| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Ralph Peters has followed up his mudslinging attack on no one in particular with a stinging email to California Republic, in response to an invitation to reply to my recent article about him. In this email, he names me and makes a number of false accusations. For the record, I will correct them here.
Thanks. No, I don't intend to reply to Spencer, Bostom and Co. Replying only gives them what they crave so desperately: Attention. Bostom, for example, has been panting for attention for his book and his views in my columns for years (he doesn't mention that, does he?). I'm tempted to publish some of the sycophantic e-mails this crowd has sent me over the years--just to let their groupies know how little integrity they have.
In fact, I have never sent even one email to Ralph Peters, sycophantic or otherwise. I do not even have his email address.
But this shouldn't be a personal matter--it's about ideas, about freedom, about defending our country, about getting it right. And I simply don't find close-minded loonies helpful--so I don't respond to their pleas for my time.By the way, that's why I didn't "name names." First, it would have given them attention. And, second, it's my belief that it's okay to attack those more powerful than me by name, but it's ungentlemanly to attack the weak as individuals. And you shouldn't exaggerate the reach of these guys. The blogosphere inflates the image of a lot of little men, from the Timothy McVeigh Fan Club to pedophiles. If their views had genuine merit, they would be widely published in forums where they have to get past the editorial gates. But they're not widely published because they don't pass the quality or sanity tests. Their stuff is just self-important net-dweller hate-porn. And in a nation of 300 million, they'll be able to find a good number of fellow haters.
And please note that my attack was on their positions--their attacks (very poorly written, by the way) have been on me personally...on my integrity, my military services, etc.
It's interesting that he calls the work of those he hates "self-important net-dweller hate-porn" and then claims to take the high road. But again, he is making false statements. And if we are indeed the ones he meant in his column, and we are so insignificant, why did he see fit to spend a Post column attacking these shadowy evildoers at all?
Anyway, when "Spencer, Bostom, and Co." is the apparent group meant in the phrase "their attacks...have been on me personally," this is simply false on the face of it. Here is my full reply as it appeared in FrontPage. In it, this is everything I say about Ralph Peters: I say he is a "retired military officer and author of several books on this present conflict"; that his NY Post piece was "one of the most confused and irresponsible pieces I have ever seen in an American newspaper"; that he doesn't tell us who he is attacking in the piece, and that by not doing so he is "allowing himself the coward’s retreat of being able to deny, if challenged by anyone, that he had him in mind"; that he is "setting up straw men, blurring distinctions and drawing unnecessary conclusions"; and that he makes several "false assumptions."
Does that look like a personal attack to you? Do you see anything in there about his military service? I don't either. Do you see anything in there about his integrity, other than that his hit piece on a nameless, faceless "rotten core of American extremists" is cowardly -- which I stand by? Nope. My response was actually just what he says it wasn't: a reply to his positions, and an explanation of mine.
I have not attacked their personal lives, and won't.
Other than comparing us to Tim McVeigh and pedophiles, and saying we publish hate porn.
That's Brownshirt stuff. I've been out there risking my life, often alone, in the Muslim world while they've been sitting at home. They're like professors who've never really done anything but only know the world (in this case, Islam) from books. If they haven't seen the Muslim world first-hand, how do they know what it's really like? Just reading about it here in the USA is like trying to understand what sex is like just from the manuals.
Here Ralph Peters simply doesn't know what he is talking about. He has no idea what I have done or where I have been, and it is irrelevant anyway: jihadists are manifestly using Islamic teaching to further their goals, unchallenged by any significant movement of moderates, whether or not I have kissed the ground in Karachi or sunned myself in Kuala Lumpur.
As you know, I'm for waging a harder war on terror than we currently do. But what is the point of alienating a billion Muslims with our own hate speech? These guys are bigots. Period. No matter how they dress up their prejudices with quotes from dead Muslim clerics.
Oh, I have plenty of quotes from live ones, Ralph.
Otherwise, they wouldn't have gone nuts over another person (me, in this case) expressing his views. They cannot bear dissent from their narrow doctrines (sounds rather like the case they put against Islam).
I can bear dissent just fine. In fact, I'd be happy to debate you on this. I gave you a reasoned response to your piece, and all I get back from you, Colonel, is another shower of abuse and insults. Looks as if the one who can't bear dissent is not me.
They are resolutely against free speech and insist that their views are the only possible views--a very good definition of a fanatic.
The irony is getting a little thick in here, don't you think?
Finally, conservatism has always defended the individual against the mass. The left has raised the mass above the individual. Bostom, Spencer and co. describe Muslims as an undifferentiated mass.
Is that so? Can you quote me on that? Because if you can't, you might think twice about saying it. And of course, you can't come up with such a quote.
