What does it take for us to realise that Saudi Arabia is virtually as much of a mortal threat to the West as Iran, and perhaps its time to get tough with that country and despatch that cleric to the firepit.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at August 22, 2006 4:55 PM

Perhaps OT, but everyone is getting too wrapped up in the story of Iran's response on nukes, so I'll post this here, even though it repeats what i've said in other threads, since this story reminds us, once again, of the bigger picture.

To repeat what I've said elsewhere:

The whole world has its problems with Islam. I decided to do some checking up on the recent history of the Muslims in China and, lo and behold, what did I find but the following statements, courtesy of the Islamic website "everymuslim.com" and Al-Islaah Publications!

"[The Chinese Muslims] actively struggled against communists before and after the revolution. In fact, in 1953, the Muslims revolted twice in an effort to establish an independent Islamic state [in regions where Muslims were an overwhelming majority]. These revolts were brutally suppressed by Chinese military force followed by the liberal use of anti-Muslim propaganda"

and

"Since religious freedom was declared in 1978, the Chinese Muslims have not wasted time in expressing their convictions. There are now some 28,000 mosques in the entire People's Republic of China, with 12,000 in the province of Xinjiang. In addition, there is a large number of imams available to lead the Muslim community (in Xinjiang alone there are over 2,800).
There has been an increased upsurge in Islamic expression in China, and many nationwide Islamic associations have been organized to coordinate inter-ethnic activities among Muslims"

and, finally

"As always, the Muslims have refused to be silenced. Several large demonstrations have been staged by Muslims to protest intrusions on Muslim life. Last year, for instance, Muslims staged a massive protest rally in Beijing to demand the removal of anti-Islamic literature from China's bookstores"

Now its possible that the Communist leadership will be willing to cut off its nose to spite its face", by continuning to indulge this population as another weapon in its ideological war with the West, but on the other hand, given that regime's paranoia about the growth of groups that could threaten its power and the repressive measures it was willing to take even against the Falun Gong sect (!), I wonder if there isn't a weakness here that the West should exploit.

What I know for sure is that China is not the only Asian nation facing an Islamic threat. Even the Phillipians has had its own insurgency by the 5% of its population that wants to set up their own Shari'a state. Surely the Russians' troubles with the Chechen's and others is another case in point.

Now that the August 22 threat seems to be winding down, we should not let down our guard, nor cease to prepare for the future that may be coming. In another thread, I waged a heated battle with the poster using the name August22 over the issue of whether to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran, in which I argued for a calm, "wait and see" approach before doing anything, even using some arguments that I would not normally have relied on. I was motivated here by a sense of desparation of my own to cool the enthusiasm of August22 and others for the deployment of our nukes, simply because one has to recognize that if these weapons are ever used on any significant scale the damage to the world could be so immense, that life itself could cease to exist. So on that page I argued for calm, pointing out that the date could have some other significance, such as the end of the Persian calendar month of Mordad and the end of the year on that calendar. Now it appears that I was probably right about that (touch wood), but August22 made a number of valid points that I've since considered, among the best of which, was his observation that it was only by inflicting a massive and unconditional defeat on Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan that we were able to turn them into the model citizens that these countries are today.

That said, the next thing for us to do is to force our Western governments to finally and definitively recognize the threat for what it is and stop speaking of the "war on terror" to call it what it really must be if its going to succeed: a "War on Islam!" From there, they've got to be willing to take two further steps.

1. Change the permissive laws that have allowed the terrorist threat to emerge from the permanently and innately alienated Islamic immigrants communities in Western countries to end this stupidity, and institute a massive campaign of repression against their Islamic communities, not because we hate all Moslems and want to wipe them out (since I doubt that this is true of most of us - I for one do not feel that way), but because if there really is such a thing as a "moderate" and "peaceful" Moslem, this type of measure is the ONLY thing that will allow them to hold their ground against the innate violence of their own Islamic societies. If this is successful, it may not be necesary to take step 2 because this in itself may be a convincing enough demonstration to the Islamic world that we mean business. However, just in case, here it is.

2. Pressure nations such as Russia and China, as well as Japan and all of Latin America, to recognize where there own best interests lie, break any defence pacts and alliances they may have with Islamic nations, and prepare to launch a massive, global crusade like the one that defeated Germany and Japan in the last century, targetting all the Islamic nations that sponsor terror attacks or that have links to threats within our borders. The ones that come to mind are Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, possibly Pakistan, and perhaps before long, Iraq. "Moderate nations" such as Jordan and Egypt could be left out as long as they behave themselves, but we have to let them know that if they involve themselves, or if they don't get their own militants under control within their own borders, we will step in there too, and do it for them.

Even if the threat of an Iranian attack against Israel appears to have passed for the moment, Iran is almost certain to have nuclear weapons in a few years, and meanwhile, terrorist threats to airliners, subways - even parliaments if the charges in the recent Canadian case are true - continue, and these attacks give us all the reason we need to target these countries, especially the Saudis for an open and clear declaration of war fought according to the classic western traditions of warfare going back to Hoplite Greece - the shortest campaign possible defeating the most massive damage possible on the enemy.

The objective of this war must be nothing less than the total defeat and unconditional surrender of these nations, and an occupation that entirely breaks the will of the people who have adopted this monstrous ideology (here's where we'll be able to tell at last whether proposals for a "reform of Islam" can really succeed as we'll then be able to force this on them as one of the conditons for reconstruction and enforce it on the ground) and, that accomplished, their rebuilding and rehabilitation as respectable global citizens.

Posted by: templar at August 22, 2006 4:55 PM

This should surprise nobody. It is the prime strategy of the Islamists to "soften" us up enough that the Western world will crumble in upon itself out of fear and lack of fortitude in the face of death.

Once again, allow me to say it quite clearly: we have got to attack Iran NOW, Syria next and Saudi Arabia after that. If we do not remove these regimes from power then there will never be a true window for peace and prosperity in the Middle East and we will all one day be seeing our grandchildren growing up either Muslim or not growing up at all.

Islam is the enemy. Fight.

Posted by: Foehammer at August 22, 2006 4:56 PM

What if Mahmoud has had his Aug 22....maybe that was the day he gave Bin Laden the weapons Iran had made for him.

Posted by: storagemanager at August 22, 2006 4:58 PM

Did you expect a smaller number? Does the number really matter? We already knew this in principle and I've heard the number was 8 based on some al-gebra some imam did a couple of years back.

Syria and Iran need to be knocked down. We need to take away their ability to mount attacks on the free world. Now.. before the 10 million lives are taken from us.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at August 22, 2006 5:01 PM

Iran first...
then Syria ( maybe by proxy )

North Korea next, with a little help from our friends.

Then Pakistan ( maybe by another proxy )

then Saudi Arabia... viola! We have 80 to 90% of the problem taken care of for the free world.

Five nations cause most of the problems. It's time to take out their ability to attack, and in these areas: military, ideological, financial and networks of communications and contacts.

The educational system must be dismantled so that the brainwashing skips a generation at the minimum. Then we'll be heading in the right direction.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at August 22, 2006 5:10 PM

Fireangel, a lot of us feel the same way about the black rock. It's worthless, except for meteor hunters.

Posted by: freewoman at August 22, 2006 5:14 PM

Maybe we need people to go in and rewrite the koran, take out the bloody murderous parts, leave in the silly, such as Satan up their noses, sun sets in a puddle, earth is flat, mts. hold the earth down and then hand it back to them. They would also be told that, to stay in OUR country, they will worship out of the new and improved sanitized version of the koran.

Posted by: freewoman at August 22, 2006 5:17 PM

: freewoman.....dont forget never make urine in a snake hole.

Posted by: storagemanager at August 22, 2006 5:19 PM

Since when does Ben Ladden need permission from anyone? He's his own Allah, ya know.

Posted by: Pelayo at August 22, 2006 5:20 PM

Since when is this news? Back in 2001 AQ former spokesman (who is now in hiding) said they wanted to kill 4 mil Americans including 1 mil American children.The question I have is how many Muslims will die if AQ is foolish enough to launch such an attack?I would think 100 mil would be a likely number.

Posted by: Roxane at August 22, 2006 5:24 PM

O-K Storagemanager....my idea of roughing it is the Holiday Inn. But I will remember that bit..of advice. I don't want to be bit on the butt.

Posted by: freewoman at August 22, 2006 5:24 PM

Quotes from Osama bin Laden:

"We should fully understand our religion. Fighting is a part of our religion and our Sharia [an Islamic legal code]. Those who love God and his Prophet and this religion cannot deny that. Whoever denies even a minor tenet of our religion commits the gravest sin in Islam."

"Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God . . . . I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America. Time Magazine

``We are seeking to incite the (Islamic) nation to rise up to liberate its land and to (conduct) jihad (holy war) for the sake of God." -- al-Jazeera, June 1999....Sorry Pelayo......his is the pure Islam.

Posted by: storagemanager at August 22, 2006 5:26 PM

I'm not buying into this one. Head of the CIA UBL unit huh, the same one who couldn't find him in 20 years? This is a scam to sell books just like UBL's so called sex slave, that old goat couldn't get turned on by anyone over the age of 6. Remember he follows the way of mohammad (he will not touch her until she is 9).

Posted by: Ronin at August 22, 2006 5:28 PM

Except, of course, for thighing them Ronin. They do like that when they can't wait.

Posted by: freewoman at August 22, 2006 5:30 PM

I've heard this before. 10 million dead, 4 million of the dead to be children.
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/1701/documentid/2762/history/3,2360,655,1701,2762

Posted by: Carolyn2 at August 22, 2006 5:31 PM

"I'm not buying into this one. Head of the CIA UBL unit huh, the same one who couldn't find him in 20 years?"

Michael Scheuer is a shameless opportunist who was crappy at his analyst job at the CIA. He's just cashing in on his good fortune.

Posted by: Don Miguel at August 22, 2006 5:38 PM

Pakistan has nuclear, and al-qaida has bases in Pakistan. Is it far-fetched to speculate that al-qaida has been given nukes? And would it really be that difficult to smuggle a-bombs into US, and make, say, 5 of them go off at the same time in different cities?

Well, maybe, I don't know much about how difficult it is to detect something like that, but given that US can't stop millions of mexicans from entering illegaly, would it really be that hard to get a few nukes in? (Wasn't there something about unprotected harbours in the news a while ago?)

I fear that if Islam isn't stopped soon, the next thing we know 50 million US citizens will die in a nuclear strike of some sort. After all, that's what the muslims promise over and over again - "DEATH TO USA".

Time is running up, and the question is: do we want to live or die?

Posted by: XY at August 22, 2006 5:39 PM

this may sound absurd, then again so is killing 10 million people... but how is combatting muslim extremism different from combatting communism? and can we learn anything from what Reagan did in the 80s? Or how JFK avoided conflict in the Cuban missle crisis?

Posted by: hunginca10 at August 22, 2006 5:44 PM

Michael Scheuer looks like a wusslum, I googled his picture. I wouldn't worry about nuking the USA, even if they had 400, we would survive (the middle east would not). Think about the politics if one goes off, we will want blood and lots of it. Any party that did not support extreme punishment would be finished. I am old enough to remember the Murr attack, everyone blamed islam and all the muslims started crying "it wasn't us" because they knew somewhere planes where starting to take off. You kill our children we kill yours x 1000. I don't think islam hates us because we are free they hate the fact they had 1400 years to build power and we replaced them as the worlds dominant power in just a few generations. So much for allah, he can’t even control our fingers, not much of a deity is he?

Posted by: Ronin at August 22, 2006 5:49 PM

Ronin,please go to this site and read the first article on the scroll list called "dodging the nuclear 9/11" and comment for me. Thanks
http://www.howardbloom.net/

Posted by: dms at August 22, 2006 6:03 PM

Sad as it is, the reality is that Bush'a corrupt dealings with Saudi's will cost American lives. How else can anyone explain:
- Saudi, America's 'best friend' when Saudi sis not allow Khobar Tower bombing investigation?
- Saudi, America's 'ally' against terror when 15 Saidis attacvked America on 9/11?
- Bin Ladin's excorted out of US when America had just been attacked by the family?
- Saudi making Dubya, eat his own words of 'Islamo-Fascism'?

Bush is neck-deep in Saudi dealings and as long as Bush is at the helm, Saudi will get away with anything, including increased student's visas (does it make any sense)?, plethora of mosques across America and now, millions of dead Americans.

There is a distinct and a dangerous conflict-of-interest, between Saudi Arabia and US presidnt/commander-in-chief, the cost of which, time will tell.

