Only the dead have seen the end of war. Knuckle up, buckle up, it is going to be one hell of a ride.

Posted by: zooboomafoo at August 27, 2006 8:44 AM

We all know that Sharia is an awful legislative practice.

Posted by: zooboomafoo at August 27, 2006 8:54 AM

At home, the line of defense is clear. It is our border. My new strategy calls on us to think of our border as more than just a line on a map. We need to see the border as a cultural line also, a defining line of freedom against proponents of sharia, which, I cannot emphasize enough, poses a direct threat to our founding principles of liberty and equality. It is that simple.

Borders? Borders? We don’t need no stinkin borders!

A speech like this from traitor George would be disingenuous at best; a brazen lie at worst.

George Bush, like most people in the American government hate the idea of American sovereignty; they don’t believe in it’ – never have -- and they are activity working to destroy it – especially American sovereignty for which they nurture a particular hatred. It’s too confining and puts too many restrictions on the tentacles of wealth and power!

Why should they be content to rule over a single nation, when, with a treaty here and there, they can effectively rule the whole damned planet?

As globalist elites, they collectively imagine that they as individuals, will be hailed with obsequious titles “Ohhh, Senior! Ahhh, Seniora!” and will not have to deal with the underclass they have imported to the very country they detest. The squalid masses will serve an immediate self-serving political and economic purpose, but the elites presuppose that they won’t have to actually deal with the new underclass of their creation on a daily basis.

After all they reason, “the vermin won’t get past the gilded outer gates, heavily guarded by security.”

Is it all just a “conspiracy?” No!

It is a culture and a mindset among arrogant rulers who see themselves as “better; wiser; more intelligent; and higher up than the rest”

The people in high government positions (legislative, executive, and judicial) picture themselves in positions of “title and right” rather than as “public servants” -- a term they condescendingly bounce around in public as a matter of showmanship.

But they detest the implications of the term and loath the members of the “public” as filthy and ignorant masses that must be entertained during times of election or if they accidentally find their way into the office somehow; “gawd forbid that you actually have to see them!”.

It’s like the baby-kissing politician that has to spit as soon as the cameras are off after kissing the child!

In any case, to put the immigration numbers into perspective:

Between 1880 and 1930 over 27 million people entered the United States - about 20 million through Ellis Island

http://www.ellisisland.org/immexp/wseix_5_3.asp

On Tuesday, May 16, the Senate passed Sen. Jeff Bingaman's (D-NM) amendment to S. 2611 that significantly reduced the number of legal immigrants who could enter under the bill's "guest worker" program. As a result of this change, our estimate of the number of legal immigrants who would enter the country or would gain legal status under S. 2611 falls from 103 million to around 66 million over the next 20 years.)

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1076.cfm

Bottom line – if you are waiting for George to make this speech – forget about it!
Even if he did, no one in government would actually support it! (Although, they may do a “Bob Dole” and undercut the legislation even in the unlikely event that it passed!)

Posted by: witness at August 27, 2006 9:31 AM

How we all keep searching for euphemisms to soften the blow.

Robert's site is "Jihad Watch," not Islam Watch. A petition against "Islamists" gets Hugh's approval. (What's an Islamist? Someone who believes in Islam? I thought that was a Mus--oops, oh wait, can't say that.) Now Diana West proposes that the problem isn't Islam but "Sharia."

I myself will say things like "literal Islam," which I think is a hedge as well.

I just wonder if our collective unwillingness to be more blunt about the true problem at hand is helping or hurting...

Posted by: kamala at August 27, 2006 9:34 AM

The only one in the U.S. government who will ever make a speech like this will be the Secretary of Agriculture or whomever is umpteenth in ine for the presidency after everyone else is dead from the nuclear missle strike on Washington by an Iranian sub off the coast.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at August 27, 2006 10:19 AM

"We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint," Centanni later told Fox. "Don't get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a lot of good things about it, but it was something we felt we had to do because they had the guns, and we didn't know what the hell was going on."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060827/D8JOPCEO0.html

Highest respect? Learned a lot of good things did you?

See, forced conversion to islam isn't so bad after all even if you have a gun to your head!

This is fox news? Can't wait to hear how CNN and Reuters crows about islam!

Posted by: witness at August 27, 2006 10:40 AM

Re: What President Bush should say to us, part 2

(and part 1).

Brilliant.

Posted by: Frank at August 27, 2006 10:44 AM

America supporting militarily, finacially and politically a Jihadi 'democracy'? Sounds strangely familiar. Where have I heard that before? Kosovo and Bosnia? Pressuring the EU to accept Turkey?