Of course, Peters is probably referring here to my assertion that all the schools of Islamic law teach violent jihad and the subjugation of unbelievers. Not in ancient times only, but today. Of course, unanimity does not equal an "undifferentiated mass," but never mind. If I am wrong in this, Colonel, show me the evidence, please. Enlighten me. Be so kind as to pull me out of the darkness. Show me the Islamic school or sect that teaches peaceful coexistence on an indefinite basis with non-Muslims, and is accepted as orthodox by the others. I'd love to see it.
Is that conservatism? Sounds like a bizarre form of anti-Muslim Marxism to me. Of course, in the end extremists are all the same--whether they end up on the ultra-right or ultra-left is just an accident. We forget that Nazi was an abbreviation for "national socialist."Conservatism should be a big tent--but we have to keep the tentpoles out of the sewer.
I just have to draw the line at damning Islam as totally beyond hope.
Contrast this crude caricature with my words here, and tell me who is the frothing fanatic.
I'm not optimistic about the religion in the Middle East, that's certain. It faces self-imposed handicaps that may prove insurmountable. But Muslims elsewhere offer at least some glimmers of hope. Let's not extinguish those glimmers ourselves.Finally, Spencer and Bostom are whiners and fear-mongers. But they don't offer serious solutions. Spencer, for example, never addressed the questions I've raised in interviews (he edits and mis-edits my remarks very selectively, lifting things wildly out of context--he'd be boohooing from here to Christmas if someone did that to him):
Actually, people do that to me more or less on a daily basis, and I just don't have that many hankies. But anyway, gee, I'm sorry about mis-editing your remarks, Colonel. I assure you it was unintentional. Perhaps you could furnish me with some examples of this misuse?
First, if Islam is totally hopeless, what do they propose to do about it (and I don't mean silly nonsense about a Muslim Vatican II)?
I have never said that "Islam is totally hopeless." If you think I have, produce the quote. Nor have I ever recommended a "Muslim Vatican II." If you think I have, produce the quote.
Anyway, to answer your question: What I have said, many times, including earlier today, is that the Muslim reformers on which you place so much hope need to repudiate the elements of Islamic teaching that jihadists use to recruit terrorists and incite violence. Why is that so farfetched or unreasonable?
Second, if all Muslims are in on a conspiracy to get us, why have the overwhelming number of victims of Islamist terror been other Muslims? Not just Sunni killing Shia, but Sunni killing Sunni.
I have never said that "all Muslims are in on a conspiracy to get us." If you think I have, produce the quote.
As for Muslims killing Muslims, this happens because of the phenomenon of takfir, or the declaring of other Muslims to be apostates or heretics or hypocrites, and thus lawfully killed.
How about our Kurdish allies? Are they in on the jihad?
Some are, some aren't, as with all groups.
Do Sunnis and Shi'as get together at secret-handshake meetings to plan our doom?
I would doubt it.
On the contrary, the great bloodshed looming ahead for Islam is the next round of Sunni-Shi'a warfare--they hate each other with an even deeper passion than Catholics and Protestants hated each other a few centuries ago.
Some do, some don't. There is an old Arabic saying with which I am sure Peters is familiar, given his extensive travels in the Middle East: "my brother against my brother, but both of us against our cousin." Sunnis and Shia will fight, but will also unite against non-Muslims. Witness the Shi'ite Iranian support for Sunni Hamas, etc.
Islamist terror must be dealt with ferociously. But we must not suggest that a hundred-billion Muslims are all Salafist violent jihadis. They're just not.
Nor have I said they are. If you think I have, produce the quote.
We all need to apply a little common sense.
You can say that again, Ralph. You can say that again. I thought that myself today when I read your new piece saying that violence in the Middle East is the fault of the Middle East itself, not of Islam. So by the logic of your first piece, does that mean that you are a bigot who thinks that all Middle Easterners, Muslim, Jewish, Christian whatever, are Untermenschen?
Also, what about non-Middle Eastern terrorists like Adam Gadahn or Richard Reid, etc. etc.? How did they get infected with Middle Easternism?
Anyway, just so I understand: if someone thinks the problem of terrorism comes from the Middle East as such, he's enlightened. But if he thinks that it comes from one aspect of one religion that originated in the Middle East, he's a bigot. Got it!
Personally, I would rather stand side by side with an honest Muslim-American than with a bigot whose ancestors came over on the Mayflower.
My ancestors didn't come over on the Mayflower. They came over after World War I as exiles from the collapsing Ottoman Empire.
Conservatism doesn't engage in mass hatred. And America gives the individual a chance.Best regards,
Ralph
Mass hatred, verboten: check. Defamation and misrepresentation: apparently a-ok.
Posted by Robert at September 15, 2006 8:33 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Ralph Peters wrote:
"Bostom, for example, has been panting for attention for his book and his views in my columns"
What "columns" is he referring to? I didn't know Ralph Peters had "columns". Does he own a newspaper or magazine?
