This is exactly the kind of thing I've been hoping to see for the past five years. It will have my full support, of course.

Posted by: Foehammer at December 2, 2006 5:59 AM

Reagan is credited with coining the phrase "the Evil Empire" in reference to the then Soviet Union. Is this new movement prepared to call Islam an "Evil Cult"?

I somehow doubt it!

Posted by: Hermit at December 2, 2006 6:06 AM

It has my support too. I'm in. I do hope they call a spade a spade.

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at December 2, 2006 7:02 AM

I know it is early days as yet,
but this is the BEST news I have read in ages!!

Let's hope it gets more support and publicity.
There is no other way.

I know all of us will do as much as we can.
Robert,thanks for posting this.

Posted by: Gramfan at December 2, 2006 7:02 AM

Slightly OT.

Even though I have mixed feelings about this war here is another one who "gets" it!

Maybe,,just maybe we will reach "critical mass"!!

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/11.30/15-abizaid.html

Abizaid warns of looming world war
CENTCOM commander sees leaving Iraq as disastrous move
By Doug Gavel
Kennedy School Communications

America cannot walk away from Iraq without risking another world war. That warning was sounded at the Kennedy School forum Nov. 17 by Gen. John Abizaid, commander of the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), the man responsible for U.S. military strategy in the Middle East.

"We can walk away from this enemy, but they will not walk away from us," Abizaid told the forum audience during a discussion titled "The Long War."

"We have not failed yet and we will not fail if we all understand what we have to do. If we can stay together nothing can stop us and we can make the world a better place."

Abizaid cited what he called the three greatest challenges facing the world - the Arab-Israeli conflict; the rise of extremist groups "with a dark vision of the future"; and, specifically, the dangers posed by "Shia revolutionary thought."

"Where these things come together is in Iraq," he said. "It's absolutely not an easy thing to do," Abizaid went on to say. "But the sacrifice that is necessary to stabilize Iraq must be sustained in order for the region itself to become more resilient against these three challenges."

And while admitting that the recent upturn in sectarian violence in Iraq is disturbing, Abizaid said politicians cannot set arbitrary deadlines for the withdrawal of American troops.

"We all want to leave when we can, but the most important thing must be the stability of the region. We must stabilize Iraq. It's vitally important to us," he said.

Abizaid also admitted that the challenges in the Middle East extend far beyond Iraq's borders, and it will require a concerted effort by several countries - including Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - to meet them.

"We must defeat the extremism of bin Laden and his associated movement. It's murderous. It's ruthless. It's very capable. It's got strength as a network unlike any nonstate actor has ever seen before. We've got to defeat it," he said.

"Think of it as an opportunity to confront fascism in 1920 if only we'd had the guts to do it then," he continued. "I believe that if we don't have guts enough to confront this ideology today, we will move toward World War III tomorrow."

Abizaid's appearance was cosponsored by the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. The forum discussion was moderated by Carr Center Director Sarah Sewall.

doug_gavel@harvard.edu

Posted by: Gramfan at December 2, 2006 7:08 AM

l say the information coming from such sites as JW is getting to the so called regular media. Even hearing some of very middle of the road talk show hosts, its sinking in. We need to further educate the left to show them how their precious freedoms will be lost, if islam gets a foothold, such as whatis happening in Brittain with their muslim's sharai law. The Religious right need to understand that not all religions derserve the same respect, and that islam needs more scrutiny, and demand they reform on our terms or have the wrath of it being banned.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at December 2, 2006 7:11 AM

"The Religious right need to understand that not all religions derserve the same respect, and that islam needs more scrutiny, and demand they reform on our terms or have the wrath of it being banned.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess"

Indeed!!
We need to educate people that this cult should never be put in the same sentence as any other religion, because it isn't a religion.

'blogs like this are doing a great job, and also thanks to the "small minority of extremists" who,on a daily basis, are showing the world what islam is all about. They are being aggressive, yes, but now many complacent folk are now sitting up, taking notice and doing research into the death cult of islam.

Posted by: Gramfan at December 2, 2006 7:23 AM

Count me in and send me info of strategies or publish it here.

Posted by: Arnie at December 2, 2006 8:02 AM

The whole thing must be global or else its doomed.

Posted by: Arnie at December 2, 2006 8:04 AM

The most important part of that proposal is to put the most effort into evangalizing Moslems in Europe. Converting them in Moslems countries is very difficult, but there are no laws against that in Europe (yet). Every effort should go toward that. After all, if they convert, there is nothing to fear from them.

Similarly (and this is easy for me, as someone who is not a Christian and not going to put my life on the line), Turkey should be the second target of Christian efforts.

The Chinese should be tapped for this; they are a bottomless reservoir of new Christians.

Can you imagine the world where China is a majority Christian country; Moslems numbers decline year over year; and Turkey is 1/4-1/2 Christian?

SP

Posted by: Seymour Paine at December 2, 2006 8:09 AM

80000 new converts a day in China.
Amen, Amen!!!

Some of my friends had Iranians converted in Asia and I must say they are a real asset to Christianity.

One even became a pastor.

Posted by: Arnie at December 2, 2006 8:25 AM

To the above the number is 8000 and not 80000. - typo

Posted by: Arnie at December 2, 2006 8:26 AM

I also like the idea that an anti-Islamofascism movement is being created. Please post a link to the movement's web portal on Jihad Watch.

Posted by: Christian at December 2, 2006 8:30 AM

Planning meetings through regular teleconferencing are already underway. There is a new secure Internet forum where ideas are being exchanged. There is also an e-mail address where those interested in the "movement" can make their intention known – 910@yahoogroups.com.

http://www.910group.com/forum/

It seems to be only for the USA. I think it would be best to set up workgroups in every region.
If rightly coordinated it will succeed.

Posted by: Arnie at December 2, 2006 8:45 AM

Obvious Problems:

The agenda for such a movement should include the following activities and efforts, they say:

* investigate radical mosques

And how do you know which mosques are "radical"? Obviously, then, we will have to investigate all mosques in order to know which ones are "radical". And should we trust a mosque that seems to be not radical?

* support anti-Islamofascist freedom fighters

In the Muslim world, Muslims are constantly killing other Muslims, for various complex reasons. We'd need to make sure some group that seems to be anti-Islamofascist isn't really just as "Islamofascist" (i.e., supports Sharia law and jihad) as the "Islamofascists" it is fighting. I wonder if Jack Wheeler and Steve Baldwin can discern the similarities between "Islamofascist" and Islamic.

* wage an ideological assault on Islamofascism

You can't build up the necessary intellectual tools to do this if you refuse to see the direct and deep connections between "Islamofascism" and Islam itself. A necessary starting place would be to seriously consider reversing the currently conventional paradigm: i.e., it is not the terrorists who are the extremists who have hijacked Islam -- it is the secular-friendly moderates who are the eccentrics who have, ipso facto and passively, hijacked Islam. The extremists are merely either tenaciously maintaining the traditional jihadism that attacked millions of non-Muslims for centuries in the past, or in certain instances are trying to revive it.

* reframe the illegal immigration issue as one of national security

Reframing this will be worthless unless it is squarely stated that the only problem is Muslim immigrants. Period.

Posted by: remote_control at December 2, 2006 9:06 AM

I suspect that a number of anti-islamofascho groups will arise in the future. The trick is to keep these groups from becoming hate groups or even having the appearing of being a hate group. It is possible be do doggedly against something without having to hate it.

The USA is, in my opinion, the very finest example of ideas winning over dogma without hate in the mix. For this reason I do like Jihad-Watch - a forum to argue and exchange ideas, sometimes very heatedly, but without hate. Let the muslims hate, they do it quite automatically. Doesn't mean that we have to stoop to their level...

Posted by: bonncaruso at December 2, 2006 9:13 AM

[quote]And how do you know which mosques are "radical"? Obviously, then, we will have to investigate all mosques in order to know which ones are "radical". And should we trust a mosque that seems to be not radical?[end of quote]

You're right all need to be observed, no doubt.