Posted by: Alert at August 22, 2006 6:03 PM

Killing 10 million innocents sounds absurd, but rhetoric like that being spouted by hateful clerics and mullahs worldwide is killing innocent infidels hand over fist every day. This Islamic ideaology has to be stamped out - and fast. Far too many infidels have been rendered Islam-dumb by the global PC brigade to a dangerous extent. People who dare criticise Islam have been branded as fascists and racists for far too long - and sadly, these smug, self-satisfied poltroons won't realise that those they regarded as 'fascists and racists' were right all along until the blade is at their necks, and the necks of their children. This talk from the PC weenies enables terrorists, much to our peril. The best books on the subject of Islam have been criminally allowed to go out of print - books written by wise sages who, if they'd been thoroughly studied over the last 50 years, and their words of wisdom acted upon, might well have saved us so much pain. The result of this neglect has given us leaders who have been stupidly telling us that Islam is a religion of peace over the last 40-50 years. This isn't leadership talk from them but the talk of cultural and civilizational suicide.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at August 22, 2006 6:04 PM

When I think of how many Lefties like this thug Bin Laden, it makes me wonder whether Osama hasn't similarly gotten an authorization from Noam Chomsky on a cap of 10 million deaths.

"Osama, here at Berkeley campus, we'll call your attacks justifiable self-defense upto a maximum of 10 million casualties"

Posted by: sanman at August 22, 2006 6:08 PM

dms,

I don’t know why you wanted my comments but here goes: As far as propaganda goes it sucks. It amounts to a nice story but without any proof or a way to verify the “facts” it would be a hard sell. The arguments about NYC and Washington being close to the sea convinced me the entire article was just a typical scare tactic without any merit. Subs are standoff weapon platforms and cruise missiles are also used because of a standoff role. It doesn’t matter if the target is close to anything. The entire article was poorly thought out and barely researched. Feel better?

Posted by: Ronin at August 22, 2006 6:14 PM

Yes and thanks for your trouble.

Posted by: dms at August 22, 2006 6:18 PM

hunginca10,

The Communists were ideologically wedded to atheism and materialism. So they believed that life on earth is all that counts, and that their ideology would produce the best and most egalitarian human condition for all here on this planet. Aside from raw power, the Soviets wanted prosperity.

The Muslims, on the other hand, care nothing about the human condition in the temporal world, except that Islam is to be dominant everywhere. Economic development and material wealth mean absolutely nothing, except that Muslims must always be economically better off than their "filthy" dhimmi slaves--any other relative state of economic affairs is "injustice" to them. To the Muslims, the only meaning in life derives from its termination--a noble death in service to the goal of achieving Allah's triumphant universal rule.

Therefore, a Reaganesque economic offensive will have no influence on Islam. Neither will a military buildup, with its implied threat of violence, since the Muslims yearn only for martyrdom.

JFK gave concessions to the Soviets (withdrawal of missiles in Turkey, and a promise not to invade Cuba forever) that gave the Communists a fig leaf behind which to back off.

In contrast, any concesssions to Muslims would merely confirm their core belief--that Allah is behind them for an ultimate victory over the infidels globally. Any concession to them thus encourages Muslims to make even more demands and to mount even more aggressive and violent challenges to the West.

So the confrontation with Islam is an entirely different ball game from the Cold War. Unfortunately, a lot of people in the West, including apparently many high government officials, do not understand this. The result of that ignorance, in all probability, will be another bloody world war.

Posted by: Stendec at August 22, 2006 6:26 PM

And Human Beings would never crash a plane into a bldg on purpose....thats just fantasy....Oh wait 19 men with boxcutters changed the World....Nothing is unthinkable when it comes to Islam.

Posted by: storagemanager at August 22, 2006 6:27 PM

He has had the "right" to cause an American Hiroshima from some cleric for some time now, as pointed out in Nuclear Terrorism and a couple of Paul Williams books.

Some think they already have nukes and ex-Russian Spetsnaz technicians to service them.

If you follow this eye for an eye type of thinking and keep a ledger, I would still think that the Muslim invaders murdered, raped and executed far more over the centuries than 10 million that they claim the Infidels are responsible for.

What kind of monster would think like this anyway?

Posted by: amana39 at August 22, 2006 6:34 PM

NP dms,

I was thinking about the 10 million. I can’t think of any US population centers where you could guarantee 10 million dead. You would need a salvo of nukes or the ability to strike 20-30 targets in the middle of occupied areas. Pretty ambitious plan. I checked http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp to see what they can really do and I am even more convinced they can not kill 10 million. OTOH we can and I think would if attacked.

Posted by: Ronin at August 22, 2006 6:35 PM

From a lexicon of Spanish words derived from Arabic, from the "Golden Age" of Andalus:

alcayde \Sp. alcaide, formerly alcayde, the captain of a castle, ad. Arab. al-qa‘id the leader, f. qada to lead.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Y5fuzGEetZ4J:www.hottopos.com/collat4/oxford.doc+assogue&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Posted by: remote_control at August 22, 2006 6:52 PM

Yes, but does he have permission from his MOTHER to kill 10 million people. Don't they need permission from their mothers first before they go out and kill?

Posted by: Voltaire at August 22, 2006 7:01 PM

Kill an imam? They are simple minded homicidal sex starved perverts attempting to eck out a living controlling mindless drones. How heartless of you.

Posted by: Ronin at August 22, 2006 7:14 PM

This sounds suspiciously like something out of an Austin Powers movie. >.

UBL has proven he's far more effective with actions, not words. He's never been a verbally brash master of terror nor is he a fiery orator. The inspiration of his spoken word remains most deadly when it's at its softest and most secretive. This ridiculous comment leads me to believe that he's either reading Propaganda 101 from a Dr. Seuss book or is simply desperate for attention. His minions are still hung up on dropping airplanes and IED's. I hope we don't find out he's kicked it up a notch with a 20-kiloton airburst over Manhattan.

Posted by: MadrassasippiBurnin at August 22, 2006 7:24 PM

And as far as this Scheuer guy is concerned... the CIA and its Directorate of Intelligence is a step above the State Department which is just a notch above the JonBenet investigative team.

Posted by: MadrassasippiBurnin at August 22, 2006 7:32 PM

Translation: Saudi cleric approves the death of 100 million muslims.

Posted by: angryeagle at August 22, 2006 7:44 PM

I sit here as an American, first and foremost. Stating multiculturalism is destroying our great country. Don't be mislead by my name, I stand for America, and its freedoms. Nowhere can a man,woman,looser,winner,repubilican,democrat,or if you choose not to be involved in anything. Your still an American, but at this time if you fail to head the warnings, we're all lost

Posted by: AMartinez at August 22, 2006 7:55 PM

"What does it take for us to realise that Saudi Arabia is virtually as much of a mortal threat to the West as Iran, and perhaps its time to get tough with that country and despatch that cleric to the firepit."

and the 911 hijackers were mostly Saudi.
i think you invaded the wrong country.

Posted by: archduke at August 22, 2006 7:59 PM

l dont think OBL needed any ones clearance to kill any non muslim or bad muslim. well Aug.22 has come and gone, l dont think Iran will do much, till after the Nov. elections. if the Dems get control over the House and or Senate, Bush will be kept busy with all their investigations. Iran will go ahead and do their best then. for all the Bush haters, Iran is more afraid of Bush, than the Dems. so if God forbid the Dems are in control like JohnKerry's,Algores, you will see a much more in your face Iranian government. right now they are all words, deed will follow though. Bush should strike while the iron is hot!

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at August 22, 2006 8:00 PM

It ain't the 23rd yet!

Posted by: AMartinez at August 22, 2006 8:01 PM

This is so stupid. From what I can tell, Mohammed and allah gave unlimited permission to kill whoever you wanted. Any of this psychopaths could kill you for any reason they wanted and if they can justify it in their own brains using logic then they don't feel guilty. I would propose that ALL muslims justify the acts of their brethren in some form or ashion. They may not go out and do the killings themselves, but their silence is deafening. It's the west that gives these guys a free pass, from the smallest incident like the jerk Seattle to the worst of the worst in Iran. I guess we'll need a huge mushroom cloud over NYC to kick peoples brains into gear. Appeasers of this type are like a b*tch that rolls over every time her master comes by. I dread the day that my great grandchildren give up and become Muslim....unless we stop things now.

Posted by: Tomilio at August 22, 2006 8:08 PM

and the 911 hijackers were mostly Saudi.
i think you invaded the wrong country.

Posted by: archduke..............I still think that was rope a dope....Bin laden is working with Iran to overthrow the royal family...Bin Laden plays the bad guy and takes the heat off Iran....time will tell.

Posted by: storagemanager at August 22, 2006 8:10 PM

Freewoman:

"Thighing" - I've never actually encountered that expression before finding these pages.

I mean, I'm not entirely stupid, so I can take a flying guess at it, but I'm not entirely certain. Is it ... like ... you know (or maybe you don't?) the sort of thing those yappy little dogs do to your shin if you stand still for too long?

Posted by: Sir Henry Morgan at August 22, 2006 8:15 PM

It's all misdirection designed to draw our attention away from irans goal of becoming a nuclear power.

Posted by: Ronin at August 22, 2006 8:16 PM

Ronin they are allready a power, they should be dust allready.

Posted by: AMartinez at August 22, 2006 8:19 PM

Sir Henry Morgan,

Do a Google search of "thighing" + "jihad watch" + "television" (my other nickname)

Posted by: remote_control at August 22, 2006 8:26 PM

Also I'll say what stupid s*&#, like binlakin would need a reason to kill anyone or anything. Any one who will not heed any warnings at this time, will reap what they sew.

Posted by: AMartinez at August 22, 2006 8:29 PM

I sit here as an American, first and foremost. Stating multiculturalism is destroying our great country.

Posted by: AMartinez at August 22, 2006 07:55 PM

Well said Sir.

Posted by: km at August 22, 2006 8:30 PM

Thighing
http://islamstrueface.blogspot.com/2005/07/more-on-pedopheliaand-thighing.html

Posted by: dms at August 22, 2006 8:30 PM

Islamic justification of genocide.
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR2504

Posted by: Carolyn2 at August 22, 2006 8:39 PM

AMartinez,
For the sake of argument, I don’t think dust is practical. We can destroy infrastructure, historical places and the ability to conduct commerce. Turning 1.2 billion into dust is not necessary. We remain a threat as long as the few with the wisdom to question old zealots claiming to know allahs will but never having done it, do just that, question. Let the imams spread hate, we learn from every action. The truth spreads daily. Some muslims are starting to realize they have to pick a side, millions will leave islam never to return. It is getting harder for muslims to recruit. Look at some of the most remote areas on the planet and you will find muslims, why? Because they know westerners are increasingly seeing the truth and worse we are explaining it to others. Why attack this site, why attempt to defend islam here? There are plenty of sites like it but Robert is a power they fear the most, he is unflappable. They are scared and all this posturing amounts to little more than a bluff. An imams power base is based on fear, threats sell, young muslims suck it up but suicide is a different story. I have never heard of any imam or his son fighting the jihad, not one. They are cowards who trick others into action. Young muslims are not blind, some will realize they are going to far and entire muslim countries will pay if they don't reel in their so called religious leadership. I’m not convinced muslims are ready to see mecca burn.

Posted by: Ronin at August 22, 2006 8:39 PM

I keep mentioning that allah need be declared a myth but so few are interested in solidifying this with me. Is this because "god" must remain a sacred cow? Must this sacred cow be worshipped up to and beyond the point of nuclear genocide? What kind of god would desire this, want this or pre-ordain this kind of suffering, mass violence and death? Make a world, fortell an "armageddon" and then blow it all up? What a load of holy shit and what a waste of time. Imaginary allah can stick his dead prophet up his non-existant arse.

Destroy Muslim honor so that they have nothing left to kill for by philosophically destroying the idea of this useless non-thing.

1) If "allah" is omnipotent yet does not intervene to end suffering, allah is malevolent evil.
2) If "allah" is omnibenevolent yet has no power to stave off the suffering of living beings, allah is powerless.
3) Suffering exists without intervention of any "creator" therefore "allah" is completely unworthy of any form of worship.

Period.

This, of course, can apply to any faith and any god yet it is not ANY faith or god that espouses hyper-violence. It is Islam and it's silly desert fairy called "allah".

Kind of hard for Muslims to fight for a deity that so many people call an outright non-existant lie...but this appears to still be a sacred cow among believers in "god". If Muslims are insulted to the point of murder - their beliefs need to be held accountable.

Call it what it is - Islamic Arabian Mythology, lies of a dead pedophile, a 1400 year old cult of hatred. Whatever - call it what it is and take away their right invoke any and all actions for the sake of this imaginary spook!

The western world needs to be Islam-free, doors to CAIR and all other .orgs need to be nailed shut and Muslims who disagree need to return to Dar Al-Islam. If Muslims wish to worship their imaginary god, his pedophile inventor and that harem of celestial whores in the sky, they need to either show proof of existence or reform their moral faith. Before the bombs fly, if ever they do, Muslims better take stock in what they believe and adjust their holier-than-thou opinion of themselves before we are forced to crush and censor their culture for sake of our survival.

Posted by: Quantum Infidel at August 22, 2006 8:47 PM

Here is a quick question: If UBL has a nuclear weapon by chance and does find a way to detonate it in a metropolitan area, who do we nuke back? UBL is not affiliated with any country, so do we kill millions in a region just because?

Posted by: afkbrad at August 22, 2006 8:50 PM

I just looked up "thighing." Our professor never covered THAT in my Middle Eastern studies class! You learn something new every day. Evil, evil, evil.