Posted by: remote_control![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 15, 2006 9:50 PM
"But this shouldn't be a personal matter--it's about ideas, about freedom, about defending our country, about getting it right. ".
Seems he knows what its about , he,s just so deranged and uniformed he doesnt understand or care he is in the wrong side of the issue. Not strange in this day and age.
perfectly typical.
at September 15, 2006 9:57 PM
Hard to believe that Andrew Bostom, who seems sober and maybe a bit boring, is "panting for attention." Could it be that when you've done the kind of detailed work that Bostom has done and when you see the implications, you want folks to take it seriously and that you sound urgent at times?
I feel vaguely embarrassed for Ralph Peters. He sounds like a man who is having a conversation whose details he has not mastered, with people he does not want to understand. What does his unwillingness to learn stem from, really?
Posted by: StillBreathing at September 15, 2006 9:58 PM
"But this shouldn't be a personal matter--it's about ideas, about freedom, about defending our country, about getting it right. And I simply don't find close-minded loonies helpful--so I don't respond to their pleas for my time.
Dear Mr Peters,
Being open minded does not mean never, ever reaching a conclusion, or never, ever making up one's mind. Beginning in 1979 and for several years thereafter I actually thought that Islam was hijacked, by a mad, deranged Ayatollah who had invented his own brand of Islam. Now, through those people who you have attempted to personally skewer and my own studies I have learned the true Islam. In other words I have made up my mind. Yes, it is now closed to any future lies and half-truths from the mouths of enemy collaborators. In the future, if I should hear any truths that actually negate my present opinions, I will listen and re-consider. So far that truth is not coming from you. I consider true Islam as practiced by the faithful, a danger far lethal than any evilness that has plagued this planet in its history. I will not feign any false intellectualism by using big words. I consider you the consummate fraud and charlatan. You are a traitor to your country, and what is worse, you may possibly be responsible for the dhimmitude of my grand children and great-grandchildren.
I promised no big words: I must say that you are so full of crap, that is starting to come out your mouth.
Posted by: Pelayo at September 15, 2006 10:07 PM
I will simply say that I find Robert Spencer's arguments here logical and Ralph Peter's semi-logical and scatter shot. In the past I have liked Mr Peter's columns in the NY Post. I still do but his understanding of "true" Islam and the Islamic threat is piddling compared to Spencer, Bostum and Hugh Fitzgerald.
The default position of Islam is Jihad.
Even the slacker Muslims participate in the demographic Jihad and provide young men for the armed Jihad
at September 15, 2006 10:11 PM
Mr. Peters obviously read the comments on the posts about him. He is mad and is doing a bit of mudslinging. I have heard him interviewed on the radio recently and regarding his original comments, I think he was trying to be PC for the media. Not having a lot of experience at PC he bungled it. Now his pride is in play and he can’t back down. Also it might be tough for him to admit that he was given a magic carpet ride in the ME. No doubt there are decent muslims but they are terrified of the fanatics and the fanatics are in control. Perhaps it is better to ignore him.
Posted by: tgusa at September 15, 2006 10:13 PM
I'm not optimistic about the religion in the Middle East, that's certain. It faces self-imposed handicaps that may prove insurmountable."
No misquote -- not out of context. I think Peters is just angry because when he says pretty much the same thing that this site regularly says, this site says it far better, with far better and more sholarly citations, and, I might add with more equanimity, more thoughtfulness, and a lot less bile.
Take a pill, Ralph. That grimace on your face is starting to show in your writing too!
Posted by: jsla at September 15, 2006 10:30 PM
Tgusa, I don't think that we can ignore him.
Ignore that black widow spider in your close , the rattlesnake in the barn? We cannot let these people spread their lies without challenge.
People like Peters need a warning label. "Warning: Believing these opinions may be hazardous to your health."
Posted by: Pelayo at September 15, 2006 10:31 PM
Robert, I wouldn't worry whatever Ralph Peters has to say about you. I'm sure you're more popular and sell far more books than he ever will. It seems that readers of Jihad Watch are more intuitive and intelligent than the naysayers/doubters who just can't see the danger of Islam and the catastrophic effects it will have on the world in our future.
By the way, saw you on Neil Cavuto today. Looking good Robert! I adore Cavuto and quite impressed he booked you as a guest.
