The French and other European countries are beginning to take more active participation in the war on terror. The Religion of Peace continues to blindly pursue its attempt at world wide conquest. Soon the Europeans will begin to participate with a more militant support. You can be in self denial of cancer for a while, but then you must seek treatment if you intend to survive. The Europeans are actively conducting surveillance and undercover operations on the Religion of Peace and have uncovered a lot of material which clearly shows the real intention of the Peaceful Religion of Islam. It is only a matter of time until the terrorists try to make a statment in their usual way. (they will try to bomb, gas, destroy, kill or otherwise create mass histeria to show they are all powerful) They may temporarily succeed, but they will ultimately fail, just as they have failed for centuries. In thousands of years of history no Muslim country has been truly successful, truly happy; the countless Muslims rulers have never provided happiness or security for the masses. They have never achieved a working relationship with any Non MUslim country.They do have oil, but their leaders have squandered its wealth.Once the oil card is played,they have no other. Many more innocent people will die, but the Muslim way is doomed, most probably as a direct result of their continued belief in death to the infidel. The infidel will be the victor .

Posted by: exsgtbrown at June 21, 2006 7:40 AM

France has a large muslim population. Let us see how this one turns out.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 21, 2006 7:55 AM

Re: "How much more willful self-deception will they engage in before coming to grips with the reality of the problem that faces us, and deal with its full dimensions?"

Admitting we are wrong about something seems to be a big part of the dynamics of letting go of self-deception. And it's hard for people to admit they are wrong.

The process of self-decption is occuring on both sides of the jihad equation.

For the West and others seeng reality means leting go of delusions re multi-culturalism and admiting that multi-culturalism is a falsehood that is preventing action against a very-narrow-supremacist-intolerant-Islam (Saudi Arabia, e.g.).

Cultures are narrow things and survive by being closed to other cultures. We must understand what "culture" really means. Then we will learn to respect other cultures; now we fart platitudes about culture.

For Islam seeing reality means leting go of delusions that they are God's chosen killers of Infidels and God's chosen opressors of dhimmis, that they must hold every inch of Dar-al-Islam (Israell, e.g.) and ultimately bring the Infidels and dhimmis to submission.

Islam will face reality after the Infidel faces reality re culture.

In any event, the whole process of self-deception is interesting to watch. Why do humans do this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deception

Posted by: Frank at June 21, 2006 7:58 AM

Frank,
I think 'multiculturism' is too broad. Since I think most people across different cultures assimilate positively. Only the muslims are an exception. And they have this problem of assimilation in islamic countries too. sunni killing shia, kurd killing sunni, sunni killing sufi et al.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 21, 2006 8:03 AM

arjun.sevak-

Good point.

I think cultures must have a certain narrowness to survive. That narrowness may be healthy and yet "open"to borrowing ideas from other cultures. It seems to me that Jewish culture has succeeded in being both narrow and yet "open" to good things in other cultures. Islamic culture is pathologically closed to others. I agree with you on that.

I don't claim to be an expert on culture. But it seems to me that every culture has both good and bad qualities, that education re cultures means learning to make judgements about what is good and what is bad about a culture and not pretending that every culture is the same in value, or that making judgements about what is good and bad in a culture (including our own culture) is being a bigot ("Islamaphobia, etc.).

The peddlers of "multi-culturalism" actually prevent us from appreciating other cultures. They seem to want people to suspend judgement about what is healthy (good) and what is bad (diseased) in each culture.

It seems to me that a healthy culture has to balance narrowness with openess to other cultures. What I am trying to get at here is not easy to describe.

Posted by: Frank at June 21, 2006 8:46 AM

arjun.sevak-

I think what I am trying to grasp re culture is about the abilty of a culture to adapt. Jewish culture has survived for thousands of years because of its ability to adapt. Yet it has retained a narowness, a uniqueness that makes it interesting as an entity. Narowness and adaptability to changed circumstances seem to be the right mix for a healthy culture.

Cultures are very complex and as a whole they may be beyond the grasp of the individual human mind. There are so many things that make a culture unique.

Posted by: Frank at June 21, 2006 9:03 AM

Last Imam In Western World Arrested On Terrorism Charges

-Local Politicians Deny Connection to Religion-"

The headline that just keeps giving.