Posted by: SpongeMom at August 22, 2006 8:55 PM

Remote control, Carolyn2:

Thank you. An education - and here was me at 54 thinking I'd already heard it all, seen it all, done it all.

This is a RELIGION?

Right, logging off and going to bed, but I'll have difficulty getting the picture of sodomy with a goat out of my head. Don't think I'll be eating much tomorrow ... It's not often I'm stumped for words. Well done. Nobody else has ever been able to render me unable to find the words to express my thoughts. And THEY claim moral superiority over US?

G'night everyone. I'll look in on this thread tomorrow.

Posted by: Sir Henry Morgan at August 22, 2006 8:56 PM

"UBL is not affiliated with any country, so do we kill millions in a region just because?"

We did that in World War II. Unless you think we were wrong (and only Leftists think that), then we would have the moral high ground to strike back at any given petri dish in the Muslim world that has nourished the Jihadist virus.

But even then, we probably won't, because the PC Multiculturalist template which dominates most of our thought and feelings about this issue persistently insists on separating Islam itself from the "tiny minority of extremists" pullulating out of Islam. And everywhere we would train our sights is a country practicing "mainstream Islam" (with only pockets of "tiny extremists"), which by PC Multiculturalist definition cannot be culpable. And since the goalpost markers of our "moral high ground" has been unfairly shifted upfield since World War II, we cannot strike against those who are not ostensibly "culpable".

We will simply have to wait until ten million or more Westerners are murdered before thawing out our rationality which has been put into the walk-in freezer for the past 50-odd years.

Let us thank those 10 million + of our fellow Westerners now, for making that involuntary sacrifice which our dominant PC Multiculturalism irrationally has imposed upon them.

Posted by: remote_control at August 22, 2006 9:01 PM

From my link above:
IV. The Annihilation Will Be Mostly By Your Hands
Some Islamic clerics emphasize that the annihilation of the West, the Jews, and the infidels will come about – according to the divine decrees – largely by the hands of the Muslims, who will torment them by means of Jihad.

In an article headlined "Allah Will Torment Them By Your Hands" that appeared on August 24, 2002 in the Al-Qa'ida-affiliated online magazine Al-Ansar, Seif Al-Din Al-Ansari wrote: "I would like to emphasize that the annihilation of the infidels is an unshakeable and inarguable truth. It is a valid and existing divine decree… It should be noted that total annihilation by heaven was stopped after the descent of the Torah, that is, since the time of Moses, peace be upon him. Allah said [in the Qur'an], 'We did reveal to Musa [Moses] the Book [i.e. the Torah] after We had destroyed the earlier generations…' Of course, the decree to annihilate [the infidels] still exists, and still applies in full, as it existed even before the descent of the Torah. This decree will not be completely implemented, to include all members of the infidel nation; rather, Allah will annihilate the infidels by means of torment [with which He will strike them], whether by destroying their country or by less than this. But in general, He will not completely eliminate them…

"When Allah announced to us that the annihilation of the infidels is certain, He did not use ambiguous terms; rather, he clearly said that it would take place in one of two ways: Either it would be done by Allah directly, or it would be done by the Muslim community, in compliance with divine law, in order to carry out the decree. [As it is said in the Qur'an], 'We can expect for you either that Allah will send His punishment from Himself, or by our hands' [9:52]…

"But the question is how the torments that Allah wants carried out by our hands will be implemented… The torments certainly will not be carried out by means of da'wa [preaching to Islam]… [but] by means of Jihad will Allah torment the [infidels] by killing, by means of Jihad will Allah torment them by financial loss, by means of Jihad will Allah torment them by loss of power. That is, Allah will torment them by means of Jihad… [Allah] said: 'Fight them, Allah will torment them by your hands' [9:14]. Ibn Kathir [37] said about this [in his Tafsir, or commentary, on the Qur'an]: 'After the descent of the Torah, no nation was struck with torments, but Allah has commanded the believers to fight the enemies of Allah'…

"The annihilation of the infidels is a divine decree, until the Day of Judgment. A large part of it will be carried out only by the believers – that is, by means of Jihad, as Jihad is also until the Day of Judgment, as [the Prophet Muhammad] said, peace be upon him, 'The Jihad is until the Day of Judgment'…"

Similar statements were made by Islamist preacher Hussein bin Mahfouz in a sermon posted on www.alminbar.net. In it, he said: "It is a divine decree from Allah that the believers close to him will be saved and that his infidel enemies will be annihilated and destroyed. Since Allah created all mankind, as well as the struggle between truth and falsehood, he intended to destroy the infidels and save the believers… We are a people whose strength is in Islam and in waging Jihad. It is an honor for us that Allah set us to be like his torment of the infidels by deciding that the infidels will be annihilated by our hand."

Posted by: Carolyn2 at August 22, 2006 9:02 PM

I thought my grandma had thighs. As a kid I went grocery shopping with my grand father Calvin, I said daddy Calvin whats chicken thiggs? Ahh innocense is bliss for children. allah is a piece of S#%~.

Posted by: AMartinez at August 22, 2006 9:04 PM

"I dont think OBL needed any one's clearance to kill any non muslim or bad muslim"

It is a requirement of Islam -- that an act of jihad needs to be approved by a muslim cleric. Behind every act of muslim terrorism there is an imam. When we take down terrorists we should also trace them to the imam and take him down too.

Posted by: skidd at August 22, 2006 9:07 PM

Carolyn2,

"Since Allah created all mankind, as well as the struggle between truth and falsehood, he intended to destroy the infidels and save the believers..."

So - Allah created all mankind to therefore invoke a struggle between truth and falsehood.

Allah is all knowing yet allah allows us to fight out true/false?

Allah created infidels and intends to destroy those siad infidels?

So "Allah" is a drama queen and the earth his little petri dish?

What a joke.

BTW, it wasn't a war on Islam we've been fighting these past few years but it certainly is now.

Either we define this ideological enemy called Islam and defeat it as we did Nazism and bury it or it will bury us in the blackness of moral retardation.

Posted by: Quantum Infidel at August 22, 2006 9:11 PM

Sort of OT but dealing with the "WOT"
Pro-war Buddists...hooray!
http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/
This was posted at LGF

Posted by: Carolyn2 at August 22, 2006 9:13 PM

Mr. Quantum, it will not end that easy. Its gonna take the deaths of many. And again most will argue, we as Americans, deserve whats happened. Why we only have to look at how we support Israel. We've stood back again, waiting for an outcome.

Posted by: AMartinez at August 22, 2006 9:23 PM

As much as I don’t think we have to kill 1.2 billion people, I do think a WMD attack would require the complete destruction of at least one nation. UBL is stateless so whom do we attack? Simple, any nation that supported him directly or indirectly is game. That narrows it down to most muslim nations which we will narrow to three. The rest will find all aid gone, not cut, gone! We would look at what was used to attack us blame someone for giving to them and whammo. Trade will not happen, mosques will close and support for liberals will also be gone. The UN and world will scream and we can always say “sorry, and we promise to be good” reality is they need us more than we need them. We would also claim reparations. It would not be a good day for muslims in or out of the US. It would not hurt our economy to lose muslim money, they get more from us than we do from them. A few trade deals with non muslim nations and we would be back in the black. We go back to the “with us of agin us”, pick islam and you can trade with them, pick us and live in the 21st century.

Posted by: Ronin at August 22, 2006 9:28 PM

I forgot, I am running for Governor of Florida, lol.

Posted by: Ronin at August 22, 2006 9:29 PM

"Islam practices patience ... remember it was more than eight years between attacks on the World Trade Center. They are in no rush. They will attack when they are ready." -Paul Williams

Saudi Cleric: "Osama, you're go for 10M Yankee infidels."
Osama Bin Laden: "Roger, that."

"Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them."
-George Bush

A suitcase sized tactical nuclear bomb, weighing 35 pounds or less, with an explosive strength of 10 kilotons could easily level Manhattan and spread lethal radiation throughout the New York City area.

This country is not prepared for the horrors waiting to befall it.

Posted by: Kreuzueber Halbmond at August 22, 2006 9:33 PM

Wait, just had to look at cairs website, wtf is rosa parks doing there. Thats total bullsh*^.

Posted by: AMartinez at August 22, 2006 9:33 PM

I think the suitcase nuke has been proven to be a myth and it would take much more than 10 kilotons to knock out Manhattan, I think they have proved themselves tough.

Posted by: Ronin at August 22, 2006 9:37 PM

Any nuke in manhattan and theyed kill each outher just to say they were nuked lol

Posted by: AMartinez at August 22, 2006 9:40 PM

I really don’t fear crazed muslims, I fear them turning us into blood thirsty Americans out for revenge. We only went all out once in our entire history and that was against ourselves. Once the rest of the world reads our history it should scare them as much as it does me. No one can withstand an all out no holds barred fight with the USA; it can not be done.

Posted by: Ronin at August 22, 2006 9:45 PM

I read in the paper today this bin Laden guy is the wealthiest guy in Afghanistan. That's when you know your government is no good, when the wealthiest guy in the country lives in a cave.

There's a new comic book where Batman goes after Osama Bin Laden. You thought radical Muslims hated cartoons before?

Posted by: Iranaway at August 22, 2006 9:52 PM

Ronin, let's not underestimate the destruction that can be caused by nuclear weapons. We can debate the level of devastation, but multiple, simultaneous detonations by dispersed terror cells must be considered.

Bomb-A-City Calculator

Posted by: Kreuzueber Halbmond at August 22, 2006 10:20 PM

Ronin, i would like to think that the US would flatten a muslim country in the wake of a nuclear attack, but I'm afraid no president will have the balls to order such a thing.

Back in the days of the arms race, a nuclear attack even on one city was to be answered with an immediate massive counterattack killing tens of millions of Russians. The response time was supposed to be minutes.

Fast forward to today.

If a nuke goes off in NYC, the president will not know exactly who did it. Consequentely, there will be no immeditate counter strike. The only thing that will follow such an a blast, would be an investigation. By the time such an investigation was completed and it was decided that say, the bomb came from Pakistan, but may have been used by Al-qaeda, which may have had some help from Iran, with some funding from Saudia Arabia, who the hell does the US strike?

That's the problem. Morally, we should flatten all of them. But in reality, that would not happen. No president would want to order the killing of 100 million people. Since Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are supposed to be allies, they would get off scott free. Iran would get a few conventional missiles aimed at command and control targets. Tehran would not be hit, much less nuked. And as for Al-qaeda, since they have no state, they are untouchable. Their leader sits in a cave in Pakistan, so US troops have no legal access to him.

So what this all means, quite depressingly, is that NYC could be nuked, and unlike the MAD situation of the arms race with the soviets, nothing of substance would result from such an attack on our soil. And certainly nothing would happen immediately.

This is what I believe that China and Russia want. That is why they support Iran or any other terrorist nation. They want their proxies to nuke us so that they can enjoy the benefits without paying the penalty they would have paid during the arms race if they did it themselves.

Both China and Russia have designs. And both would love to see the US taken down a few notches. And such a thing could occur, I believe will occur, without any US counter nuclear retaliation. Who do you nuke when a cochroach from al-aqaeda flattens Manhattan with a bomb from an ally like Pakistan funded by money from an ally like Saudia Arabia, whose oil we seem to need? The geopolitics that the US has created the past 50 years, ironically, makes it impossible, or at the least highly problematic, for the US to defend itself through the principle of deterrence, as it did vis-a-vis the USSR. In order to hit islam and its terrorist minions, the US will have cut all alliances and reliances, on all muslim and OPEC countries. That means, quite simply, that we will have to get off OPEC oil before we can defend ourselves. And I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Posted by: August22 at August 22, 2006 10:22 PM

bin Laden is starting to remind me a lot of an old "Gilligan's Island" episode during which a Japanese WW2 soldier who arrives on the island (and doesn't know the war ended 20 years before),captures the 7 castaways there, angrily informs Ginger (after she unintentionally insults him) that he has "a good mind not to torture her!" If bin Laden gets disgusted enough with us, he may decide Americans aren't good enough to blow up!

Although, seriously, this is supposed to frighten Americans into Islamizing, the hard fact is that Muslims have been plannng to destroy America and kill off all the American people since the 1930s, if not before. Hitler himself had plans of obliterating US cities with the "blood of the American people" flowing down the city streets like rivers. Hitler, of course, was Haj el-Husseini's best buddy(one of the Muslim Brotherhood's 'leaders')--and this man is no doubt where this lovely idea came from. Almost certainly, the Third reich's blitzing of London with V-2 rockets was a dry run for attacks on American cities utilizing V-2 rockets loaded with nuclear explosives--and just as certainly Hitler was doing the Muslim Brotherhood's bidding. Notice that the Muslim Brotherhood itself is the wellspring of al-Qaeda and bin Laden.

So, let's deploy our EMPs and go get them apes!

So I see there's nothing new under the sun. bin laden himself must be looking like an Afghani-grown raisin these days...