Posted by: george_rem at August 27, 2006 11:09 AM

kamala and Pelayo,

I agree with your point about naming -- and defining -- the enemy as Islam and Muslims.

See my essay on my blog, The Hesperado on precisely this subject:

"The Case of the Asymptotic Cigar: Jihad Watch"

http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2006/06/case-of-asymptotic-cigar-jihad-watch.html

(Be forewarned: This essay tends to be rather relaxed and verbose, and the real meat of it only begins at about the fifth paragraph.)

Posted by: Television at August 27, 2006 11:26 AM

When the tenets of a religion include the regulation of people and behavior that overrides our constitution can we consider that religion to be a religion? The hard question that needs to be answered is Islam a religion in the modern Western world?

If the answer is no, then how can we make laws that will hinder the establishment of Islam in America and not destroy our other freedoms? This is a very real constitutional crisis.

As low as reasonable achievable is a good guiding principal.

Posted by: Alara at August 27, 2006 11:47 AM

Alara:

I read the article as precisely HOW. A definition of terms in regard to OUR PRINCIPLES and hard won liberties.

"freedom against proponents of sharia, which, I cannot emphasize enough, poses a direct threat to our founding principles of liberty and equality. It is that simple."

"But if the laws promulgated by Islam directly threaten freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and religion, women's rights and key concepts of equality -- and they do --"

Sure beats hell out of oblique terms: Islamo-fascists, radical Islam, evil, etc.

It would work to describe the negative result of an aspect of a moon-god religion and seems impossible to argue against re: Muslim or Islam as 'religion' per se. Just outlaws specific gender of the crap.

(Kinda like polygamy and John Smith's NEW revelations. Mormon - kinda goofy, bunch of wives and kids- illegal (supposedly- in most places - unless the gays marry - then) - on so on.

Beuuuuuful piece!

Dearborn-istan is doomed!

Posted by: Grateful1 at August 27, 2006 12:20 PM

I had a post removed - I thought it was very mild. Is the "M" word that bad?

Posted by: Pelayo at August 27, 2006 12:26 PM

I have never met a women with sharp analytical mind, it must be one of the rarest species on earth. Diana West stands out, there may may be more, but few and far between.

Whatever it takes to get the message out! Don´t call me a knocker, I just don´t see it happen on the womens lib-side, anywhere...

Ask Arnie: There are always some ´girly-men´ out there to produce the proper puff-pieces to keep everything obscured...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at August 27, 2006 12:43 PM

I completely disagree.

What President Bush should say to us should be:

I am resigning (that's Part 1)

No, Dick wont be President. I'm taking him with me to the ranch (Part 2).

Posted by: george_rem at August 27, 2006 12:59 PM

Pelayo,
Did you use the word that rhymes with "fuzzy" ?

Posted by: arjun.sevak at August 27, 2006 1:07 PM

Alara; I’m convinced that it will come down to a Constitutional Amendment that strips Islam of its 1st Amendment rights. It scares me to think about what will cause people to act. But the justification will be the teachings of the Qu’ran and their incompatiblity with our Constitutionally protected freedoms.

As Low As Reasonably Achievable is a guideline in a certain regulated industry but would also be a good one for this struggle.

Posted by: limes at August 27, 2006 1:11 PM

Thx, Hugh.
The idea of an Iraq under sharia being a reliable ally is absurd. Why, "Islamic democracy" is as ridiculous as "military intelligence" or "business ethics", and anyone who takes it seriously is nothing but an oxymoron.
Hugh Fitzgerald in 2008!! Sign me up.

Posted by: jewdog at August 27, 2006 1:25 PM

I just can't help myself: we already have allowed every conceivable 'religion'.

-Liberalism (see Ann Coulter), (not sure of any restrictions yet, just keep it undisclosed and deny)

-Jewish: can't have "blood sacrifice" of live animals. (see 'Temple':Solomon's/Herod's)

-Christian Scientist: (we just don't allow parents to with-hold medical treatment from their children);

-Voodo: Just can't do psychic surgeries (in hospitals)

-Hindu: can't keep a cow in the house, (most building codes) - even IF it Aunt Louise, or your DAD.

-Scientologists: can't have sex with children even IF they are alien-inhabited and need to be 'driven out'.(or act too strange - see T. Cruise/). See emmy winning "SouthPark" episode:"Trapped in the Closet". Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L_Ron_Hubbard:Parody Section

(Just fyi: "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." L. Ron Hubbard)

. . .and so on.

-See: PRECEDENCE!

Posted by: Grateful1 at August 27, 2006 1:29 PM

Here is more self-centered, self-important ramblings regarding "alienated" Muslims in US:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/25/AR2006082501169.html?nav=rss_print/outlook

What a horrible, traumatic experience one lady had to endure because one non-Muslim said something rude to her in a supermarket. I here something rude every time I visit Europe, but I don't revert back to some escapist, insular community of others to commiserate with.