[quote]In the Muslim world, Muslims are constantly killing other Muslims, for various complex reasons. We'd need to make sure some group that seems to be anti-Islamofascist isn't really just as "Islamofascist" (i.e., supports Sharia law and jihad) as the "Islamofascists" it is fighting. I wonder if Jack Wheeler and Steve Baldwin can discern the similarities between "Islamofascist" and Islamic.[end of quote]

Perhaps native converts with the deeper insight can handle that.

[quote]Reframing this will be worthless unless it is squarely stated that the only problem is Muslim immigrants. Period.[end of quote]

Right!

Watch this one from the Tschech Republic where a convert infiltrated the local mosque.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7489128737211826486&q=i%2C+a+muslim&hl=en

Posted by: Arnie at December 2, 2006 9:20 AM

They key statements are:

(1) thwart attempts to impose Sharia law

This is critical. If you prevent Sharia law you prevent Islam from ever taking firm root. It is this Islamic law code that is the most objectionable to us in the west. We still have the KKK, communist and neo-nazis running around but we don't have their laws and economic systems do we. It is critical that we focus America and the west on the dangers of the Islamic law code. That is how you can bridge gaps between conservative and libs. When you are attempting to start a movement you have to hang your hat on something that scares the hell out of the majority of people. The Islamic law code is that hook.

(2) end dependence on foreign oil that's funding the Islamofascists

Second most important item is ending the oil dependence. Without cash you have no money wage jihad. No more mosque building. No more Saudi influence. You can sell this to the American people on several fronts: (1) National Security and (2) Keeping jobs within America. We can replace oil from the middle east with Coal conversion to oil, oil from less dangerous places and Nuclear Power (all together work in combination). The only reason why we continue to get oil from the middle east is we are lazy. Times have changed and its time to do what Americans do best........be creative.

(3) support anti-Islamofascist freedom fighters

It will make life hard on the jihadis and make them use resources. The good example is in the Horn of Africa now were U.S. weapons and cash should be pouring into the area for the Christians and other non-islamic folks.

(4) support efforts to evangelize Muslims in Europe and the Middle East

Sounds good to me....
Any religion that is not Islam will do.

We do these four things well we can win this war.....

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at December 2, 2006 9:33 AM

A friend sent this link to me yesterday. It tails in quite well to Gramfan's comment on Abizaid. The discussion on the front end about the Thirty Years War was enlightening - but then I've learned more history reading some blogs than I ever did in school - of course that was 40 years ago.

Posted by: madconductor at December 2, 2006 9:37 AM

To subscribe to the organization, the email is:

910-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.

Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at December 2, 2006 9:59 AM

Time will tell how effective this "anti-islamofascism" movement is. And I agree with ZenaWarriorPrincess that not all religions are equal. Some religions are better than others. And that's a fact.

Posted by: EliasAlucard at December 2, 2006 10:08 AM

"We can walk away from this enemy, but they will not walk away from us."
- General John Abizaid

Boy, if the media needs a sound-bite, you can't beat that! Think we'll hear it on the news?

Anyway, I think history will remember it.

And, Robert's comments, "This is a deeply traditional movement with very deep roots in Islamic tradition and theology. Unless we come to grips with that, we simply won't be dealing with its motives and goals as effectively as we could be." are spot-on.

It's the very issue I worry about when speaking with Israelis. At least they understand quite clearly that "the Arabs" (their characterization) want them dead. Maybe they can be forgiven for having their eyes on tactics & strategy only when the danger is so immediate. But they have missed the "staying power" of the enemies who surround them through the lack of knowledge of Islam.

Speaking of Israel, a Jewish (American) friend said at Thanksgiving dinner, "We may have to sacrifice Israel." This from the person who took me to see Shoah when it first came out, and repeatedly said, "We must never forget. Isreal must always exist." I am at a loss for words.

Posted by: Vee at December 2, 2006 10:17 AM

Here is one Canadian who is organizing screenings for the DVD's Islam: What the West Needs to Know and Obesession: Radical Islam's War Against the West. It will be the first time these films will be seen in our city. Rumblings are that some astute, knowledgeable, and capable citizens will be in the audience. My sense is that they will grab this ball and run with it. God willing, it will mobilize others in this town and eventually across the country and unleash a chain reaction of awareness and action. Islam is like cancer. We can't leave any cell alive.

Posted by: hasvfidra at December 2, 2006 10:23 AM

hasvfidra,
We'd like to know more about this.
Possible?

Islam is like cancer. We can't leave any cell alive.
we-slam

Posted by: Arnie at December 2, 2006 10:28 AM

I just thought about a way to use their breeds if not taken care properly to have them taken away by the state and put on an none-islamic care and education.

Guess the laws are suffcient in many countries.

Just think about the situation in the south of Thailand. Of course the parents should be pressured to come up for the payments too.

They need to be kept busy.

Posted by: Arnie at December 2, 2006 10:46 AM

I’m delighted to learn about the new anti-jihad movements. Count me in! With regard to thwarting attempts to impose Sharia law, one of the newsworthy issues concerns Keith Ellison and his desire to be sworn in using the Koran. Is this an issue of religious freedom, as protected under the constitution, or is this an issue of national tradition and cultural unity? The answer is that it is both. Read “Keith Ellison, Islam, American Sovereignty: Should we Amend the Constitution?” at http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2006/12/keith-ellison-islam-american.html

Posted by: FaultlineUSA at December 2, 2006 10:59 AM

August 22, you can't be serious about the Cold War. Our side was constantly undermined by fifth-columnists here at home as well as an extensive underground here in the United States. Communists and their sympathizers were in high positions in government. There were sympathizers in the media. They inserted their ideology and worldview wherever they could. Where do you think PC came from in the first place?

Granted it is worse now, but that is just another barrier to overcome. Further, once we have another attack within our borders, quite a few people with their heads in the sand will come to their senses. And I suspect that some on the left, once they get a true sense of what sharia law will mean to them, will be a little less enthusiastic about their Jihad brothers.

Posted by: Judy W. at December 2, 2006 11:06 AM

"support efforts to evangelize Muslims in Europe and the Middle East"

I'm not a practicing Christian, but it seems to me this is one facet of the struggle that few are talking about. Considering demographics, mass apostasy seems to be the only real means to level the playing field of the future.

Can you imagine the gasps in academia from such a notion???....the correlation to imperialism and colonialism that would be drawn if Christians encouraged Muslims to embrace Christianity?

Meanwhile, Dawa in the West proceeds apace....and in the eyes of academics, no doubt this is perfectly normative.

Posted by: Cornelius at December 2, 2006 11:09 AM

I note that there are many comments criticizing this and that about the basic proposal. I don't think it's important that everyone agree precisely on what is to be done, the way to do it, and the wording of the effort. The part that was left out in reporting on the call to action is a long section about the anti-Communist movement in the original article on Jack Wheeler's web site. Here it is:

Anti-Communism: The Original Conservative Movement
One cannot write the history of the Cold War without acknowledging the key role played by the American Anti-Communist Movement. It was a broad movement involving many different organizations that, for four decades, kept its focus on the defeat of the Soviet Empire. And it succeeded.

Indeed, Anti-Communism was the defining issue that brought hundreds of thousands of people into the conservative movement from the 1950s throught the 1980s. There was a sense that this movement had to be successful if not only America but Western Civilization itself were to survive.

What did this Movement Accomplish?
The Anti-Communist Movement was formed after World War II when it was revealed that Soviet spies were operating throughout our government. This movement became one of the most successful political movements in our history.