Posted by: Bonniea at September 15, 2006 10:34 PM
Hey Robert,
I was an officer in the military at the same time as Peters (and after his retirement). Here's is a couple of facts about old Ralph: He was an intelligence officer, not combat arms. Therefore, he saw a very "soft" side of the Army vs. those of us in the Infantry. Intel is about as soft as it gets. I say that because old Ralph consistently reminds everyone of his military experience and "bravery" both before and after retirement ("facing Muslims while those Spencer lovers on the internet are cowards behind laptops). I don't believe he has any combat experience to speak of, though he may have served in Desert Storm. Don't think so. Either way, he was seen in the Army as an intellectual wannabee vs. Combat officer. I say this to counter the implications in his letter: Big bad warrior Ralph Peters tells off cowardly Spencer and Bostom.
Second issue: Peters has big-head sydrome thanks to the unthinking mainstream media. He now realizes that to maintain his current "star" status, he must pander to the left. Example: In recent articles, he has claimed that the massive illegal hispanic immigration is no different than historic European immigration. This is just wrong based on the numbers (We have as many foreign born Americans in the US, mostly illegal hispanic immigrants, as came to the US from 1607 to JFK), and based on many other ominous statistics of non-integration. However, Peters claims all those who are alarmed about the illegal immigration problems are bigots. Ditto with the issue of comparing Christianity to Islam. Peters is now the world's Theologian, telling us regular liberal cannards about Christianity in recent articles(started as a small Jewish sect which morphed into the world's first attempt at "globalism", as oppressive and conquering as Islam, etc. etc.).
Ignore Peters. He is out of control. He is now using all the nuclear bombs of American discourse: Bigot, Racist, etc. etc. Additionally, I believe he is pandering to the left and Islamic "intellectuals" by hammering you and Bostom. Now he can act the conservative "tough guy" through his earlier writings AND be invited to the "big" cocktail parties in DC and New York. The press will fawn all over him as "his own man", etc.
Peters' ego will be his downfall. He really isn't that smart. Just let time take its course.
Posted by: hello123
at September 15, 2006 10:52 PM
I knew I knew that name!!
Ralph Peters is the git that wrote 'Red Army' - possibly the most defeatist (and ally-insulting) bit of twaddle I've ever had the misfortune to read. Good lord. I was stunned to find out on finishing the book (with a grunt of utter disgust) that he was an actual army officer (though I see apparently that he never rose above the rank of Colonel since then, which is perhaps unsurprising), so poor was his understanding of Western military doctrine, which I was studying for a course at university at the time. Man. That was one bass-ackwards novel. I was really forced to wonder if it might be possible, if there were more men of Peter's...'understanding'...in the American army.
But at least I know where to write the dolt now to tell him what I think of him. Imagine the coincidence of a guy writing the most unrealistic novel ever, and him being the same man to call out Robert and then refuse to back his words up.
Prophet Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at September 15, 2006 10:57 PM
Did any of you read the recent symposium in frontpagemag.com about the five-year anniversary of 9/11? Ralph Peters was one of the panelists. I've posted the link below. I read the entire interview and came away with the distinct impression that he is a man unhinged and egocentric. He flails away at Andrew McCarthy, Jed Babbin, and Tom McInerney in a shocking fashion, creating straw men and then insultingly attacking the other panelists savagely. And refusing to either apologize to Jaime Glasov or the other men or acknowledge that he stated things that were unfair and inaccurate about their views. As I read the interview I got the distinct impression of a venal man who was unravelling before our eyes, uttering irrational nonsense. Prior to that point, I have enjoyed some of what Ralph Peters has posted on the op ed pages of the New York Daily News. Now, I am no longer interested in what the man has to say. He has ZERO credebility in my book.
For the record, I've read every one of Robert's books, except for the upcoming one (I've pre-ordered it on amazon). I've also read the Qur'an. I've read Andrew G. Bostom's very careful, very scholarly book "The Legacy of Jihad." I've read three of Bat Ye'or's works. Every single one of the books these individuals have written are carefully researched, footnoted, bibliographed, and are faithful to the Islamic sources themselves. Not one of them are screeds.
It is Ralph Peters who is engaging in unseemly self-promotion with his flailing about - and not doing himself any service in the bargain. I only hope that at some point he comes to his senses and actually reads and ponders the very works that he criticizes without knowing what is in their work.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24313
Posted by: Fred at September 15, 2006 11:15 PM
The poor colonel is rattled by a bunch of "net-dwellers", and I suspect he is beginning to realize that his moral compass is stuck on Western civilization equals Islam. He believes in that ghost known as "moderate Islam". It just has to be out there, somewhere, but I can't hear it, and I can't see it. If Mr. Peters is such a "not self-important" journalist, why doesn't he give us some examples of those Muslim "glimmers of hope?" Please tell us how Islam has changed from what it has always been - a subjugating, retrograding force. Journalist, indeed.
"And America gives the individual a chance." - Peters
And Islam doesn't.