Posted by: amana39 at August 27, 2006 1:51 PM

Re: slurs

Slurs are deleted as soon as they are found. Comments are unmoderated, but are looked over when time permits; per the disclaimer at the top of every set of comments, the fact that a slur remains for any amount of time does not mean its use is considered acceptable.

Posted by: MarisolJW at August 27, 2006 2:01 PM

arjun.sevak, I must plead guilty to using that word.

We rented "Scary Movie 4" It has a funny parody of "The Village."

This is a bit of dialogue, and thanks to the Internet Movie Database:

To me this sums up the state of discourse in the USA.

Henry Hale:
"I fear the presence of the outsiders will attract those of whom we do not speak."

Female Elder #2:
"But if you talk about those of whom we do not speak, have you not spoken of that about which we do not talk."

Henry Hale: "
Do not speak of that of about which we talk of not speaking... about."

We can't name our enemy, and I can't insult them. If I'm not allowed to insult those people who want to kill me, I'm truly at a loss for words. At this point, an insult is the only weapon that I can use and stay out of jail.

Posted by: Pelayo at August 27, 2006 2:05 PM

The problem with the use of the term "Shari'a" is that while it is the ideal, which the more fanatically "immoderate" Muslim states (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Pakistan, Afghanistan under the Taliban) attempt most closely to approximate in their legal codes, other Muslim states do not. And if they do not, then some Muslims well-versed in taqiyya-and-tu-quoque would answer the definition above by saying that this is an "exaggeration" and just look, look at all the Muslim states that, while independent, have not imposed the Shari'a.

To this one can reply in several ways. First, the Shari'a is aspirational, and not always and everywhere to be imposed at once. But surely Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the Sudan are four Muslim countires that are very large in land area, contain between two and three hundred of the world's Muslims, include both the center of Shi'a Islam (Iran) and of Sunni Islam (Saudi Arabia, with its Two Holy Places), and two of the four are currently the greatest recipients of oil and gas revenues and likely to remain so for years to come. So to say that "only four" of the 57 members of the O.I.C. have accepted the full Shari'a should be seen as the taqiyya it is.

And a further reply would note that even in the so-called "soft" states that insist that their legal codes take the Shari'a only as a guide, in fact the treatment of non-Muslims has clearly reflected the legal status they would receive under the full Shari'a. In Egypt, for example, the treatment of Copts is unequal at law. In Kuwait, another supposedly "soft" or "moderate" and progressive Muslim state, the treatment of apostates (e.g., Mr. Qambar) shows that the letter, and where not the letter the spirit, of the Shari'a is to be found.

But despite these caveats, and warnings of how the perfectly sensible suggestion -- a suggestion different from the one I have made before, which is to emphasize Jihad, but Jihad as being understood as a struggle to remove all obstacles to the spread of Islam until, at some point, every part of Dar al-Harb has been subsumed into Dar al-Islam, as it must be, because through not only "qital" (combat) but through the "money" weapon, and the campaigns of Da'wa (the Call to Islam), and the demographic conquest which creates ever-greater pressure on Infidels, in their own Infidel nation-states, to succumb, slowly at first, and then more rapidly, to Muslim demands for exceptional treatment, and then, Muslim demands for actual changes in the political and legal institutions of the Infidel nation-state (theparticular name, or history, of the government or people of that Infidel nation-state hardly matter in the calculation of what must be its final fate, for no Infidel state is any more to be accepted as permanent, as would any other.

Or perhaps both can be discussed. The Shari'a has to be discussed, made a deliberate topic, so that everyone -- guests on Charlie Rose, interviewers on Sixty Minutes, Larry King and Christine Ahmanpour and local talk-show hosts, even unto the lowliest and tommiest of pontificating friedmans and pretend-inquiring ashbrooks, will be forced to learn about what the Shari'a is.

Nearly five years have gone by, and there is not a single major figure -- outside, that is, the Internet, where all sorts of intelligent life can be detected -- in politics or in the press, who has deliberately taken upon himself the task of learning about Islam, and relating what he learns to his audience, in making sense of Islam's tenets, atttitudes, atmospherics, as they explain so much of what is otherwise inexplicable, in Iran and in Iraq, in Saudi Arabia and in Yemen, in Egypt and in Algeria, in the Sudan and in Mauritania, in Nigeria and in Thailand, Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, the Philippines, in Bosnia and Kosovo, in France and Spain and England, in Denmark and in Sweden, in Germany and in Russia.