Posted by: pythagoras at August 22, 2006 10:31 PM

I am reposting this from the 'Muslims in Europe, not European muslims' article from yesterday.
(-thanks for your approval henry)

With just one update. From a nuke perspective it would be a fast destruction of civilization, from an immigration perspective it would be a slow destruction of civilization. Devastation either way.

[---]
There is a plan. Read this.
http://www.douglasfarah.com/article/92/europe-remains-center-of-islamist-focus

[---]

I have been hearing people complain about the terror threat not being real.

Or that a change in foreign policy would stop the terror threats. Which is what the muslims are saying.

Or that when Bush and Blair get voted out it will stop.

Or that if Israel didn't exist things would be calm.

They haven't looked at history.

They just don't get it.

It really doesn't matter if there is EVER another attack.

IF muslims gain power in any country the life of anyone who is not a muslim will never be safe again. Just think back to the horrible injustices which occured in the 7th century. THAT IS WHAT WE WILL BE BACK TO LIVING LIKE IF MUSLIMS HAVE CONTROL.

Most muslims would not kill you, but they would not stop the one who would.

Most muslims would not plant a bomb, but they would not stop the one who would.

Most muslims would not overthrow the government, but they would not stop the one who would bring sharia to your country.

Most muslims would not rape your daughter, but they would think she deserved it.

Most muslims would not slap you down and humiliate you while you pay your taxes like a beaten slave but would agree that you should be humiliated per the koran.

Most muslims would not demand that you cut your hair and wear the zunnar, but would be glad that their iman would demand it.

Most muslims would be happy for you to look at the koran, if you convert, but would scream if an infidel touched the arabic version which would be polluted by your touch.

Most muslims would not throw stones at your funeral procession but they would demand that you be buried somewhere else so you don't pollute their cemetaries.

Most muslims won't burn your church down but would gladly watch as it falls down because repairs have been forbidden by the muslim powers that be.

A non-muslim can't safely enjoy life under muslim control.

So, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF ANOTHER ATTACK EVER HAPPENS.

---
(addendum to my repost - Muslims will destroy civilization as we know it, one way or the other. And yes of course I know it would matter to those attacked, but I am referring to the big picture of history. The 'War on Terror' is really a war against moving backwards, a war to preserve freedom, civilization and a future free from forced submission.)

Posted by: Borg at August 22, 2006 10:35 PM

hunginca10:

how is combatting muslim extremism different from combatting communism? and can we learn anything from what Reagan did in the 80s? Or how JFK avoided conflict in the Cuban missle crisis?

It's totally different.
It was the economic failure of the USSR that finally caused Gorbachev to remake the Communist system (which caused it to collapse). Whereas these radical Muslims don't care if their economies succeed or fail. Some of their firebrands actually think that petrodollars have made the Muslims soft and docile, and that "pure, true Islam" is best found in primitive backward societies like Afghanistan. I'm not making this up.

And when you're dealing with an enemy that actually looks forward to an afterlife, threatening to kill them (deterrence) does not work. The Soviet Communists were atheists; they believed that if they died in war, that was the end of them. So they weren't in any particular hurry to die. Whereas we know how much these Muslim jihadists actually look forward to those 72 virgins in Paradise.

A better analogy is with the Japanese fanatics of World War II. They used suicide-bombers too (kamikaze planes). They also had a mystical view of combat (believing that their dead warriors' spirits would be floating around Yasukuni Shrine). And very few of them surrendered.

It took a ruthless war by the U.S., including the dropping of two atomic bombs, to finally get them to throw in the towel. The Japanese surrendered because Hiroshima and Nagasaki finally convinced them that the U.S. would actually take the ultimate step--systematic genocide of the Japanese people--if they didn't surrender. I don't think anything less than a similar willingness to devastate entire Muslim societies if need be, will get our jihadist enemies to throw in the towel.

Posted by: Steven L. at August 22, 2006 10:41 PM

Remember...the Saudis were the distributors of the anti American and hate propaganda found by Freedom House in dozens of mosques across the U.S. Also, aren't they sending a herd of students in an exchange program this year with U.S. universities? They know the soft spots in American armor: the media, universities and then a shield by the American legal system, probably in the form of the ACLU.

Posted by: Briars at August 22, 2006 10:44 PM

Alert writes:

"Bush is neck-deep in Saudi dealings and as long as Bush is at the helm, Saudi will get away with anything, including increased student's visas (does it make any sense)?, plethora of mosques across America and now, millions of dead Americans."

Whenever anybody says that any part of the threat we face is "all about Bush," an automatic alarm should go off in sane people's heads.

Sucking up to Saudi Arabia is bipartisan; the Democrats do it as much as the Republicans. Saudi Arabia's "special relationship" with the U.S. started with a sordid deal made by the Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt way back in the 1940's. And it has continued, ever since, no matter who was in the White House or Congress, no matter what parties they belonged to.

Right now, Bush is taking tremendous political heat from the Democrats over Iraq. None of them has criticized his Saudi policy. The only one who dared to question our relationship with Saudi Arabia was Howard Dean, and the political establishment sure got rid of him fast.

Posted by: Steven L. at August 22, 2006 10:48 PM

For the vast bulk of the world's Christian population the authority of the Pope is paramount - as it always has been throughout the ages. For many protestants, even, the pronouncements of His Holiness have weight and significance when they come to formulate an approach to, or a point of view about, a problem confronting Christianity. The words and the pronouncements of the other Patriarchs, too, are weighed and summed carefully by most Christian communities. The words of the leaders (Patriarchs?) of more modern Christian communities, such as Baptists and Quakers, are also evaluated by rational Christians when trying to arrive at a point of reason.

However, for many Christians, perhaps for most Christians, the continuing authority of previous far seeing Popes' and Patriarchs' pronouncements is at least as important as the pronouncements of those august few who currently occupy these great offices. To be more specific, the passage of centuries together with the evolution of Christian Jurisprudence have taught us that, for example, the Bulls of Eugenius (Quantum predecessores issued in December, 1145) and the Bull of Nicholas (Romanus Pontifex) and the lesser Bull of Alexander (Inter caetera) with many, many others too numerous for me to list here, by many, many other Popes and Patriarchs, that the world of islam is our mortal enemy and must be confronted and challenged and fought and defeated where-ever it is encountered.

Quite categorically, with no room to manoeuvre, the Christian faith has taught us that islam is the work of the devil and that it must be destroyed utterly - that it, and all its believers, should be destroyed completely and utterly. No mainstrean Christian leader has ever preached otherwise, though many have chosen to hide or obfuscate that teaching.

The Bulls that preach the crusades are still in force. They cannot be rescinded without the Church - Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jamesian, Antiochan, Russian, Anglican, Coptic, Maronite, Aethiopian, Syriac or whatever (with suitable apologies to those I have not mentioned) - lapsing into heresy.

We Christians need no excuse to fight the devil worshippers of islam, no excuse to attack them (within the bounds of law as we agree to in our various and separate countries), no excuse to render them into a ruinous and parlous state and, if necessary, to force their conversion to the one true faith - or to no faith at all if one is of a secular persuasion, as the command is to 'defeat utterly' not to convert. The crusade against islam has been Bulled, sent forth and preached. This crusade has never been rescinded, nor can it ever be. I do not, for the life of me, understand why any Christian has any difficulty with this.

Have at them. They have no worth and in them is no goodness.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at August 22, 2006 10:50 PM

"What if there are ten million and one?"
Allah says "10,000,001? No raisins for you!

Posted by: AnneCrockett at August 22, 2006 10:57 PM

Steven L.- The ONLY reason they surrendered was because the emporer finally admitted that he was not a god. Until then they were fighting for their god and that is why they fought so fiercely. I spoke with a bombing survivor once and was told that they never would have given up without the bombing and the emporer admitting he was not devine. Although fairly young at the time of the bombing and being devastated by it, the realization that nothing else would have stopped the fighting was clear.

Posted by: Borg at August 22, 2006 11:05 PM

The West needs to establish a retaliation doctrine now to make clear to the world that an attack against a population center would result in a disproportional response. It should be introduced to a prime time audience and lay out the realities of a WMD attack and the deterrent value of the retaliation doctrine. The target sets should be named and include religious sites, military sites, and capital cities of the countries deemed by a preponderance of evidence to be involved in the attack.

‘How would you react to a nuclear explosion in one of our Cities?’ is a great question to ask politicians in this and all future elections.

Posted by: limes at August 22, 2006 11:07 PM

Borg/

You're quite right, but try 'emperor' and 'divine' - I think you'll find that they work better as English spellings.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at August 22, 2006 11:09 PM

StevenL: You are correct about Howard Dean. But there could be other reasons he was disposed of besides the one you mentioned (although it probably helped that he brought up and dared to criticize Washington's suicidal, one-sided relationship with the Saudis).

I am not sorry that Dean has been uprooted. But for the time being, we have a 'Friendship Treaty' with the Saudis -which we signed in 1932-- that we are stuck with and need to repeal. I think if enough voters pressure their representatives we can do as much or more than Dean could have to resolve the US' Saudi Arabia problem.

Posted by: pythagoras at August 22, 2006 11:16 PM

August 22 -

So -- don't keep me in suspense -- what's your new username gonna be starting tomorrow? How about OOPS?

Posted by: champ at August 22, 2006 11:19 PM

Dominic,

I wish I had time to write at length. A few thoughts.

1) Forced conversions are false conversions.
2) You seem to have left out the entire history subsequent to the 95 theses and the Protestant reformation. Protestants may at times or to degrees may appreciate the accomplishments, pronouncements, or opinions of Popes, but do not feel under their authority, ascribing instead to doctrines of autonomy/priesthood of the believer.
3) I personally have never sat under the tutelage of any Christian teacher or leader who knew much at all about Islam, and spoke even less about it. The trend in current American protestantism is not so much about theological hegemony as it is fractious divisions and anthropocentric esoteric satisfaction garbed in religiousity.
4) From a perspective of an American protestant, while I believe a great front which should meet Islam (being both religious and political) is the religious ideological battle, there is no mainstream leader who can or should lead a militaristic "crusade" at this juncture (Christ's kingdom is "not of this world"), and I believe even this ideological battle, will be most effective personally, either "one on one" or through preaching.
5) The great difference between Islam and Christianity is that we have no injunction to commit violence; the armor and the swords referred to in the New Testament are allegorical. We really need to keep it that way, and not drag Christ's name through the mud.

That said, we should still, as nations, utterly defeat them, as we have done before.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 22, 2006 11:20 PM

Kreuzueber Halbmond claims:

"A suitcase sized tactical nuclear bomb, weighing 35 pounds or less, with an explosive strength of 10 kilotons could easily level Manhattan"

Nonsense.
A ground burst of 10 kT could level an area of Manhattan maybe a square mile or so. (Manhattan is some 11 miles long.) The reason is that all the concrete ground and the tall skyscrapers in the immediate area would deflect and dissipate the shock wave, and the heat flash would be shadowed by all those tall buildings in the area. Those are some of the reasons why in the Hiroshima attack, the bomb detonated in mid-air (airburst) at an altitude calculated for maximum shock wave and heat flash effects. Leveling Manhattan with ground-burst warheads is not easy; you need a number of higher-yield warheads than just a single 10 kT weapon.

If anyone is really interested, they can download an Excel spreadsheet that calculates nuclear weapon blast and heat flash effects, from websites like
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/Nukesims.html
It's in a "Zip" archive, so you need an "unzip" utility; and then, of course, you need Excel to run it.

afkbrad asks:

"Here is a quick question: If UBL has a nuclear weapon by chance and does find a way to detonate it in a metropolitan area, who do we nuke back?"

ANSWER: Whichever nation(s) sold OBL the nuke in the first place. (He didn't build it himself in a cave with True Value Hardware tools.)

Posted by: Steven L. at August 22, 2006 11:23 PM

what will it take for our leaders and MSM to realise we face a hostile people even if we replace the leadership in all of the islamic countries we still will not have won. the sooner that this is faced the less bloody victory will be

Posted by: jimmytheclaw at August 22, 2006 11:43 PM

Concerned Citizen/

Point by point:

1) But the subsequent generations will truly believe so souls are, therefore, saved. More will be saved to God than if we had persisted in inaction. This is a basic Christian teaching - you should already know this.

2) I wrote Popes and Patriarchs and suggested that the leaders of many protestant factions could be considered patriarchs in their own rite (right) thereby leaving an escape clause for many protestants of dubious (for me - personal opinion here, not to be construed as being the opinion of others) Christianity. Luther, Zwingli, Knox, Calvin et al are not people whom I, personally (again, personal opinion, not necessarily anybody else's), consider to be Christian. They burn in Hell as the apostates they are (as far as I am concerned) - or, alternatively, they have finally seen God and the Truth and recanted of their Devil worshipping ways.

3) I belong to a far more robust strand of Anglicanism than many obviously do. We have Priests, male and female, who know exactly what the threat from islam means and they preach about it openly. I do hope that when you say the trend in current American protestantism is not so much about theological hegemony as it is fractious divisions and anthropocentric esoteric satisfaction garbed in religiousity you are making a general point and that you could still point to many Christians of the protestant persuasion who understand the threat of islam.