It started out slowly due to liberal propaganda during WWII which convinced many Americans that Russia was our friend since they were aligned with us during the war. By the 1950's, the Anti-Communist Movement had created a massive infrastructure which became a major educational and political force within America. This movement:

Exposed pro-communist groups operating within our borders. The movement lobbied Congress to have hearings and even to create standing committees to carry out investigations (such as the House Un-American Activities Committee). This greatly limited the effectiveness of these pro-communist groups and educated an entire generation of Americans about the domestic subversive threat.

Lobbied for bigger defense budgets, a bigger Navy, more nuclear missiles, SDI, and a more aggressive foreign policy to oppose the Soviet Empire.

Generated a slew of newsletters, magazines, speaker bureaus, radio shows, etc. that educated generations of Americans as to what Communism stood for and how it endangered our freedom.

Created a political force that affected the election of hundreds of Anti-Communist politicians and influenced how people voted for at least 2-3 generations. This movement eventually led to the election of Ronald Reagan, the person most responsible for our victory over the Soviet Empire.

The Infrastructure of Anti-Communism
This American Anti-Communist Movement also created an infrastructure by establishing smaller specialty groups that focused on individual issues. For example, the movement created groups that:

Supported Anti-Soviet Freedom Fighter movements challenging communist regimes in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Angola and other Soviet colonies. Some of these groups raised funds for these resistance movements and even delivered supplies.

Developed and promoted the concept of missile defense as a viable strategic tactic.

Worked on intelligence issues such as making sure our intelligence agencies had the resources to counter the Soviet threat.

Worked on geo-strategic issues such as energy and how they affected the Soviet Empire.

Encouraged and funded East Bloc dissidents and helped dissidents escape from Iron Curtain countries. Such groups would send these dissidents on speaking tours creating a flurry of articles about the horrors of the Gulag and the inhumanity of the Soviet system.

Smuggled in Anti-Communist literature behind the Iron Curtain; Christian mission groups would smuggle in Bibles knowing that religious belief would help undermine the Soviet Communist system.

Lobbied corporations and government entities to disinvest funds from the East Block or to cease trade.

Lobbied to increase funding for the Defense budget and to educate Americans about massive Soviet military spending.

Formed Anti-Communist youth groups domestically (Young Americans for Freedom) and worldwide (World Anti-Communist League) whose main goal was to educate youth about communism.

Formed groups that pushed for alliances with other countries who were similarly threatened, such as NATO.

END OF EXCERPT

You can see that nobody was coordinating this effort from a central headquarters. This was the result of many, many Americans understanding what a dire threat communism was and taking action to fight it however they thought best. Many of the anti-communist activists disagreed with each other on various issues, but they devoted their energies to fighting our enemy rather than fighting their allies. This is the kind of movement we need.

Posted by: Judy W. at December 2, 2006 11:15 AM

Great comment Judy
thumbs up!!!

Posted by: Arnie at December 2, 2006 11:24 AM

I do hope they call a spade a spade.

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at December 2, 2006 07:02 AM

Agreed. Then let's hope after that said spade will beat Islamania to death and dig the hole in which to bury it once and for all.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 2, 2006 11:29 AM

Some religions are better than others. And that's a fact.

Posted by: EliasAlucard at December 2, 2006 10:08 AM

Yup. The master race certainly thinks so regarding its cult of death. At least we all know better.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 2, 2006 11:31 AM

"And how do you know which mosques are "radical"? Obviously, then, we will have to investigate all mosques in order to know which ones are "radical". And should we trust a mosque that seems to be not radical?"

Here's how to tell if a Mosque is radical

They tend to have prayer mats and Muslims inside them. Also they tend to have domes with a star and crescent on top.

Hope this helps

If they have none of the above consider them radical anyway.

Posted by: hierophant at December 2, 2006 11:49 AM

ISLAMSFORLOSERS, I was referring to Christianity being better than Islam, but I get your point :)

Posted by: EliasAlucard at December 2, 2006 11:54 AM

RE: The 910 Group- it is an international movement with members around the world.

Posted by: s at December 2, 2006 11:58 AM

Posted by: Judy W.

"Many of the anti-communist activists disagreed with each other on various issues, but they devoted their energies to fighting our enemy rather than fighting their allies. This is the kind of movement we need."

Right on target. We have to form a coalition of people who may not agree on things like religion and morals etc but all agree that Islam is a threat to them. In other words a feminist is not a conservative but she must understand the danger Islam presents to her and her values. A Christian conservative may not accept everything a feminist says (i.e. abortion) but must put that on the back burner for now to deal with the Islamic threat.

Everyone needs to ask themselves what is it about Islam that would scare both a feminist liberial and a christian conservative???

Answer is: Sharia Law

I think the answer to defeating Islam is within itself. The Islamic law code is the main driving force for unity of non-muslims. Any group who wants to make this work must highlight why libs and conservatives should work together for the common good of western civilization. Don't just be negative and hack each other down. The organization needs to campagin against Islamic law and explain to the public at large what it is becuase most people are clueless what that could mean to them. Make it personal to them.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at December 2, 2006 12:01 PM

I think the answer to defeating Islam is within itself. The Islamic law code is the main driving force for unity of non-muslims. Any group who wants to make this work must highlight why libs and conservatives should work together for the common good of western civilization. Don't just be negative and hack each other down. The organization needs to campagin against Islamic law and explain to the public at large what it is becuase most people are clueless what that could mean to them. Make it personal to them.

greatcometof1577,

that's right, we must also consider that millions of people have not the time to look into this, they are just busy with what they are doing.
We'll have to serve them, probably the fast food style, and be there where they are.

Posted by: Arnie at December 2, 2006 12:18 PM

Robert, I'm confused with your statement about Wheeler's assertion.

One small caveat: last year Wheeler said in an interview that I had "a problem claiming Attaturk's [sic] abolishment of the caliphate (which is only relevant to the Sunnis anyway) is the cause of jihadism -- namely, the half-century gap between the two." I think Wheeler is a good guy, but if he thinks jihadism originated in the mid-1970s, I have very serious doubts about his ability to formulate effective strategies to combat it. This is a deeply traditional movement with very deep roots in Islamic tradition and theology. Unless we come to grips with that, we simply won't be dealing with its motives and goals as effectively as we could be."

-------------
As I read Wheeler's piece, he seems to say that it's a fundamental belief of Islam, of the Quran, that is the source of Jihadism, not merely the institution of the Caliphate... so I'm confused as to your
interpretation about Wheeler's comment. He simply didn't get what I think you were implying, that taking apart the Caliphate, was not necessarily productive because the west had no understanding of the perception, and thus it's politic sowed seeds the fruits of which, are not understood even today.

Please, clarify.... if you would

Mark

Posted by: mgoldberg at December 2, 2006 12:41 PM

The primary problem we are going to run into with this movement is that many will be reluctant to acknowledgeand accept the reality that Islam is homicidal at its core. The entire ideology is inherently lethal.

There is therefore no "bad" or "good" Islam. Islam as we know it today is entirely contained in the Kuran,the Hadiths, the Sura all of which which tell Islam's followers to masacre non-believers. As this command is believed to come from al-lah (supposedly the maker of the universe according to Islam), there is no way to excise these murderous commands.

Thus as long as Islam is practiced in ANY form the world is going to be in danger from it.

ps-August22: The Russians, once they had officially become a Communist country, stopped being Christian (Communism prohibits all religions) almost altogether. The 10 Commandments in the Old Testament outlaw the act of murder--something which the Russian government committed at least 30 million of(which isn't too Christian, we think!).

AS for beig white, Russkies have NEVER behaved like white people. Russian culture is essentially Asiatic and the Russian people have never been part of the western world.