They have not felt that responsibility. They have not understood, not been forced to understood, not forced themselves to understand, the intellectual work now to be required of them. They will do everything they can, it seems, to resist such work. Too bad. No one can now offer an opinion on anything -- on Israel's understanding of what it faces, nor the understanding of those who would impose on it a "two-state solution" that is hopeless, and dangerous, and will only whet rather than sate Muslim appetites, on America's understanding of why the currently-stated goal of American policy in Iraq is both unrealistic, and exactly the opposite of what the American goal should be, if Islam and its menace were to be rightly understood. No one has bothered to find out about Islam. Not those who have continued to support a war in Iraq that, once the scouring for weapons was over, lost its only legitimate rationale, and who are now trying the trick of dampening, by slow degrees, their three-year enthusiasm, as they try to backtrack or to distance themselves from their former opinions, without quite admitting how wrong they have been. And those opposed to the war in Iraq are mostly opposed for all the wrong reasons, which is why when one is opposed for the right reasons, one feels compelled to carefully explain the right reasons for opposing the war, in order to clear up what otherwise would be almost certain confusion.

Raising the matter of the Shari'a puts on the spot all those who make pronouncements -- the buchanans and novaks, brothers under the skin, just beneath the first layer, to the coles and kosses, all of whom have ignored Islam because it would take too much time, it is too complicated for them, it isn't really relevant --any absurd excuse will do.

Everyone will have to recognize, and to study, and no longer to ignore, the legal status of non-Muslims and women under Islam, and with the rights accorded even to individual Believers in Islam, which is a collectivist belief-system that has no discernible interest in the freedom of conscience, much less other conceivable rights, that are accorded to individuals under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

So whether one wishes to go by the South Face (Jihad) or the North Face (Shari'a) to obtain one's purchase on the slippery and sometimes sheerest rock-face of Islam, it can be said of all intrepid mountaineers, that in this case, climbing to reach the summit of understanding, and to look down with an inobnubilated view of men and events that can only be understood or made sense of once one has attained to that summit of understanding, can be done by one route, or another. One person will have his trip made easier by personal experience of living as a non-Muslim in a Muslim society; another will have himelf whisked to the top once he has digested the testimonies of ex-Muslims, those essential defectors from Islam. Still another may have that summit-experience given to him when he discovers that a smiling Muslim apologist in his town has all the time been saying quite other things to Muslim audiences, and that these have been caught on tape, or overheard by an informant. Some by one path, some by another, some whisked to the top by motorized vehicles on narrow roads hewn by previous travellers, some making the slow trip on their own, pedibus calcantibus.

In this case, it is the Arrival, and not the Journey, that matters.

Posted by: Hugh at August 27, 2006 2:18 PM

President Bush has done terrible damage to the Middle East in general and to Israel in particular.

Posted by: monk at August 27, 2006 2:23 PM

amana39

Reminds me of my AA days.
-Poor ME! POoooooOR me! POUR me another drink__
-Oh I can't drink!
-I'll go to a meeting.

It really should not surprise these poor, alienated folks: I'm sure many here have seen this. I saw it here: Patrick Cox, cont. ed. Levitt Letter (http://levitt.com)

Is Muslim-American an Oxymoron? Can a devout Muslim be a loyal, patriot American?

A) Theologically? NO. His allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Aribia.
B) Religiously? NO. No other religion is accepted except Islam (2:256)
C) Scriptually? NO. His alligiance is to the 5 pillars of Isalm and the Koran.
D) Geographically? NO. His allegiance is Mecca which they must turn and bow to in prayer pray 5 times a day.
E) Socially? NO. He is forbidden to make friends with Christians or Jews. (Should do well with Liberals).
F) Political? NO. MUST submit to the mullah's (spiritual leaders). They believe in the annihilation of Israel (Lil Satan) and the destruction of America, The GREAT Satan.
G) Domestically? NO. He is instructed to marry 4 woman and beat and scourge a wife who disobeys him. (A Pakistani just murdered and buried his DAUGHTER in the garden for not following the religion rightously enough).
H) Intellectually? NO. He cannot accept the Constitution, since based on BIBLICAl principles and believes the Bible corrupt. ( AGAIN, should prosper under Liberal politicans.
I) Philosophically? NO. Islam, Muhammad, and the Koran do NOT allow freedom of religion and expression. (Leading the charge for Liberal voters now)!

Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. EVERY Muslim gov't is a Theocracy - either dictatorial, or autocratic - these are their own tenants and preached daily in their mosques.

HUGH: K.I.S.S. \This is about ALL I care to know, it's enough for me!