Posted by: Kreuzueber Halbmond at September 15, 2006 11:18 PM
Robert,
i agree with hello123.
col. peters admitted on the medved radio show that he was not as combat officer, but had seen danger during many of his incursions into the middle east to observe other country's forces.
as an former enlisted member of the military, i must say that col peters makes my blood boil with his lunacy. officers of his type are certainly not the Leaders you would want leading you into combat. a desk is perhaps the safest place for someone of his caliber.
at September 15, 2006 11:23 PM
This guy posted at LGF under another name.give it Ralph.
Posted by: storagemanager at September 15, 2006 11:24 PM
I trust my own small tribute to Ralph Peters ("A Tribute to Ralph Peters") was not taken amiss. Every Man In His Humour, by all means, but his hysterical outburst -- as described above -- is unseemly.
Posted by: Hugh at September 15, 2006 11:35 PM
Geoff,
For the record, Peters retired as a LTC. He was not known for military exploits. His book "fighting for the future" was his rise to stardom after retirement. Pretty good with recommendations for force restructuring in the Post-Cold War Army. However, this was nothing radical, as many of us had been making the same arguments for years. He was not an Islam or ME expert until calling himself one after 9-11.
Now, Peters has become a self-proclaimed expert on every subject under the sun: Christianity, Islam, Immigration, etc. If you disagree with his views, you are a punk, coward, racist, bigot, pedophile. As Peters is now with the "in" crowd among the mainstream media, he is spouting the required rhetoric to keep his "star" status. Hammering guys like Spencer and Bostom makes him appear to be "his own man" and an "independent thinker" who can "take on the haters".
Just ignore Peters. Guys with his kind of self-inflated ego self-destruct. Using the nuclear bombs like Racist and Bigot at every turn puts him on par with Al Sharpton. Unfortunately for Ralph, he is not part of the Left and therefore will have nowhere to go when he has burned every bridge. The Left will publish him but never like him. The Right now realizes that Peters will stab his friends in the back
Posted by: hello123 at September 15, 2006 11:39 PM
I am gonna create my own religion. I wonder if Ralph and the West will grant it immunity and acceptance under the “Freedom of Religion Act”:
Ten Commandments of the Religion of Peace 2 (Islam 2000):
1) Women shall serve my penis on my demand.
2) I shall enjoy watching boys and girls under ten performing lewd acts of sexuality.
3) I shall belittle women, and enjoy their suffering, but I will have to care for them as I see fit.
4) Women shall always take “a back seat” to men in everything.
5) Arabic is the chosen language, and shall be spoken throughout the world.
6) If I die fighting the disbelievers, I will receive an assured place in heaven, where I will be served by 500 virgins, and the drugs and alcohol are endless; otherwise, it will depend on whether or not Allah likes me.
7) I shall befriend disbelievers who do not accept the true faith, if they are stronger than, until such time that I can put them to death.
8) I shall take all the possessions of disbelievers, including their women, children, and land, and have full discretion to do what I want with them.
9) I shall make all the world submit to Islam 2000, and I shall devout my life and possessions for that cause.
10) I shall give Ibrahim, who received the words of Islam 2000 straight from Gabriel (the dispatcher of Allah), and his words prominence, and his descendants and their words prominence.
11) I shall pay the spiritual leaders of Islam 2000 10% of my yearly wages.
12) I shall pray towards Mecca, with my ass up to heaven, and head and eyes on the ground.
13) I shall fear Allah to the point of death, never questioning or disobeying Him.
14) I shall kill those who insult Ibrahim.
15) I shall kill those who leave Islam 2000.
I wonder… would Ralph approve? It’s funny; I started the list by making up things from my head, but I gradually found myself having to veer towards the Koran to find despicable commandments. For the record, Ibrahim is not my name, and I don’t observe or desire to observe any of the above.
at September 16, 2006 12:02 AM
Unfortunately, Ralph Peters continues to shoot himself in the foot with these disorganized, emotionally-laden outbursts. He simply will not educate himself regarding the Islamic texts, Islamic history, and the widespread conflict today. Apparently, he also has not consulted the research in recent years and months on Muslims' attitudes and acceptance/rejection of jihad terrorism and sharia law today in Middle Eastern countries.
Peters claims much about his qualifications based on his time in the Middle East. In other words, he implies that being physically located in the Middle East, and presumably in contact with a variety of Muslims, gives him that knowledge and experience. But what did he obtain from that? How much contact did he have with Muslims? What was the depth and quality of that interaction? What did they discuss? What kinds of questions did he ask of Muslims, and what kind of answers did they provide?
Did Peters ask them:
1) Do you accept Israel's right to exist?
2) Do you accept the harsh penalties for apostasy?
3) Do you accept the harsh penalties for blasphemy?
4) Do you accept mandated jihad fighting in the name of spreading Islam to make it dominant over other religions (as is currently accepted by all major schools of Sunni and Shia jurisprudence)?