Posted by: profitsbeard at June 21, 2006 10:40 AM

americaningermany-

Arrogance appears to me to always be a cover for doubt and insecurity. I find if you keep scanning such folks you will find the hidden weakness. Secure people are not arrogant-they are just sure about their strengths and weakness.

Posted by: Frank at June 21, 2006 10:41 AM

Terrorists and financiers of terrorism should be removed, one way or another. And one can find some, but not much, solace, in such raids and round-ups, and even more if, after further investigation, indictment, trial, in the Western world with its rights and procedures so time-consuming and money-consuming and attention-consuming, they are finally sentenced. Sentenced to what? To prison where they will continue to preach Da'wa and apparently, with great success judging by the results so far?

Or will some of them, after another official proceeding, that will use up still more time and money of the Infidel state, finally be expelled back to countries of origin? And will that not, in some Western countries, require another long effort? And then to extract from the country to which they are to be shipped a promise not to "harm" them -- which promise may be given, but since the local regime will also fear them, as fanatical believers likely to oppose any of the Arab or Muslim regimes as not quite fanatically Muslim enough, that promise will be broken, and then some will demand that anyone convicted must be imprisoned by the Infidels, and then finally released back into Infidel society (after all, wouldn't the regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia and other countries want these people, who can only be trouble for them, become the permanent headache of Infidels, and at any time, merely by "mistreating" (in the Infidel view) a prisoner or two sent back, could cause the whole program to be ended?

The Infidel world cannot go on like this, spending vast resources in order, as France has just done, to finally find 17 "financiers" of violent Jihad out of 5-7 million Muslims, millions of whom support Jihad in other ways, have done nothing to turn on, or turn in, the participants in Jihad, have not denounced endlessly the teaching of Jihad -- and the goal of Jihad itself -- much less chosen to promote or support the efforts of Infidels to preserve their own laws, and institutions, pedagogic, legal, societal.

Other ways, not so half-hearted, and not putting all the terrific expense and worry on Infidels, will have to be adopted. The "money weapon" is not that of these local "financiers" but comes from three sources:

1) Rich Muslim Arabs who derive their income, ultimately, from oil and gas revenues -- that is, from a source unrelated to any enterprise or industry on their part. So far these people have paid for mosques and madrasas all over the world, in both Dar al-Islam to make sure that their particular brand of no-holds-barred Islam (not that the other kind, in the long run, is less of a threat to Infidels)all are to us, to the Infidels) is disseminated, and also in Dar al-Harb, to promote Da'wa as the most effective current instrument (given the military superiority of Infidels) of Jihad.

2) Muslims living within the Lands of the Infidels who take full advantage, exploit in every conceivable away, everything that the Infidel taxpayers provide, from free health care and education, to housing subsidies. Because of language and other barriers, the local authorities can be easily fooled (for example, as to the identities of wives, and children, who may be lent or borrowed among already-gigantic Muslim families so as to increase government benefits). The the amount of crime attributed to Muslims (e.g., though Muslims constitute 3% of the population in Scandinavian countries, they are responsible for 70% of the rapes has been attributed in part to the Muslim belief that "crimes" against Infidels -- robbery, rape -- are not crimes at all, for as one Norwegian imam put it, stealing from Infidels is not stealing but helping oneself to the Jizyah properly due. The same is true for fraud. One need not be a Muslim to commit such fraud on the welfare system, the whole system of entitlements, but the degree to which this fraud is committed in Western Europe (where the numbers are too great to adequately police), the systematic nature of it in Muslim communities, suggests strongly that there is no inhibition about doing so, that it is justified as part of the continuing and never-ending war on Infidels, which must proceed, is right to proceed, by any and all means. "War is deception." To steadily leach resources from the Infidels, and then to batten on them in the heart of the Bilad al-kufr, to use the very scrupulosity and generous impulses and ihibitions of the Infidels against them, to undo them -- that requires an ideological justification, and the justification is to be found in Qur'an, Hadith, and the example of Muhammad in the Sura, Muhammad who said that "war is deception."

3) The third source of income is that which Muslism living in the West derive not from exploitation of the welfare state every which way but up, comes from Muslims living in the West who are making enough to have discretionary income, and who naturally -- why would one expect otherwise? -- will contribute not to general funds, but to Muslim groups and causes, which of course means support for the spread of Islam, an increase in the perceived power and rootedness of Islam.