Posted by: Grateful1 at August 27, 2006 3:19 PM

In the USA, we will never be able to take the required steps to defend our nation from the Islamic undermining of our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, unless we establish the firm legal basis to do so.

That firm legal basis should be an amendment to the Constitution that (correctly) defines Islam not to be a religion, as far as we are concerned, but rather a fascist world-dominating ideology (and a violent cult) whose purpose is, among other nasty things, to nullify the philosophical basis of Constitution itself.

That Islam, in some parts of the world, is treated as a "religion," and that it everywhere carries the trappings of religion as a Trojan Horse with which to infiltrate free societies, should hold no legal weight in our western jurisprudence.

With a Constitutional amendment, we can then craft the laws, regulations, military posture, and foreign policy necessary to quarantine Islam. We would then be able act vigorously to stop any special legal accomodations for Muslims already here, to stop all future Islamic immigration and other "cultural" contacts, to stop technology leakage and foreign aid (jizya) to the Islamic jihadic conspiracy, and to take punitive military action unabashedly in pre-emptive self-defense whenever needed.

Much of the on-going Islamic assault on the USA right now is legal. The Muslims are flooding our legal system with spurious but effective challenges to our freedom of speech and to our right to defend ourselves. Every terrorist we capture and put on trial absorbs multiple millions in legal costs, in appeal after appeal after appeal. Even those convicted in court continue to use our freedoms against us by "religiously" proselytizing in prison--more jihad to help bring down our nation and its laws.

The bleeding from this legal jihad must be stopped. But every attempt to stop it will be met, from the traitorous ACLU and others, with appeals based on our Constitutional freedoms applied uncritically to those who conspire to destroy our nation and our legal system. Thus, our own Constitution will be used as a tool to destroy itself.

Eventually, according to the apparent Muslim plan, after demographic warfare (jihad by the womb) has elevated Muslims to a majority of the population, a Sharia Amendment will be tacked onto the Constitution stating, as in the Iraqi constitution today, that no law shall be made contradicting Islamic dogma. Just as the violent Medinan verses in the Koran abrogate the peaceful Meccan verses, the Sharia Amendment will abrogate our Bill of Rights.

Therefore, we need to press for a Constitutional amendment banning practitioners of Islam from our territories, and directing a quarantine of the Islamic world. The sobering alternative, as many have realized, is a global shooting war with that Islamic world, probably involving weapons of mass destruction here and abroad, and including some level of war in the streets here at home.

Posted by: Stendec at August 27, 2006 3:20 PM

My response to Ms. West is twofold: an approval and a warning (not only to her but to everyone else). On the one hand, I can only praise Ms. West's proposal for the repression of Islam in the U.S. and this, as I never cease to point out when I mention it in these pages, not to cause the loss of all benefit of religious liberty to decent, law-abiding and peaceble Muslim citizens, but precisely because this is in the undeniable best interests of precisely those very Muslims who call themselves "moderate" and see themselves as wanting to live at peace with their non-Muslim neighbors. They will not otherwise be able to maintain their positon and withstand the violence that constantly boils out of Islamic society, and that is now beginning to arrive on North American shores, as the recent Canadian case - among so many others - demonstrates. So this part of her proposal is a good first step, and it is in line with proposals I have made for Western governments to assume control over the "form of Islam" (or "forms") that they find acceptable within their countries and exlude the rest, through the establishment of licensing and other requirements for preachers and exclusion of religous doctrine that undermines the legitimate interests of the state, or threatens the safety of citizens, property or infrastructure.

As for the military part of her plan, I see this as marked by a very unfortunate return to America's historic isolationist tradition, and as such, if this goes ahead, either under Bush or under some future president, it will work against the interests both of the rest of the world, and of America herself.

If America allows Europe to fall to this plague it will only extend the war of attrition that Islam has played with the West for most of the last 1400 years. The Umma's passive-aggressive tradition of waging Jihad not only through overtly military means, but through the quieter cultural and ideological means of holding back open hostilities while it regroups and rebuilds its forces will result in a policy of quietly appropriating the superior cultures that this Borg-like beast has acquired while planning its stategies for using these newly acquired tools against its next enemy - namely America. It will play itself out as it always has in the past. The extensive and sophisticated knowledge and experience left by these defeated and assimilated culture in practical and applied sciences and the like that may allow the Umma to gain what advantage and technical prowess it may from its conquered European peoples, enlisting the elites of these subjugated societies into the task through forced converion and terror, will turn Europe into the next staging ground from which to continue to threaten and wear down America's free society and her very existence. This is a game that be played for hundreds of years, as it often has in the past, and in various places. It represents the pattern that has played itself out throughout the entire history of the Umma's relations with its dhimmi communities and the non-Moslem world, and that has brought about its remarkable historical expansion, and it will simply enter a new, and more dangerous phase. It is precisely this passive-aggressive strategy, and the resulting expoitation of the dhimmi communities that, by generating episodic periods of "tolerance" and "pluralism" in Islamic societies, has generated such monstrous myths as the "golden age" of "al-Andalus" (Moorish Spain) and the Baghdad caliphate, leading us, thanks to the optimistic rose-coloured propaganda of "multiculturalists" to the present situation of confusion, chaos and denial. (As a social democrat - one who's considering a conservative political alternative out of disgust with the ongoing adherence to some very obviously failed policies that fall under this category on the part of parties' like Britain's Labour and Canada's NDP, I call it that free of any "right wing" bias). So its time for the whole world to end this charade.