Posted by: pythagoras at December 2, 2006 1:34 PM

When searching for the enemies of freedom, one needs to include our so called institutes of higher learning. Some there have already surrendered all of our Constitutional rights, my question is, should they be investigated or closed down completely?
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006460.htm

Posted by: tgusa at December 2, 2006 1:51 PM

Communism was never a 'threat' to America. They were never 'defeated' either. Just as you were all in a stirred-up frenzy of fear and hatred, their whole economic structure collapsed from within. The manmade system simply did not work. The communist countries were never a threat, just a struggling mess of poverty and internal corruption. They were only another group of people with a different way of life to yours; perfect targets for propaganda, suspicion and paranoia. Remember "Better Dead than Red?" Such ferocity! seems foolish now against a people too busy trying to put food on the table to worry about invading the strongest, richest country in the world!
It was set up to appear as a "scary threat", to unite the people against a perceived "common enemy". All governments do it; if there isn't an 'enemy' to divert the populace they make one up. America is particularly good at illusion.
It was inconvenient when Communism collapsed but the world authorities soon switched to Islam, and now persecute, invade, torture and imprison innocent people all over the world.
I want to live under Sharia law and if you understood you would too; even staying non-muslim. But your delicious fantasy of hate is far too appealing to allow the improbility of it all to interrupt your plotting.
Try to imagine; however clearly you see the landscape laid out before you, if you turn your back on it you will see a completely different view.

Posted by: maryam at December 2, 2006 2:30 PM

pythagoras,

"AS for beig white, Russkies have NEVER behaved like white people. Russian culture is essentially Asiatic and the Russian people have never been part of the western world."

What are white people supposed to behave like ?

The fact that islam is religious/political movement is its greatest weakness.
Anybody can criticise it, as soon as you bring a non white, anti moslem into the debate the moslem penchant for holding up the racial persecution shield will disappear.

How can Hirsi Ali be accused of being a racist ?
One of the things I am really looking forward to after her move to the USA is her inevitable encounter with that moron oprah "so full of herself" winfry.

If you want allies that can shatter this racial shield that the moslems like to hold then
look up "BJP of America" contact their various chapters.
Us people of Indian decent can tell you stories about islam that will make your toes curl, the same as the Greeks, the Serbs, Armenians or an African Christian/Animist as can the Bhuddists and Sikhs.

I have recently seen a lot of comments on JW recently that are racist/white supremist.
This is an idealogical war and islams sharia law means we have lots of allies regardless of what colour they are.

Regards

AI

Posted by: apostate_islam at December 2, 2006 2:43 PM

"I want to live under Sharia law and if you understood you would too"
Posted by: maryam
---------

Right. Believe me: we understand, and that's why we don't want it. Also, I wonder if you'd still have that opinion when being stoned to death for adultery?

Posted by: EliasAlucard at December 2, 2006 2:53 PM

maryam

This will be no doubt a waste of time to respond but Communism was defeated becuase they connot comptete with a capitalist in economic terms. We out spent them into defeat. Communism could only win if it removed all other systems that competed with it. That I would term a danger. Islam is trying to do the same today (and in the past). Islam cannot make it in the end without total control. It is a faith and system of government that must rule. That is why muslims cannot get along with other faiths like Buddhist and governmental structures like Democracy. Islam itself has no concept of free will and thus no minorities can make it for a long period unless at a slave like level. That my dear is what I call a danger to my civilization.

"I want to live under Sharia law and if you understood you would too; even staying non-muslim."

Perhaps you should relocate....

Explain why I would want to live under your law code my dear. Tell us and give me examples of how my life would improve. Teach us o wise one.

Prove it.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at December 2, 2006 2:56 PM

Shariamaryam,
Go ahead, be my guest, just do it somewhere else. We have laws that protect all equally. We understand the pathological ideology and the mindset that embraces it. For several millennia it has been written by men from all walks of life, the fate that will befall the followers of the one who was cast out of Heaven. You will never read these accounts, to do so would rock your world. That is why books must be burned, all references of unislamic writings purged. What are you afraid of if you really speak the truth? The prince of darkness is well named and you would do well to research his M/O.

“This is an ideological war and islams sharia law means we have lots of allies regardless of what color they are.”
Well said AI
Besides ole hoopie is white isn’t he?

Posted by: tgusa at December 2, 2006 3:01 PM

I wonder if you'd still have that opinion when being stoned to death for adultery?

Yes I would. That law upholds the family as the basis of society. As a devout woman, and with a penalty like that, I wouldn't commit adultery. Would you? But if I did, then punishment is finished with on earth and there's no penalty on the day of judgement. And Allah knows best.

Posted by: maryam at December 2, 2006 3:06 PM

"Allah knows best."
Posted by: maryam
---------

Not really. Allah isn't God if that's what you think. Allah says the earth is flat. I rest my case.

Posted by: EliasAlucard at December 2, 2006 3:12 PM

I think some of us are getting a little off-topic with the communist issue which is something I could go all day on, since the very concept is totally contrary to human nature, and was shown to be the threat it was numerous times, so let's get back to the topic.
(Best reading in the mean time on that is the book Reagan's War by Peter Schweitzer, who got his info directly from KGBs own Lubyanakas archives and shown the moles in our system which even Joe McCarthy missed, but was proven right after all this time nonetheless, so let's get off that-to think communism wasn't a threat is ilucid). We can address that in another forum or topic.

Jack Wheelers take on islam goes far beyond Mr Spencers as can be seen on his site:
http://www.tothepointnews.com
Upper left bar, check out what he's about there on the "about" him link. Yes, it also gives his take on our work some time ago, and was right on the money...both then and now.
Like him, I too was considered an "ideological gangster", commiespeak for a person who calls a spade a spade...i.e.-a non-politically correct person. Nuf Sed.

;-)

Posted by: jcom972 at December 2, 2006 3:14 PM

"that's right, we must also consider that millions of people have not the time to look into this, they are just busy with what they are doing.
We'll have to serve them, probably the fast food style, and be there where they are."

Posted by: Arnie

After we get them in then we can super-size their meal (That is when you break out Robert Spencer) or in other words explain in more detail what Islam is and what it means to them as an individual. No normal logical human unless under the spell of the faith would ever go along with such a silly system. Even communist (few logical ones left if any) when educated will agree.

Remember the quote from Ibrahim Hooper

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future. But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."

Once you explain to people what Islamic law is people will stop listening to him in the same way nobody with a brain listens to David Duke. Hooper is a bigot and sexist becuase he wants Islamic law. See you have to use terms the PC people understand. In fact someone should put it up on billboards with a giant face of Dougie and under it say "Sexist and Bigot".

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at December 2, 2006 3:14 PM

Sounds like an excellent development, although the program sounds a bit too reactive and defensive. It needs some affirmative elements to balance this. I'd suggest some additions and/or modifications:

1. The proposed support for freedom fighters ought to be broadened to emphasize diplomatic and political outreach to governments overseas to encourage and fortify emerging anti-dhimmitude, turn back the ideological influence of pro-Islamist forces within foreign governments and begin building a global alliance on the basis of shared interests with every non-Islamic nation (Russia, China, European states, India, East and Southeast Asia, Canada and the rest of the Americas) even if this is difficult and requires lobbying them against current PC policies that they're still mired in. Work on them! Persuade them! Win them over! That's what leadership is, America!

2. I would not necesarily use the same provocative choice of words as Hermit does, but his suggestion that Islam itself, inasmuch as its theological structure and primary text seem to be innately prone to generate extremism and violence, needs to be identified as the root of the problem is correct, and should be included.

3. The program should include a clear acknowledgement of the need to offset the problem of Islam's rising birthrate with measures that encourage the birthrate of indigenous Europeans.

4. It should also adopt the goal of investigating and combatting the ideological and sociological roots of the current malaise in the various cultures of the western world that has weakened it and created its current predicament, and of restoring and fortifying the pride of these cultures and their ongoing organic development.

Posted by: templar at December 2, 2006 3:14 PM

"Go ahead, be my guest, just do it somewhere else. We have laws that protect all equally."

I'd love to, only nowhere is ruled by Sharia law. Your laws don't protect my right to live under Sharia law do they?

"(1) thwart attempts to impose Sharia law"

Posted by: maryam at December 2, 2006 3:26 PM

Jackson Wheeler is a poseur, a charlatan, a fraud and anyone who associates with him, will be sorry.