These are the three sources of income, and not the odd group of "17 financiers," that will have to be thoroughly analyzed, and dried up.

Here are some suggestions for dealing wih each of the three sources of fund listed above:

1) Western govenrments need not watch idly as tens of billions -- nearly $80 billion so far, it has been estimated, from Saudi Arabia alone -- are sent abroad, and especially, to the Infidel lands, to spread and strengthen Islam, and to buy influence, through public relations campaigns, and through employing directly or indirectly a small army of apologists, consisting of ex-diplomats, former intelligence agents, businessmen eager for more contracts in the Middle East, journalists who need to supplement their incomes, and of course academics at such places as the "Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding" and the "Center for Contemporary Arab Studies" -- both set up, quite consciously, at Georgetown (and not, say, at the University of Alabama or Minnesota) in order to have those "experts" ready to be called on by Congress, by the President, by the media for their opinions. John Esposito, for example, a perfect guide to nothing and nowhere, a classic apologist who in an entire pre-2001 book (the earlier version, which he later reworked), managed to mention the word "Jihad" only twice, was apparently relied on by the Bush Administration for his "expertise" in Islam. How Muslim hearts must have swelled at that knowledge.

Surely foreign money intended to undo us can be kept out -- not money merely sent to this or that sinister operation (e.g. the "Holy Land Foundation") -- so that Muslim groups will, like all others in this country, either have to identify themselves, to register as being in the pay of foreign nationals and countries, with all the consequences such identification (including loss of any 501(c)(3) status they may possess)naturally entails. Surely members of Congress, having sensed the pent-up rage and distrust of the populace -- look at the fury over the Dubai Ports Deal -- should be able inteligently to harness that rage and distrust to push legislation that will make it very hard, if not impossible, for people in Saudi Arabia to help plan, or plot, and then pay for from Saudi or U.A.E. or other Muslim Arab (or Iranian) funds.

But such legislation will not be proposed, and not passed, until a sufficient number of Congressmen, members of their staff, commentators, recognize that they have a duty to look into what Islam teaches, and not merely to be satsified with the grossly misleading presentation, the selective quotation of a handful of passages, passages either taken completely out of context (as 2.532 without 2.533, which both Bush and a certain Leonard Greene have fallen for), or without explaining the interpretive doctrine of "naskh" or abrogation which, for most Muslims, simply knocks into nothingness the "softer" (held to be the "Meccan") verses leaving the "harder" (held to be the "Medinan" verses). Educatio is everything.

2) Western and other Infidel governments should give special attention, and resources, to vigilantly policing the exploitation, by fraud and other means, of Infidel-supplied benefits -- education, medical care, subsidized housing. In the United States, if a family member is found to be dealing in drugs, the entire family may be expelled from public housing. Draconian, but often effective in forcing those family members to police their own families. To shrill cries of "collective punishment" one must answer: in a war, much of the punishment is "collective." The Americans and British pilots inflicted all kinds of "collective" punishment on the Germans and the Japanese, though far less than the latter two inflicted on all kinds of others out of malevolent fanaticism (see the death camps, see Oradour and Lidice, see Bataan, see Nanjing). We have a perfect right to regard those people who claim to believe in what is in the Qur'an as the immutable word of God to believe in that "word of God" including all the murderousness and hostility directed toward Infidels, and we have the right to treat those who similarly believe in the contents of the Hadith (as ranked by the most authoritative muhaddithin, such as al-Bukhari and Muslim), as accepting the view therein of Infidels, and how they are to be regarded and treated. Why should we act otherwise? Why should we assume that those who still call themselves Muslims do not believe in the very texts that they must, if they are Muslims, believe in? Why is it up to us to find escape clauses, interpretative ways out, to assume that "oh, they can't really believe that"? Why is the burden not placed on Muslims, for whom ignorance is no longer an excuse (perhaps it is for an illiterate farmer living in a remote village somewhere -- but nowadays, after all that has happened, no such defense can be accepted).