The time has come for America, and the entire non-Muslim world to set aside their current differences about all matters whatsoever, and for America to take the lead in gathering the entire non-Moslem world, its allies and former allies, even its current enemies to the extent possible, Russia, China, India, Australia, Europe, Latin America - all of these places could face the threat of significant Islamic expansion in the near or medium term future - into a global alliance like the one that defeated the Axis powers in the middle of the last century. The current world scene is like that of a small aircraft with a dozen or so passengers, of whom one is a psychopath threatening the others and possibly planning to sabotage the flight. One must take the lead in standing up to him, but God help him if the other passengers are not enlisted into action in the needed take down.

If the Umma is not soon afflicted with a catastrophic, massive defeat that shakes it to its most existential core and roots, and subsequently given the choice of either being rendered by the occupying powers into something thereafter permanently benign, or being eliminated entirely, expunged from the pages of all subsequent history - if this does not happen sometime within the present, possibly within the current generation - the potential for it to wreak havoc on the world once it acquires the ability to produce its own nuclear weapons, will either lead to the destruction of the world and its rendering unliveable through an escalating campaign of nuclear exchange and counter-exchange, or allow the Umma to threaten and blackmail the rest of the world into giving it what it has always sought - total world domination, with the consequent reduction of the entire world to the conditon of present day Afghanistan. America, despite its obvious military prowess and condiderable, if not unrivalled industrial capacity, can not achieve this on her own. Even if on her own she could lay waste the entire Middle East, something not out of the question - and she might have to rely on her nuclear weapons to successfully achieve even this (the very thing that has to be avoided or at least minimized in all of this, if the world is to avoid becoming little or nothing more than one vast colony of cockroaches) - America can not by herself imprint on her victory the massive sociological and psychological characteristics that a defeat by the entire world can alone deliver and that is so badly needed to shatter the self-assumed certainty of its superiority that infects Islam's collective self-image.

America must be the one to lead the way in this new alliance. But all the nations of the world have a crucial role to play in it, even if for some it may have to be little more than assuming a clear policy of benign acquiescence and sitting on the sidelines, not interfering with what needs to be done. More than that though, just as during World War II, the U.S. must be willing to shore up Europe and allow these nations to reassert control over their territories, and for this, as well as the campaign on the Middle Eastern front, and the occupation that will have to follow - and this will have to be a long, determined and insistent one - it will need the help of military forces from Canada, Australia, Latin America, Asia - in short the entire non-Muslim world.

At the risk of sounding like some sort of naive pacificist, I included, in one of my earliest entries in the pages of this forum, a reference to a statement once made by the great American president, Abraham Lincoln, responding to advisers who suggested that he assert himself more vigourously to destroy his enemies. His response was "And do I not destroy my enemies by making them my friends?" This is what I believe we should all want for the Islamic world. However, let us all consider the facts and recognize the sad truth that only this kind of action can render that outcome possible in the end, to the great benefit of both Moslem and non-Moslem alike if it succeeds. This is the kind of resolute action that is required and the U.S. has to be the one to lead the way.

Posted by: templar at August 27, 2006 5:07 PM

As for the military part of her plan, I see this as marked by a very unfortunate return to America's historic isolationist tradition, and as such, if this goes ahead, either under Bush or under some future president, it will work against the interests both of the rest of the world, and of America herself.

Ameica is not isolationist now; never had an isolationist tradition as such; and is being destroyed currently because it is anything but isolationist.

We are not in the current situation because of any isolationist policy. We are in the current situation for precisely the oposite reasons and so is Europe.

We can not help anyone if we will not first help our own!

Hizballa can see fit to hand out American dollars to homeless palistinians in Lebonon put out by the recent battles; America will be damned if it will give a penny to its own people still homeless one year after Katrina!

Maybe we should stay the current "enlightened course" of being globalists and die -- perhaps we'll all be better off under Hizballa and Hamas in the end.