The man is a liar, and exagerrates his importance.
He is not a strategist, he did not help formulate the Reagan Doctrine.. and the Reagan Doctrine did not even help bring down the Soviet Union.

Another name for Jackson Wheeler is Baron Munchausen.

If you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas, evidently Joseph Farah and those fools at WND are so hungry for company they will take anyone without examination.

Just proves that there is no common sense or discretion at all in the circles of the radical right.

Posted by: Nariz at December 2, 2006 3:39 PM

August22:

While the left is heavily influenced by PCism and Islamic sympathy these days, it is not monolithic, nor was it in the past, so you need not be so pessimistic. The left has always had its own anti-communist segment (remember that the first to sound alarm bells in the West about the events in Russia were disaffected leftists and social democrats who fled Russia in fear for their lives and this always remained an important part of anti-communist resistance, even while many other leftists were, unfortunately, soft on communism) and today it has voices who are strongly anti-Islamic, even if these are drowned out by the others or are in a weak, minority position.

Keep in mind that PCism and multiculturalism are crumbling, as recent events in Britain's labour government and elsewhere are beginning to show. There may be in this the beginnings of a general awakening on the Left that may lead to a general repudiation of Islam, although we'll have to wait and see - that may be too optimistic.

I would also note that there was considerable communist infiltration and sympathy in the U.S. in the early era of the Cold War and earlier but it was eventually suppressed. That evil forces on the left have made a resurgence, this time using Islam as their vehicle, something few observers would have ever expected, does not mean that this too can not be reversed.

The left deserves to be sidelined from power for a very long time, now that it has done so much damage, and some of it should disappear forever from the face of the earth, but the more honest, credible and principled forces on the left can still make good allies in the struggle against Jihad, just as they did against fascist aggression in the '30s and '40s.

Posted by: templar at December 2, 2006 3:44 PM

Our laws, thank God, the Founding Fathers, and many others since, protect us from institutionalized racism, sexism and a long list of other isms.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/debates/african/2203988.stm
Sounds like they are playing your tune in Nigeria. Better hurry, I heard they were dying to get in, or was that out?

Posted by: tgusa at December 2, 2006 3:55 PM

"As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it." -Albert Einstein

Posted by: hierophant at December 2, 2006 4:12 PM

"I'd love to, only nowhere is ruled by Sharia law. Your laws don't protect my right to live under Sharia law do they?"

Posted by Maryam

No they don't, Maryam, and God forbid that they ever do!

It's one thing to believe in a strict theological Monadism, and if that and a few allied propositions were all that belief in Mohammed's revelation entailed that would be fine. But that rape cases should be tried in this country according to Koranic or other Islamic standards, that women should be punished for their own rapes because they lack the necesary male witnesses, that Muslims should have the right to refuse cab service to those carrying pork or liquor, or that cute little piggie baubles are abominations that must be kept out of public buildings and government offices and the principle that the law of Kaffirs is non-binding on Muslims, all of which are propositions that stem from Islamic (shari'a) law, are all notions that have no place in western society.

Take your pick. If our laws are not good enough for you to live under, then our societies are not good enough for you to live in either. You can always choose to live elsewhere - somewhere more to your liking, where you can enjoy the benefits of living only with other superior human beings, rather than surrounded by us dirty kuffirs.

I also find it interesting that you come to the defence of the communists, since it is also well known that Islam detests communism, and rightly so, as evil and atheistic. Get your principles straight!

As for this statement:

"I want to live under Sharia law and if you understood you would too; even staying non-muslim",

we know the conditions of non-Muslims living under Shari'a law. We understand only too well, Maryam! And that is we we do NOT - and will not ever - want to live under it!

Posted by: templar at December 2, 2006 4:17 PM

Oops!

"that is we we do NOT - and will not ever - want to live under it" should read "that is WHY ..."

Posted by: templar at December 2, 2006 4:25 PM

Dear Maryam:

I want to live under Sharia law.

____________________________

If this means living in the Middle East and choosing to live under such a legal code then I have no problem with it. If you are saying that you want to live in the United States or other Western nation while continuing to living under Sharia law then you are in the wrong place.

It is simply a matter of respect. If you live in the United States you are agreeing to live under our laws, our flag, our country, and our constitution. If you are unable or unwilling to give up Sharia law for the United States law then you should not be a citizen. You have no right to force your non-U.S. law upon American citizens or any other Western country.

We, as citizens of the United States and other Western nations do have a right and a duty to protect our individual constitutions and nations.

Simply put... Islam does not own the world. Get over it!!

Posted by: Monkeywho at December 2, 2006 4:45 PM

Well written August22! And you're absolutely right that the muslims are using the race/creed/religion angle to their benefit.

Posted by: EliasAlucard at December 2, 2006 5:00 PM

August22:

Your points are all valid and sound. However, I don't think that we should lose heart. This new initiative is not perfect, but I'd say it's a good start.

You point out that Jihadists play the race card, and they certainly do, but this is a very easy claim to refute and any of us can easily do it. We need simply point out that Islam and Jihad are religious belief systems, not racial groupings. End of discussion.

(Don't let them get away with this, Elias!)

The presence of Muslims in western governments for the moment receives a pass because so far they can pass as "moderates"; time will tell whether they continue to adhere to a moderate position or whether future events, or the internal logic of Islam itself, drive them toward more extreme positions. If this happens, the gig is up. I'm much more worried about situations like the Dutch minister who thinks that if a majority of Dutch citizens are in favour of setting up Shari'a law then it should be done. But not all westerners are the Dutch, and even if this happens in Holland, I think Americans, Brits and Germans will have something else to say about it.

For the moment, the US regards a number of Islamic nations as allies in its "war on terror", as much as I disagree with that policy, I don't see anything suggesting that it can not change.

Nonetheless, these are all, for the moment, daunting problems. This struggle is going to be much more difficult than the Cold War but I'm convinced that we can win.

Posted by: templar at December 2, 2006 5:19 PM

One point I forgot to mention, August22, but it relates to your point about the US supplying arms to Muslim states. This is not a perfect analogy, but the US has supplied arms before to rogue regimes that it later repudiated, such as Iraq, Iran, and (I'm less certain of this but I believe this is correct as well) the Soviet Union during WWII, despite that country's earlier alliance with Hitler. So I don't think what is happening now is a predictor of future policy, or that this is something that diminishes overwhelming US military hegemony.

Posted by: templar at December 2, 2006 5:27 PM

To draw the parallels between communism and Islamofascism expcept their hostility to free world is inaccurate. COmmunism is an ideology, it does not have very deep roots in the unconscious mind, as it is atheistic and does not appeal to irrational nature of humans. The deep assurance of being on the side of Almighty God and pseudo self righteousness, dying in the cause of Alah and getting to sit on the right side of GOd, comforts like 72 beautiful fairy like virgins and endless enjoyment on dying are something which will keep this momentum strengtheninng and going well. All humans feel disenchanted with life transiently, all humans undergo unconscious search for the meaning of life, all humans want certainity and order in this life and other, and dying for the sake of God provides answer to these irrational needs. Communism being the materialistic in nature could be discussed, debated, brought to the table and can be defeated by physical wars as well as the economics. However, in the matter of Islam, there is no worldly criteria to discuss or consider the rationality of anything, KOran and Hadiths are not only the ultimate criteria to judge anything but they are the only ones. I have seen some sites where Muslim scholars have refuted Darwinism solely by citing quotations from Koran.
LAst and but not the least, Communism did not have weapon of demographic siege. In the case of Soviet Union, the enemy was in out and open. Beleive me, it is going to be much more tough and there is no assurance of victory.

Posted by: pagan at December 2, 2006 5:38 PM

Their site is here

http://www.910group.com/forum/index.php

Hopefully they will be pulling in insight and expertise from people informed about the anti-communist movement.