4) I agree with you. We have no leader at the moment. Let us pray that one emerges before it is too late.

5) Most mainstream Christians agree that there are times when the Christian banner of war can be flown and marched behind without defiling Christ's name. The concept of a 'just war' has been much misunderstood by many protestants quite delierately because they wish to denigrate apostolic authority as much as they can and justify their own ridculous positions. That aside, please see:

http://www.smmp.com/War_and_Peace-1.htm

I look forward to reading what you would suggest we do to counter islam if crusading is not to your liking.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at August 22, 2006 11:50 PM

time for the reaper to reap the clerics soul.

Posted by: GrimReaperxxx at August 22, 2006 11:52 PM

New york , Boston , London , Paris .....does it really matter where....i remember all the fear about Russian Suitcase Bombs being planted in the US and Europe just biding their time till needed....reckon the US and Europe have still....wonder if some Russian covert halfwit has already sold the arming codes ??

Naw Ive read too much John Le Carre ??

Posted by: Kelticman at August 22, 2006 11:52 PM

GrimReaperxxx/

No, time for the cleric to confound the Reaper as Christ promised. Shame of it, no bones for you. Who would treat a poor dog so?

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at August 23, 2006 12:00 AM

Alert
Although I am not a big fan of the ruling family of Saudi Arabia, the House of Saud, what is the alternative? It is either them, who at least pretend to be allies with us and actually need us badly,or the fundamentalist wakos. They are riding a tiger and we are helping them to stay on because if they are about to be eaten then we have to intervene there also. There is no fricken way this country can allow that country to fall into the hands of the fundamentalists in their own country or from without. Geopolitics requires deft handling of matters so important to the west and especially the USA. We have allied ourselves with worse and one of the worst was Stalin. It's a matter of our survival,not theirs. I would enjoy hearing ideas about severing that relationship without cutting off our own nose.

Posted by: pismopal at August 23, 2006 12:05 AM

Ronin/dms; Here's your submarine info:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/agosta/

The missiles are Exocets and are not land attack capable (remember the USS Stark?). The fancy propulsion system still requires periodic surfacing. The stated endurance is 68 days, probably not long enough to get around the world.

Our friends the French sold Pakistan three; the third is being constructed in Pakistan.

Posted by: limes at August 23, 2006 12:07 AM

I hate saying this, but I feel the entire West has gone so soft and liberal and would therefore pressure the US to NOT RETALIATE, most especially in a nuclear way, if we were indeed hit with a nuclear device.

I can hear them now 'They'd hate you MORE if you retaliated in a nuclear way against INNOCENT CIVILIANS! Let's TALK.'

ugh.

And somehow, it would be twisted around to be America's fault... and we would be reviled even more if we took our just revenge.

Posted by: JenBee at August 23, 2006 12:07 AM

Dominic, your ignorance embarrasses these anti-jihad pages. How can you say that Lutherans are dubious Christians for breaking away from the church, but not Anglicans? Luther started the reformation 50 years before the Anglican church was formed. Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Church long after Martin Luther paved the way at Wittenburg. And Luther broke away for theological reasons, not the petty, self-interested political reasons of Henry VIII. Even so, what makes an Anglican a better Christian than a Lutheran? The very fact that you say that Lutherans will burn in hell, is the kind of thinking that the islamics exhibit.

If any Christian is buring in hell it will be Henry the VIII with his gluttony, womanizing, and murder of his wives. Ironically, this man who you admire as the founder of your sect, is not much different from the classic muslism debauchery to which you, as a member of this site, are supposed to be opposed.

Posted by: August22 at August 23, 2006 12:11 AM

Folks you're overlooking one major goal of the Muzzie's. They want to kill westerners for sure, especially Americans. However, that to them is just icing on the cake. Their intent is to destroy America and the west. They cannot accomplish that simply by killing people. Their REAL goal is to destroy the economies of the west. So 10 million Americans die, in round numbers there's going to be about 340 million still standing. Does anyone remember how the U.S. economy tanked after 9-11? A mere 3 thousand dead and a few buildings knocked down. I shudder to imagine the chaos and the lasting effects of disruptions in goods and services,and if a nuke is popped off anywhere in a major city it's going to be one hell of a long time before the area could be rebuilt, if at all. Can anyone say New Orleans? Hell, a nuke didn't even go off there.Think about the bigger picture and it really gets damn scary.

Posted by: krkrjak at August 23, 2006 12:14 AM

Whenever anybody says that any part of the threat we face is "all about Bush," an automatic alarm should go off in sane people's heads.

Sucking up to Saudi Arabia is bipartisan; the Democrats do it as much as the Republicans. Saudi Arabia's "special relationship" with the U.S. started with a sordid deal made by the Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt

Right now, Bush is taking tremendous political heat from the Democrats over Iraq.

Posted by: Steven L. at August 22, 2006 10:48 PM

Steven L,

I am glad you mentioned bipartisanship at the mention of Bush families deep-rooted ties with wahabis. DO you think wahabis care if they cut damocratic heads or republian? I am sure you can see the answer as a resounding NO! That is the reason why I refrained from mentioning political parties. Realize that the wahabi / Islamic threat is way beyond party lines and it is time Amnericans recognize it as such. Coming back to Bush (no, not as a republican but as a president/commander-in-chief, if you see what I mean), Bush's integrity is too severely compromised as was proved by a single call from Riyadh to disassociate the term 'Islamo-fascist' from Islam. Within minutes, if not seconds, Bush's spineless timidity caved in to accuse proverbial 'individuals', conceeding to waahabi wishes.

If Bush is taking political heat, he asked for it, by escortind Bin Ladens to safety, covering Saudi pages fron 9/11 commission, taking blood-thirsty wahabis 'ally' against terror and by granting additional student visaa, after 9/11 hijackers used the excact visas to murder Americans. Think about it.

Posted by: Alert at August 23, 2006 12:26 AM

I watched Michael Scheuer tonight on the O'Reily Factor. Michael is a knowledge guy who believes that the greatest danger for the U.S. and the west at the present moment lies with the huge arsenal of unsecured nuclear weapons in Russsia.

Although I grew weary listening to Mr. Scheuer call Bill O'Reily " sir " every time he answered his questions, he brought up some interesting points about the fundamental threats the west will likely face in the future with Islamic terrorism and jihad ideology.

Posted by: Johnathan at August 23, 2006 12:27 AM

I doubt, if they could ever pull off nuking the US, that many of those protesters plastered on screens and waving jihad would be doing that then. They'd all be hiding in spider holes.
Shame on all of them for spending their lives doing nothing but making plans to kill.
Shame on N. Korea, too, planting poppies instead of food and letting their own people starve. To what end?
And, Shame on the whole of Islam for allowing leaders to waste their power on planning and causing murders of anyone.
With all that power those leaders have to do good for their people, and they waste it all for evil. Shame.
And, I disagree with those who say we'd blink and not retaliate; WE would, and quickly.
The first duty of our government is national defense. Our govt. will retaliate, but maybe not with nukes. WE have a much bigger, stronger aresenal than nukes, and we could use them. Lasers come to mind as well as Electromagnetics...to name a few.

Posted by: searsha at August 23, 2006 12:34 AM

I've never been impressed with Michael Scheuer he spent 10 years trying to catch Bin Laden and couldn't catch him. He also wrote a book as "Anonymous" in order to undermine Bush and get Kerry elected.Scheuer also has a bad habit of blaming Isreal for the Jihad problem.

Posted by: Roxane at August 23, 2006 12:36 AM

OOPS, Champ?

That implies that a mistake was made. The theory of the winged flight of mohammad on that date was not my theory - nor was it a mistake. I was expounding on that theory, along with Robert Spencer, Bernard Lewis, and Farid Ghardy. Not to mention Glenn Beck, bless his soul.

In terms of predicting an apocalytic event emanating out of the middle east soon, there will be no OOPS there. It's coming.

Posted by: August22 at August 23, 2006 12:37 AM

Sir Henry Morgan -

We all learn something new here regularly.

Earlier this month NPR ran an eye-opening feature (regarding sharia enforcement) that somehow missed this website's attention.

. . . shepherds in the rural western Baghdad neighborhood of Gazalea have recently been murdered, according to locals, for failing to diaper their goats.

All but one chapter in the qur'an begin with,

”In the name of God, the compassionate, the beneficence and the merciful”

. . . compassion even for goats

(Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth volume, explains allahs companssion regarding animals and children.)

And there is not a believing mohammedan who does not accept that muhammad is the perfect man, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, the model for all mohammedans for all time.

Posted by: miira at August 23, 2006 12:52 AM

I was wondering what 'thighing' was. Standing enlightened.

Perhaps Osama's clubhouse should be re-named the 'Velcro Glove'.

Posted by: limes at August 23, 2006 1:08 AM

pismopal writes:

"There is no fricken way this country can allow that country to fall into the hands of the fundamentalists in their own country or from without....I would enjoy hearing ideas about severing that relationship without cutting off our own nose."

First of all, the Saudis are one of the two main ideological enablers of jihad against the West; the other one being Iran. One Sunni, the other Shi'a. That the Saudis don't say so openly is just more disinformation and deception on their part. But much of the propaganda poison being poured into the hearts of Western Muslims is coming from madrassas and mosques funded by Saudi Arabia--for that very purpose.

Just why is there "no fricken way" that we can "allow" Saudi Arabia to fall into the hands of the "fundamentalists"? As if they're somehow "moderates" right now? What would go so wrong if Osama bin Laden himself became President of Saudi Arabia? ANSWER: Absolutely nothing--except we wouldn't be buying their oil anymore. In fact, Saudi Arabia, no longer able to count on U.S. military protection, would have to massively rearm (probably build its own nukes) as protection from its old nemesis, Iran. So you would end up with a regional balance of power between Iran and Saudi Arabia, much as you used to have between Iran and Saddam's Iraq regime.

Posted by: Steven L. at August 23, 2006 1:10 AM

August22/

"Lutherans are dubious Christians for breaking away from the church[sic]"

Well. you said it, not I.

Henry broke away from Rome for sensible, political, selfish reasons, not religious, and left for us, four-hundred years later, a politically separate but Catholic and Apostolic Church of England following mainstream catholic and orthodox teachings. (His personal sins will, of course, be found out before God.) Luther, and all the others, on the other hand, broke away from Apostolic authority for reasons born out of their lack of education and their inability to understand simple language and valid spiritual teaching when they heard it. Their sins are not personal: swayed by the Devil they were led by their hubris and personal pride into spiritual error and sin and took others into spiritual error and sin with them - unforgivable perhaps.

For that, it is possible, they will not be forgiven. All the Apostolic churches condemn them. They are hors la loi here on earth and remitted to God, who alone can forgive them. Surely God will condemn them to Hell for all the souls that they have mislead? Or maybe not. He, in His Majesty, will probably forgive them their rebellion and pardon the mislead souls. I, however, will have to answer for my hatred of these foul fiends and the mass murders that they, and their legacies, have encouraged down the centuries.

The deliberate persecutions of the faithful by the believers in Luther's false doctrine - the killings of the faithful, the torture of the faithful, the sheer bloody awfulness that Lutheran, Calvinistic, Zwingliite and Knoxian so called Christian reformers inflicted upon the faithful rivals anything that the twentieth century produced in terms of bloody persecution.

What God will judge me on is my lack of forgiveness - what he'll judge them on is their wilfull disobedience of His law (a far graver offence). However, I hold the hope that we will all be forgiven and see God in the end - even I, who do want to forgive their manifold crimes know that I have to if I am to have salvation. My question is, in their prideful denial of God's authority through His Church, will they ever be able to humble themselves as I must. Somehow, I doubt it. They are in Hell where they belong.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at August 23, 2006 1:13 AM

Templar, I applaud your perspicacity and courage, now if we could only transfer them to the Bushbots...I am now convinced that we are saddled with a leadership more degraded and corrupt than King Theoden under the influence of Grima Wormtongue in the Two Towers!

Posted by: wasicu at August 23, 2006 1:14 AM

UBL wants a big 'show.' He wants to nuke us. The problem is the method of delivery. My fear is not the Soviet nukes, but the Pakistani nukes. We hear how well they are guarded, but I have grave concerns. A nuke could be shipped to some US port and detonated in port. Say NYC or Boston. In NYC, such a blast would send us into a depression--no matter if it kills thousands or his 10 million. Getting the nuke off-loaded at a port carries risk of detection. Why would the scum take that risk? Have your suicide squad in the ship and press the green button. Clearly, NYC will again but the target INMO. The issue is not getting nuked; it's the strategic location of NYC and turning it into a radiation graveyard for a few years. What type of retaliation would be in order? One; shutting off all Islamic immigration. Two; deporting all Muslims without valid papers. Three; the US military may have to take over the key Saudi oil installations and claim them as US property. It all sounds farfetched, but I fear it's coming.

Posted by: biorabbi at August 23, 2006 1:22 AM

Some of you are right to point the finger at Russia, and China; although, you left out India, the land hungry country.