After all, that would be the enlightened, sensitive, internationalist, and politically expedient course of action -- which I will have no part in no matter how much perfume you put on this intellectual dung heap!

Posted by: witness at August 27, 2006 5:57 PM

Witness:

Consider several of the things you've said, and my responses.

"We can not help anyone if we will not first help our own!"

I didn't say you should not help your own first. In fact, I thought that by approving Ms. West's plan for a curbing of Islamist activity and rhetoric in the U.S., I was approving that very thing. If its a question of whether you should devote resources to domestic programs, like helping survivors of Hurrican Katrina, I'd say yes! (emphatically!)

If there have been shortcomings, this has nothing to do with my proposals, since America's military budget is already enormous, and not because of anything I said or called for.

"Ameica is not isolationist now; never had an isolationist tradition as such; and is being destroyed currently because it is anything but isolationist"

America stayed out of World War II for two years, while Europe was overrun by the Nazis, finally only getting into the act after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour in 1941. What is that if not "isolationism"? More than that its rooted in the thought of some of America's earliest statesmen's warnings against "foreign entanglements". Ms. West's proposal is at risk of ending up with a similar result.

"Hizballa can see fit to hand out American dollars to homeless palistinians in Lebonon put out by the recent battles; America will be damned if it will give a penny to its own people still homeless one year after Katrina!"

I don't know what you're referring to here, nor to I see that it has the slightest relationship to anything I said.

"Maybe we should stay the current "enlightened course" of being globalists and die -- perhaps we'll all be better off under Hizballa and Hamas in the end"

Its precisely because of the ongoing evil of organizations like Hizbollah that I'm suggesting that America lead the world in a war against Jihadist countries, rather than only consider its own short-term interests, as it tried to before WWII (unsuccessfully, as it turned out). If not, it may end up that you only get more of this, only now from a stronger, European platform, strengthened by its assimilation of European science and technology.

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

P.S. Witness, did you stop reading what I said after the paragraph you quoted from my entry? If so you should read on - there's much more to what I say than your remarks allude to.

Posted by: templar at August 27, 2006 7:15 PM

I wrote down a rant this morning, and I think it still makes sense. I'll vent it here because I think its somewhat on-topic (finding a workable path to isolate Islam from our society) and the thread has been live for twelve hours. I apologize in advance for its length.

Earlier this week, we had some fun with ‘Air Islam’ and have since watched seven or so bomb scares on airplanes. There’s usually money to be made in the lowest common denomination, be it in the sex trade, rap music, or mind-altering substances. There’s also money to be made in selling people a sense of security on airplanes. And the shock troops in this case could be mothers with children.

It probably wouldn’t fly with United, American, or Jet Blue. But there are a dozen or so small airlines fighting for survival. One could institute in-house profiling or something more severe. They’d get tens of millions of dollars worth of free advertising on the talking heads shows. And would appeal to a good percentage of the flying public. Soccer moms would be sold. They could raise their ticket prices. The policy would be profitable.

It would be challenged in court by the usual suspects. I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t know of any case law on the subject. But from what I can find, the governing law is the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

Any other provision of Federal statutory law which provides, in whole or in part, that no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, national origin, handicap, religion, or sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Since all airlines use FAA services, the fight would be over if Muslims were ‘discriminated against’ by the actions of one small company. The airline could claim precedent by whatever profiling programs are already in place at the Federal level and maybe win. They could recite lines from the Qu’ran as probable cause. In any case, it would be great to see moms on TV.

Posted by at August 27, 2006 07:51 PM

Posted by: limes at August 27, 2006 7:57 PM

George Bush, like most people in the American government hate the idea of American sovereignty; they don’t believe in it’ – never have -Posted by Witness

Change the word government to business and you have increased your accuracy and reliability.. you see American Government is owned...I said owned, by business.

I was watching "Do you speak American?" On PBS, a three hour presentation.. and revealing..Vincente Fox said that Mexican's who go north and retain Spanish are true patriots.. another famous speaker at that conference said that a silent reconquista has started.. .

Mexicans think and talk like this, yet call us "racists" and worse when we do.

Tom Tancredo? I would put my money now on that horse right now and caste my ballot for him!
Posted by: americaningermany

This liberal would join with you, but I saw Tom on TV and even he backpedaled from calling a spade and a spade and he echos Bush totally, speaks of Islam as if it were two religions. one peaceful the other radical.

Posted by: Nariz at August 27, 2006 9:36 PM

George Bush, like most people in the American government hate the idea of American sovereignty; they don’t believe in it’ – never have -Posted by Witness

Change the word government to business and you have increased your accuracy and reliability

Most people in American government, George include, are extremely anti-small-medium business. They hate business people dedicated to America and go out of their way to pass legislation that stiffles anyone trying to compete with their globalist cronies! I speak from personal experience on this one!