3) We, the Infidels, can as private parties do things that our governments are unwilling or unable to do. You would not, I trust, have bought Soviet goods (what, other than yantar' or amber, was there to buy, in any case? ) in 1953? You would not, I trust, have bought a Voigtlander camera, no matter how good, in 1938. Nor would you have bought goods from a store whose owner had connections to Vneshtorg (the old Soviet outfit entrusted with selling goods abroad). Nor would you have patronized a place, in 1938, and still less in 1942, known to be an admirer, say, of Fritz Kuhn and the Bund, or of Adolf Hitler. In fact, you would have nothing to do with such a place, and you would think ill of any American who continued to patronize businesses -- for goods and services -- that were owned by, connnected to, admirers of any Nazis.

We are permitted to decide what law firm to engage, what restaurant to go to (does that restaurant have a "halal" sign displayed somewhere? If it is Indian, is liquor served, and does the decor offer Shiva or Ganesha, or something else? Does the pizza place, or the undifferentiated "Mediterranean Peace Cafe" have any tell-tale words in its name --such words as "Oasis" or "Andalus" or "Zeitoun" or "Jericho" or "Noor" are telling. No need to choose that "mediterranean" restaurant, that pizza place, that donut shop, that ice-cream vendor if you think that in so doing, you make the position of Islam, the presence of Islam, the implantation of Islam and all it stands for, that much stronger. You have the same right as your parents, refusing to buy Soviet-made goods, or your grandparents, passing on that German camera in 1935 or 1937 or 1939 -- and of course in 1942. You may not be able to do without oil and gas (and it hardly matters where it comes from, for the demand itself helps all the suppliers) but you need not contribute still further to the strengthening of Islam's presence within the Bilad al-kufr, behind what Muslims themselves are taught to regard as enemy lines.
effecdtive instruments of Jihad in Western Europe, accompanied by encouragement of mental attitudes (including antisemitism and anti-Americanism) along with the understandable wish to disbelieve in the origins, the scope, and the full menace of the belief-system of Islam.

No matter what a non-Muslim citizen in any of the countries of Western Europe may now think is the best way to deal with things, that non-Muslim citizen, if he is quite honest with himself, will be unable to deny the truth of the following statement:

"The large-scale presence of Muslims within Infidel lands has brought about a situation that, for those indigenous Infidels, is far more unpleasant, expensive, and physicaly dangerous than it would be without that presence.

The negligence exhibited by Western elites as they permitted such migration needs to be studied. The role ofMuslim money -- of "recycled petrodollars" -- needs to be analyzed. How, for example, did the environmental crisis come about, if not because the world's largest consumer of energy, the United States, and to a lesser extent other countries, were content to rely on the kindness of real strangers -- the malevolent Saudis -- rather than to start, back in 1973, a sustained, systemtatic, well-funded campaign, of taxes (on gasoline) and subsidies (for mass transit and solar and wind energy), and government-funded nuclear reactors, which would require a campaign to force the reluctant public, brainwashed into believing, on the right, in the supposed horribleness of taxation, period -- meaning taxes on gasoline and on oil-- and the silliness of solar and wind energy, and on the left, the mirror-image, where taxes on gasoline were presented as "regressive" and hence not to be contemplated, and nuclear energy was regarded with the same silly and unthinking hostility and dismissal as solar energy was on the right.

And here we are. The Jihad, and possibly, very likely, irreversible environmental damage. Both can be stopped, in large part, by perfectly reasonable acts on the part of Western governments. That implies reasonable legislators and reasonable members of the executive branch. For it should not be difficult to appeal to both groups, those most concerned with the offense to Nature, that the changes brought about by the increase in fossil fuels has wrought, and the offense to Man, in the constraints that Islam so naturally and cruelly imposes, on artistic expression, on free and skeptical inquiry, on ideas about the equality of the sexes, and of solicitude for equal treatment of minorities.

Both are earth-shaking problems. Both have, at least in part, the same solution.

So where are those wise and articulate and clever statesmen, who have grasped this, and are now willing to instruct the rest of us, and to bring us all along?

Where are they?

Posted by: Hugh at June 21, 2006 12:15 PM

Well said Hugh,

It is something I practice and preach to friends and family. We have the power to not spend money in companies that directly or indirectly support the dawa.

I find carefully picking taxi companies, fast food joints and restaurants is a good way to avoid funding Islamists.

They make little in the way of exports but the businesses they have set up in Dar-al-harb make easy targets for a boycott.

Encourage your friends and family to do the same.

Posted by: km at June 21, 2006 1:23 PM