Lebanon is their design. They have already stamped the Lebanese model on a hundred countries. Islam has been their secrete weapon for the last half century, originating in the Cold War. No one has been maintaining the current equilibrium, but those three countries. Think about it: nothing has stopped them from eradicating the Islamic virus, except their interest in seeing it used against the West.

The stupid Muslims think they could one day take over the world. Should they ever get close to achieving that goal, the “axis of envy” will quickly turn them into dog meat. You can bet there will be a drastic escalation soon, because the secret weapon is near out of control. From 1990 to today, the Middle Eastern population grew by 80%! The axis of envy might very well hold the key to defusing the current situation and threat.

In the meantime, we must protect ourselves against their weapon: the Muslim.

Posted by: ofcourse at August 23, 2006 1:29 AM

Roxane,
the answer to your question is:
in case of another attack perpetrated by muslims against the US,our government will do the unthinkable:protect the mosques and the muslim communities and arrest anyone of us who would dare to even say a word.
Remember the attack at the jewish cultural center in Seattle??!!
The first thing the police did was to provide protection for the local mosques....and synagogues,as if the jewish people were equaly dangerous as the muslims.
Michael Savage was right,he always is:don`t count on the government to protect you or your family,it is sad but it is true.
The politicians that we now have,with very very few exceptions would rather die than act in a politically incorrect manner.
I hope another attack will never happen,but chances are it will,and then you will see the police,and perhaps even US troups protecting mosques and muslim communities against the american people and arresting anyone on the slightest suspicion of islamophobia.

Posted by: adela at August 23, 2006 1:36 AM

OT

Check this nauseating bit of reportage from the BBC regarding the 20 year jail sentance passed to a Muslim in Australia for planning bomb attacks.

No where in the report can you find the words Muslim, Islam, Islamic.

http://xrl.us/nomuslim

Posted by: km at August 23, 2006 2:28 AM

"Some of you are right to point the finger at Russia, and China; although, you left out India, the land hungry country."

India ? The land hungry country ?

"Lebanon is their design"

What ?

"Islam has been their secrete weapon for the last half century,"

India's weapon ? islam ?

What are you taking ?

Posted by: arjun.sevak at August 23, 2006 2:43 AM

"Some of you are right to point the finger at Russia, and China; although, you left out India, the land hungry country."

India ? The land hungry country ?

"Lebanon is their design"

What ?

"Islam has been their secrete weapon for the last half century,"

India's weapon ? islam ?

What are you taking ?

Posted by: arjun.sevak at August 23, 2006 2:44 AM

http://www.rense.com/general73/fund.htm

"Fundamentalist Muslims
Told To Get Out
Of Australia"

Posted by: Crows&Cows at August 23, 2006 4:08 AM

They are politically correct to the bitter end. A different type of crime, but I also heard that instead of considering Mr. Karr a monster for murdering little Jonbenet Ramsey, most Australians consider him a "HERO" (yes, that's right) for admitting his crime.

Well i am an Australian and I have never heard the view in person or in the media that anyone thinks that that murderous pedophile is a hero, he deserves the death sentence. Why did it take him 10 years to admit to the murder?

Our society Is too politically correct though, but name me a western country that isnt. The west has all been set up to be slaughtered by Muslims, shows the great cunning of Satan (Allah) who has been planning this good vs evil war since the beginning of creation, political correctness protects the muslims till they are strong enough to kill us all. I am sure the intentions of those responsible for all this pc nonsence were good, but you know what the saying is...the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

p.s. First time post, love the site.

Posted by: Robert at August 23, 2006 4:23 AM

Don't you all think if Al Qaeda really had a nuclear device they would have used it by now instead of attempting to blow up planes over the Atlantic? They received their approval from the clerics to use a nuclear device and kill many people some years ago, so that is nothing new. If they did attack us with a nuclear weapon, where would we attack back? What country? We've already attacked Afghanistan where they were based. The only country we could attack would be the Waziristan area of Pakistan where they're now based and it would get nuked.

Regarding all of you who criticize Bush for a relationship with the Saudi's....evidently you have forgotten every US President has had a close relationship with the Saudi's since they discovered OIL. Oil is the key word here. Without it, we can't transport our goods across the country, or go to work...our country would in essence, shut down. The Saudi Royal family is more concerned about the Jihadi's taking over their country than we are. To solve our oil crisis, we should be attemtping a better relationship with Hugo Chavez because Venezuela is where most of our oil supply comes from, and he's been buddying up with the Iranian's recently.

Posted by: Bonniea at August 23, 2006 4:37 AM

Referring to Americaningermany comments about:
" They are politically correct to the bitter end. A different type of crime, but I also heard that instead of considering Mr. Karr a monster for murdering little Jonbenet Ramsey, most Australians consider him a "HERO" (yes, that's right) for admitting his crime."

I haven't read or heard anything to support such a view by Australians. I would be very surprised if it was true.

On a different topic, I thought you would like to read up on what happened in Australia during the riots on Cronulla beach. Mainstream media do have a knack of presenting information without the full version. I've attached a link that adds meat on the bones about the riots.
Why did 5000 Australian community members meet on the beach?

Answer: Their community was under treat by..you guessed it..Trolls who actually raped, killed and bullied their community for years.
LINK
http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2005/12/cronulla_beach.html

There were actually some trouble makers within the Australian crowd but overall the Cronulla community (Australians) were demonstrating to their country that they had enough!

Posted by: SandMonkey at August 23, 2006 5:06 AM

I've been having a think (I never sleep very much, never have, never will) about this "Thighing" business. Well, more specifically, the sodomy with goats stuff that Khomeini came out with. And I've been re-reading the links some of you kind folk gave me...

So, it's permissible for a man to engage in sodomy with a goat, according to the way I read it (and other animals too, but we'll stick with goats for the purposes of this illustration).

Now the rules don't specifically say it must be a female (nanny) goat. So ... a moslem male can indulge in a little bit of harmless sodomy with a male (billy) goat. Right, got that.

However, careful reading of the rules indicates that nothing is said about the moslem having to be "top" in the ...er ...relationship. Are we beginning to get the picture?

How well endowed are billy goats?

Perhaps ridiculing the B's to death might be the way to go...

Doesn't mention that this is forbidden for moslem women, either. So who knows what goes on behind closed doors when it's party time? I can never quite see any moslem in the same old way ever again.

Ridicule can be a fine thing in time of need - bit like a goat really, wouldn't you say?

Maybe I should have been a lawyer, but I think we'll pass on the Sharia. I like my bum just the way it is thanks very much.

Big Mo was sure a perve and a half wasn't he. And look at the name of that president of pakistan ... that sure is a hint and a half.

How long do we think this post is going to stay up?

Posted by: Sir Henry Morgan at August 23, 2006 5:07 AM

Regarding all of you who criticize Bush for a relationship with the Saudi's....

As it should be, with very harsh criticizism of his amnesty for illegals in the US; his 200+ million give-away of American taxpayer dollars to help Hamas and Hizballah rebuild Beruit; among many other acts of treason and dereliction of duty...

evidently you have forgotten every US President has had a close relationship with the Saudi's since they discovered OIL.

Not exactly; they were all globalists with no loyalty to their country or their people. No, this is clearly remembered. And once they discovered Saudi Oil -- they capped most of the oil wells in the US that were producing oil to create 'independence' of the 'world community.'

Oil is the key word here.

No, petro-dollars is the key word here.

The oil production idea was sold to the saudi's at a time (late '60s early '70s)when goats and sheep were herded in the places that now have the ultra-modern hotels and air conditioned malls.

The globalists had the idea that they could have cheaper oil than could be had in the States and simultaneously, provide lucerative construction contracts for Becthal among others.

Petro-dollars were invented to cover the costs until the oil started flowing and has since assumed a more generic definition.

Without it, we can't transport our goods across the country, or go to work...our country would in essence, shut down.

No, either we adapt a nationalist (use of this word is worse than cursing in some circles) position and pump it from US sources (no they did NOT all run dry!) or we develop alternative sources -- (yes, there are other gases that go "pop" when you expose them to a spark plug!)

The Saudi Royal family is more concerned about the Jihadi's taking over their country than we are.

Only because they enjoy the power and companionship of the globalist upper crust always lusting after more wealth and those who have it.

To solve our oil crisis, we should be attemtping a better relationship with Hugo Chavez because Venezuela is where most of our oil supply comes from, and he's been buddying up with the Iranian's recently.

No, we should write off all of the above and pump our own oil like grand-pa used to do back in Pennsylvannia and Texas and Oklahoma and Wyoming and ....

Next, the refinng capacity that we shut down completely in the US, we need to fire up again!

Plus, we should develop more fuel efficient engines which we refuse to do because to many of the multi-nationals will lose money!

Posted by: witness at August 23, 2006 5:59 AM

I wouldnt mind betting that the "reward" muslems get in the afterlife will be 17 (or whatever number they claim to aspire to) virgin goats.

Posted by: Robert at August 23, 2006 6:04 AM

templar, your comments on China are ill-researched and bordering on the paranoid. Can you explain what kind of "Islamic threat" China faces? You give no evidence, merely citing the fact that there have been demonstrations (which occur throughout China, regardless of religious affiliation). Sure, there have been incidents of unrest, though you need to understand the social and economic context for these events, and the antagonistic relationship between the majority Han Chinese and other so-called ethnic groups. Haviing lived in China for the last 6 years, and actually having visited Muslim areas, I know first hand that the government has firm control of Muslim populations, in part by having to sanction immams at mosques, and being in control of the China Islamic Association. Any jihadist camps, schools or mosques would be easy for the authorities to detect and control, though I admit the media would be severely restricted in reporting any terror-related events or clamp downs. Still, a well controlled Muslim population does not amount to an Islamic threat. Interested in the evidence.

Posted by: Damon Perry at August 23, 2006 6:41 AM

... and the Dhimmi left will continue to argue that, notwithstanding the fatwa against ten million, Islam is "peaceful".

(How did the clerics come up with the figure ten million? Do they have some kind of mathematical formula, or do they just pick numbers out of a raghat?)

Imagine what would happen if a Free World leader declared having "religious permission" to exterminate ten million Islamofascists.

Hey, guess what? I declare that I've received religious permission to tell ten million Dhimmis to kiss my sweet Infidel bum-bum...

Posted by: Canadian Sentinel at August 23, 2006 7:03 AM

How did the clerics come up with the figure ten million? Do they have some kind of mathematical formula, or do they just pick numbers out of a raghat?)

Yes, well, I imagine its all mathematically frankly.

Depending on the size of the nuke bomb used, a certain percentage of the infidles will have been vaporized.

Since you can not get an actual body count in such circumstances, a certain portion of the population "infidels targeted" will be unknowable.

Perhaps the use a "point-estimator" of 10 million, and a confidence level of say, ninty-five; you construct a confidence interval and state something like: "we are 95% certain that the actual number of 10 million infidels occurs between: 10 million - margin of error

Its all statistical you see?

Posted by: witness at August 23, 2006 8:58 AM

"Lutherans are dubious Christians for breaking away from the church" You said it. I didn't."

I never said any such thing. You edited that sentence. The sentence was "How can YOU say that Lutherans are dubious Christians...

You were the one that said Lutherans were dubious. Should I quote you the passage?

Nice try. Actually, that was a pathetic try. What was the point of that? You take lessons from muslims in how your try to distort the truth for religious aims.

And for your information, King Henry the VIII was an uneducated, obese, sex-crazed, murderous buffoon, whereas Martin Luther was a pious very educated intellectual.

But in your crazed thinking, your little monster is in heaven with god, and most of the other Christians are in Hell. I got news for you, you are an embarrassed to this website.

To think, much less to say, that all Christians other than Catholic and Anglicans (LOL) are burning in hell, makes you nutjub.

Posted by: August22 at August 23, 2006 9:53 AM

"Lutherans are dubious Christians for breaking away from the church" You said it. I didn't."

I never said any such thing. You edited that sentence. The sentence was "How can YOU say that Lutherans are dubious Christians...

You were the one that said Lutherans were dubious. Should I quote you the passage?

Nice try. Actually, that was a pathetic try. What was the point of that? You take lessons from muslims in how your try to distort the truth for religious aims.

And for your information, King Henry the VIII was an uneducated, obese, sex-crazed, murderous buffoon, whereas Martin Luther was a pious very educated intellectual.

But in your crazed thinking, your little monster is in heaven with god, and most of the other Christians are in Hell. I got news for you, you are an embarrassed to this website.

To think, much less to say, that all Christians other than Catholic and Anglicans (LOL) are burning in hell, makes you nutjub.

Posted by: August22 at August 23, 2006 9:54 AM

Enough with the Holy Flame War, ladies. This should have been left in the 16th cent. where it belongs.

Keep y'all's eyes on the ball.

We're at bat and the mohammedans are pitching.