Templar:

America stayed out of World War II for two years, while Europe was overrun by the Nazis, finally only getting into the act after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour in 1941. What is that if not "isolationism"? More than that its rooted in the thought of some of America's earliest statesmen's warnings against "foreign entanglements". Ms. West's proposal is at risk of ending up with a similar result.

Actually, the only point that I took issue with was about the "isolationist" portion. Much of what you say I don't disagree with at all, but I was making a general comment not specifically related to anything you said.

However, I do not believe that America was isolationist before WWII because America was intimately involved with trade in Europe. George Bushes family was actually trading with Nazi Germany prior to WWII.

I am boarding a flight so I can not fully reply -- but just to let you know, that for the most part, we are on the same page.

Gotta go!

Posted by: witness at August 28, 2006 8:56 AM

There's just one thing missing from that speech: a commitment to setting a good example for the rest of the world by removing the connection between church and state in the US. It's hypocritical to call for the restriction of religious influence in the same speech in which the word God is used twice in deference.

Posted by: buey at August 28, 2006 10:24 AM

Abraham Lincoln told us "a house divided cannot stand." He went on to say that the United States would not be able to continue to exist "half slave, half free." Diana West said that the centrality of shariaa to islam is something that the United States should not seek to change. Why? We changed Japanese shintoism, we changed Germany's long fascination with militarism, with war, with the trappings of war.

Why again, does islam receive some sort of dispensation from American arms. Jihad and shariaa exist across the world only because we tolerate it. If we were determined to put an end to jihad, we could do so. We're deluding ourselves when we pretend that there isn't any military solution to our problems.

I'm beginning to think, like Lincoln, that the world cannot continue to exist, half slave, half free, half veiled, half unveiled, half Western, half islamic.

Islam is predicated upon a threefold inequity, slave and the free, the muslim and the infidel, and lastly, male and female. But the United States is built upon a different creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...." From the moment that are founding fathers devised this country to be built upon the self evident truths of the Natural Law, this country was on a collision course with islam. That first collision occurred soon after our founding, when we smashed the jihadist along the Barbary coasts. Thereafter, the jihadists went into something of a hibernation. But of late, they have emerged, much to the world's chagrin.

And we're going to have to do something about it, and it's going to take more than constructing some fantastical Fortress Americana, ala Pat Buchanan.

Posted by: Dan at August 28, 2006 1:32 PM

Dan:

You note above: "of late, they have emerged, much to the world's chagrin.

And we're going to have to do something about it"

Speaking as a Canadian, and based on what I believe I'm hearing from people in other countries, its becoming apparent to me that the world is indeed very MUCH chagrined.

With that thought in mind, I hope you've read my posting above. I'm convinced that we all have great stakes in cooperating on this.

If America leads the way, I believe the rest of the world will follow. The time to prepare this response is now.

The Islamist nations and their terrorist agents may even back down if they see that we all mean business about this.

Posted by: templar at August 28, 2006 2:03 PM

And we're going to have to do something about it, and it's going to take more than constructing some fantastical Fortress Americana, ala Pat Buchanan.

So far, internationalism and globalism is killing America; we need a fantastical Fortress Americana, ala anybody with the courage to follow through with the idea of actually going back to our roots.

The people that are running the American government are leading the world as it is; however, the forget that they were actually elected to lead the United States.

How is it that a Spanish-Austrialian corporation can use eminent domain laws to force ranchers off their property, which some have owned since the founding of this nation, from Texas all the way up to Minnesota so that the NAFTA highway can start construction in 2007?

This outrage can happen only because the people in Washington have more loyalty outside the country than they do to those whom they should be representing.

And why should Mexico be allowed to have an inland port in Kansas City?

And why should UAE be given control over strategic ports?

And why are military contracts awarded to Saudi interests rather than what used to be American companies?

The list goes on -- and we need to stop the sell out of America on the economic alter of globalist profits.

If we refuse to protect ourselves -- we will not be in any position to protect Europe or anyone else in a few years; and yes, I can see shariah law being enacted in the US starting with the suburbs of Detroit.

Two years ago, I would have snickered at the very notion. But having had a weekend trip to Michigan and noting some unthinkable changes -- nothing would surprise me much.

What the politicians in Washington have allowed to happen to America, in the name of internationalism and globalism, is detestable.

The speech, which should be made by Bush, will never be made by anyone; the idea of such a speech is not fantastical Fortress Americana -- but delusional.

Posted by: witness at August 28, 2006 3:01 PM