5) Do you accept the policy of dhimmitude (subjugation of the People of the Book, forcing them to pay the jizya), as is currently accepted by mainstream Sunni and Shia Islamic scholarship?
6) Do you accept the Koran's (4:34) admonition for men to beat wives from whom they "fear disobedience"?
7) Do you believe the Koran is perfect?
8) Do you believe Mohammad's example should be followed fully?
9) What is a fair, acceptable way in which non-Muslims might criticize Islam, as they might, for example, criticize another religion or ideology?
And so on.
Now, if Peters did not raise these issues and other such issues and obtain satisfactory answers in conversations with large numbers of Muslims of various kinds and in various circumstances, and in his observations of the cultures, there is no basis for what he is saying, from his (anecdotal) personal experience. That, of course, is completely aside from the need to conduct proper scientific surveys and polls sampling large numbers of Muslims and non-Muslims, and does not address the problem of dishonest responding which arises in any survey of any population.
What this comes down to is evidence. Does Peters' anecdotal experience (of whatever quantity and quality it may be) outweigh survey and poll data obtained from large samples of Muslims in the Middle East who are responding anonymously? Are his comments about Islam better-supported than those of experts such as Bostom and Spencer*?
*Walid Phares has referred to Robert Spencer as an "expert in historical jihad." It should also be obvious to anyone who's followed this site that Spencer has a good handle on what is happening throughout the world right now with regards to jihad and sharia.
Posted by: Archimedes
at September 16, 2006 1:25 AM
Thrust:
"I have not attacked their personal lives, and won't."
[Ralph Peters]
Riposte:
"Other than comparing us to Tim McVeigh and pedophiles, and saying we publish hate porn."
[Robert Spencer]
The riposte is precious. I am still laughing--I mean laughing, not chuckling.
Posted by: unicorns62000 at September 16, 2006 3:37 AM
Ralph Peters wouldn't know the truth if it ran up and bit him in the ass.
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at September 16, 2006 4:08 AM
Mr. Peters has a lot of anger at a Straw-Man. I can just see Ralph arguing with a Scare-Crow in his corn-field as Robert watches in amazement from his property.
Posted by: Frank at September 16, 2006 6:04 AM
I find it very interesting that Peters talks about a tiny minority of extremists...
Especially with him being a former military man, but considering he only made it to Col., well, that means he wasn't a very good military man. But more to the point, in the military we are always reminded about the Special Forces, Inftantry, chopper and fighter pilots being the shiny tip of a VERY LONG SPEAR.
Well, if Peters were any sort of competent officer, he should know that that concept also applies to islamic terrorists. They are also the shiny tip of the very long jihad spear, and that means that for every single terrorist there are ten or maybe a hundred "support personnel".
So how can anyone possibly be so ignorant as to say a "tiny minority of extremists"? It takes a lot of support people to launch a mission, and there are a lot of muslims out there that are quietly supporting terrorism, by giving them money, by hiding them, by hiding arms caches for them, by allowing them to shoot at us from the window of their homes, or from behind their kids.
The Iraqi Jewess who wrote "Terrorist Hunter" which was an autobiography of most of her life, went undercover in several of America's big mosques. She saw very widespread support for terrorism in every muslim community that she investigated. So widespread in fact that the streets of the muslim community would be deserted and all the shops closed whenever terrorism fundraisers were held, because EVERYONE in the community was at the mosque donating money to support terrorist groups.
I certainly am glad that Ralph Peters is not currently in the military to further screw things up for our troops in Iraq. He is just the kind of officer that would get a hundred infantry troops killed to preserve a fricking mud hut that muslims told him was a mosque. And all in hopes that kissing muslim butt would make them hate us less.
at September 16, 2006 6:07 AM
The obvious solution to our energy problems would be to generate as much electricity as possible from nuclear fusion. Unfortunately, given the extreme pressure and temperature regime required for a fusion reaction to go critical, a fusion reactor will remain beyond our technical capabilities for a generation if not generations. We would be extremely foolish to base our long-term energy policy on the hope of nuclear fusion.
Mr. Peters taunts Mr. Spencer about his solution to the Muslim problem. Mr. Spencer replies that Muslim reformers ‘need to repudiate the elements of Islamic teaching that jihadists use to recruit terrorists and incite violence.’ Yet earlier in his rebuttal to Mr. Peters’ screed Mr. Spencer states ‘that all the schools of Islamic law teach violent jihad and the subjugation of unbelievers. Not in ancient times only, but today.’
I find it truly terrifying that five years after 9/11 there is no meaningful opposition from Muslim religious leaders to Muslims attempting to terrorize us into submission. How do we tell in advance which Muslim will follow the example of the founder of their religion and attempt to terrorize us into submission? We must come to grip with the salient truth that the pathologies that inspire Islamic terror are systemic to Islam. Unfortunately, given the extreme reaction by Muslims to any call to dialogue from unbelievers (see their reaction to Pope Benedict), we would be extremely foolish to base our long-term national security policy on the hope of Muslims reforming Islam from within. What are we to do?