Posted by: joeblough at December 2, 2006 5:39 PM

Oh, nearly forgot, this also from the article:

=========SNIP==============
Planning meetings through regular teleconferencing are already underway. There is a new secure Internet forum where ideas are being exchanged. There is also an e-mail address where those interested in the "movement" can make their intention known –

910-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

. Those wishing to participate in the forum are asked to provide some information about their own background, interests and skills so they can be directed to specific project areas. Additional information is available at the
910blog: http://the-910-group.blogspot.com/2006/11/coalition-to-preserve-civilization.html.
=========SNIP==============

Hope they do well.

Posted by: joeblough at December 2, 2006 5:46 PM

(Don't let them get away with this, Elias!)
Posted by: templar
---------

No one gets away with anything on my watch ;)

Posted by: EliasAlucard at December 2, 2006 5:48 PM

"LAst and but not the least, Communism did not have weapon of demographic siege. In the case of Soviet Union, the enemy was in out and open. Beleive me, it is going to be much more tough and there is no assurance of victory".

Posted by Pagan

All very true. This one is going to take centuries and going to require a transformation of the cultures of the non-Muslim world, particularly of the West. It will likely require the return to an ethos of sacrifice, courage, heroism and "gravitas".

This is why, as a first step, I suggest that, as they awaken to this threat, western governments, or whatever powers succeed them, will have to address the matter of declining western birthrates in a very concerted way.

Posted by: templar at December 2, 2006 5:55 PM

End of discussion?

From one of my earlier posts.

All I mean by that, August22, is that the "racism" label is an easy one to refute. This is the enemy's weakest point. Clearly no one can deny that Islam/Islamism/Jihadism is a belief system - not a "race".

Posted by: templar at December 2, 2006 6:00 PM

Nattering nabobs of negativity...

Posted by: atheling at December 2, 2006 6:18 PM

Re: maryam

"I wonder if you'd still have that opinion when being stoned to death for adultery?

Yes I would. That law upholds the family as the basis of society. As a devout woman, and with a penalty like that, I wouldn't commit adultery. Would you? But if I did, then punishment is finished with on earth and there's no penalty on the day of judgement. And Allah knows best."

As a devout woman I wouldn't commit adultery even though there is no secular punishment for it, because I love Jesus Christ, my Lord and Saviour, and do not wish to do anything which would offend Him or separate me from Him.

You may be motivated by fear and harsh laws, maryam, but I am not. My motivation to avoid sin is love for my God.

That's the difference between Islam and Christianity.

Posted by: atheling at December 2, 2006 6:23 PM

"My point is not that we can't launch an initiate to fight islam in the west, but that it will be an undertaking that will have to change our entire society, our laws, our constitution, our political landscape, and even the social/political conscience of our civilization, a conscience which, for the last 50 years, has been developing the opposite way".

Well I believe we're in agreement on this. But if we can succeed in doing this, then I have no doubt that we'll win.

Posted by: templar at December 2, 2006 6:25 PM

"As a devout woman ..."

Atheling:

Have I misidentified your gender in the past. If so, my apologies.

Posted by: templar at December 2, 2006 6:27 PM

templar:

No apologies needed. I'm not "sensitive" about things like that.

Posted by: atheling at December 2, 2006 6:29 PM

maryam quoted
"Communism was never a 'threat' to America. They were never 'defeated' either. Just as you were all in a stirred-up frenzy of fear and hatred, their whole economic structure collapsed from within.

i agree with you on that maryam and thats the only thing i agree with you on.

America was being to paranoid agains't russia i guess america couldnt handle the fact that russia was a strong orthodox christian country superpower, this war on communism was just a smokescreen by the west just to attack a orthodox christian country and it used osama bin laden in doing so reagan was a supporter of terrorist bin laden but ignorant westerners dont care they say it was ok at the time becuase it was only russia and it was evil and i guess as always we orthodox christians deserve to die by muslims and if we try to defend ourselfs the west just goes and gives more help to the muslims in killing us. well it was Russia who won ww2 and it was the russian people who voted communism out of russia not America and it was russia who was fighting osama bin laden why the west was supporting him i wish the west would get over its hatred for orthodox christian countrys and stop supporting terrorist muslims like they did in russia and yugoslavia and Cyprus

Posted by: Greek Gurl at December 2, 2006 8:01 PM

Maryam. Please move to Saudi Arabia.
You'll be happy there.

Posted by: Syndic Nuruodo at December 2, 2006 8:53 PM

"America was being to paranoid agains't russia i guess america couldnt handle the fact that russia was a strong orthodox christian country superpower, this war on communism was just a smokescreen by the west just to attack a orthodox christian country....."
Posted by: Greek Gurl
---------

No you got that all WRONG.

Soviet was a communist superpower, not orthodox christian. Communism doesn't allow religion. That's one of the reasons the USA opposed Soviet. Another reason is that America is a capitalist country, and Soviet was a communist state (communism opposes capitalism).

Also, communism doesn't work because of mass genocide against religious people (communism is anti-religious).

Believe me Greek Gurl, in the cold war, as a Greek Orthodox Christian, you should side with America.

Soviet would've killed you for believing in Jesus.

Posted by: EliasAlucard at December 2, 2006 10:01 PM

"America was being to paranoid agains't russia i guess america couldnt handle the fact that russia was a strong orthodox christian country superpower, this war on communism was just a smokescreen by the west just to attack a orthodox christian country"

Posted by: Greek Gurl

I don't want to open up friendly fire on a fellow non-muslim but as an American let me just say when the soviet leader says "We will crush you" what do you expect us Americans to do. We were not fighting Eastern Orthodox Chrisitians (we have a sizable population in the U.S.) but we despise totalatarian nations that want to impose their nasty world vision on us. Islam and Communism have that in common. In fact the CIA was pro-christian eastern orthodox becuase if you did not notice but the soviets killed their leaders. Our big mistake was after the fall of the soviet empire we then proceeded to make a mess of things. We should not have gotten involved in Yugoslavia (no thanks to Clinton) etc.

That had nothing to do with Communism or Eastern Orthodox Christians.....

It was just really stupid. Hey every nation has a right to screw up a few times as long as we learn from it. Lets just say it was not one of our better adventures.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at December 2, 2006 10:05 PM

Greek Gurl, you should read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet#Religious_groups

Posted by: EliasAlucard at December 2, 2006 10:08 PM

re: Greek Gurl.
I was born in USSR and lived there for 16 years, until that totalitarian regime finally collapsed.
Yes, Russia (before the October 1917 Revolution) was indeed a strong orthodox christian country.
USSR, however, was a completely secular country.
By the way USSR (Union of the Soviet Socialist Countries) wasn't even a communist country, really. Marxist-Leninist communism is a perverted utopia. USSR was a socialist "secular-progressive" internationalist bolshevist dictatorship. And it WAS agressive, expansionist power, hostile to the West.
Also, russians didn't exactly "vote" communnism out of power, since the only political party in USSR was a Communist Party of the Soviet Union, i.e. KPSS - Kommunisticheskaya Partiya Sovetskogo Soyuza. The KPSS simply lost its grip and power. Other parties were formed only after an economical and ideological bankruptcy of the KPSS during the Gorbachev-Yeltsin years.
I do agree that USSR was a major force that broke the neck of the Nazi Germany. But the Allies helped Russia a lot on the Eastern Front with "lend-lease" supplies. And Allied forces were fighting in Europe, later in the war. This "Second Front" was very important.
Also please don't forget that USA took care of Japan. The final Victory was achieved by a combined military effort. ALLIES won. Not Russia or America or Britain alone.

Posted by: Syndic Nuruodo at December 2, 2006 10:17 PM

re: EliasAlucard

Post-Stalinist Soviets would not "kill someone for believing in Jesus". Religion was simply ridiculed. Churches were open, but religion was considered as something for "superstitious uneducated old ladys".

