the world is not black and white. And the US is no angel for sure. Sorry to spoil the party. I get pretty much the same treatment from Muslims when i point out their fallacies. Funny, isn't it?
at May 30, 2006 3:01 PM
Did Churchill and FDR stop, during World War II, to bring the "promise of liberty" to "every people in every nation"Yes. Posted by: Annoying Old Guy
at May 30, 2006 3:35 PM
Lyndon LaRouche has his own blogosphere now? Sheesh.
They're really coming out of the woodwork the past few weeks.
Posted by: special_guest at May 30, 2006 7:27 PM
Given your complete inability to tell the difference between real and imagined enemies, or reality from delusion -- It's not funny at all -- it's genuinely sad. I feel sorry for someone saddled with such deficits, "Swissy".
Posted by: jsla at May 30, 2006 9:23 PM
I can't help you, swissy.
Find your own shrink!
(or fix up cuckoo clocks if you have nothing better to do!)
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 30, 2006 9:42 PM
There are times when the posting here are more entertaining the cable, foxnews, and the other sordid junk put out on the airwaves.
============
When you are unconstrained by religious prescriptions against education and innovation, alot can happen in that time.
Posted by: special_guest at May 29, 2006 07:29 PM
=================
religious prescriptions - take a large dose of Jesus Christ and call JC in the morning if your soul isn't better.................
SG look up the great inventors and scientists and see how many professed a belief in God and then rethink your bs.
The Texican.
Posted by: Texican at May 30, 2006 11:23 PM
"but i [sic] trust my government in Switerland [sic] at least."
Well goody two shoes for goody two shoes.
You "trust" your government in Switzerland to do exactly what???
You "trust" Switzerland to feign indifference while she dips her pointy fingers and daintily swipes her take from the tinpot gravy train?
You "trust" Switzerland to sit on her smug ass while the world around her crumbles?
You "trust" Switzerland to frolic cherry cheeked among the hills and dales, guzzling hot chocolate and navel gazing naked -- all the while pretending that she is above it all when she is not at all?
You "trust" Switzerland to imperiously refuse "on principal" to hand over banking records which belong to the World's longest list of criminals and psychopaths and terrorists and terror states and thieves and butchers and maniacs?
"Swissy" you're an 18 jewel fool. I wish I never bought that skeleton Blancpain automatic. The loot went to the altogther wrong guys...
Posted by: jsla at May 31, 2006 2:28 AM
Texican said
religious prescriptions - take a large dose of Jesus Christ
For the record, I was talking about Islam's philosophy that the only knowledge you need is the Qur'an. I wasn't talking about Christianity or Judaism, obviously there have been a great number of scientists who were devout Jews/Christians.
Posted by: special_guest at May 31, 2006 5:06 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)