John Stone, writing in the Quadrant Magazine of Australia, echoes my concerns when he states ‘that even the most extreme violence is justifiable when applied in pursuit of approved Islamic ends. Until all that changes—and it can only be changed from within Islam itself, if indeed it can be changed at all—the Islamic culture will never reside in harmony with others.’
http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=2207
I do not understand how Muslims can assimilate into a Western pluralistic society unless they abandon core tenets of their creed. We must, at a minimum, buy time to ensure an enduring assimilation of the millions of Muslims already here by drastically limiting the number of Muslims entering our country.
at September 16, 2006 8:07 AM
Excellant piece Mr. Spencer. Straightforward and comprehensible.
One can only hope that Mr. Peters will get over his ego and understand the distinction between biblical doctine and islam.
His understanding of this distinction before he fights with a muslim by his side may save his life (we need all the warrriors we can get).
The peace of compassion brotherfood and understanding - before the peace of submission and death.
Posted by: dgene at September 16, 2006 8:15 AM
(I should advertise for a proofreader).
(Ya hear that CAIR ? Ibrahim ? somebody needs some office help. )
Posted by: dgene at September 16, 2006 8:20 AM
Peters has his whole reasoning exactly backwards. He seems to assume that admitting that Islam is itself the problem is tantamount to calling for genocide of a billion Muslims. He also claims that Spencer et al have proposed no real solutions to the problem. However, the only obvious solution to this problem that DOESN'T depend on violence is a relative separation of 2 incompatible cultures. We need to stop and reverse Muslim immigration to the west and "contain" Islam. This is a nonviolent solution. But the political will to do it DEPENDS on understanding that Islam IS the problem. People like Peters who perpetuate the tiny minority of extremists myth among the general public are preventing us from being able to take the most rational course of action. So the Muslim immigrants keep pouring into the west as long as this fiction goes on. He apparently has not a clue about the demographic jihad. The obvious end result is going to be civil war in the west when the non-Muslims refuse to be subjugated. Then there IS going to be a whole lot of killing. But maybe Peters has a thing for killing and doesn't see a problem with this scenario.
He is also incorrect to state, "If their views had genuine merit, they would be widely published in forums where they have to get past the editorial gates. But they're not widely published because they don't pass the quality or sanity tests."
Tony Blankley, an editor at the Washington Times, obviously grasps the reality of demographic jihad and that we're not talking about a tiny minority of extremists and that the Islamization of Europe would pose a grave threat to the US. Diana West also grasps all of this and is regularly published there.
at September 16, 2006 10:18 AM
His most recent diatribe makes even less sense the the initial one. Now making sleazy comparisons to child molestation? I thought he was grandiose and obnoxious, but I am convinced it is deeper than that now.
Interesting reaction. Personally I would rather live and work with a Muslim American than someone filled with such self-serving, grandiose hate.
Will pass along his remarks to relatives and friends now in Military past and present.
Posted by: amana39 at September 16, 2006 2:50 PM
Mr Spencer, Ralph Peters is running interference for the Bush, Saudi, Oreilly, Hannity group of "conservatives" that claim that Islam is a religion of peace and that it is a handful of extremists (aka terrorists) that are distorting Islam.
That he is a retired Lt Col who gets public space for his opinions, should be a clue. I know a lot of retired officers, including many of higher rank, that don't have a public venue for airing their opinions.. one has to have connections to get public air space..Peters obviously has connections, and the only connections that seem to serve are in Republican Party.. and By the way, for the record is not the New York Post, a "conservative", pro administration news paper? Last I looked it most certainly was.. the equivalent of the National Enquirer or Star with a little more cache.
Posted by: Nariz at September 16, 2006 4:14 PM
One further comment: in all of Peters' comments on this issue, where has he proposed a solution? He accuses Spencer et al of not proposing a solution but what is his solution other than killing "terrorists"? Oh - that's a brilliant solution. And how does he propose that the Europeans, e.g. set about now, in first identifying and then killing all the radicals in their midst? Since his refusal to admit that Islam is the problem will inevitably lead to more Muslims immigrating into the US as well, how does he propose to go about identifying and killing these radicals/terrorists once the Muslim population itself reaches say 20%?