Posted by: Eisenhund at August 23, 2006 10:22 AM

Exactly, Eisenhund, Lutherans would never say that Anglicans are burning in hell, or anyone else for that matter. But this Anglican nutjob is talking just as if he never left the 16 century. Indeed, I'm not sure if even in the 16th century, such sentiments were expressed, for there is no theological base for them. This guy is from planet whackjob. But maybe it's good to have a whackjob to fight other whackjobs. I don't know. I just wish he would aim his intolerance at muslims instead of aiming it as his fellow Christians.

Posted by: August22 at August 23, 2006 10:39 AM

I think the hard truth rests in these statements:

Destroy Muslim honor so that they have nothing left to kill for by philosophically destroying the idea of this useless non-thing.
Posted by: Quantum Infidel

A better analogy is with the Japanese fanatics of World War II. They used suicide-bombers too (kamikaze planes). They also had a mystical view of combat (believing that their dead warriors' spirits would be floating around Yasukuni Shrine). And very few of them surrendered.
It took a ruthless war by the U.S., including the dropping of two atomic bombs, to finally get them to throw in the towel. The Japanese surrendered because Hiroshima and Nagasaki finally convinced them that the U.S. would actually take the ultimate step--systematic genocide of the Japanese people--if they didn't surrender. I don't think anything less than a similar willingness to devastate entire Muslim societies if need be, will get our jihadist enemies to throw in the towel.
Posted by: Steven L.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at August 23, 2006 11:01 AM

I think it's worth reposting this here. Applaud! Applaud! Everyone!

rense.com

Fundamentalist Muslims
Told To Get Out
Of Australia
8-19-6

Note - We found the source of this story and have applied the URL at the bottom of the article - ed

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament.

"If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you," he said on national television.

"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia: One the Australian law and another the Islamic law that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option," Costello said.

Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off." Basically people who don't want to be Australians, and who don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically "clear off", he said.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote: "IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist Attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians."

"However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the 'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia."

"However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand."

"This idea of Australia being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle."

"This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom."

"We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language."

"Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture"

"We will accept your beliefs and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us."

"If the Southern Cross offends you or you don't like "A Fair Go," then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others.

"This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE."

If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted." Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, American citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voting the same truths ! !

http://www.treasurer.gov.au/tsr/content/transcripts/2005/123.asp

Posted by: ofcourse at August 23, 2006 11:27 AM

To think, much less to say, that all Christians other than Catholic and Anglicans (LOL) are burning in hell, makes you nutjub.

My goodness; the offical Roman Catholic doctrine on the subject of Christians other than Roman Catholics going to hell because they are not part of the "true church" has shifted.

It is no longer official Roman Catholic teaching; Paul VI changed that and Benedict has not undone it. Don't know for sure about the Anglicans, but I don't think they hold the position of none-Anglicans burning in hell either.

So, be at peace you two -- the matter has already been settled by the respective churches so you are fighting a worthless fight, but if it keeps you amused to continuing the squabble then by all means do so; but perhaps another forum might be a better choice than JW?

Americaningermany:

Well ... it is the 23rd and I didn't see or hear of any funky flying critters or such things over Jerusalem, although I must admit that such a flying horse would have been interesting.

No nukes either; what gives?

Perhaps "if they coulda; they woulda; but they didn't; coz they can't"

Frankly, I think chimp-face in Iran is scared we are going to go after him and he probably figures that if he can stall us long enough he'll get the bomb.

I suspect he probably already has one or two tacticals but knows that if he uses those -- he's toast. If he can stall us off a little while longer, perhaps he'll have something more substantial that a tactical.

Do 'em now and let's be done with it already -- finish off hezballa and hamas in the same stroke too; this is getting ridiculous.

Posted by: witness at August 23, 2006 11:48 AM

Steven L

Saudi Arabia is to "massively rearm". Who do they massively rearm with, their hate the royal family populace which is too lazy to work,let alone fight? Where do they get these nuclear weapons? The Saudis can't wipe their own arses let alone fight Iran. There is a big difference between the ruling class and the populace and a big difference in attitude even among the ruling class. We have diplomatic relations with S.A., we have no such thing with Iran. My remark about riding a tiger was meant to describe the fact that the royals are part fundamentalist and part whiskey loving skirt chasers. If you don't think that is better than a country with OBL as it's leader then we will have to agree to disagree.
Can you not see a little problem with your statement that we "won't be buying their oil anymore". Excuse me but whose oil are we going to buy? We don't need any more countries who are openly at war with the west. We have some influence with S.A.,this is better than nothing.

Posted by: pismopal at August 23, 2006 12:06 PM

Steven L

Just a PS. All the comment ping pong will not change the fact that the U.S. is not going to allow an overthrow of the royals in S.A. as it is currently constituted.

Posted by: pismopal at August 23, 2006 12:35 PM

f*** your site. If what I posted was offensive, then it is all offensive. What I posted is realistic in a real war against a real enemy. But you are already defeated if you must edit out my post about killing the true enemy, the imans who are behind all this. They are preaching to the children, in the schools, their text books, in the mosques. They are the real evil in the world leading to what state the world is in now. You say this thought needs to be deleted b/c it is offensive. Read all the above posts and tell me it is any more offensive than most of the posts herein. F you site. I will never return to your website.

Posted by: bobjohnson at August 23, 2006 3:56 PM

“templar, your comments on China are ill-researched and bordering on the paranoid. Can you explain what kind of "Islamic threat" China faces? You give no evidence”

Posted by: Damon Perry at August 23, 2006 06:41 AM

Granted that as someone who has lived there you would have a great deal more insight into that society than I do. However, in defence of my earlier comments I note that my use of the website I quoted from and the comments that I predicated upon the information it provided were meant to be speculative, not definitive. Perhaps my poor choice of words in the statement "China is not the only Asian nation facing an Islamic threat" (an unfortunate error resulting from the pressure of pounding out many words in a great hurry) was misleading. I did not mean to suggest that China presently faces any significant Islamist threat, much less some sort of apprehended insurgency, but simply to point out that Islam has been a source of difficulty to Chinese authorities before, and that today’s Chinese leadership must certainly understand this and be able to connect the dots with larger world trends, that may, in future, make it more troublesome to them than it appears to be now. This is especially so when one considers that Islam is, in many ways more resilient to persecution (or at least flexible in responding to it) than some of the other religious traditions that the Chinese have dealt with. For example, you point out that they keep their Muslims under tight control, although this is also true of Christianity, including Catholicism. Yet despite all their repressive measures, and the fact that proper Church order in Catholic tradition, with its rigid insistence that its bishops manifestly possess the criteria for recognizable signs of “apostolic succession”, something with no analogue that I know of in Islam, (at least in its predominant Sunni form) has provided the Chinese authorities a much more easily targetable leadership to decapitate in order to cripple that community by undermining its internal structures of authority, this has failed to bring even that community under complete control, nor has it prevented the existence, for the last several decades of two rival lines of leadership in Chinese Catholicism - the “underground church” in communion with the Holy See, and the official “patriotic church” approved by the government. So its just possible that their control of the Islamic establishment in China may not be as secure as it appears to an visitor or an outside observer. Besides, the fact that they keep the Islamic community under the controls that you mention surely indicates that they see it as a potential threat even now.

But I digress. The point is, if Chinese society does open up at any time in the near future with any political liberalization, this incipient threat could take on a much wider dimension, just as it has in the former Soviet Union, and on the basis of this alone, it would be worthwhile to at least assess, and perhaps regularly re-evaluate, the readiness of the Chinese leadership to ponder this reality, and along with that, to be willing to reassess its present security priorities.

Whatever its limitations, and the limitations of my subsequent speculation, the information I cited from the website I used is significant for several reasons. First of all, the fact that it comes from an Islamic website, even though likely not one operating out of China itself, suggests that at least some in the wider Islamic community have their eyes keenly on their brothers in that country just as elsewhere, and would certainly be a source of outside agitation and prodding to the Chinese “Umma“ given the opportunity. Secondly, the tone in this site, like so much else said by Muslims today, demonstrates no reticence whatever about pressing Islam’s endless demands, and cheering its Chinese brothers for doing so as best they’ve been able in their historical circumstances. Should these circumstances change, and become more favourable to Islam worldwide, as seems to be happening in many ways today, could not such outside agitation, as well as conditions inside the Chinese Muslim community, I believe its fair to ask, cause a resurgence of these disturbances or something of even greater significance in China? Finally, the site specifically refers to an Islamic secessionist insurgency in the 1950s apparently as something worthy of approbation.

I will not attempt to cite further evidence about the extent of the “Islamist threat” within China (or absence of same), because, as I readily admit, I am NOT an expert on China per se, nor do I even consider myself particulary informed about it, and in any event, it is not very relevant to my argument. Whether this Muslim community could ever be a threat to China is not something I can answer with any certainty. And whether the Chinese could ever be made to agree, on the basis of a perceived threat from its own Muslim community, to enter into an alliance with the Western powers to defeat an Islamist threat against the latter I do not claim to know. My point is that the effort to meet this threat head on is something for which the West needs to begin seeking a broad-based, global coalition that brings in the rest of the world inasmuch as this is possible, and that the global Islamist threat, whether it presently effects any specific nation by name or not, is something that MANY other parts of the world have had to struggle with as well, so such alliances may be possible and efforts to build them should be pursued. This may take many years, just as the effort to mount resistance to Germany and Japan before World War II did, and it will take hardworking, respected statesmen of the stature of Franklin D. Roosevelt, but there isn’t much time to waste, given Iran’s recent behaviour, so it better get underway soon and we’d better start getting our pieces lined up on the chessboard.

One final thought about all this is that if such an alliance is overly-dominated by the U.S. there’s a higher level of risk (though there’s some risk of this in any event) that nuclear weapons will be used on a significant scale, so its important to the entire world, all of which has a stake in the outcome, and pretty much all of which has had some reason to feel the Islamist threat, to be involved. You may be right, Damon Perry - China may not be interested or feel that it has any reason to be. On the other hand, India may be a completely different story. I would not presume to be the one to say. In any event, the West needs partners - powerful partners - and it would be better to start looking for them now.

Posted by: templar at August 23, 2006 7:37 PM

'We can expect for you either that Allah will send His punishment from Himself, or by our hands' [9:52]…

I would suppose that if allah were to decide that he wished to 'torment' infidels by using the hands of his faithful, then he should also be able to stay the hand of the infidel from using the same 'punishment' (a nuclear attack) upon those who allah has chosen. No doubt that the sick, dispicable islamic fascists who wish to murder tens of millions of people by vaporizing them are counting upon allah's 'divine intervention' when it comes down to destroying the infidel once and for all.

When this does not happen, I wonder what the imams and other sick, twisted islamic fanatics are going to say...

Posted by: yohannbiimu at August 23, 2006 8:16 PM

Bobjohnson - I'm sorry you feel that way, but it was the eschatological content in your posting that got it removed.

As I have said before, "end of days" narratives are not the basis of sound policy decisions since they are concerned with events beyond human control.

Please do not assume there is a double standard, either, based on what was not deleted. The off-topic debate that began overnight on the circumstances of various Christian denominations' origins is unfortunate and should end forthwith.

Marisol Seibold
Jihad Watch News Editor

Posted by: MarisolJW at August 23, 2006 8:40 PM

Fundamentalist Muslims
Told To Get Out
Of Australia
8-19-6

Posted by: ofcourse at August 23, 2006 11:27 AM

If the interviewee (the Australian treasurer) weren't so evasive I'd say "Excellent start! Bravo, Australia". Unfortunately his comments are much more ambiguous, perhaps inviting some to test the government's resolve. He keeps using words like "We'll ask them to exercise their other citizenship" (in the case of those with dual citizenship). It should be: "If you continue to advocate any of the views we find offensive henceforth, you'll be given 72 hours to leave Australia; if you aren't gone after that time, we'll imprison you or deport you."

In any event, if Australia does prove to mean business about this, it'll be all to the good, but I'd say that even so, more steps like this may be necesary, especially if any of these undesirables are secretly in the military, the security forces or certain professions that serve public security or the interests of the state. Also, we should not rule out the possibility that some of those staying and participating in the pledge may be praciticing dissimulation ("taqqiya") even though this is supposed to be used only to save one's life. (The problem is, sometimes in things "religious" things can be stretched considerably in interpretation and application).

This could be an important test case for other Western countries, but we'll have to see how things unfold. Stay tuned.

Posted by: templar at August 23, 2006 9:53 PM

What I'm not clear on is what the West will do if a small nuke is detonated in a Western city and fifty thousand people die. It's far from clear to me that an American president would respond with a retaliatory nuclear strike on Teheran. Nor is it clear that destroying Teheran would solve the problem. You would still have in the world at least a couple of hundred million Muslims with an anti-Western, pro-jihad, pro-Sharia mindset. The increasingly destructive power of WMD of all kinds will eventually provoke calls for extreme responses.