Posted by: Syndic Nuruodo at December 2, 2006 10:39 PM

Yeah but Stalin destroyed a lot of churches. Either way, Soviet, communist/bolshevist, marxism or whatever you want to call it, was not friendly towards Christianity or any other religion.

Posted by: EliasAlucard at December 3, 2006 12:30 AM

Wheeler's list leaves me a bit cold, if he speaks to the existing anti-jihad community. Most items on the list are already implemented in some form. I imagine he knows that: the list may be for the non-anti-jihad community, but if one is not aware of the issues, it reads like a conspiracy-theorist's laundry list and will not be taken seriously.

The first priority, therefore, if anti-jihadism is to be widened, is public education. Not loudmouths firing off asinine-sounding one-liners and calling for counter jihad against the jihad. We need Spencer, Shoebat, Pipes et al, men and women who are independent scholars and who can explain calmly, consistently and respectably what the largely ignorant masses need to hear.

I would like to flag two items on the list as problematic:

* support anti-Islamofascist freedom fighters

Seems on the surface like a good idea, and I admit that some element of this probably is. But to adopt this as a policy is mindless. As some posters have already noted, how does one decide who is an anti-islamist, and which groups are most worthy of receiving resources? A good many resources have been spent this way, such as to Iraqi police, or material resources to "Moderate" islamic groups in the west, only to find that these resources are subsequently funneled into the jihad. No, much as I have sympathy for clandestine groups hoping to preserve some freedom in their corner of the world this strategy is a tainted one. The first thing it does is divide the west. Not everyone agrees on the strategy let alone who the receipients might be. This kind of activity is the fastest way to erode one's own moral credibility. I believe it is paramount that one keeps the moral high ground. I am as anti-jihad as the rest of you on this site, but if you decide on a course of action that leaves you largely indistinguishable from the jihadists, I'm afraid I would have to become anti-anti-jihad. There is a better way than just mirroring the vileness of the jihad.

* support efforts to evangelize Muslims in Europe and the Middle East

This one is nice candy to those of us (including me) who are Christians -- and evangelism will indeed help to stem the tide. But this cannot be a strategy of the anti-jihadist movement proper. It must be a secular movement. Let me emphasize that: IT MUST BE SECULAR! This is not to say that Christians, Jews, Buddhists and so on should not live out their faiths (say, by evangelising and thereby helping the antijihadist movements) or should not be anti-jihadist; only that this is not a Holy War. We do not need any more holy wars; we must support the principle of separation of church and state, and I extend this to the separation of church and anti-jihad. As a christian I will be anti-jihad in a distinctively christian way, and this may (hopefully will) mean that a few muslims who interact with me will come to Christ. Jews will be antijihad in a Jewish way, and so on.

But if my christian activity turns important athiest, jewish, agnostic or even (dare I say...) muslim allies against the anti-jihad, I have helped nobody. It must remain distinct. The antijihad movement must be something to which all creeds and faiths (except the jihadists) can subscribe.

The biggest problem with this world is that people are constantly trying to glue ideological agendas together. ("Oh, you want to feed the poor? Here, you'll want to wear this "save the whales" pin.) Antijihad is antijihad, nothing else. Evangelism, though it may be consistent with antijihad, though it may help move the world to the same end, is not part of antijihad, except perhaps individually to christian antijihadists.

------------

I am weighing in here, however, to make the point that important things are missing from this laundry list. I have a separate list, most of which is underdiscussed in much of the antijihadist literature:

* We need to catalogue where muslims in the west (and elsewhere) stand on various issues. I think the knowledge of where they stand on various things is atrocious. We know a heck of a lot more about what a few talking heads say. Many are being recruited for the jihad because even muslims, by and large, are quite confused about what is "normal" life and belief for muslims. It would be very useful if we had concrete data saying (let us say) 30% of muslims in north america say that they contribute financially to military jihad, or 50% of NA muslims would support the immediate implementation of some form of Sharia Law here, or 60% say that they would prefer to live in an America that is ruled by an Islamic Caliphate, or 70% believe that the return of the Mahdi is imminent; 69% are praying daily for it... (I don't know any of these figures ... I wish I did!)

Where are the pollsters bold enough to break the taboo and talk to a large random sample of muslims about what they really believe, what their real goals are, and what sort of jihad-related (for or against) actions they are taking? I think even muslims might be shocked by the results.

* The UN must be taken back. That's right ... back. Not influence peddling as the Islamists have done to gain their influence; it must be returned to the original vision of an international tribunal in which the world community addresses problems and needs in international affairs. I do not mean that the UN should become a U.S. puppet, by the way. We need to have international laws straightened out so that there are appropriate means of intervening conflicts like the recent Israel/Lebanon war (in a heckuva more effective way than we get from UNIFIL). We also need a standing army conscripted from and supplied by all member nations that enforces international law, that is beholden to no one nation's ideology or economic interests, and that has the moral authority and hardware required to intervene when necessary, and the fortitude not to get dragged into the PC quagmire that characterizes much of the dealings of the UN of our day.

The UN thing is huge, and it's much too big to be dealt with in a blog comments section...

* We need to win the left. I speak as one who holds no allegiance to left, right or "middle". I'm for truth (I hope to God I've got some talent for discerning it -- not always an easy thing). And the truth of the matter is that 90% of the anti-jihadists I've met online are blood-and-guts rednecks. That's good, I have nothing against such people. But it's pretty thick wading going throught the rhetoric looking for practical informat ion of some value. I'm not an american, but apparently america is about 50% left and 50% right, politically. So the anti-jihadist movement, if it sticks with the far right flavor as so much of it has, will simply continue to alienate the left and its resources.

I see a few left-wingers who bravely hang in there with you -- kudos to you guys, you've got a lot of guts. If I find this stuff hard to take you folks must hold your nose at times. Antijihad should create some strange bedfellows. If it doesn't, then I'm afraid the movement will be running on only one cylinder for some time.

I'm pulling not only for separation of church and anti-jihad, but separation of partisan politics and anti-jihad. Get your mind around it.

You say, "how do we win the left?" scroll back through the comments; I don't think I can do much better than some of the discussion on this point. Educate the public as to the real nature of Sharia Law, and the imminence of its implementation here, in the Islamist agenda.

One thing I can add, however, is that we need to change from berating lefties for bowing and scraping like good dhimmis (makes you feel good but only reinforces the alienation!) ... to exposing the hijacking of social reform in the name of hidden or misrepresented ideology (i.e., Islamism ... as in the excellent summary on Daniel Pipe's blog). They need not to be humiliated for having been taken in; they need to become angry for their good will (yes, the left is built on good intentions ... I know, I know, so is the road to Hell, let's cool that stuff ok?) having been taken advantage of. Then they will bring their own resources to bear. It's not all that complicated.

* Finally, we need an anti-terror cell network. I will maybe say something more about this somewhere else. It's an idea that bears expanding on: thousands, or tens of thousands of "sleeper cells" in the west that act as eyes and ears detecting the activity of Islamists and keeping a central database, heavily encrypted and secure, passing on critical information to law enforcement agencies (the cells themselves are entirely nonmilitary -- their "weapons" are computers, cell phones, cameras, video monitoring, language translation, etc. etc.) These groups meet in secret and are entirely autonomous. Only one member of each cell even knows how to contact the "network". Each cell has experts in languages, technical recording equipment, maybe a couple of computer hackers, legal experts, banking experts...you get the idea.