No - the fact is that Peters is the one who has no solution to this problem and the reason he has no solution is that he refuses to identify the problem in the first place. The fact that he slings such vitriole at those who have, in fact, correctly identified the problem, and also hinted at the most non-violent and humane (unless Islam miraculously undergoes an enlightenment in the next several decades) solution to the problem, simply demonstrates that the primary driving force behind his recent comments is sheer moral arrogance. I simply don't know any other way to account for his assumption that those who recognize that Islam is the problem are a bunch of KKK-type cretins advocating (or even merely willing to casually instigate) the genocide of a billion human beings. What, other than sheer moral arrogance (by which I mean the egoic assumption that he alone is morally enlightened and capable of much higher moral discernment than other mere mortals), could possibly account for such a gross misconception?
Posted by: Caroline at September 16, 2006 4:47 PM
Every human being and every society is what it is by virtue of the highest to which it looks up. The city, if it is healthy, looks up, not to the laws which it can unmake as it made them, but to the unwritten laws, the divine law, the gods of the city. The city must transcend itself.” – Leo Strauss, The City and Man
What are the implications of this for Muslim society? Discuss among yourselves.
Posted by: AnneCrockett at September 16, 2006 5:05 PM
It’s loaded with bs…
P- Timothy McVeigh Fan Club to pedophiles
When under attack, most people revert to familiar territory i.e. you are a Nazi, etc.
P- They're like professors who've never really done anything but only know the world (in this case, Islam) from books.
No, we also like cartoons.
P- They cannot bear dissent from their narrow doctrines.
Doctrines, do we have doctrines? What are these super secret doctrines?
P- They are resolutely against free speech and insist that their views are the only possible views--a very good definition of a fanatic.
Wrong again, a fanatic is someone who espouses certain views and then when anyone disagrees they do something fanatical i.e. Jim Jones.
P- Conservatism should be a big tent--but we have to keep the tentpoles out of the sewer.
And out of the Gas Chambers and Murder Factories.
P- Second, if all Muslims are in on a conspiracy to get us, why have the overwhelming number of victims of Islamist terror been other Muslims?
He likes to bring up the Nazis, the first people they put into concentration camps were German dissenters.
P- Do Sunnis and Shi'as get together at secret-handshake meetings to plan our doom?
This is the kind of thing I would expect to see during Saturday morning cartoons.
P- A hundred-billion Muslims.
Holy Cow!
P- Personally, I would rather stand side by side with an honest Muslim-American than with a bigot whose ancestors came over on the Mayflower.
What does he mean by honest? Why not law abiding? Honest to his beliefs or to our laws? Mayflower to Peters: Leave us out of it!
at September 16, 2006 5:38 PM
Ralph said :
""We shy away from a fundamental question of our time: What if Islam is the problem? Some months ago, an Army general made headlines through his politically incorrect remarks about Islam and Christianity. A devout religious believer, he spoke in a church, in uniform. My personal response to the media's self-righteous, self-important horror was twofold: Yeah, the guy displayed poor judgment by letting loose at a religious event with his fruit salad on his chest. But I also recognized that, as a believer himself, that general was vastly better equipped to grasp the nature of our enemies than our legions of think-tank experts and timid analysts. Put bluntly, it takes one to know one.
If we are serious about understanding our present — and future — enemies, we will have to rid ourselves of both the plague of political correctness (a bipartisan disease so insidious its victims may not recognize the infection debilitating them) and the failed cult of rationalism as the only permissible analytical tool for understanding human affairs. We will need to shift our focus from the individual to the collective and ask forbidden questions, from inquiring about the deeper nature of humankind (which appears to have little to do with our obsession with the individual) to the biological purpose of religion.
"
RALPH PETERS
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/02/1813708
You have answered your question above with theological spin. That which creates the evil is not of itself evil. Its just what we make of it. Or, at best, the radicals are possessed with the imperfect manifestation of a god who is dissapated in its essence, while the moderates are just like us, moderate and closer to our god.
What is the relationship between the Circular Error Probable radius of god and the death of Americans? Will you please quantify so we may know the difference and make an analysis of the cost benefit ratio and not hate the sinner at the same time?
Mr. Peters, why this Post article ? Or psychological (Darwinian even) need to deny faith and hate as two sides of the same survival of the fittest coin? Just as logical analysis and irrational beserkers are ? Rationalizaion ? Or just writing for different audiences ?
Now, I dont naturally hate - even those who hate me.. but the reason for that ... it spoils ones aim. I will have absolutely no christian mercy on my foes. Yet you beg to confuse our foes with errent, gone astray monothiests lambs such as yourself. If you had any pull in the ranks, it should be completely gone by now.
You present no plan and zero tactical value in our knife fight with radical Islamofascists in this religious war. Even as you correctly characterize the war as such, you attack our most effective weapons - the truth.
And your arguement is even less use in trying to gain or better create, moderate allies if they know we arent willing to fight with mind, body and soul AND REASON against common enemies.
"Even the unbelievers among us are engaged in religious war". That would be me.
meleager
at September 16, 2006 5:47 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)