After a small nuke goes off in a Western city, not only will there be Western calls and perhaps action for something like Western totalitarian management of the Muslim world and Muslims; there may develop concerted efforts at de-Islamization, or forced Islamic reformation, a sort of modern Brave New World form of crusade that will not be essentially religious, though religions alternative to Islam might become significant components of such a de-Islamization program. In addition, surveillance -- and not just of Muslims -- seems likely to become rapidly more world-pervasive within a decade or so, since that is the time frame within which we can reasonably anticipate a mega-death event of some sort, through bio-error or bio-terror, or a nuclear detonation, or nano-tech, or some other horrible weapon as yet unthought of. At that point, it will become increasingly clear to many that only unprecedented global transparency and 24-hour monitoring of every single person on the planet will be able to manage all the rapidly evolving forms of possible WMD. The tech trends are leading to a situation where it will become ever easier for even a single person, with relatively little training and very modest resources, to kill truly huge numbers of human beings. Thus the problem is not only Islam, but every other form of human madness and extremism that can link up with the ever increasing technological efficiencies of lethality and destruction.

In my projection above, I'm assuming humanity escapes being wiped out by global nuclear war. Given that assumption, am I not correct in anticipating the other outcomes I've mentioned? Isn't technology's rapid evolution to ever greater destructive potentials and lethality at ever lower cost and ever greater accessibility going to compel a new kind of transparency in all our lives over the coming decades, a pervasive monitoring we can barely conceive now? The usual assumption is that this will be equivalent to a totalitarian, 1984 type world, but it might not be like that at all. It might remain more or less free, but become much less private.

Posted by: traeh at August 24, 2006 2:17 AM

traeh what relevance would monitoring have if your government becomes controlled by Islamists, and they turn you into a "Nation of Islam" slave.

Posted by: ofcourse at August 24, 2006 11:30 AM

Traeh: I think you and I are on the same page in regard to several pieces of this puzzle. I too worry about how governments will react if a nuclear weapon is deployed against a western city. For this I have no answer at present, but I think we will be well along the way to preventing the worst, most cataclysmic outcome of all this and defusing the public panic, rage and other motivations that would prompt it, if the West's energies are at that time already seen by its own governments and peoples to be engaged in responding to Islamic aggression with the most concrete action and resolve. That is why I am saying that western governments ought to acknowledge the real nature and identity of this enemy now, start building a global alliance, and begin making their war plans accordingly.

You speculate about a reform of Islam, something I see as an absolutely essential and indispensable part of the occupation plan following the war that I'm proposing. I have mentioned this in a great many of my posts in these pages. However you seem to express a certain wariness of it in your references to "Brave New World", "1984" and other "mind-control" scenarios. I do not think that this need be a concern. There are historical precedents for various aspects of this and for the various issues that it raises. First of all, the case of Germany in the post-Nazi era reminds us that the suppression and criminalization, or at least control of the organizations that caused the disturbance (in that case the outlawing of the Nazi party and the banning of Hitler's "Mein Kampf") had to be part of the democratic reconstruction of Germany. Similar measures may have to be undertaken by the new governments of the Middle East, and be supervised and enforced by the occupying powers.

In this latter case, I would expect to see, as part of the deprogamming of the Muslim masses, provision for the long-term incarceration of the most dangerous Jihadist war criminals (or even their execution) severe restrictions on public access to the Koran and other religious texts (and the close police monitoring of those given access to it for purposes of legitimate academic research or historical scholarchip), so that preaching can only be the work of government licensed imams following an approved Islamic theology, and the establishment of institutions of all sorts, educational, cultural and social, including development of sections within government social services agencies that employ personnel such as professional "exit counsellors" (like those increasingly being employed by families and friends of people thought to be the victims of cult mind control in the western countries) - and even "deprogammers", to help people still influenced by Islamist and fundamentalist thought but falling short of criminal or treasonous categories.

The renovation of the Islamic religion that I am proposing will achieve its best possible success if it is seen to be "organically" rooted in the prior history of the region, including the "better aspects" (I say this guardedly because many of these are arguably looted from earlier, non-Muslim cultures) of previous Islamic tradition. So it will have to be the work of people from many fields, including cultural anthropologis, sociologists, jurists and legal experts, politicians and beauracrats, and most importantly Islamic theologians, working with a great deal of help from their Christian and Jewish counterparts, and with the help of scholars in fields such as ancient languages and ancient near eastern literature.

I mention the lattermost field of study because recent research on the Koran within these fields provides some startling new insights into its historical origins that could provide the basis for a renewed Islamic theology of the text, an "unfreezing" of the interpretive tradition that has been rigidly ossified for several centuries now, and even the publication of an entirely revised version (or versions) of the Koran free of the chauvinistic and bellicose elements that the current one contains. This is worth mention because it is often observed that many converts to Islam are drawn to it by what they see as its stark, sober, even spartan language, its simple "poetic" verse, and the resulting simplicity and clarity of its theology. It provides a monotheistic view of the world, with the edifying power of such a vision, without the complicating factors of something like, for example, Christianity's doctrine of the Holy Trinity. For people who are of such mind, this or similar developments can be made available but they require clearing the deck of the violent fanatics who impede academic freedom with threats and murder for "blasphemy" in institutions of higher Islamic learning. This is why restrictions on public access to religious texts, and control over their interpretation and application, will have to be a part of the new reality in these states for generations to come, but if these measures are taken I see no reason to expect the dark, sinister scenario that you predict with the end of privacy and massive spying of everyone. Though restrictions of the type I'm proposing might seem, at first glance, obnoxious to western notions of "religious freedom", this is no more so than was demanding of the Japanese emperor the renunciation of his ridiculous claim to divinity, and the suppression of all the war-like pseudo-religious baggage that resulted from that. Just as recent elections in Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in the death of democracy via the ballot box as Shari'a law threatens to take hold now under the newly elected governments of these countries, the suppression of false "freedoms" will bring it to life in the Islamic world overall. Moreover, such restrictions have existed in the history of the West, at times for far less legitimate reasons than public safety and the legitimate interests of the state, as when the enlightened kings of France (using the infamous "Declaration of the Clergy of France") and other Catholic countries, simply because they were despotic tyrants who brooked no opposition from any sector and despite their obligations being Catholic monarchs themselves, kept the Church in their lands under heavy restriction and control, and isolated from the Papacy. Though far less justified than the project I'm proposing for gaining control of the Mosques, the Church, and the Papacy, survived this ordeal, as Islam, if it really does have any spark of genuine revelation and truth in it, as its followers obviously think it does, will certainly survive it as well, the more so because this is not proposed in order to destroy it but to save, not the least by protecting its followers from the endlessly corrosive and persistent violence of its fanatical elements.

In the West, particularly in the United States, presently hampered constitutionally by the First Amendment, governments and publics alike have to shake off the old libertarianisms of both the left and the right that have held purely negative notions of "freedom", including "religious" freedom, that make of it little more than a negation of any sense of accountability to anyone for anything that one thinks, says or does, short of direct and unmediated physical harm to another. We have to come to the realization, once again, that great harm can come to others, and to society as a whole, even from ideas, if they're packaged the right way in the right conditions, and be prepared to deal, selectively, with those ideas that obviously do spread harm.

The left in our Western societies has often talked about the necesity of dealing with crime and other social ills by addressing the "root causes" and they are quite correct about this, but what they have not been willing to sufficiently recognize is that in many cases these roots do not lie in harsh or unjust material conditions, but in evil ideas that somehow captivate and exercise a terrible and insidious influence over people. The right has understood this better, but so far has not been willing to carry this insight any further on the ground than the idea of "nation building" in the midst of appalling conditions obliging the soldiers of Western armies to engage in intense but fruitless fighting against treacherous and zombiized insurgents that keep knocking down what they and their humanitarian partners are trying to build, sometimes, with little help from (or - dare I say it - in direct opposition to) the political authorities of these countries, who, as I mentioned above, often see themselves as elected in order to introduce Shari'a law, the very root of the whole problem of militancy and terrorism, into the life of the nation. Military strategy is failing here, quite simply, because it falls dramatically short of what is really necesary - total war!

What both the left and the right need to realize, and to agree on, is that in cases like this, just as in the cases of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, nation building can only succeed once the enemy has been completely vanquished and his will entirely broken by the humiliating and crushing blow of abject, complete, and unconditional surrender. As I mentioned the time for the West to start working on this is now, and it will take time at that (although hopefully not more than three to five years) because I am convinced that its best chances for success depend on having not only Europe and all of the Americas on board, but also powerful Asian allies like Japan, China and India. I said above that it will also require the dedication of real statesmen of the stature of men like Roosevelt (I ought to have mentioned Churchill as well) to direct it, so political leaders from across the spectrum who sincerely care about the welfare of their own people, and of the world, had better start waking up to the reality of the situation and stepping up to the plate. Unless nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran are, at the least, directly and credibly targetted by this massive threat of total war, and more moderate but fragile governments like Egypt and Jordan are warned that it could come their way too if they don't get their act together or if they start making unfriendly noises themselves, the problem of Islamic against non-Muslim states, and against non-Muslim minorities in Islamic countries, will never be permanantly curbed.

Posted by: templar at August 24, 2006 2:18 PM

to ofcourse and templar:
Both of you seem to have mistaken my intent. I was not criticizing or worrying about the likely Western response to a nuke. I was merely trying to anticipate what is likely to happen. I think pervasive monitoring might be inevitable and not necessarily so bad as tends to be assumed. I think it might be possible to combine the sacrifice of privacies with the continuation of freedom.

At the moment, the imposition of a quasi-totalitarian management scenario by the West onto the Muslim world is inconceivable to most people, just as the notion of forcing a reformation or reeducation onto Islam is inconceivable. Such forced procedures of 'reeducation' are ones we associate more with enemies like the former Soviet Union than with the West. How then could the West adopt such procedures? But once a nuke or other megadeath incident occurs -- and experts seem to be agreed that it is a matter of when, not if -- the inconceivable will probably become conceivable. I don't see any other solutions. Transparency would seem to be the only way to manage not just extremists, but the advancing powers of technology itself. I would postulate that we face two paths in the near future. 1) Regression of civilization to extremely primitive levels and near total destruction of the human race or 2) a transparency regime that monitors everyone 24 hours a day and controls and limits ever increasing tech potentials for mass destruction.

One could go further and speculate about a transparency regime being temporary and much less dystopic than we usually assume. Who knows? It might last less than a century and result eventually in the end of history that Fukuyama prematurely announced: a society with relatively little conflict, a world civilization without war or the need for war. This would require the emergence of a worldwide consensus for liberal democracy. The historical evidence shows that liberal democracies never or virtually never go to war against one another.

Posted by: traeh at August 24, 2006 3:08 PM

Thanks for the clarification, Traeh. You're speculations about a "transparency regime" are interesting. As you note, this is certainly a lesser evil, but I'd still like to think that such measures may not be necesary if we uproot the ideological foundations of terrorist activity as I've described. In any case, something I'm willing to keep an open mind about. As for your reference to Fukayama's thesis - worth hoping for, that's for sure.

I do find this troubling:

"But once a nuke or other megadeath incident occurs -- and experts seem to be agreed that it is a matter of when, not if -- the inconceivable will probably become conceivable"

Let's hope things don't have to get to such a point before our leaders figure it out - but I fear that it may.

Posted by: templar at August 24, 2006 4:05 PM

A few ‘foreigners’ arrested in the West were found to have radiation poisoning. Maybe the ‘foreigners’ were mules, carrying radioactive components, later to be assembled for martyrdom operations. If he (or she) is willing to become a martyr for Islam, he will not be concerned about exposure to nuclear material, since he is already prepared to sacrifice himself. The only valid deterrent, to Islamic leadership, orchestrating the martyrdom operations, is to make official, a mutually assured destruction (mad) policy. If Western civilians are made into sacrificial lambs, then Islam must also be made to sacrifice, equal measure, and greater. Mullahs, Imams, and Clerics best consider the longer-term negative consequences, before authorizing the mass murder of Western civilians.

Posted by: SFOD at August 24, 2006 9:08 PM

templar:
Your posts have been interesting too.

You are perhaps aware of the book Our Final Hour by Sir Martin Rees, England's Astronomer Royal. He has made a bet for a thousand pounds or some similar amount. He hopes to lose the bet but thinks he will win. As I recall, the bet is that within the next decade at least a million people will die in a single event of bioterror or bioerror. Our Final Hour is in part about how technology is making it easier and easier to kill more and more people in more and more ways. He seems to think that some looming biotech dangers are even more fearsome than nukes, because they may be less controllable in a variety of ways.

Posted by: traeh at August 25, 2006 1:17 AM

templar:
Your posts have been interesting too.

You are perhaps aware of the book Our Final Hour by Sir Martin Rees, England's Astronomer Royal. He has made a bet for a thousand pounds or some similar amount. He hopes to lose the bet but thinks he will win. As I recall, the bet is that within the next decade at least a million people will die in a single event of bioterror or bioerror. Our Final Hour is in part about how technology is making it easier and easier to kill more and more people in more and more ways. He seems to think that some looming biotech dangers are even more fearsome than nukes, because they may be less controllable in a variety of ways.

Posted by: traeh at August 25, 2006 1:21 AM

Traeh:

Thanks for the info. Sounds like its worth a read, so I'll find it and have a look at it. It's definitely a scarey problem.

Posted by: templar at August 25, 2006 9:27 AM