Posted by: Archimedes2 at December 3, 2006 1:41 AM

...and this !

http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=776

Posted by: aladdinsane57 at December 3, 2006 5:15 AM

Posted by: EliasAlucard

Greek Gurl, you should read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet#Religious_groups

thanks elias i have just read it and it seems your right i hread the following on that site

Government persecution of Christianity continued unabated until the fall of the Communist government, with Stalin's reign the most repressive. Stalin is quoted as saying that "The Party cannot be neutral towards religion. It conducts an anti-religious struggle against any and all religious prejudices." However in World War II the repression against the Russian Orthodox Church temporarily ceased as it was perceived as "instrument of patriotic unity" in the war against "the western Teutonics". Repression against Russian Orthodox restarted from ca. 1946 onwards and more forcibly under Nikita Khrushchev. In 1914, before the revolution, there were over 54,000 churches, while during the early years of Stalin's reign that number was counted in the hundreds. By 1988 the number had decreased to roughly 7,000. Immediately following the fall of the Soviet government, churches were re-opening at a recorded rate of over thirty a week. Today there are nearly 20,000.

well it seems orthodox christians have also been oppressed by atheist to as well as muslims but it was not russian Orthodox christians themselfs who where to blame it was the communist Athiest Goverment in russia that was bad

Posted by: Greek Gurl at December 3, 2006 6:33 AM

Posted by Robert

One small caveat: last year Wheeler said in an interview that I had "a problem claiming Attaturk's [sic] abolishment of the caliphate (which is only relevant to the Sunnis anyway) is the cause of jihadism -- namely, the half-century gap between the two." I think Wheeler is a good guy, but if he thinks jihadism originated in the mid-1970s, I have very serious doubts about his ability to formulate effective strategies to combat it. This is a deeply traditional movement with very deep roots in Islamic tradition and theology. Unless we come to grips with that, we simply won't be dealing with its motives and goals as effectively as we could be.

your right robert jihad did not start in the 1970s it started as soon as mohammed becamae a prophet muhammed is the first jihadist in history

Posted by: Greek Gurl at December 3, 2006 6:46 AM

Glad to see many like-minded. Felt alone.

We engage Muslims every week; (2.5 years now) The saying: "Muslims are the hardest people to convert" is a lie.

Once converted, they become our best allies.

I've been working on the Evangelism plan to include a model converts can use and bring back to Islamic countries for further evangelism.

Be of good courage!

Jason

Posted by: JasonStorm at December 3, 2006 11:28 AM

All these ideas are fine and are important! However, what is really needed is a political figure who is willing to articulate these dangers and run for political office. Someone who doesn't give a damn about political correctness. Someone who is tough. Someone who is smart. Perhaps Rudy Giuliani! Remember that he returned the $10 million check to Prince Alweed. I don't think that William Jefferson Clinton would have returned the check.

One man's opinion.

Il Toscano

Posted by: il toscano at December 3, 2006 11:58 AM

Wow...so if I read such "peaceful" people as nariz right, if we allow Jack Wheeler to call a spade a spade as he does, and endorse such position as I have stated wholeheartedly, that I, among others, "will be sorry"?

Now while I'm sure that he wasn't implying a fatwad upon me (*wink*, lmao), I almost hate to break the news to him...

...I regret to inform him that he, and all the others over the past 25 years who screamed the same thing (and never succeeded either) will have to take a ticket, and take a seat...

Get in line, kid...like all the others.
(don't hold your breath though...they'll start calling you an islamo-smurf).

Say hello to your uncle Imad (Mugniyeh) for me, he's #1 in line for me (hint).

;-)

Posted by: jcom972 at December 4, 2006 7:10 PM

Islam is a totalitarian system of selected beliefs and laws. Muslims tell you; Islam is superior to other religions, Islam will supersede all other societies. The struggle we face is transparent. Compare dynamic free markets and governments with unnatural and repressive communist and central planned economies. In capitalist and democratic societies, groups and individuals, and individuals within groups, are selfish, altruistic, competitive, and cooperative. In government, the separation of powers is a balance between spheres of influence. Religious groups and individuals compete, in the interest of helping and advancing the community. Such as in nature, selfish and altruistic behaviors are successful, adaptable, flexible, and ever-present. Free societies and nature have a lot in common. Fighting against nature is an uphill battle.

Posted by: SFOD at December 5, 2006 12:32 AM

Hello Everyone:

I enjoy reading all the comments about this little movement we helped get MOVING This is the first time I've popped my head out of the 910 Group forum and back into the blogospheric realm, in weeks -- someone told me you all were talking about us. What's all the hubbub? Fun. Ah, you are writing about The Movement (by whatever name we call it, or by whoever's most recent call, we know what we are talking about. This time the idea got a BIG push by Jack Wheeler. Yes. A good thing. Details aside, this is a good thing. And heartening to see so many responding positively.

For those who like history: The 910 Group began a couple of months ago, as a few fellow bloggers simply asked 'What Can We Do'? (Gates of Vienna and Infidel Bloggers Alliance ended up in parallel synchronicity; but the Emperor is Naked Post on GoV was the key methinks!). So soon there were 12 of us (tired of preaching to the choir and debating basics and details) and so armed with 'enough' information, and 'enough' agreement among ourselves, we SIMPLY DECIDED (note that's an action word), to get into action.

Thus -- The 910 Group is a kind of grassroots movement (and I don't like that word, because it sounds too composty, but no one is really in charge, well ... there are some head coordinators, let's say ... but it is The Idea that is Deciding and is what is actually MOVING. It is the Idea Whose Time Has Come. A simple Movement to both positively ensure western civilization is preserved and made healthy, and to actively resist incursions primarily by what we could call islamofascism (without raising another debate on details).

Note that our Phoenix symbol offers us a hint here. On the one wing, Rebirth, on the other, Resistance. (Thanks to the Baron for having the 910 Phoenix spring full born from his imaginative genius! We knew it was right in an instant. That is the was vision-based projects run. You know when they are right.)

So we DID talk about things, in a small group on that goofy kid group, yahoo (which was an immediate quick DECISION to the question, 'Where can we talk about this?') So all of the above issues we have or are still being 'refined', which is good (er ... except maryam's points about wanting to live under Sharia Law. I'm quite sure THAT idea never came up! -smile- ) So, this debate is vital, and continues, now, within the 910 Group private bulletin board based forum. However, the 910 Group is focused on ACTION. No need to 'just share more bad news' but 'what can we DO about it?' and then, "OK, Let's ...!" And then ACTION happens. That's 910 speed ...

So, one member passed along to me the announcement that Jack and Steve put out on To The Point website. I 'took action' and called and asked if they wanted help. Steve said they were getting a lot of responses and we agreed easily to cooperate. Thus, this is the relationship to date of Jack's call for a movement against islamofasicism and form a Coalition is happening.

The 910 Group was already moving, so we are accommodating the members who wish to become active.

Bottom line: we are all in the same movement, and while some wording or phrasing or apparent emphasis or perspective will obviously not sit 'just right' with everyone, basically we are making a helluva good go of it.

Fine points? To addressed a couple important concerns above: Yes, this is non-sectarian and global movement.

The mission statements can continue to be refined, and I could offer apologies for the plain paper bag look of some of our 910 public face, but we are busy working, and the crew of volunteers (such as you) are not focused too much on the look, but on the action. If you think the statements sound amateurish, then, hey, here's an idea: come on and help and FIX it. We welcome participation; a requirement is "plays well with others".

So if you have been researching and learning and debating these issues, and now have DECIDED to put that into practice, you will be most welcome.

DIRECTION: Send a little note about yourself, so we know you aren't a troll, mole, robot or spider. If you can tell us where in the world you are living and what type of talents and resources you can bring to the table, your request will be processed with speed. Send your details in a message here: 910-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Apologies to those frustrated waiting at the door, or, rejected. Sorry. A little patience is required. We all need to work together on this, so whether Jack's your man, or not, or you like what I just wrote, or think I'm a simpleton, whatever -- it's a big world. Let's keep some of it. Get yourself switched onto 910 time, and work like there is no tomorrow! Always in the future,
Vicktorya

PS Apologies, Robert, for blathering in your blog comments for so long, but if it curtails more blather, so be it. (And, thanks for the help!)

Posted by: Vicktorya at December 6, 2006 5:21 AM